Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy

Full text

Landscape Report on
Early Grade Literacy

Landscape Report on
Early Grade Literacy
August 26, 2016
Suggested citation: Kim, Y.-S. G., Boyle, H. N., Zuilkowski, S. S., & Nakamura, P. (2016).
Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
Young-Suk Grace Kim,1 Helen N. Boyle,2 Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski,2 and
Pooja Nakamura3
1 School of Education, University of California at Irvine
2 College of Education and Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University
3 American Institutes for Research
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reect the views of the
United States Agency for International Development.

RIGHTS AND PER MISSIONS — This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO
license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons
Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this work, including for
commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows:
LICENSE: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO
TRANSLATIONS — If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along
with the attribution: This translation was not created by USAID and should not be considered an ocial
USAID translation. USAID shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation.
ADAPTATIONS — If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along
with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by USAID. Views and opinions expressed
in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not
endorsed by USAID.
THIRD-PARTY CONTENT — USAID does not necessarily own each component of the content contained
within the work. USAID therefore does not warrant that the use of any third party–owned individual
component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk
of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component
of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to
obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited
to, tables, gures or images.

iii
Acknowledgments
The authors of this report wish to thank the
Learning Systems Institute at Florida State
University, University Research Co., LLC–
Center for Human Services (URC-CHS), especially
Reading within Reach Community of Practice,
the “thought leaders” within the international
development and early grade reading worlds who
consented to be interviewed for this report, the
Landscape Report Advisory Board, and USAID.
The Learning Systems Institute is the leading
institution in Florida State University’s work in
international education and we are grateful for its
leadership and contractual management services.
We also want to thank Kaitlyn Hicks and Alexandra
Rosenbaum for their help with identifying and
compiling studies and documents. Gratitude is also
due to Dr. Marion Fesmire who contributed in the
initial stage of the work.
URC-CHS has provided invaluable support as the
contracting organization for this report with strong
leadership and unceasing advocacy for this work.
In particular, we thank Sakil Malik, Community
of Practice Director, for his skillful management
of this award. We are also grateful to Dr. Kim
Foulds, GRN’s Research Manager, Mary Ciambrone,
GRN Communication Coordinator, Newsha N.
Aboughaddareh, who worked on the graphics for the
report, and Kurt Mulholland, Director of Media at
URC, for his work in designing the report.
This report was enriched by the careful review and
feedback oered by our Advisory Board members:
Dr. Daniel Wagner of the University of Pennsylvania,
Dr. Catherine Snow of Harvard University, and Ms.
Norma A. Evans of Evans and Associates Education
Consulting. We are grateful for the careful and
thorough review of the report in its rst and second
draft stages.
We also thank the 15 “thought leaders” from various
parts of the international development/early grade
reading community for taking the time to participate
in interviews drawing on knowledge from their
hands-on experience in the eld. These interviews
were informative and in several cases led us to
additional reports and literature to examine.
Finally, we thank USAID, in particular, Dr. Penelope
Bender, Dr. Marcia Davidson, and Ms. Rebecca
Rhodes, for their critical and constructive feedback
at each stage of the process.

v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3
Section A. Overview ...................................................................................................................... 3
Section B. Methods and levels of evidence ..................................................................................... 4
Section C. Situational and constraining factors to keep in mind ......................................................6
Section D. Organization of the report .............................................................................................6
Chapter 2. Key areas to successfully promote improved early grade literacy skills: Overview ................ 8
Section A. A framework for understanding reading development ...................................................... 8
Section B. Cross-cutting factors in literacy instruction .................................................................... 9
Chapter 3. Key areas to successfully promote improved early grade literacy skills: Content ................. 17
Section A. Emergent literacy skills: Foundations for word reading and spelling ................................ 17
Section B. Oral language skills: Foundations for reading comprehension ......................................... 25
Section C. Reading uency: Foundation for reading comprehension ................................................ 30
Section D. Reading comprehension ................................................................................................33
Section E. Writing for meaning .................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4. Key factors and actors responsible for improving early grade literacy skills
in developing country contexts ........................................................................................................ 43
Section A. Promoting literacy in multilingual environments .......................................................... 43
Section B. Teacher knowledge and teacher education ..................................................................... 49
Section C. Parental and community engagement ........................................................................... 57
Chapter 5. Long-run considerations of literacy programs: Costs, nancing, scaling up,
and sustainability............................................................................................................................ 59
Chapter 6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 61
References ......................................................................................................................................64

vi

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 1
Executive Summary
The goal of this landscape report is to review
and summarize available empirical evidence
on early grade literacy acquisition and
instruction in developing countries. To achieve this
goal, papers with empirical data were searched,
identied, screened, and reviewed on topics that
included student-level factors (e.g., emergent literacy,
oral language), larger contextual factors within
which the student is embedded (e.g., home literacy
environment, language of instruction, and larger
system issues such as teacher education), and long-
run considerations (e.g., sustainability, costs, and
scaling up). The available empirical evidence was,
then, rated by topic as strong, moderate, emerging
or limited. The vast majority of studies reviewed
were project-based work with a comprehensive,
multicomponent approach, incorporating the 5Ts—
teaching, time, texts, tongue, and test. The Big
5 skills identied in the National Reading Panel
Report (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development [NICHD], 2000)—phonological
awareness, phonics, reading uency, vocabulary,
and reading comprehension—were central in these
projects.
Our review of the evidence revealed that overall,
much progress has been made in the last decade.
However, the review also clearly indicated that
the vast majority of topical areas within the eld
of literacy in developing country contexts still
lack rigorous evidence, and there is much work to
be done. As shown in Table 1, the only area with
strong evidence was foundational literacy skills i.e.,
emergent literacy skills and word reading. A moderate
level of evidence is available at present about reading
uency and literacy instruction in multilingual
contexts. Although encouraging, this is not sucient
to inform the development community on how to
promote the higher-order, long-term goals of literacy
acquisition and instruction—reading comprehension
and writing (written composition).
Some directions for the future include a focus on
long-term perspectives and eorts. Although the
need to improve students' literacy skills is dire
and immediate, changing behavior (e.g., teachers’
instructional practices; student’s learning) takes
a long time (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005) and
therefore, requires sustained eorts. Furthermore,
reading comprehension and writing are high-order
Table 1. Levels of evidence for the various areas
reviewed in the this report
Topic Area Level of Evidence
Emergent literacy skills Strong
Oral language skills Emerging
Reading uency Moderate
Reading comprehension Emerging
Writing Extremely limited
Literacy in multilingual
environments Moderate
Teacher knowledge and
education Emerging
Parental and community
engagement Emerging
Long-run considerations
(costs, nancing, scaling up,
& sustainability)
Emerging
“Once you learn to read, you
will be forever free.”
— Frederick Douglass

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy2
skills that are built on the development of many
language and cognitive skills, which themselves
take time to develop. Thus, successful reading and
writing development to support students’ accessing
and producing complex ideas in written texts requires
quality instruction across multiple years, not just a
single year.
Another pattern that emerged in the review was the
need for greater standardization in the reporting
of international literacy improvement projects and
studies. We acknowledge that project reports often
serve dierent audiences and purposes. However,
from the perspective of reviewing evidence, certain
information is required to verify statements of
ndings. Consistency in reported information is
critical, especially for comparison and replication
purposes. Inconsistency was found in reporting
quality of measures (reliability1 and validity;
1 Reliability should be reported for survey measures, observation, and scores using rubric as well as direct student assessments. For
timed tasks, test-retest reliability or alternate form reliability are appropriate and internal consistency reliability such as Cronbach's
alpha is inappropriate (Anastasi & Drake, 1954). Inter-rater reliability should be reported for classroom observation and scoring using
rubric. Validity evidence includes correlations among measured skills.
2 In longitudinal studies or intervention studies, if dierent measures are used at dierent times (e.g., pre- and post-tests), equivalence
of measures in a construct (e.g., listening comprehension, reading uency) should be established. That is, if two forms of a listening
comprehension task are used in pre- and post-test, equivalence of those forms should be established prior to use.
equivalence of measures in longitudinal studies2),
process of assignment to conditions, sample attrition,
analytic approaches, basic statistical information
(means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations),
and eect sizes (e.g., Hedge's g or Cohen's d). Also
absent was description or reference to instructional
approaches in the treatment and comparison
conditions, which are necessary to understand the
context in which target treatment approaches work or
do not work.
Overall, this review substantiates the systematic and
systemic nature of literacy education. Promoting
successful early grade literacy instruction and
acquisition requires evidence-based, empirically
tested, and scientic approaches as well as eorts
of stake holders at multiple levels, from students,
parents, teachers, community members, and leaders
in the country.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 3
Chapter 1.
Introduction
Section A. Overview
This Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy
takes stock of where we are, as a global
community of educators within the eld of
international development, in improving literacy
acquisition in the early grades in low-income
countries. Hence, the purpose of the report is to
review relevant, recent research coming principally
from developing country contexts on eorts to
improve early grade literacy learning and instruction.
The scope of this report includes reviewing evidence
from the eld on (1) what has worked in developing
countries; (2) what practices show promise at
this point even if the available evidence is not yet
denitive; and (3) what the gaps in the literature/
evidence base are. Within these large and overarching
goals, topics of examination and discussion include:
u Cross cutting aspects in literacy instruction:
Instructional time, assessment, and teaching and
learning materials, including ICTs
u Skill building in the following areas: emergent
literacy, oral language, reading uency, reading
comprehension, and early writing.
u Literacy acquisition in multilingual contexts
u Teacher knowledge, and teacher education practices
u Parental and community engagement
u Long-run considerations: costs, nancing, scaling
up, and sustainability of literacy programs
In this report, we dene literacy in a traditional
sense as the ability to read and write to gain and
produce meaning in context. This is aligned with
the UNESCO’s Aspects of Literacy Assessment
paper (2005) denition of literacy as “the ability to
identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate
and compute using printed and written materials
associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves
a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to
achieve his or her goals, develop his or her knowledge
and potential, and participate fully in community and
wider society.” (p. 21)
In 2010, the Early Grade Learning Community of
Practice3 published its landmark report “Early
Reading: Igniting Education for All” (Gove & Cvelich,
2010). The report, largely drawing on the National
Reading Panel’s Report (NICHD, 2000), laid out the
case for focusing on early grade reading and outlined
the extant evidence on how children learn to read.
The report synthesized existing research, much
of it from Anglophone and “developed” countries,
on teaching reading and highlighted the fact that
reading was not explicitly taught in many low-
income countries as a skill, much less a subject
in early grades curricula. The report presented
timely evidence from the application of the Early
Grade Reading Assessment tool (EGRA) showing
that children in many low income countries were
not learning the basics of reading. These ndings
catalyzed serious debate and action around the world
on the need to refocus basic education assistance
3 Early Grade Learning Community of Practice Members include educators, government ocials, and development practitioners,
all dedicated to improving learning in the early grades in low income countries. The report can be downloaded from:
http://www.rti.org/pubs/early-reading-report-revised.pdf

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy4
programs on reading. Overall, the Gove and Cvelich
(2010) report galvanized much needed attention from
donors, INGOs, local NGOs and governments around
the issue of early grade reading. The international
development community took up the goal of
5Ts Framework
Teaching
Many teachers in developing country contexts
have not had direct and explicit training in how
to teach literacy. Many curricula do not include
literacy as a discrete subject of instruction, hence
teachers are not trained to teach it.
Time
The appropriate use of classroom time as well
as securing sucient time devoted to teaching
literacy is vital. Literacy needs to be taught
explicitly and directly, not as part of a larger
language lesson.
Texts
In countries all over the world, age- and level-
appropriate reading materials are lacking.
Children need texts to practice and develop
literacy skills.
Tongue
Many children around the world do not learn to
read in a language they speak, much less their
mother tongue, and this situation can have
profound negative impacts on whether a child
learns to read in any language.
Test
Instruction should be based on assessment
(testing) in order to identify those who are falling
behind and provide them ongoing support.
Tests—or assessments—allow policy makers,
teachers and others to keep the focus on student
learning and make adjustments in light of
students’ performance.
improving early grade reading as a prerequisite to
ensuring access to the knowledge that is a crucial
part of quality education for all children, especially in
developing countries.
In reviewing the evidence on early grade reading and
writing acquisition and instruction in the last decade,
it behooves us to discuss the 5Ts4 (Teaching, Time,
Texts, Tongue, and Test). Improving the acquisition
of reading and writing skills in the early grades
meant embarking on a steep learning curve for many
stakeholders. USAID, as a donor particularly active
in and committed to the improvement of early grade
reading and writing skills, developed the “5 Ts” as a
framework to use in scaling this learning curve and
producing sound, evidence-based policies, practices
and assistance programs (Gove & Cvelich, 2010). As a
framework, the 5Ts assist donors, governments and
NGOs to develop policies and direct resources toward
improving reading outcomes.
Section B. Methods and Levels of
Evidence
The team reviewed a wide range of published
studies, including academic studies and
project-based research. Several data bases
such as ERIC and DEC were used, and a variety of
donors (e.g., GPE, DfID, USAID) and NGOs which
implement literacy projects worldwide were contacted
to obtain evaluation reports. We also asked for
recommendations from leaders (practitioners and
academics) in the eld regarding reports and articles
to review. Reviewed studies employed a mixture of
research designs in developing country contexts.5
Although randomized control trials are the gold
standard for causal inferences, it is not feasible to
implement randomized control trials on all topic
areas, and other types of studies (e.g., descriptive,
correlational, and quasi-experimental) are useful for
4 5Ts were adapted from Allington (2002).
5 The current review revealed many and deep gaps in the existing research in developing countries. Some topics have received minimal
attention in developing countries, but have been well studied in the US or Europe or other higher income countries and we make
reference to these as appropriate.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 5
varying purposes. It should be noted that articles
or papers without empirical data were not included
in the current review.6 In particular, in determining
strengths of evidence and evaluating the extent
of available evidence about improving early grade
literacy skills, only studies that employed designs
that allowed causal inferences (i.e., randomized
control and quasi-experimental studies) were
included.
In addition to rigorously reviewing recent research
on early grade literacy, the team conducted a series
of interviews with “thought leaders” from donors,
INGOs, ministries, universities and others about their
experience as part of the international development
community working in and focused on early grade
literacy. These interviews were recorded, transcribed,
and analyzed. Hence, where applicable, we took
into account expert opinion, as long as they are in
line with defensible theories and interpretations of
theories.
The team used a framework for evaluating evidence
about early grade literacy adapted from the What
Works Clearinghouse standards, developed by the
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education.7 Using this framework, evidence was
categorized into four levels: strong, moderate,
emerging, or limited. Strong evidence indicates
consistent, causal, and generalizable evidence in the
recommended practices. There is strong external
validity evidence with multiple studies employing
high quality causal designs for the given target
population.8 Moderate evidence indicates that
although evidence does exist about recommended
practices, strong causal conclusions cannot be
generalized to target population due to lack of
replication studies or causal ambiguity. Emerging
evidence indicates no clear evidence about causal
eects of the recommended practices due to lack
of studies, or conicting results. Limited evidence
indicates lack of evidentiary materials. When
determining levels of evidence, several factors were
taken into consideration including the number of
studies on the topic, the design and quality of the
studies, and target population (whether the studies
represent an appropriate range of participants and
settings so as to be generalizable in a given context
or with a given population), and expert opinions.
The level of evidence assigned to the ndings
represents the team’s judgment of the quality of the
existing research on the topic of improving early
grade literacy achievement in developing country
contexts. However, it does not represent a judgement
of the relative importance of the topic.
When reporting impact of an intervention or
instructional approach, we focused on eect sizes
for consistency and substantive reasons. Eect sizes
such as Cohen’s d or Hedge’s g are widely accepted
as standards of reporting. The following has been
widely used in the eld when interpreting the size
of eect sizes: small for eect sizes less than .3;
medium for eect sizes around .5; large for an eect
size larger than .8 (Cohen, 1988). However, this
guideline should be interpreted with a heavy dose
of caution because eect sizes should be interpreted
in the context of other studies and substantive
context (Cohen, 1988). For instance, many literacy
intervention studies in developing contexts have
reported large eect sizes (see below). This may be
due to improved literacy instructional approaches in
treatment versus control classrooms but may also
be due to extremely low levels of literacy skills at
baseline.
6 Single case design studies were excluded due to limited generalizability.
7 Information about these standards is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/documentsum.aspx?sid=19.
8 Note that target population in this document refers to early grade children in developing countries. Although we acknowledge that
this is much broader than in typical studies including randomized control studies, this broad denition is in line with the goal of the
study.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy6
Section C. Situational and
Constraining Factors to Keep in Mind
Although the evidence base about eective
literacy instruction in developing contexts
is growing, gaps in our understanding
are large and many. This is likely due to unique
challenges in conducting rigorous research in some
developing country contexts. There is often lack of
research capacity, including trained researchers, data
collectors, statisticians, social scientists and the like.
Schools are often not accustomed to the presence
of researchers and are generally unfamiliar with
conducting site-based research. Ministries around
the world face challenges in terms of information
and data collection, human resource management,
nancing, tracking nancial ows, and assessment of
teachers, pupils and the system as a whole.
Likewise, the teaching and learning contexts in
many low income countries also present challenges.
Schools are frequently under-resourced (e.g. lack of
electricity, water, furniture, books, chalk, paper and
even buildings); teachers are generally untrained
or undertrained in eective teaching methods and
in the teaching of literacy specically; schools are
often remote and hard to reach; classrooms are often
overcrowded (especially in the early grades); and
incentive systems to motivate teachers and other
educators to do their work, to make extra eorts, and
in some cases to show up for work, are either weak
or nonexistent. Student and teacher absenteeism
is high. Curricula are often overcrowded with
content and facts to be memorized and skills are
not emphasized; national policies on textbooks and
readers often impede the selection or development of
appropriate materials. Conict and crisis situations
also impinge on students’ socioemotional health,
executive functioning, levels of stress and trauma
and ability to concentrate and learn in school. School
fees or the opportunity costs of schooling are often
too high for low income parents; corruption saps the
resources of the educational system; the culture of
reading in schools and communities is often weak
or nonexistent; and children often face challenging
home environments where parents do not have the
time, resources or expertise to devote to ensuring
school attendance, homework completion, reading
in the home or other appropriate reading support
activities; likewise, communities underestimate the
contribution they can make to children’s attainment
of literacy because so many members are illiterate
(Brombacher et al., 2012; Collins & Messaoud-Galusi,
2012; Gove and Cvelich, 2011; Harber, 2014; Rugh,
2012; UNICEF and UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2014;
UNESCO Policy Paper 23, 2016; Verger, Novella,
& Altinyelken, 2012).
We list this litany of challenges because it is
important to take factors such as culture and context
into account both in examining evidence on early
grade literacy and in evaluating a particular approach,
project, or intervention as eective. Although we
know that the 5Ts provide a framework for developing
literacy programs as well as for systematic and
explicit instruction of core skills (e.g., orthographic
symbol knowledge; see Chapter 2) that are benecial
across most languages (and certainly alphabetic
languages), we know less about how these ideas will
best take root and ourish in any given context—how
solutions are presented and implemented is critical.
The ndings and recommendations in this report can
be taken as starting points from which to build and
shape locally appropriate, eective literacy programs.
Section D. Organization of the Report
Figure 1 illustrates the scope and the layers
of literature examined in this report. There
are many more factors (e.g., socio-emotional
factors, learning in conict and crisis contexts)
that are important but beyond the scope of this
report. Education by nature is a systemic, long-term
endeavor. Although learning ultimately occurs at
the student level, it is embedded in and inuenced
by multiple layers of contexts (Bronfenbrenner,
1979), ranging from family context, school and
community, to system factors. Therefore, in addition
to understanding child level factors that contribute to
literacy acquisition, it is imperative to address issues

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 7
at family, community, and system levels to ensure
that all children learn to read in the early grades.
The chapters in this report address some of the
factors within this framework. In Chapter 2 we
provide an overview of key areas necessary to
successfully promote improved early grade literacy
skills. This chapter provides the framework for
understanding the development of reading skills
and then reviews important cross cutting factors
such as the level of instruction and materials,
instructional routines, time, achieving automaticity,
assessment, and information and communication
technologies (ICTs). In Chapter 3, we discuss key
areas to successfully promote improved early grade
literacy skills by area. Specically, we discuss student
level factors from developing country contexts—
evidence about the core skills of learning to read and
write such as emergent literacy skills, oral language
skills, reading uency, reading comprehension,
and writing. In Chapter 4, we focus on factors at
the teacher, school, community and system levels
that impact the process of learning to read and
write in many developing country contexts. Topics
include literacy acquisition in multilingual contexts,
teacher knowledge and education, and parental and
community engagement. In Chapter 5, we examine
factors related to long-term considerations for
governments and donors, including cost, nancing,
scale up, and sustainability. Finally, Chapter 6
concludes the report with an overall discussion of
recommendations moving forward and research gaps
to be addressed.
The structure of each chapter varies to some extent
depending on nature of particular content. However,
the following overarching structure was employed
where possible:
u What is the topic and why is it important to early
grade literacy?
u What evidence exists on the topic especially in
developing countries?
u What are the design consideration and challenges
related to the topic, including a discussion of:
– Instructional approaches
– Instructional materials
– Assessment
– The use of ICTs
u What research gaps exist with respect to the topic?
Figure 1. Factors contributing to literacy
acquisition
System Level
• Teacher education policy
• Language policy
School & Community
• Language context
• Home & community support
• Quality of instruction
Family
• Language & literacy
environment
Student
• Language proficiency
• Cognitive skills

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy8
Chapter 2.
Key Areas to Successfully Promote
Improved Early Grade Literacy Skills:
Overview
Listening comprehension is the “ability to
comprehend oral language at the discourse level—
including [multi-utterance] conversations, stories,
informational oral texts—that involves the processes
of extracting and constructing meaning” (Kim &
Pilcher, 2016, p. 160). Listening comprehension is
even more complex than word reading, and draws
on foundational cognitive skills such as working
memory (the ability to hold and manipulation
information during a short time period), inhibitory
control (the ability to suppress a dominant response
and initiate a subdominant response), attentional
control; and foundational oral language skills such as
vocabulary knowledge, and grammatical knowledge;
and higher-order cognitive skills such as inference,
perspective taking and reasoning, and comprehension
monitoring (Florit, Roch, & Levorato, 2014; Kendeou,
Bohn-Gettler, White, & van den Broek, 2008; Kim,
2015a, 2016a; Kim & Phillips, 2014; Lepola, Lynch,
Laakkonen, Silvén, & Niemi, 2012; Tompkins, Guo, &
Justice, 2013). In other words, listening comprehension
is an upper-level skill that requires a complex array
of language and cognitive skills (Kim, 2015, 2016a;
Section A. A Framework for
Understanding Reading Development
What does it take to read and comprehend
written texts? Reading development
involves highly complex language
and cognitive processes, requiring development
and coordination of multiple skills through a
developmental sequence. As shown in Figure 2,
reading comprehension—the ultimate purpose
of learning to read—requires, at minimum, word
reading or decoding (the word reading) and listening
comprehension (oral language comprehension at
the discourse level) (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover
& Gough, 1990). Reading uency is also necessary,
acting as a bridge or a partial mediator, connecting
word reading and listening comprehension to reading
comprehension (Kim, 2015b; Kim & Wagner, R. K.,
2015). If word reading and listening comprehension
are two necessary skills for reading comprehension,
how do these skills develop? Each of these skill areas
is built on a complex set of foundational skills.
Foundations for word reading (and spelling) include
emergent literacy skills such as print awareness,
orthographic symbol knowledge, phonological
awareness, morphological awareness, and
orthographic awareness (see building blocks in Figure
2). These emergent literacy skills map onto the three
types of knowledge that need to be activated for word
reading: phonology (sound structure), orthography
(writing system), and semantics (meaning) (see
Adams, 1990; Seidenberg, & McClelland, 1989 for
further details).
Word reading and listening comprehension
are both vital to reading comprehension across
languages and writing systems.
(Adolf, Catts, & Little, 2006; Florit & Cain, 2011; Foorman, Koon,
Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, 2015; Gracia & Cain, 2014;
Joshi, Tao, Aaron, & Quiroz, 2012; Kendeou, Papadopoulos, &
Kotzapoulou, 2013; Kendeou, van den Broek, White, & Lynch,
2009; Kim, 2011, Kim, 2015a; Lee & Wheldall, 2009).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 9
see Figure 3). Given the complex set of
skills that contribute to the development
of listening comprehension, listening
comprehension takes a prolonged time
to develop, and is a much larger area
than word reading (Paris, 2005; Snow &
Kim, 2007). In fact, learning never ends
for some areas of oral language such as
vocabulary. Furthermore, these language
and cognitive component skills (e.g.,
vocabulary and reasoning) develop in
tandem.
In summary, without appropriate
development of emergent literacy skills,
word reading would not develop properly.
Without appropriate development of
language and cognitive skills, listening
comprehension would fail to develop.
Consequently, children would fail to
develop reading uency and reading
comprehension.
Section B. Cross-Cutting
Factors in Literacy
Instruction
The foundational skills of literacy
acquisition start developing rst in
the home and in the community.
However, the primary focus of literacy
instruction in many contexts is in the
formal school setting. Below are several
cross cutting factors that are applicable to
classroom instruction contexts in terms
of instruction, assessment, instructional
materials, and ICTs.
Instructional Considerations
Developmentally-appropriate
instructional content
Learning occurs when instruction targets
the right content at the right level
for students' needs (Vygotsky, 1978).
Curriculum or instructional content
Figure 2. Component skills of reading comprehension and
their structural relations. Reprinted from Kim (2016b) with permission.
Oral language is a larger construct than word
reading, and takes a prolonged time to develop.
Figure 3. Language and cognitive skills that contribute to
listening comprehension (Kim, 2016a, reprinted with permission)
Listening comprehension
Discourse
comprehension
Higher order
cognitive skills
Foundational
language and
cognitive skills
Inference, perspective
taking & reasoning,
comprehension monitoring
Vocabulary, Grammatical
knowledge, Working memory,
Inhibitory control,
Attentional control

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy10
in many low-income countries is too dicult and
ambitious for students’ skill levels (ASER, 2011; Piper,
2010a; Crouch, Korda, & Mumo, 2009; Pritchett &
Beatty, 2015). In such cases, there is a need to revise
the scope and sequence of early grade curricula to
align with evidence-based and scientically-validated
research on literacy development as well as national
assessment results.
Moreover, even when the curriculum content is
appropriate, the appropriate level of instruction
varies widely across students, as students dier in
where they start and how fast they learn the target
skill. Therefore, eective instruction should address
and meet the varying needs of students informed
by assessment results. This is often referred to as
dierentiated instruction (e.g., Connor et al., 2013).
Operationalization of dierentiated instruction
would vary across contexts due to dierences in
environments and resources (e.g., class size).
Instructional routines
The establishment of instructional routines has been
shown to help teachers (RTI International, 2011; EDC,
2013). The following sample instructional routine
(Rosenshine, 1995; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1995) has
been used successfully in developing country contexts
such as Kenya (e.g., RTI International, 2011).
u Review and check previous work
u Present new material
u Provide guided practice
u Provide feedback and corrections
u Provide independent practice
u Provide weekly and monthly reviews
The goal of this framework is to promote scaolded
instruction and gradual release of responsibilities
(Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). In
scaolded instruction the teacher initially assumes
all the responsibility for performing a task, and
gradually and incrementally transfers responsibility
for performing the task to students, until students
are able to do the task on their own without teacher
assistance. The scaolded instructional model
has been operationalized widely as the “Three
Ps” (presentation, practice, and performance) or
the “I Do, We Do, You Do” models. These models
are applicable across target skills (e.g., emergent
literacy, oral language), although they must take
into account and be adapted to the local context. For
instance, monitoring students’ reading and providing
corrective feedback, essential components of the “you
do” or the ‘performance’ phases of the scaolded
learning model, are particularly challenging in
developing countries due to large class sizes. One
way of overcoming this challenge may be monitoring
students’ reading on a row by row basis (Abadzi &
Martelli, 2014).
In many developing countries, teachers have limited
or no education in literacy instruction (Akyeampong
et al., 2013; Piper & Korda, 2011b; Pryor et al., 2012).
In such contexts, scripted lessons and teacher guides
may be an important means as well as a starting
place for helping teachers to organize content
and establish instructional routines for literacy
instruction (Piper & Korda, 2011b). Although the
vast majority of extant randomized control trials
on literacy instruction in developing countries have
used scripted lessons, direct evidence on whether
scripted lessons are more eective than alternative
approaches—the eect of using scripted lessons
per se, separate from intervention content itself—
is limited. Recent studies, however, indicate their
potential eectiveness. In Malawi, teachers found
scripted lessons that provide explicit systematic
instruction on literacy instruction to be helpful in
implementing the lessons and integrating principles
of eective literacy instructional practices (Tilson,
Kamlongera, Pucilowski, & Nampota, 2013a). In Kenya,
student literacy skills were higher in classrooms
where teachers were provided with teacher guides
(with scripted lesson plans) compared to those who
had only student books and teacher training (RTI,
2015a).
When provided, scripted lesson plans and
teacher guidebooks should include step-by-step,
straightforward instructions in a single volume per
semester or year (Piper & Korda, 2011b) and should

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 11
not be long or too wordy or complex (Tilson et al.,
2013a). Of course, teacher guides and lesson plans
are not eective by themselves; rigorous professional
development is needed to ensure eective use of
scripted lesson plans (Tilson, Allemano, Mereku, &
Marfo, 2013b).
Instructional time
Quality teaching requires dedicated instructional
time. However, in many developing countries, literacy
has not been taught as a subject and consequently
no separate time has been set aside for literacy
instruction (EDC, 2013). With the teaching of reading
and writing folded into the larger "language arts"
curriculum in many countries, direct and systematic
reading and writing instruction does not happen
in sucient quantity or depth (Bunyi, Cherotich, &
Piper, 2013). For instance, in most Arabic-speaking
countries, reading is taught under the umbrella of the
Arabic language curriculum, often without systematic
and organized instruction (Boyle, Al Ajjawi, & Xiang,
2014).
There are also several related factors that limit
students' opportunity to learn. In many countries the
school day and/or year is relatively short, and double
shift schools are prevalent, limiting instructional
time (Benavot & Amadio, 2004; Piper & Korda,
2011a,b). In addition, teacher and pupil absenteeism,
school closures, and a lack of time on task further
limit opportunity to learn. In Mali, actual number
of learning days was only 53% of mandated school
days (EDC, 2013). In Haiti, schools were closed 27%
of the time and student daily attendance rates
averaged only 77% (DeStefano & Miksic, 2007). Not
surprisingly, lack of opportunity to learn is related to
lower literacy achievement. The combination of lost
school days and student absenteeism explained 55%
of the variation in student performance on reading
skills in Haitian Creole (Gilles & Jester Quijada, 2008).
In Jordan, strong-performing classes had an average
observed absenteeism rate of 6.1%, compared to 14.8%
for lower-performing classes (Brombach, Collins,
Cummiskey, Kochetkova, & Mulcahy-Dunn, 2012).
Similar results were also found in Zambia (Falconer-
Stout et al., 2015) and Yemen (Collins & Messaoud-
Galusi, 2012).
Although a rough estimate of 850 to 1000 hours
per year has been recommended as the minimum
instructional time needed in reading over a school
year (Gilles & Jester Quijada, 2008), there is no clear
evidence from low-income countries about how
much instructional time is necessary or sucient
for successful literacy instruction. In the US context,
reading and language arts are typically taught for
approximately 90 minutes a day in elementary grades
(National Science Foundation, 2012). In developing
countries, the amount of instructional time devoted
to reading varies by intervention or project. For
instance, in Jordan, as part of a reading intervention,
teachers in Grades 2 and 3 were requested to teach
reading at least for 15 minutes per day (RTI, 2014a).
In other intervention projects, teachers in treatment
schools increased the amount of instructional time
devoted to reading instruction (e.g., 40 minutes vs.
25 minutes in comparison in Nigeria, RTI, 2016a; 45
minutes daily in Liberia, Piper & Korda, 2011a, and in
Mozambique, Raupp, Newmann, Reves, & Lauchande,
2015; 50 minutes per day in Zambia, Falconer-Stout
et al., 2015). In addition to increasing the amount of
classroom time devoted to reading, teachers in these
intervention classrooms were found to spend the vast
majority of that instructional time on literacy skills
whereas in control classrooms, much of instructional
time was spent on non-literacy and even non-
instructional activities (administration, discipline).
(RTI, 2016a).
Achieving automaticity
Accuracy in reading (e.g., accurately identifying
letters and reading words) is important. However,
in addition to accuracy, achieving automaticity and
eciency is important as it allows students to access
and retrieve relevant information eciently to
support reading and writing. Achieving automaticity
is relevant at all levels of literacy skills, including
sublexical emergent literacy skills (e.g., letter
naming and letter writing), word reading (word
reading uency) and spelling, and text reading

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy12
(reading uency) (Breznitz, 2006; Ehri, 2005; Piper
& Zuilkowski, 2016; Saiegh-Haddad, 2005; Wolf,
2001). Practice is key to developing automaticity,
and therefore, it is important to build in the time
and opportunities to practice taught skills in the
instructional routine.
Assessment Considerations
Assessment is an essential component of eective
instruction as it provides information about
students’ achievement levels and reasons for the
performance level. There are multiple types and
purposes of student assessments such as screening
(to identify some students who might be at risk
for literacy failure and require further diagnostic
assessment), diagnostic (to identify specic areas of
strengths and weaknesses), formative and progress
monitoring (to reveal whether students are learning
adequately), and summative (overall achievement
level). All these assessments can be conducted at
multiple levels such as classroom, local, national,
regional, and international levels (e.g., Learning
metrics by UNESCO, 2014).
Assessments should be aligned with theoretical
models and empirical evidence for literacy
development and with literacy curriculum, meet
psychometric standards (i.e., reliability and validity;
Sattler, 2001), and meet the needs of developing
countries (e.g., language context; Wagner, D. A., 2003,
2011). Most assessments on reading comprehension
provide important information about level of
performance, but do typically not provide information
about the reasons for poor performance. Further
or follow-up assessments are needed to determine
whether students’ poor reading comprehension is
due to weakness in either word reading or listening
comprehension, as well as their component skills (see
the framework and Figure 2 above). One important
feature that educators (teachers and evaluators)
should be aware is that if assessments are used for
comparison across times (e.g., beginning, middle,
and end of school year or an intervention), then
assessments of the same construct (e.g., reading
uency or comprehension) should be equivalent. For
instance, changes in students’ performance cannot
be accurately measured if diculty levels of dierent
forms of assessments (e.g., Form A is used at the
beginning of a school year and Form B is used at the
end of school year) are not equivalent.
Various language and literacy assessments are
available in many languages and contexts, generally
in the areas of emergent literacy skills (e.g.,
phonological awareness, letter naming uency), word
reading (word reading and nonword or novel word
reading), reading uency, reading comprehension,
and oral language (vocabulary and listening
comprehension): EGRA9 (Early Grade Reading
Assessment), developed by the World Bank and USAID,
Save the Children’s Literacy Boost Assessment,10
ASER11 (Annual Status of Education Report) in India
and other countries (Banerji, 2016; Vagh, 2016), Uwezo
(Nakabugo, 2016), UNICEF’s MICS (Multiple Indicator
Cluster Survey; Cardoso & Dowd, 2016), EDC’s OLA12
(Out-of-school Literacy Assessment), Young Lives
(Cueto & Leon, 2012), UNESCO's LAMP13 (Literacy
9 Gove & Wetterberg, 2011 and https://globalreadingnetwork.net/eddata
10 http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/6931.PDF
11 http://www.asercentre.org/Keywords/p/205.html
12 http://eola.edc.org/about/ola-desig n/
13 http://www.uis.unesco.org/literacy/Pages/lamp-literacy-assessment.aspx
Automaticity refers to eortlessness and lack of
conscious awareness. Automaticity in reading
refers to the ability to recognize letters, sounds,
and word accurately and immediately upon
seeing them without expending attention or
eort. Automaticity in a particular construct is
typically assessed by timed tasks.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 13
and Assessment and Monitoring Programme, 2009),
and World Vision's Functional Literacy Assessment
Tool (FLAT) (see UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
2016 for more details). EGRA has been used in over
100 languages14 for a variety of purposes such as
providing information about baseline, instructional
target, a system-wide diagnostic of reading
diculties, and the evaluation of reading programs
(Dubeck & Gove, 2015; Dubeck, Gove, & Alexander,
2016; Gove et al., 2015; Gove & Wetterberg, 2011). Use
of any of the assessments above require adequate
training for reliable administration, scoring,
interpretation, and use (see UNESCO Institute of
Statistics, 2016 for a comprehensive review of various
aspects to consider in reading assessments). Both
paper and pencil tests and electronic data collection
options are available, depending on the context (see
the ICT section below for further details).
Instructional Materials Considerations
Literacy development requires exposure to and
practice with written texts. Therefore, access to
appropriate reading materials, including textbooks
and books for pleasure or for practice and building
a culture of reading, is an important issue in many
developing countries. A study in Mali reported that
across dierent school types (curriculum, classique
and medersas) book possession in class was below
the 50% mark and was markedly low in the earlier
grades in particular (RTI, 2009b). The most recent
EGRA baseline in Mali indicated that 50% of children
still do not have textbooks (RTI 2016c). While studies
in Arabic-speaking countries indicated that the
availability of textbooks was not an issue, a national
survey in Jordan in 2012 found that only half of
schools had a school library. In Morocco, only 10% of
schools in Doukkala Abda reported having a school
library (Messaoud-Galus, Mulcahy-Dunn, Ralaingita,
& Kochetkova, 2012). Indeed, non-textbook print
materials are often lacking, or lacking for developing
readers in many contexts. Lack of print materials
is even more severe in children’s mother tongue or
rst language. (Neuman & Celano, 2001; Paton-Ash &
Wilmot, 2015; Edwards & Ngwaru, 2011).
While provision of materials alone has a small
impact on improving student outcomes (McEwan,
2014; Tilson et.al., 2013b), instructional materials are
eective when teachers have the necessary knowledge
to use them correctly as part of literacy instruction.
A recent study in Kenya demonstrated that impact
on students' literacy skills was much larger when
teachers had student books available, compared to
teacher training alone with no instructional materials
(RTI, 2015a). Indeed, the development community
has ample evidence of the important role that
instructional materials and books play (Edwards &
Ngwaru, 2011; Elley, 2000; Gilles & Quijada, 2008;
Heyneman et al., 1978; Rosenberg, 1998; Tilson et
al., 2013b). However, in addition to the availability of
reading materials, an important issue is how they are
provided to schools and homes, and how the materials
are used. For example, a randomized controlled trial
in India examining the impact of physical school
libraries on pupils’ language skills had no eect;
and the provision of visiting librarians actually had
a negative eect (Borkum et. al. 2013). These results
mirror those of Save the Children’s locally produced
Book Banks. Overall, Book Bank eects were not
consistent across studies and contexts for a variety
of reasons (research design issues, or null ndings).
However, its potential is reported in some studies.
For instance, in Ethiopia, Literacy Boost program
participants who could name their favorite book
from the Book Bank had higher literacy scores than
those who could not (Gebreaneia et al., 2014). Book
Floods, where a signicant number of high quality
books (about 100 titles per class) are introduced
into a system, were eective in the Pacic islands
in promoting the activity of reading and improving
reading acquisition in the 1970s and 80s (Elley,
2000). They were accompanied by training in how to
use the books. Therefore, challenges in developing
14 Extant EGRA versions are available at https://globalreadingnetwork.net/eddata

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy14
countries include how to aordably and sustainably
get appropriate books into the hands of children,
how to promote borrowing and using books, and
how to encourage creating enriched home literacy
environments (Borkum, 2013; Elley, 2000; Gebreaneia
et al., 2014; Glewwe et al. 2009).
Books and texts provided to schools should be
engaging and culturally appropriate. However, in
many contexts, poorer schools receive donations
of old books, out of date books, or books that are
culturally or age inappropriate. (Paton-Ash & Wilmot,
2015). In many African countries, the publishing
industry is challenged to produce relevant books
for reading in local languages. In most cases the
market is simply not lucrative enough to justify
publishers’ investments (Edwards & Ngwaru, 2011).
Publications such as Writing in Nine Tongues and
the Catalogue of South African Literature, however,
signal growing awareness of the importance of
local language publishing, beyond textbooks. The
Rwandan Children's Book Initiative, for example,
recently worked directly with local publishers to
pilot strategies for increasing the availability of local
language children's books. The initiative resulted
in the development of forty-seven Kinyarwanda
children's books appropriate for Grades 1 to 3.
Moreover, interviews with authors, publishers and
illustrators trained to develop children's books
indicated an increase in their knowledge, skills
and even condence (Malik, Balfour, Nzabonimpa,
Cozzolino, Dib, & Dowd, 2015).
There are other initiatives as well to make the
creation and distribution of appropriate early grade
reading books in mother tongue, local language
and/or language of instruction more feasible. Some
provide a basic template to create books online, to
nd culturally appropriate stories, and to translate
stories. For example, the African Storybook Project
is used in many countries, with digital readers that
can be adapted to dierent languages and contexts.
Save the Children uses a Book Bank model to provide
Literacy Boost schools with locally developed
reading materials for the early grades (Save the
Children, 2012). Pratham’s low-cost books and
literacy instructional materials are likewise widely
used in India. The South African Book Development
Council actively encourages local publishing to
foster a culture of reading. The Global Book Fund
Alliance has looked at supply chain issues as well as
publishing and distribution issues across nations in
order to nd solutions to the book shortages. These
initiatives are all designed, using dierent strategies,
to address the critical shortage of culturally and
linguistically appropriate reading materials for early
grade learners.15 Finally, the Norwegian Development
Agency (NORAD), the UK Department for
International Development (DFID) and the US Agency
for International Development (USAID) funded
a global book fund feasibility study examining
whether such a mechanism could transform the
situation of low availability of textbooks and reading
books in low income countries by improving the
eectiveness of book chains, from publishing to
purchasing to delivery and dissemination (Results
for Development, 2016). In particular, the study
examined the potential use of models from the
health sector and concluded that there are lessons to
be learned, although the direct use of such models,
applied to the book problem, is not recommended.
The report further highlighted that the climate at
the governmental level is not yet as propitious as
it was for, say vaccinations, as the need for books,
especially those in mother tongue languages, has not
yet been actively adopted by governments (Results for
Development, 2016).
15 Information on these particular initiatives can be found at the following sites: African Stor ybook Project: http://my.africanstorybook.
org
Literacy Boost: http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/6931.PDF Pratham: http://
prathamusa.org or http://pratham.org for Pratham India
South African Book Development Council: http://sabookcouncil.co.za
Global Book Fund Alliance: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/les/documents/1865/GlobalBookFund_Two_Pager.pdf

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 15
School infrastructure environments in low-income
countries vary considerably. In some contexts,
instruction occurs outdoors and there are no walls
available to display print or instructional materials.
In other contexts, there are few instructional
materials to support learning and it is often necessary
for teachers, school directors, and even parents
to tap into creative and non-traditional methods
to create or procure instructional materials. For
example, the Madrasa Resource Center program in
Kenya, Zanzibar and Uganda focused on training
Madrasa Resource Center pre-school teachers to use
locally available materials to stimulate children's
interest in exploring and experimenting. Children
in Madrasa Resource Center classrooms where pre-
school teachers were trained to use these materials in
a child-centered way scored higher on assessments
of cognitive development than children in the
control group (Malmberg et al., 2011). Likewise, the
Rwanda Children's Book Initiative reported that
training teachers on how to use locally-produced
children’s books in the classroom (albeit from trained
professional local publishers) resulted in increased
reading frequency both inside and outside the
classroom, as well as a concomitant increase in the
richness and variety of locally made materials (i.e. by
teachers and students) inside the classroom (Malik, et
al., 2015). Teachers generally used the books in their
lessons and also allowed children to select books
for independent reading. Additionally, signicantly
higher percentage of teachers in the Rwandan
Children’s Book Initiative encouraged students to
read at home than those in the business-as-usual
condition.
ICT Considerations
ICTs are often very attractive to policymakers,
parents, teachers and school directors, as they
connote an advanced educational system and well-
resourced schools. The research is quite clear,
however, that ICT components should be aligned
with pedagogy (Trucano, 2005). In other words, if the
underlying approach to literacy instruction is weak,
it is unlikely that a limited, standalone intervention
with a mobile phone, computer, or e-reader will
produce signicant change. For example, in the One
Laptop per Child program in Peru, the software on
the laptops was not tailored to the curriculum and
teachers did not generally change their instructional
approaches when the computers were introduced
(Cristia, Ibarrarán, Cueto, Santiago, & Severín, 2012;
Villarán, 2010). Not surprisingly, an evaluation
of the program found no statistically signicant
improvements in achievement (Beuermann, Cristia,
Cueto, Malamud, & Cruz-Aguayo, 2015). This evidence
suggests that ICT alone is not a silver bullet—ICT
applications must be built upon the foundation of
a high-quality, evidence-based literacy instruction
curriculum.
The evidence for in-school, early-grade-reading
focused ICT programs in developing countries
remains relatively sparse (Trucano, 2005; Wagner,
D. A., 2014). In Kenya, one large study compared the
eects of three ICT interventions—student e-readers,
teacher tablets with lesson plans and support
materials, and instructional coach tablets, all layered
on top of the same literacy program—on second-
grade student reading outcomes in English and
Kiswahili (Piper, Zuilkowski, Kwayumba, & Strigel,
2016). While all three interventions were eective
in comparison with a control group, there were no
additional benets of the more ICT-intensive and
expensive approaches—the student e-readers and
teacher tablets—over the version that equipped only
the zone-level instructional coaches with tablets.
Other studies in Kenya (Abrami, Wade, Lysenko,
Marsch, & Gioko, 2014) and Ghana (Jae, Lowe, &
Mahesri, 2012) have found some positive eects using
computers and student e-readers, respectively. Radio
instruction has had a longer history, and evidence
from Mali, Zambia, Sudan, and elsewhere suggests
that this approach can be eective, particularly in
reaching rural areas (EDC, 2013; 2014b). We will
discuss specic interventions in greater detail as
relevant in each section of the report.
ICT devices and content must be targeted for the
contexts in which they will be used and the people
who will use them (Wagner, D. A., Castillo, Murphy,

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy16
Crofton, & Zahra, 2014). In general, programs
employing ICTs need to use devices that are durable
in developing country contexts and contain relevant,
age and culturally appropriate material. A tablet
that is considered sturdy in the United States may
not be a feasible option in extreme environments—
high temperatures, dust, and unstable electricity,
for example. In rural sub-Saharan Africa the
electrication rate is just 17% (International Energy
Agency, 2015), making devices that must be charged
regularly a poor t to the context. In Ghana,
Worldreader has reduced e-reader breakage rates in
its programs in sub-Saharan Africa dramatically by
working both with manufacturers to source reinforced
screens and with local stakeholders—students,
teachers, and parents—to improve care of the devices
(Tam, 2012). Despite their potential for assisting in
the instruction of students with disabilities (UNESCO,
2013), a recent review did not nd any ICT literacy
programs that were specically designed to meet the
needs of this population (Wagner, D. A. et al., 2014).
Program planners should not make assumptions
about teachers’ ability to use ICT devices (Pouezevara
& Khan, 2008) and should ensure that technical
support is available (Chigona, Chigona, & Davids,
2014). Extensive training is often necessary,
beginning with how to turn on devices and log in. In
settings where teachers are unfamiliar with devices,
teachers need time to build their own skills before
they can support others. Skipping this step may lead
to unused devices gathering dust rather than being
used as intended, as teachers who are uncomfortable
with new technology may simply ignore it (Chigona &
Chigona, 2010). School systems that currently do not
use ICT approaches intensively should therefore move
forward in stages, allowing teachers to become more
familiar with technology over time before expanding
to students. Beginning with technology that is widely
available and relatively inexpensive such as mobile
phones and text messaging is both more feasible
nancially and less intimidating to teachers.
Providing Ongoing Support for Teachers
and Schools
Literacy instruction in the early grades is generally
embedded within schools, and therefore, ecient
management of schools, including involvement of
principals and professionalism of teachers, enables
eective literacy instruction (EDC, 2013; Spratt et al.,
2013; Raupp et al., 2015). In Rwanda, schools receiving
books on time and making use of learning materials
had higher achievement (EDC, 2016). In Mozambique,
explicit reading instruction was implemented in two
contexts—one with attention to reading component
skills and the other with reading component skills
and school management. After a year of instruction,
students in the reading instruction with school
management condition achieved higher reading
skills (Raupp et al., 2015; also see Chapter 4 for
more information on teacher in-service professional
development and coaching).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 17
Chapter 3.
Key Areas to Successfully Promote
Improved Early Grade Literacy Skills:
By Areas
Section A. Emergent Literacy Skills:
Foundations for Word Reading and
Spelling
Background: What and Why Emergent
Literacy Skills?
Emergent literacy skills are foundational for word
reading and spelling (see Figure 2 in Section A)
and typically include print awareness, orthographic
symbol knowledge, phonological awareness,
orthographic awareness, and morphological
awareness. Print awareness is knowledge of how
print works and how it is dierent from other
symbols such as pictures. Orthographic symbol
knowledge is knowledge of shapes, names, and
sounds of orthographic symbols such as alphabet
letters. Orthographic awareness refers to the ability
to “visually recognize legal letter patterns and
sequences in printed words” (Kim, 2011, p. 179).
Phonological awareness is the ability to recognize
and manipulate various sizes of speech sounds (e.g.,
words, syllables, and phonemes; Stanovich, 1992).
Morphological awareness is sensitivity to word
structure and ability to manipulate morphemes
(smallest unit of meaning; Carlisle, 1995), and is
Figure 4. Language and print-related skills that contribute to word reading and spelling
Spoken Language
Written Language
Automatic
word
recognition
Awareness
of
words
Print
awareness
Orthographic
symbol/sound
correspondence
Awareness
of phonemes
(& morphemes) Chunks within
Words
(Orthographic
awareness)
Orthographic
symbol names
& shapes
Awareness
of syllables
(& morphemes)

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy18
particularly helpful for multisyllabic word reading and
spelling in languages with dierent writing systems
(Abu-Rabia, 2007; Cho, McBride-Chang, & Park, 2008;
McBride-Chang et al., 2008; Taha & Saiegh-Haddad,
in press). As shown in Figure 4, the student’s journey
to reading starts by learning to map orthographic
symbols to sounds, and progresses to accurately
sounding out words and to uently reading them.
Evidence from Developing
Countries
The evidence base for the
importance of explicit
and systematic instruction
on emergent literacy skills is
strong in developing country
contexts. The positive eect
of systematically teaching
orthographic symbol-sound
relations (i.e., phonological awareness, orthographic
symbol knowledge, and phonics16) has been clearly
demonstrated in low-income countries (Crouch,
Korda, & Mumo, 2009*;17 Davidson & Hobbs, 2013*;
DeStefano, Slade, & Korda, 2013*; Dixon, Schagen,
& Seedhouse, 2011; EDC, 2013*, 2014; Dunlop,
2015*; Falconer-Stout, Messner, & Wedekind, 2015*;
Mitton, 2008*; Gebreanenia, Sorissa, Takele, Yenew,
& Garjardo, 2014*; Karki & Dowd, 2013*; Mungoi,
Mandlante, Nhatubve, Mahanggue, Fonseca, &
Dowd, 2010*; Nag-Arulmani, Reddy, Buckley, 2003;
Pinto, 2010*; Piper, Jepkemei, & Kibukho, 2015; Piper
& Korda, 2011a; Piper, Jepkemi, & Kibukho, 2015;
Pallante & Kim, 2013; Plessis, El-Ashry, & Tietjen,
2016*; Pouezevara, Costello, & Banda, 2013; Raupp,
Newmann, Reves, & Lauchande, 2015*; Rolla San
Francisco, Arias, Villers, & Snow, 2006; RTI, 2014a,b*,
2015a, 2015b*, 2016a; Save the Children, 2013*; Sahin,
2006*; Spratt, King, & Bulat, 2013; Wagner, D. A.,
& Spratt, 1987; Wagner, D. A., Spratt, & Ezzaki,
1989; World Bank, 2016*). For instance, Nag-
Arulmani and her colleagues (2003) provided an
intervention in phonological skills to 7- to 9-year
olds with reading diculties in India. Those who
received interventions improved word reading and
spelling to a greater extent than those who did
not, and the intervention was particularly helpful
for students with very low initial word reading
skills. Eect sizes in these studies ranged from
small18 to large (e.g., 1.23; RTI, 2015a). Furthermore,
a study in Yemen showed cumulative eects such
that students who received explicit and systematic
instruction for two years improved reading to a
larger extent than those who received instruction
for one year (Pleiss et al., 2016).
Although highly encouraging, no signicant
impact were observed in many contexts including
Afganistan (Azami & Pava, 2014*), Burundi
(Rosenkranz, Jonason, & Kajangwa, 2014*), El
Salvador (Pisani & Alvarado, 2014*), Indonesia
(Guajardo, Hossain, Nath, & Dowd, 2013*;
Pisasni, Satyaning, Giri, Alesbury, & de Fretes,
2014*), Pakistan (Moulvi, Pisani, Dowd, Burki, &
Mithani, 2014*; Moulvi & Pava, 2014*), Philippines
(Badiable, Guardo, & Robism 2013*), Sri Lanka
(Wickramasekara, Navaratnam, & Guajardo, 2014*),
and Uganda (Guajardo et al., 2013*). Therefore,
further understanding is needed about factors
inuencing results. In addition, the majority of
these studies targeted multiple components beyond
emergent literacy skills, and therefore, specic
eects of each emergent literacy skill components
on reading often cannot be teased out.
16 Phonics refers to an instructional approach where the relation between orthographic symbols and sounds is explicitly taught (Adams,
199 0).
17 Studies with an * indicate that eect sizes could not be veried due to insucient information (e.g., standard deviation).
18 Quite a few studies did not report eect sizes.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 19
Table 2. Evidence-based principles for instruction of emergent literacy skills
Emergent
literacy skill General principle
Considering variation across languages and writing
systems
Print
awareness
Teach directionality of text and features of
print. When reading books, point to each word
(print referencing) so that students develop an
understanding that print represents sounds. Create
print-rich environment where orthographic symbols
and other print (e.g., chart, student work) are
displayed and books are available in an organized
manner (see Fisher, Godwin, & Seltman, 2014 for a
negative eect of too much print in the classroom).
Directionality relevant to the target writing system should
be explicitly taught. In Arabic, written text is read from
right to left and from top row to the next row. In English,
written text is read from left to right and from top row
to the next row. In traditional Chinese texts, text is
read from top to bottom and right to left (text is read by
column).
Orthographic
symbol
knowledge
Teach shapes, names, and sounds of orthographic
symbols together. In many languages, symbol names
contain clues to sounds, which need to be explicitly
taught. Allot additional time for teaching visually
complex orthographic symbols and do not introduce
visually similar orthographic symbols together as
they cause confusion.
Some writing systems have greater number of
orthographic symbols than others (e.g., Hindi; Nag, Chiat,
Torgeson, & Snowling, 2014), or visually similar symbols
(e.g., Hebrew and Arabic; Treiman, Levin, & Kessler, 2007;
Levin, Saiegh-Haddad, Hende, & Ziv, 2008), or highly
visually complex orthographic symbols (e.g., Chinese;
Huang & Hanley, 1997; Zhou, McBride-Chang, & Wong,
2014; Akshara used in India, Nag, 2007).
Orthographic
awareness
Start with individual orthographic symbol-sound
patterns, followed by a short string of orthographic
symbols (e.g., 'at' pattern found in cat, hat, pat, that).
Then, introduce more complex letter groups (e.g.,
-ing, -igh).
Instruction should clearly lay out consistent and
inconsistent relations and teach them using appropriate
instructional approaches. For example, in English,
symbol-sound relations are explicitly taught for the vast
majority of words while for some irregular words, whole
word instruction is used.
Phonological
awareness
Manipulating larger phonological units such
as syllables is easier than small units such as
phonemes. When teaching phoneme awareness,
identifying initial and ending phonemes is easier
than identifying medial sounds.
Phonological awareness activities vary in diculty.
Identifying an odd sound19 is easiest, followed by
blending and segmenting sounds. Deleting sounds
is the most dicult type of activity. Therefore,
initial instruction should progress from a larger
phonological unit (e.g., syllables) to a smaller unit,
using easier tasks (e.g., blending) in the beginning
and then moving to more demanding tasks (e.g.,
dele tion).
Languages dier in salient phonological units (Kim,
2007; Share & Blum, 2005; Saiegh-Haddad, 2007; Ziegler
& Goswami, 2005) and in the units of sounds that link
to orthographic symbols (English letters represent
phonemes; dels in Ethiopia represent syllables; Akshara
in India represent syllables and phonemes; Nag et al.2014).
In languages where symbols represent phonemes,
phonological awareness instruction should ultimately
target phoneme awareness in addition to other units
such as syllables. In languages where symbols represent
syllables, instruction targeting syllable awareness may
suce (Tilson et al., 2013a). Students in diglossic contexts
need instruction on literary or standard names and
pronunciations (Abadzi & Martelli, 2014).
Morphological
awareness
Teach children how to recognize morphemes in a
word in oral language, and then recognize them
in written words (e.g., Apel & Diehm, in press).
For instance, unpredictable is composed of three
morphemes, un, predict, able; owers is composed of
two morphemes, ower and s (plural).
Morphological structures vary across languages. In some
languages, free morphemes are prominent (e.g., Chinese,
and West African languages) whereas in others words
are made up of both free and bound morphemes20 (e.g.,
Bantu languages, Turkish). Instruction should be aligned
with prominent morphological structures in the target
language.
19 In an oddity task, students hear a set of words such as "sun, sock, and top." In this set, “top” is the odd word because it starts with
/t/ phoneme whereas /s/ is the initial phoneme in the other two words. In blending tasks, phonemes such as /k/ /a/ /t/ are blended to
a word, /kat/ cat. In segmenting tasks, /kat/ can can be segmented into /k/ /a/ /t/. In deletion tasks, when /k/ sound is deleted from
/kat/, only /at/ is left.
20 Bound morphemes are those that cannot stand alone and therefore have to be attached to the base word (e.g., -(e)s for plural or
axes such as pre- in English) whereas free morphemes are those that can be a stand alone word (e.g., horse in horsemen).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy20
21 http://www.unicef.org/supply/les/School_in_a_box_guidelines.pdf
in developing countries hold a view that reading
should be taught before spelling because students
might "mix reading and writing" (EDC, 2014a,
p. 40). Teaching word reading and spelling
simultaneously is theoretically sound because
spelling reinforces the symbol-sound knowledge
and relations (Weiser & Mathes, 2011) and also
empirically validated. For instance, in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, students whose
teachers integrated reading and spelling (e.g., read
and write the words that contain target letters) had
higher achievement in reading (EDC, 2014a).
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
Phonological awareness is recognizing sounds
in words, and therefore, does not require print
materials. However, the other aspects of emergent
literacy—print awareness and orthographic symbol
knowledge—do require the presence of text and
the means to write and display letters and words.
Learning aids have to suit the context and they
do not need to be expensive. An example of a set
of durable, portable and inexpensive teaching and
learning aids is UNICEF’s School in a Box.21 UNICEF’s
School-in-a-Box kits are often distributed in crisis
and conict situations and their pros and cons
have been well debated. However, this model of
packaging resources for classrooms or schools can be
replicated in many contexts, using locally available
materials and the contents can be tailored to focus
on supporting emergent literacy skills. For instance,
students must see or be exposed to print to learn
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
n Teach emergent literacy skills explicitly
and systematically, considering
characteristics of language and writing
systems
Systematic instruction refers to instruction
in the appropriate scope and sequence (from
easy to dicult skills and activities). Table 2
shows guidelines and principles of instruction
in emergent literacy skills in general as well as
factors to consider to reect characteristics of
language and writing systems.
n Progress from high-frequency single
syllable words to multisyllabic words.
Initial phonics instruction should focus on one-
syllable, easy to decode words to teach the basics
of decoding. Initially, teachers should use one-
syllable words that students are familiar with in
oral language (e.g., at, cat, bag). Once students can
sound out a few simple words, decodable books or
texts can be used for further practice in connected
texts. When students can read single syllable
words with accuracy, teachers need to teach them,
explicitly, how to read multisyllabic words. The
basic idea in teaching multisyllabic words is to
break down words into manageable units such as
syllables or morphemes. As an example, teachers
can display the word cowboy on the board, point at
the cow part of the word and read it. The teacher
can then point to the boy part of the word and read
it. Finally, the teacher can blend cow and boy as
cowboy by sweeping the nger across the word.
n Teach word reading in conjunction with
spelling.
Word reading should be taught in conjunction
with spelling. Word reading and spelling draw on
the same emergent literacy skills, and facilitate
each other (Ehri, 2000; Kim, 2011). Some teachers
Decodable books contain words that the
students have learned to decode. For instance, if
one-syllable words such as hat, cat, bag, pig have
been taught, then the decodable texts would
contain these and other already taught words.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 21
A Print Rich Classroom in a Resource-Lean Environment
In outdoor schools, where there is a lack of pencils and paper, students can draw letters with sticks in
the dirt or sand around them. While not ideal, there are strategies to ensure that children, no matter
the environment, have some opportunity to learn orthographic symbol knowledge. Additionally,
teachers can reach out to parents and communities to contribute things like bottle caps, small blocks of
wood, scrap paper, on which they can write letters to use in teaching (demonstration) as well as to have
children manipulate. Bottle caps, wood, shells are items that are found almost everywhere and they are
durable as learning aids for children to manipulate.
to read and educators must sometimes be creative
in ensuring students see print (e.g., using Bible or
Qur’an available in the community). Kits can include
things like chalkboard paint, chalk, letter cards,
letter blocks, slates, alphabet charts, and a canvas on
which to hang materials. Chalkboards are useful for
writing letters and words and even full texts; walls
are extremely useful to display all sorts of learning
aids. In the absence of walls, a canvas with some
hooks can also be hung from a suitable tree, and used
to display posters, maps, calendars, letters, and words
(Tilson et al., 2013a for Ndith Kuwrenga Readers; see
also Literacy Boost22). Slates for pupils are useful for
formative assessment as the teacher can circulate
to check what students have written down. With
all of these innovative ideas to get materials into
classrooms, training for teachers or facilitators and
supervision are required to ensure the materials are
used as intended (e.g., although useful, the School
in a Box is reported not to be widely used in some
contexts.23)
Assessment Considerations
Phonological awareness can be assessed using
the same instructional activities described
above. For instance, blending or segmenting tasks
22 http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-df91d2eba74a%7D/BEYOND_SCHOOL_WALLS_LITERACY_
BOOST_2013.PDF
23 See, for example, The Use of Emergency Education and Recreational Kits in Aceh: A Review at http://ww w.alnap.org/pool/les/the-
use-of-emergency-education-and-recreation-kit s-in-aceh.pdf
can be used targeting various phonological units
(e.g., syllable awareness or phoneme awareness).
Orthographic symbol knowledge can be assessed by
randomly ordering orthographic symbols, and asking
the student to identify their names and sounds.
Timed tasks can be used to assess automaticity. For
example, students can be assessed on the number of
orthographic symbols they can name within a minute
in a task where orthographic symbols are repeatedly
presented in a random order. Useful assessment
toolkits and videos are available for EGRA and ASER
in many languages at globalreadingnetwork.net/
eddata and asercentre.org respectively.
ICT Considerations
ICT approaches can be used for various instructional
activities, and many studies noted in this report
included ICTs applications to support the development
of literacy skills. For example, projects such as the
READ-TA project in Ethiopia have included brief
instructional videos on teacher tablets that scaold
the instruction of letter sounds, an approach which
may be particularly useful in contexts where teachers
are teaching in a language in which they are not fully
uent. These videos can be used by teachers as a
review, or directly with students. Student devices, as

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy22
used by Worldreader in Ghana, can also support print
awareness by providing access to a wide range of text
materials and encouraging pleasure reading. In South
Africa, the Bridges to the Future Initiative uses tablets
to display recorded literacy lessons in four languages
for children in grades one through three (Wagner, D.
A., 2014). As teacher’s ability with new technologies
increases in developing countries, the possibilities for
further use of student-focused applications to support
phonological and morphological awareness will grow.
Research Gaps
Compared to other areas of literacy skills, there is
relatively solid empirical evidence on approaches
to improve word reading. However, because the
vast majority of studies were multi-component
interventions (targeting phonological awareness,
phonics, vocabulary, reading uency, and reading
comprehension), our understanding is limited
about the overlapping and unique contributions of
various emergent literacy skills to word reading.
Furthermore, as previous studies primarily focused
on phonological awareness and phonics, little
is understood about the roles of orthographic
awareness and morphological awareness in word
reading, particularly in multisyllabic word reading.
Also remaining is a question about instructional
dosage—how much time and intensity is necessary
and sucient to promote word reading skills in
dierent contexts. Finally, better understanding
is needed regarding the instructional approaches
most eective and suitable for large classroom
environments, which is prevalent in developing
countries.
Illustrative Example on Emergent Literacy Skills Instruction
The following is an example of a scope and sequence to teach emergent literacy skills in
PRIMR (Primary Math and Reading) in Kenya (see Piper, Jepkemi, & Kibukho, 2015; RTI, 2015a
for further details and results). Target grades were students in Grade 1. Note that exemplars are
provided in English for illustrative purposes and do not necessarily indicate a need to provide
instruction in a second language.
Table 3. Example of scope and sequence of emergent literacy skills instruction
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Phonological
awareness
Sound
recognition
of /m/
Oral reading
of /m/
Sound
recognition
of /m/ /a/
Oral blending
of /a/ /m/
Oral blending
of /a/ /m/
Letter sounds mmM, a M, m, A, a M, m, A, a
Word reading am am

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 23
Day 1 Phonological awareness
(T = Teacher; S = Student)
T: We are going to practice our English sounds today. First, we will say the sound. Then, I
will say words one at a time and you will tell me whether or not the word begins with the
sound.
I do – Step 1
T: The sound is /m/.
T: The rst word is, mat. The word begins with /m/ so I show thumbs up.
T: The next word is at. The word does not begin with /m/, so I show thumbs down.
We do – Step 2
T: Let’s try it together. The sound is /m/. What is the sound?
T & S: /m/.
T: Now I will say a word. If it begins with /m/, show thumbs up. If it does not, thumbs down.
T: First word is mat.
T & S: Respond together.
Continue with examples: at.
You do – Step 3
T: Now you try. The sound is /m/.
T: Show thumbs up if the word begins with /m/. If not, thumbs down.
T: First word is mat.
S: Thumbs up.
Continue with examples: at, make, mother, cook, jam, market, bread, meat.
Sample Daily Lesson

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy24
Day 1 Naming Letters and Sounds
I do – Step 1
Put the small letter m on the blackboard/pocket chart. Point to the letter and say,
T: The name of this letter is m. This is the small letter m.
T: The sound of this letter is the same in English and Kiswahili. The sound is /m/.
T: I will write the letter while I say the sound.
We do – Step 2
T: Let’s do it together. The name of this letter is?
T & S: m.
T: The sound of this letter is?
T & S: /m/.
You do – Step 3
T: Now you do it alone. The name of this letter is?
S: m.
T: The sound of this letter is?
S: /m/.
T: Open your book to page 31. Point to the small letter m on the page.
Day 3 Word Reading
I do – Step 1
Put the word am on the blackboard/pocket chart.
T: Watch me: /a/ /m/.
T: The word is am.
We do – Step 2
T: Now, we shall do it together. We shall say the sounds, then we shall say the
whole word.
T & S: /a/ /m/.
T: The word is…
T & S: am.
You do – Step 3
T: Now you try it.
T: (Sweep your nger under the letters as the students say.)
S: /a/ /m/.
T: The word is …
S: am.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 25
engage in meaningful, rich language experiences to
develop their oral language skills (Hart & Risley, 1995;
Wells, 1986).
Evidence from Developing
Countries
Emerging evidence in
developing countries
suggests that instructional
attention to oral language
improves reading skills. In the
Democratic Republic of Congo,
teachers’ instruction in French
on vocabulary (e.g., discussing
illustrations and new vocabulary) was associated with
improved reading (EDC, 2014). Furthermore, students
who were exposed to spoken ‘literary’ Arabic—the
language used in reading and academic contexts—
during preschool had higher performance in reading
comprehension in Grades 1 and 2 than those who
were exposed only to the spoken Arabic dialect—
the language used in the home (Abu-Rabia, 2000;
Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi, & Share, 1993). Spoken
Arabic used in the home is diers from literary Arabic
in several ways, some of which can impact literacy
acquisition (Abu-Rabia, 2000).
However, evidence about the eect of multi-
component intervention on students' oral language is
mixed,24 with results ranging from no eect to large
eects. No eects were found in multicomponent
Section B. Oral Language
Skills: Foundations for Reading
Comprehension
Background: What and Why Oral Language
Skills?
Oral language is a broad construct encompassing
various aspects such as phonology, morphology,
vocabulary, syntax, grammar, and discourse
(Kim, 2016a). As reading and writing are language
represented in print, these various aspects of oral
language skills are necessary for reading and writing
development. For reading comprehension, language
skills such as vocabulary, grammatical knowledge,
and listening comprehension are particularly relevant
(del Valle Catalan, 2016; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Juel,
Grith, & Gough, 1986; Kim, Al Otaiba, Folsom, &
Greulich, 2011; Kim, Al Otaiba, Sidler, Greulich, &
Puranik, 2014). As illustrated in Figure 2, reading
comprehension cannot be achieved without language
comprehension skills even with procient word
reading. Despite its clear evidence, the importance of
oral language is often not recognized by teachers in
some texts (e.g., Friedlander, Gasana, & Goldenberg,
2014).
Discourse-level oral language skills such as listening
comprehension are higher-order skills (Kim, 2015,
2016a; see Figure 3) and built on lower-level oral
language skills such as vocabulary and grammatical
knowledge as well as a complex array of cognitive
skills, including working memory, inhibitory
control, attention, inference, perspective taking and
reasoning, and comprehension monitoring as well as
background knowledge (Florit, et al., 2014; Kendeou,
et al., 2008; Kim, 2015, 2016a; Kim & Phillips, 2014;
Lepola, et al., 2012; Tompkins, et al., 2014). These
skills develop when children are exposed to rich oral
language at home and school. Children need to hear
words, sentences, and stories frequently and need to
Oral language prociency is not just a concern
for children acquiring in multilingual contexts
or L2. Instead, children dier largely in their
oral language prociency in L1 (e.g., vocabulary),
and therefore, should be explicitly and
systematically taught in both L1 and L2.
24 In many studies, students’ listening comprehension was measured by a single story or passage followed by 5 questions. This is
limiting, given passage eect and the limited number of items. As noted below, greater attention is needed to accurately and reliably
measure students’ listening comprehension abilit y.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy26
interventions in Afghanistan (Azami & Pava,
2014*), Bangladesh (Guajardo, Hossain, Nath, &
Dowd, 2013*), Ethiopia (Friedlander, et al., 2012*;
Gebreanenia, Sorissa, Takele, Yenew, & Garjardo,
2014*), Haiti (RTI, 2015b*; Save the Children, 2013*),
Malawi (Pouezevara et al., 2013), Mali (Spratt et al.,
2013), Nepal (Pinto, 2010*), Philippines (Badiable et
al., 2013*; Dunlop, 2015*), and Zambia (Falconer-
Stout et al., 2015*).
Other studies found positive eects, but eect
sizes varied widely. Small eects were found in the
ApaL program in Mozambique, which provided 45
minutes of daily multicomponent instruction in
Portuguese for children in Grades 2 and 3. Students
in the treatment condition outperformed those in the
control condition in vocabulary and simple sentence
comprehension in Portuguese, the language of
instruction (Raupp, Newmann, Reves, & Lauchande,
2015*). Similarly, a positive, but small eect was
found on listening comprehension in Indonesia
(Brown, 2013*), Jordan (RTI, 2014a*), Nigeria (RTI,
2016a), Papua New Guinea (World Bank, 2016*),
and Yemen (Plessis et al., 2016*). On the other
hand, moderate eects were found for students
in Kiswahili in rural Kenya (RTI, 2015a), and large
eects were found in Liberia (DeStefano et al., 2013*),
especially for students who received intervention
with a school management reinforcement (Piper &
Korda, 2011a).
The large variability across studies might be
attributed to many factors, including language of
instruction (whether instruction was in students'
L1 or L2), nature of oral language instruction
and assessment, and the extent to which oral
language instruction was implemented. When it
comes to the nature of oral language instruction,
unfortunately, many reports did not provide
details about instructional approaches and
intensity, and therefore, it is dicult to accurately
gauge dierences across intervention projects.
Furthermore, in some studies, oral language
tasks were not equated in diculty such that
task diculty might have masked a potential
intervention eect to some extent (e.g., too dicult
at endline assessment; Spratt et al., 2013). Finally,
delity of implementation is an important factor.
For instance, in Zambia, although the intervention
included oral language instruction, classroom
observation revealed little actual instruction on oral
language (Falconer-Stout, et al., 2015).
One approach that has received initial evidence for
improving oral language in low-income countries
is book reading (Bekman, Aksu-Koc, & Erguvanli-
Taylan, 2011; Ntuli & Pretorius, 2005*). In particular,
dialogic reading, an interactive book reading
approach with a focus on oral language development
(e.g., Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith,
& Fischel, 1994; Hargrave & Senechal, 2000), had a
large eect on children’s vocabulary for children
in Bangladeshi (Opel, Ameer, & Aboud, 2009). In
dialogic reading, the teacher reads a book multiple
times to students, asks and prompts students with
questions about target vocabulary and content of
the text, and engages students in conversations and
discussions during and after reading.26
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
n Explicitly teach oral language both in L1
and L2 contexts.
Oral language instruction does not have to wait
until students develop reading skills, either for
students acquiring literacy skills in L1 or L2.
Instead, oral language such as vocabulary should
be taught explicitly as early as possible—children
dier greatly in their vocabulary knowledge
even in L1. Vocabulary instruction should include
providing opportunities for multiple exposures
to words, student-friendly denitions and
25 Language of instruction in the vast majority of these studies was L2 with exceptions of Falconer-Stout et al. (2015), RTI (2015a—
Language of instruction in this study varied depending on the condition), and RTI (2016a).
26 See http://www.readingrockets.org/article/dialogic-reading-eective-way-read-preschoolers

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 27
explanations,27 and opportunities to engage in deep
processing of the words (e.g., multiple meanings
of a word; Graves, 2006). Teachers should choose
words that are used frequently across contexts (or
subjects)—words that are not too easy (e.g., baby)
or too dicult or specic to a certain subject (e.g.,
isotope), but are important in multiple domains
(e.g., comfort; Beck, McKeown, Kucan, 2002).
In multilingual contexts where students are
learning in L2, basic words have to be explicitly
taught. In addition, understanding morphemes in
a new word can provide clues to the meaning of
the word (e.g., the meaning of friendliness can be
inferred if the student knows that it is composed
of friend+li+ness). Exposure to oral language and
instruction in oral language should be provided
throughout the day across subject areas and grade
levels.
n Utilize book reading as an important
source to promote oral language
instruction.
Book reading can be a highly eective tool, when
implemented properly, in improving children's oral
language and knowledge building because (1) books
typically contain more sophisticated language
than daily conversations or TV and therefore,
book reading provides important opportunities for
students to be exposed to sophisticated language
(Hayes & Ahrens, 1988); (2) books show language
(vocabulary and expression) used in context, which
is particularly helpful when the teacher is not
procient in the language of instruction;28 and (3)
books provide content which helps children develop
background knowledge. When reading books to
students, book reading should not be limited to
27 Dictionary denitions are often too dicult for students. Student-friendly denitions and explanations involves using common
language that students are likely to be familiar. For instance, a dictionar y denition of 'ally' (noun) is "a person, group... that is
associated with another or other for some common cause." When using student-friendly terms, an ally can be described as "someone
who helps you in what you are trying to do, especially when there are other people who are against you," (Beck et al., p. 36).
28 Though building teachers’ own language prociency may be an important requisite to promoting student's literacy acquisition (see
Chapter 4). Building teachers’ language prociency is, however, a long term process. Over the short or medium term, having teachers
read books to children can be an important tool for improving oral language prociency.
29 This recommendation is from a review of studies in developed country contexts for young children. However, the principle should
apply to developing countries as well.
simply reading written texts. Instead, selected
target vocabulary should be directly taught,
various questions should be asked, including
what (e.g., what is this?), where (e.g., where is this
story happening?), when (e.g., when did the event
occur?), why (e.g., why are the characters doing
something?), and how (e.g., how did the characters
do it?) questions. Dialogic reading is one evidence-
based approach to improve oral language in low
income countries (Opel et al., 2009). In order for it
to be implemented across low-income countries,
the availability of and access to quality books
would have to be substantially increased (see Malik
et al., 2015). The Rwanda Children's Book Initiative
is an example of one program that increased the
availability of high quality local language reading
books for children in Grades 1 to 3. Teachers who
had access to these books signicantly increased
the amount of time they devoted to reading
storybooks aloud compared to control schools.
They also explicitly asked their students to read
more and encouraged them to select books from
the classroom collection to take home to read
(Malik et al., 2015).
n Increase language learning opportunities
by using E3 strateg y. (Expose, Elicit, and
Extend; Kim & Yun, in press29)
One of the most important ways to learn a
language is to be exposed to good language
models—students need to hear quality language
being used every day. Teachers should use rich
vocabulary and expressions. Language is learned
through using it. Teachers should elicit students’
responses by asking dierent types of open-ended
questions—asking students to label objects, recall

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy28
information explicitly stated in conversations or
books, and infer information that is not explicitly
stated in conversations or books. Extending
students’ utterances is also an important way to
continue multi-turn conversations and provide
language input (e.g., Dickinson & Proche, 2011;
Justice, Mashburn, Pence, & Wiggins, 2008).
n Teach cognitively demanding questions
to promote higher-order thinking skills.
Inferencing is inferring meaning that is not
explicitly stated in the texts (oral or written texts).
Comprehension monitoring is the ability to think
about and evaluate one’s own comprehension
(Kim, 2016a). When students hear inconsistent
information or a story that does not make
sense, some students are better at detecting
the inconsistency than others (Kim, 2015, 2016).
To promote inferencing and comprehension
monitoring, teachers should ask “why” questions
when telling or reading stories (e.g., why did the
character do that? Does the character’s behavior
make sense? Why or why not?). As is the case with
other aspects of oral language, inferencing and
comprehension monitoring should begin as early as
possible, before students can read.
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
In order to use books and text materials as a
means to promote oral language (e.g., dialogic
reading), high quality books and text materials are
necessary. There are some examples of the successful
and low cost production of local text materials.
Madrasa Resource Center preschools in Uganda,
Kenya and Zanzibar, where teachers were trained to
use low-cost, locally available materials in a child-
centered way, had a positive impact on children’s
cognitive development, in comparison to a control
group (Malmberg, Mwaura, & Synva, 2011). Books
produced by local publishers can be too expensive
for widespread use, resulting in low demand and
a weak supply chain (Edwards & Ngwaru, 201;
Kruger, 2009). However, the Rwanda Children’s Book
Initiative, working with local authors, publishers and
illustrators did prove to be eective in increasing
the supply of books in Kinyarwanda for early grades
by about 33% (Malik et al., 2015), thereby creating
more avenues to expose children to oral language
through read-alouds and book reading. The Initiative
worked with publishers, authors and illustrators to
build their capacity in the children's book publishing
industry, while simultaneously working with
teachers to increase their knowledge and skills in
using book reading in classrooms. A similar project
in Malawi involved community members in making
books and these books, which are culturally relevant
and appropriate (FHI360, 2014).
In addition to the use of locally made and culturally
appropriate books, there are also international
initiatives to supply books to classrooms around
the world. For example, the educational publisher
Scolastic is known for creating classroom libraries
in a variety of languages (Arabic, English, French,
Spanish) on nonction topics like plants, animals,
dinosaurs, the universe, etc. that can be used across
many cultures. Room to Read’s libraries and high
quality books include decodable stories as well as
leveled books.
Example Use of E3 Strategy
Teacher: Tell me about what you are making.
(Elicitation)
Student: A tree.
Teacher: You are making a tree with trunk and
leaves. (Extension and Exposure—‘trunk’ and
‘lea ves’)
Student: Yes, I like my tree.
Teacher: I love it too. It is a great tree with strong
trunk and vibrant leaves. (Extension and Exposure
‘vibrant’)

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 29
Illustrative Example: Dialogic Reading
In dialogic reading, teachers and parents do not simply read words in the book. Instead,
teachers ask various “wh” questions before, during, and after reading to promote students’
active participation (e.g., paying attention to stories and texts, and asking and responding to
questions).
Book selection: Select books that are age and
culturally appropriate, interesting, and contain
useful words to teach/useful ideas to think
about/knowledge to acquire and have some
illustrations. If the book does not contain
illustrations for target words, picture cards
can be used or teachers can draw on the
blackboard (Opel et al., 2009).
Procedures: Books are read multiple times
throughout the week. Each time, the book
is read, dierent types of questions are
asked. During the rst reading, a few
“what” questions are asked. During each
additional reading of the same book, other
questions (how, why) are asked and children
are encouraged to be more actively engaged in
the conversation.
During the rst reading, “what” questions are asked
while pointing to illustrations such as “What is that?” “What is he doing?” The teacher evaluates
the student’s response (Yes, that is a soccer ball) while enunciating and stressing the new words,
soccer ball. Then, all the children repeat the new words (Everyone say 'soccer ball’). The teacher
asks more questions about the illustration such as “What is the color of the soccer ball?” “Who uses
a soccer ball?” “What do you do with a soccer ball?” More challenging questions are open-ended
questions. Examples include “What do you see here?” “What else do you see?” “What is happening
here?” “Can you tell me more about the soccer ball?”
During additional readings, the teacher asks higher-order questions that refer to the story plot
and to the student’s personal experiences. Examples included “What did he do next?” “Why was
he happy?” “What happened in the beginning?” “Did you ever see ?” “Where was it?” “What did
it do?” When responding to the students’ answers, the teacher expands each child’s response
by repeating back some part of what the student said, but adding more (e.g., “He is kicking the
soccer ball during a game.”). The teacher also encourages the student’s participation and longer
responses and descriptions. Prompting is one way to invite the students to participate (e.g., The
boy is kicking .).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy30
Assessment Considerations
In order to evaluate students’ needs for oral
language instruction, carefully designed language
assessments should be used. For instance, EGRA
listening comprehension assessment in developing
countries asks children to listen to a story and
then answer 5 related questions. This is limiting
in many aspects such as psychometrics (e.g., a
single story and associated 5 questions is not
sucient to provide reliable and valid information).
Furthermore, this format is not sucient to capture
variation in children’s ability in oral language
comprehension. For instance, although students
might score a zero in a listening comprehension
task (listening to passages), they may be able to
understand some words or sentences. A well-
constructed oral language assessment would assess
children’s comprehension at the word (vocabulary),
sentence (sentence comprehension), and discourse
(listening comprehension) level, using both receptive
and expressive tasks. In receptive tasks, students
primarily hear vocabulary, sentences, and stories
and identify correct responses. Expressive tasks
require students to produce oral language (e.g.,
vocabulary, sentence, and stories). Finally, listening
comprehension assessments at the discourse
level should carefully consider balancing literal
and inferential questions. Literal comprehension
questions require students identify information
that is explicitly stated in the given text whereas
inferential comprehension questions require students
to infer information that is not explicitly stated (Kim
& Petscher, in press).
ICT Considerations
While there is little evidence of eective ICT
usage for the promotion of oral language skills
specically, e-readers and mobile phones can be
used to provide wide access to electronic books and
text materials in a variety of languages, as discussed
further in sections 4a below. Software could also be
designed to read text aloud to children, enhancing
their oral language development.
Research Gaps
Evidence is sparse about eective approaches
to promote oral language skills (see Chapter 4
for the latter). It is a grave mistake to consider the
importance of oral language prociency only in the
context of literacy acquisition in L2. Studies have
consistently shown that students vary widely in oral
language prociency in their L1 and the language of
instruction (e.g., Falconer-Stout et al., 2015; Piper et
al., 2015; RTI, 2015a, b; 2016). Research evidence is
needed to examine what instructional approaches are
eective to improve children's oral language in what
contexts. In particular, we need more information and
evidence about what kind of language comprehension
curriculum is simple enough for teachers to
implement on a daily basis, yet powerful enough to
make a dierence in oral language, and subsequently
in reading comprehension and writing. Furthermore,
there is a great need to develop a richer set of reliable
and valid tools for measuring children’s oral language
skills such as vocabulary, sentence comprehension,
and discourse-level comprehension (i.e., listening
comprehension).
Section C. Reading Fluency:
Foundation for Reading
Comprehension
Background: What and Why Reading
Fluency?
Reading uency refers to the accurate and rapid
reading of connected text with expression
(reading prosody (NICHD, 2000). Reading uency,
also widely referred to as oral reading uency or
text reading uency, is a text level, not a lexical
(word) level, skill, and is strongly related to reading
comprehension across languages (del Valle Catalan,
2016; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Hudson,
Pullen, Lane, & Torgesen, 2009; Jenkins, Fuchs, van
den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Kim, 2015; Kim, Park,
& Wagner, R. K., 2014; Kim, Petscher, Schatschneider,
& Foorman, 2010; Piper & Korda, 2011a; Pouezevara

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 31
et al., 2013). Reading uency promotes reading
comprehension by allowing attention and working
memory to be used for comprehension processes
rather than decoding (Jenkins et al., 2003; Kim,
2015; Kim & Wagner, R. K., 2015; LaBerge & Samuels,
1974). Although reading uency has received much
attention in developing countries and it is important
to assess reading uency, reading uency itself is
not an end goal of reading instruction. As one of
the experts interviewed for this report put it: “We
all know that we get quick results with decoding.
But decoding is not reading. We need to put a lot
more emphasis on comprehension.” Indeed, reading
uency is important because of its role in reading
comprehension.
Evidence from Developing
Countries
There is a moderate
evidence base that explicit
instruction on multiple
components improves students’
reading uency. In studies
explicitly focused on the big
5 identied by the National
Reading Panel Report (NICHD,
2000; phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
reading uency, and reading comprehension),
students were able to read connected text more
accurately and rapidly in various L1 and L2 contexts
such as Bangladesh (Jonason et al., 2014*30), the
Democratic Republic of Congo (EDC, 2014a), Ethiopia
(Friedlander et al., 2012*; Gebreanenia et al., 2014*),
Indonesia (Brown, 2013*), Jordan (RTI, 2014a), Kenya
(Piper, Jepkemi, & Kibukho, 2015; RTI, 2014b*, 2015a),
Liberia (DeStefano et al., 2013*; Piper & Korda, 2011a),
Mali (Spratt et al., 2013), Malawai (Pouezevara et
al., 2013), Mozambique (Mungoi et al., 2010*; Raupp,
Newmann, Reves, & Lauchande, 2015*), Nigeria
Insert Evidence barometer here – evidence
level: moderate
(RTI, 2016a), Papua New Guinea (World Bank,
2016*31), Philippines (Dunlop, 2015*), Sri Lanka
(Wickramasekara et al., 2014), and Zambia (Falconer-
Stout, Messner, & Wedekind, 2015*). However, eect
sizes varied largely from small (e.g., .14, Brown,
2013*) to large (.73, Piper & Korda, 2011a).
Other studies, on the other hand, produced no
discernable eects in reading uency (Azami & Pava,
2014*; Badiable et al., 2013*; Guajardo, 2012*; Karki
& Dowd, 2013*; Moulvi et al., 2012*; Moulvi & Pava,
2014*; Pisani & Alvarado, 2014*; Pisani et al., 2014;
Rosenkranz et al., 2014*; RTI 2015b*).
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
n Build in instructional time and
opportunities for text reading.
Automaticity in reading does not develop
automatically. When students can start decoding
words accurately, opportunities to practice
reading approximate texts (i.e., instruction
level or just slightly challenging texts; Kuhn
& Stahl, 2003) should be explicitly built in the
reading curriculum. Teachers should include
time to reread the words taught in isolation
or in connected texts. Students need daily
practice reading the same texts several times,
with attention to accuracy and speed (repeated
reading).
n Model uent reading.
Students need to hear and internalize uent
reading (Rasinski, Homan, & Biggs, 2009).
Teachers should demonstrate reading with
accuracy, at a conversational rate, and with
expression (pausing and varying pitch at
appropriate places).
30 Description of language context was not explicitly provided in some documents, and thus, the authors’ best judgement was used
inferring from documents.
31 The report did not provide results by language or grade.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy32
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
For the purpose of practicing reading uency with
timed repeated reading, relatively short passages
are useful so that students can nish the passage
within a reasonable time. Texts for repeated reading
should be either at the instructional level (students
can read 95% of the words independently) or slightly
challenging (students can read 90% of the words
independently) (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Supporting
the development of reading uency in print-poor
environments is challenging in part due to the
lack of texts to read. In these instances, teachers
can use local songs, poems, proverbs and short
folk tales written on a chalkboard to give students
the opportunity to practice reading uency. It is
important, however, to make sure that children are
reading, not just memorizing.
Repeated reading in a large class can be
implemented in the order of echo reading,
choral reading, partner reading, and whisper
reading (Brooker et al., 2010). In echo reading,
the teacher reads clauses or sentences and the
students repeat after the teacher. In choral
reading, the teacher and students read the same
texts together. In partner reading, students
are paired and take turns reading. In whisper
reading, students are asked to read the same
text to themselves in a quiet voice that has been
practiced through echo reading, choral reading,
and partner reading. Across all the readings,
students should be encouraged to point to the
text using their nger, and teachers should walk
around the class monitoring students’ reading.
When pairing students for partner reading,
uent readers should be paired with less uent
students.
Assessment Considerations
EGRA and other similar assessment batteries
include reading uency tasks. When developing
and using reading uency tasks, texts used for
reading uency assessments should be grade and
age appropriate (see RTI, 2016b for EGRA tool kit).
In addition, multiple passages should be used
because texts vary in diculty and text diculty
is an important factor for determining reading
uency. Even very carefully developed texts that
have equivalent readability values can result in
signicantly dierent text reading uency (rate)
among children (Francis et al., 2008; Petscher &
Kim, 2011). To account for the passage eect, an ideal
approach is equating passages in terms of reading
rate. An alternative, widely-used approach, however,
has been using multiple texts (e.g., 3 passages) and
using either the mean or median (middle) scores (see
the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
[DIBELS] approach; Petscher & Kim, 2011).
ICT Considerations
Empirical evidence examining the use of ICT
approaches to improve reading uency is limited.
A study in Kenya, discussed in greater detail in
section 3b above, did not nd additional benet to
more ICT-intensive interventions in terms of reading
uency outcomes (Piper, Zuilkowski, Kwayumba, &
Strigel, 2016). A number of possible applications of
ICTs to improve reading uency exist, however. When
students have e-readers, tablets, or mobile phones,
they can be given a range of texts with which to
practice reading. Devices can also time students as
they read, and allow for the easy gathering of data
on progress over time, which is a challenge in large
classrooms. Teachers may be able to use software
such as Tangerine to collect student uency data and
examine class-level trends. However, such approaches
are not feasible in all settings, as they require a
relatively high level of technical skill among teachers
as well as centralized infrastructure and support.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 33
Research Gaps
Reading uency is widely assessed as a measure
of reading prociency in developing countries,
and has been shown to be related to reading
comprehension in developing countries in L2
contexts (Draper & Spaull, 2013; Piper & Korda,
2011a). The wide use and focus on reading uency
in assessment and instruction in developing
countries assumes it has the same mediating
role in developing countries that it has in high-
income countries (Kim, 2015; Kim & Wagner, R. K.,
2015; Kim, Park, & Wagner, R. K., 2014). However,
empirical examination of the mediating role of
reading uency from developing countries and
various orthographies has been limited. For instance,
in some writing systems (e.g., Thai & Khmer)
word boundaries are not visually marked and the
development of reading uency in these writing
systems would be informative. Furthermore, many
developing countries have developed reading uency
benchmarks. Although benchmarks are useful for
monitoring progress and are set in dierent ways
(e.g., using normative information about reading
trajectory data or a desired rate of progress), the
normative performance level itself is a moving
target. In many low-income countries, students
were not able to read any words in connected texts
(i.e., zero score in reading uency) at baseline (e.g.,
EDC, 2013; Falconer-Stout et al., 2015; Piper, 2010b;
RTI, 2016a), but improve their reading skills with
evidence-based instruction. It is important, then,
that benchmarks are continuously evaluated or
adjusted as more empirical data become available. It
is also important to reiterate here that improvement
in reading uency itself is not the end goal, but an
important skill to improving reading comprehension.
Finally, although reading uency assessments
including benchmarks provide useful information,
reading uency should be used as one of the several
indicators of reading prociency.
Section D. Reading Comprehension
Background: What is Reading Comprehension
and Why is it Important?
Reading comprehension is “the process of
extracting and constructing meaning through
interaction and involvement with written language”
(RAND study group, 2002, p. 11), and is the ultimate
goal of reading. As shown in previous sections,
reading comprehension draws on both word reading
(decoding printed words) and listening comprehension
(understanding meaning), and complex processes on
which each of these draw (see Figure 2). Therefore,
without appropriate development and coordination
of these multiple processes, reading comprehension
cannot be achieved.
Evidence from Developing
Countries
The evidence on approaches
that facilitate reading
comprehension in developing
country contexts is emerging. In
contrast to relatively consistent
eects on building-block reading
skills such as decoding and
reading uency, interventions
have yielded limited impact or mixed results in
reading comprehension skills. Many studies in L1
and/or L2 found no eect in reading comprehension
(Azami & Pava, 2014*; Badiable et al., 2013*; Dunlop,
2015*; Friedlander et al., 2012*; Guajardo et al., 2012*,
2013*; Jonason et al., 2014*; Karki & Dowd, 2013*;
Moulvi et al., 2014*; Moulvi & Pava, 2014*; Mungoi et
al., 2010*; Pallante & Kim, 2013; Pinto, 2010*; Pisani
& Alvarado, 2012*; Pisani et al., 2014*; Rosenkranz et
al., 2014*; Wickramasekara et al., 2014*). For instance,
in Haiti, children were provided multicomponent
reading instruction in Haitian Creole for a year, but
this yielded no eect on reading comprehension for
students in Grades 1 and 2 (RTI, 2015b).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy34
When positive eects were found, most of them were
small or varied. Small eects were found in Ethiopia
(Gebreanenia et al., 2014), Haiti (Save the Children,
2013), Indonesia (Brown, 2013*), Jordan (RTI, 2014a),
Kenya (RTI, 2014b*, RTI, 2015a), Malawai (Pouezevara
et al., 2013), Mozambique (Raupp et al., 2015*), and
Zambia (Falconer-Stout et al., 2015*). Varying eects
were reported for students in dierent grades: Eect
sizes ranged from .05 to .58 for students in Grades
1 and 2 in Kenya (Piper et al., 2015); a positive eect
for students in Grade 4 but not in Grade 2 in Malawi
(Dowd & Mabeti, 2011*); and inconsistent results
across grades 1, 2, and 3 in Mali (Spratt et al., 2013).
Exceptions were a few studies where moderate to
large eect sizes were found—Liberia (DeStefano et
al., 2013*; Piper & Korda, 2011a32), Nigeria (RTI, 2016a),
and Papua New Guinea (World Bank, 2016*). In the
study in Liberia, students were assigned to control,
light treatment, and full treatment conditions.
Children in the control condition did not receive
multi-component systematic instruction whereas
children in the full treatment condition received
reading instruction and teachers were supported
with instructional materials, training, and coaching.
Parents and communities were also informed of
students’ performance. The light treatment condition
consisted of parents and community being informed
of student performance, but without direct instruction
in reading. Results showed consistently that children
in the full treatment condition outperformed those in
the control and light treatment condition. There was
practically no dierence between control versus light
treatment condition.
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
n Ensure solid foundations in word reading
and listening comprehension.
Prociency in word reading and listening
comprehension is necessary for reading
comprehension—both are necessary and one
cannot compensate for the other (see Figure 2).
Therefore, for children who are struggling with
reading comprehension, whether the child’s
struggle is due to word reading and/or listening
comprehension should be determined, followed
by systematic instruction on the identied areas.
Many of the reviewed studies reported little to
weak eects on listening comprehension, compared
to word reading (see Sections B and C). Therefore,
a logical next step is to expand our understanding
about eective instructional approaches to improve
oral language prociency (see Section C), and
consequently reading comprehension. This applies
to literacy acquisition in both L1 and L2 contexts.
n Directly teach reading comprehension
strategies. (Shanahan et al., 2010)
Reading comprehension strategies include
questioning, visualization, text structure (how
information is presented), summarizing, and
retelling. Teachers should ask what, when, where,
why, and how questions, and encourage students
to raise questions as they read texts. Teachers
should verbally express their own comprehension
processes as they read passages. For instance,
when the teacher reads a sentence that does not
make sense, the teacher pauses and says, “This
part does not make sense to me. Let me reread this
sentence.”
n Secure daily designated and extended
time for literacy instruction.
Instructional time needs to be allotted for teaching
reading comprehension and for students actually to
engage in reading. Because reading comprehension
draws on a host of skills such as word reading and
listening comprehension as well as language and
cognitive skills that support word reading and
listening comprehension, development of reading
comprehension takes prolonged time. However,
classroom observation studies for students in
Grades 2 and 3 in Zambia (Falconer-Stout, 2015)
as well as those in Grade 2 in Nigeria (RTI,
32 Only for full implementation condition, but not for light condition.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 35
2016a) revealed that only a small proportion of
instructional time was spent on teaching reading
comprehension than teaching word reading and
related emergent literacy skills (Falconer-Stout,
2015). For example, teachers in a treatment group
in Nigeria spent, on average, 2.4 to 4.8 minutes on
vocabulary and comprehension instruction out of
a total of 45 minutes of reading instruction (RTI,
2016a).
n Consider language and cultural
characteristics
One way to promote reading comprehension is
raising questions while reading texts. However,
cultures vary in terms of raising questions about
content presented by perceived authority gures
such as authors (e.g., Dixon, Graber, & Brooks-
Gunn, 2008; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). In this
context, it is important to inform students about
the purpose of the questioning strategy—to better
comprehend the author’s intended meaning.
Furthermore, cultural variation should be taken
into consideration for text structure instruction.
Dierent cultures develop their own ways of
presenting stories and information, and it is
critical that teachers and educators analyze texts
to determine how texts are structured in their
specic cultural contexts (Heath, 1983). Studies in
the US have shown that reading comprehension
suers when texts do not follow expected
structures (Baker & Stein, 1981).
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
The “Book Flood” approach in Niue, Fiji, Singapore,
Sri Lanka, South Africa, the Solomon Islands
and other countries consisted of “ooding” about
100 high interest books per classroom into resource
poor environments (Elley, 2000). Results from
dierent contexts suggested that the eect of the
presence of books alone was negligible. Instead, when
accompanied by simple training for teachers, children
spent more time reading (Elley & Mangubhai, 1983;
Haz & Tudor, 1989) and achieved higher reading
skills than those in control schools (Elley, 2000).
Pratham’s Story Weaver (an online, open source site
to develop books) and the Children's Book Project
for Tanzania are additional examples of eorts to
expand the supply of engaging and appropriate
books for children, to support a culture of reading. In
contrast, the Improving Quality of Primary Education
Program in Ethiopia did not result in increased EGRA
scores (Kraft & Epstein, 2014). This might be because
although the Improving Quality of Primary Education
Program provided mother tongue supplementary
storybooks, mobile library shelves, slates, alphabet
sorts, chalk and stationary to school-based reading
centers, there were still too many students per class
and too few actual teaching and learning materials to
have an impact. These studies indicate that although
availability of suitable books is critical and necessary
to promoting reading development other factors such
as class size and student to book ratios can impede
comprehension and frustrate these eorts.
Strategies employed to sustain progress in ensuring
all children have access to books include: 1) the
development of national book policies, 2) the
establishment of a Children's Book Forum to network
book development professionals and raise awareness
of the importance of books, and 3) the formation of a
purchasing consortium to increase economies of scale,
especially for government book purchasing in the
future. However, it will take more time to determine
if supply chain and demand issues have been
addressed such that local book production sustainably
increases supply. Finally, donor groups such as
USAID, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Aairs,
UKAID and the Global Partnership for Education are
supporting the development of a Global Book Fund
Alliance. The goal of the Global Book Fund Alliance
is to transform the development, procurement and
distribution of books, leveraging nancing strategies
built on experience from the health sector to lower
costs while increasing distribution and quality.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy36
Assessment Considerations
Typical reading comprehension assessment informs
us about students’ performance levels. However,
important for instructional purposes is information
about why students performs at a particularly level.
Therefore, in addition to reading comprehension,
assessment on word reading (including reading
uency) and oral language prociency should be
conducted. Extant studies have been highly uniform
in the format of reading comprehension assessment—
asking children to read a passage and then asking
ve comprehension questions. This is limiting in
many aspects, including the fact that the children are
generally only asked to read one passage and answer
a single set of questions. This has implications for
reliability and validity (see above for similar issues
for listening comprehension assessment in Section C).
In addition, these tasks may not be sensitive enough
to accurately capture reading comprehension for
students with low reading prociency. For instance,
a sentence-level reading comprehension task (e.g.,
the student hears a sentence and identify veracity
of the statement) might be able to capture students'
emerging reading comprehension more accurately for
students with low reading prociency.
Illustrative Example: Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction
The following activity, Thinker’s Spinner, contributed by Save the Children, is designed to
promote use of reading comprehension strategies (see above).
Predict: What do you think will happen next? What do you think will happen ve years from now?
Explain: What are the dierent steps in this process? What are the causes behind this event?
Summarize: What were the main characters? Where did the story happen? What were the main events
in the story? What is the author’s main idea? What are some ideas used to support the main idea?
Evaluate: Do you think the author used good evidence or argument to support the main idea? Why or
why not? What do you like/not like about the story and why?
Use the spinner to ensure a variety in the types of questions students get to respond to about
a given text.
Create a spinner out of a paper plate
or card stock. Divide and label the
spinner into four segments: predict,
explain, summarize, and evaluate.
When rst using the spinner, explain
each thinking task and demonstrate
each task in the context of a story or
text just read.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 37
ICT Considerations
ICT applications for literacy oer numerous
possibilities for enhancing and assessing
comprehension. For example, students reading a text
on an e-reader, mobile phone, or tablet could answer
a series of on-screen comprehension questions. The
multilingual Bridges to the Future software, used in
South Africa, uses a game approach to test children's
comprehension of reading material (Wagner, D.
A., 2014). Using software such as Tangerine (Kipp,
Strigel, & Pouezevara, 2016), student responses
could be collected by teachers for quick assessment
of reading comprehension, even in a large class. In
Tangerine, teachers can build assessments aimed
at the specic skills their students are working on,
and observe changes over time. However, despite
the existence of such applications, teacher usage in
developing countries is often limited due to lack of
comfort and faculty with the technology and lack of
the facilities, infrastructure, and sta to support its
use in this manner.
Research Gaps
Much of the extant research in low-income
countries consists of randomized evaluations
of multicomponent interventions. Although this
approach is highly informative and might make sense
for cost-eectiveness purposes, more ne-grained
information is necessary. As reviewed above, there is
large variation in the multi-component intervention
eects, ranging from no eect to a large eect on
reading comprehension. However, it is unclear what
explains such large variation. Therefore, systematic
eorts are needed to elucidate factors that contribute
to dierential eects and the conditions under which
literacy interventions do or do not work. Studies
have shown that the literacy achievement levels
of multicomponent interventions vary by location
(urban, rural), school types, gender, language
backgrounds, and socio-economic backgrounds
(Falconer-Stout et al., 2015; Piper et al., 2015; Raupp
et al., 2015). Additionally, intervention eects may
vary as a function of students’ initial skill levels
and desired instructional approaches and dosage
(intensity) that meet students’ varying needs—for
students at dierent developmental levels (e.g., for
students in the initial phase of development), greater
intensity on decoding might pay o whereas for
students beyond the initial phase, increased intensity
in oral language would be more benecial. Evidence
about feasible and eective instructional approaches
to dierentiated instruction is also needed.
Section E. Writing for Meaning
Background: What is Writing for Meaning
and Why is it Important?
Writing is producing texts in print at sublexical
(e.g., writing orthographic symbols), lexical
(spelling words), and discourse levels (writing
sentences and paragraphs, also called written
composition). Written composition refers to the
ability to express one’s ideas in written texts in a
coherent and organized manner, and is one of the
most challenging learning tasks. As such, written
composition takes years to develop and goes through
various phases (Kellogg, 2008). Written composition
occurs in various genres including narrative and
informational texts. Writing is an increasingly critical
skill in daily lives including developing countries.
Also, although evidence is not available from
developing countries, evidence from the US indicates
that writing development has a positive eect on
reading development (see a review by Graham &
Hebert, 2010). Therefore, writing instruction should be
an integral part of early literacy instruction.
What Does it Take to Develop Writing?
Early writing develops in phases from scribbling
and drawing, writing strings of orthographic
symbols, writing simple words to complex words,
sentences, and passages. Figure 5 presents these
skills necessary to develop written composition,
and the structural relations among skills. Written
composition depends on students’ transcription

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy38
skills (spelling and handwriting) and expressive
oral language (Berninger et al., 2002; Juel, Grith,
& Gough, 1986; Kim et al., 2011, 2015; Kim &
Schatschneider, in press), both of which, in turn,
rely on a complex set of language and cognitive
skills (Kim & Schatschneider in press). For written
composition, students need to develop prociency in
transcription skills and text generation. Transcription
skills include spelling and handwriting (McCutchen,
2000). Spelling skills rely on development of the
emergent literacy skills, and require an explicit and
systematic instruction (see Chapter 2 Section B).
Written composition also requires generation of ideas
on a given topic. Therefore, oral language skills as
well as background knowledge are essential because
generated ideas cannot be expressed without using
words, phrases, and sentences (Berninger et al., 2002;
Kim et al., 2011, 2014, 2015; Kim & Schatschneider, in
pr e ss).
Evidence from Developing Countries
Evidence is extremely
limited. Even the few
extant studies were about
emergent writing (i.e., copying;
Falconer-Stout et al., 2015)
and spelling (RTI, 2016a; Taha
& Saiegh-Haddad, in press)
with virtually no studies on
written composition. Classroom
observations in Nigeria
revealed time spent on writing
instruction (handwriting and spelling) was extremely
limited, ranging from 1.6 minutes to 4.5 minutes
(RTI, 2016a). Despite this, with a multicomponent
intervention, Grade 2 students' letter writing and
spelling improved with a small eect (RTI, 2014a) and
moderate eects (RTI, 2016a). In Taha and Saiegh-
Haddad’s (in press) study, elementary grade Arabic
readers were provided instruction on phonological
awareness and morphological awareness, and their
spelling skills improved compared to students who
did not receive instruction in phonological awareness
and morphological awareness. The development of
morphological awareness was particularly eective
for poor readers in Grades 4 and 6. Furthermore,
there was a transfer eect of phonological and
morphological awareness such that the development
of phonological awareness facilitated the development
of morphological awareness and vice versa. Although
these studies are promising, there is a dire need for
research in written composition in developing country
environments across dierent writing systems (e.g.,
what factors inuence writing development, what are
eective instructional approaches).
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
n Explicitly teach transcription skills
(handwriting and spelling).
Handwriting instruction should include how to
hold a pencil or chalk for ecient writing, guided
practice about how to write orthographic symbols
from memory (e.g., see Berninger et al., 1997).
Systematic spelling instruction should progress
from one-syllable words to multisyllabic words
with attention to orthographic symbol knowledge,
phonological awareness, morphological awareness,
and orthographic awareness (Berninger et al.,
1998; Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002; Taha
& Saiegh-Haddad, in press; Wanzek et al., 2006).
Importantly, in systematic spelling instruction,
words for spelling instruction should be carefully
selected by considering patterns of words (e.g.,
Invented spelling is the student’s best guess or
attempt, but incorrect spelling of a target word,
utilizing his or her knowledge of phonology,
orthography, and morphology of the language.
For example, DRD for dirty is a good, but
incorrect attempt, using phonetic and letter
knowledge. The student used letter sound
knowledge for /d/ and /r/ sounds. The syllable
nal /d/ is also a reasonable attempt because –ty
sounds very close to name of the letter d.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 39
Figure 5. Component skills of writing and their relations
based on the model (in Kim & Schatschneider, in press)
words that have the same pattern or principle; e.g.,
cat, pat, bat, mat contain at).
Beginning spellers across writing systems should
be encouraged to attempt their best spelling,
called invented spelling. In contrast to the widely-
held belief in many developing countries that
students should not be allowed to make mistakes
in spelling (EDC, 2014a), evidence is robust that
invented spelling facilitates reading and spelling
development by drawing students’ attention to
sequence of sounds and their connection
to orthographic symbols (Frith, 1985;
McBride-Chang, 1998; Senechal,
Ouellette, Pagan, & Lever, 2012). In the
Democratic Republic of Congo, teachers’
corrective feedback in invented spelling
was related to students’ improved
reading performance (EDC, 2014a).
n Teach writing for meaning
(written composition), not just
copying, as soon as students can
start representing sounds using
orthographic symbols.
Many teachers in developing countries
believe that it is not appropriate for
children to write until they can write
properly (typically in Grade 4 and
beyond, EDC, 2013*, 2014a). However,
sentence and paragraph writing
should not wait until students develop
conventional spelling skills. When
students can write using invented
spelling, they should be given daily
opportunities to write in sentences for
authentic purposes. For instance,
Figure 6 is a sentence written by a four-
year old child using invented spelling.31
Although this child’s spelling is not
conventionally accurate yet, by using
invented spelling, she has learned that
writing is a means of expressing her
Figure 6. An example of emergent writing
(I love to eat candy)
31 One approach to promote writing for beginning writers is the interactive writing approach (see Roth & Guinee, 2011)
thought in print, and actively practiced sound-
symbol associations.
n Secure time for daily writing, integrated
with reading and other subject areas.
Writing should be taught on its own and also
integrated with reading instruction across all subjects
and content areas. This increases opportunities to
practice writing and also promotes authentic writing
for dierent purposes and content areas.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy40
n Model how to express ideas using various
vocabulary words and sentences (G r a ham
et al., 2012).
Teachers should model how to use interesting
and precise vocabulary words in writing for
authentic purposes. For example, the teacher can
demonstrate writing a letter, memo, or stories.
During writing, instead of nice, the teacher might
use fascinating, excellent, stupendous, gorgeous,
delightful, and pleasant, depending on the context.
Teachers can demonstrate word choice by
describing their thinking process (e.g., "I am going
to use the word, delightful, instead of nice because it
is a more interesting word). Teachers may display
frequently used, sophisticated words on the word
wall or the class may have ‘a word bank’ which
lists synonyms and antonyms of high frequency
words so that students can use them up during
various processes of writing.
Teachers should also model how to compose
sentences that express intended meaning
accurately. Teachers can start with simple
sentences and progress toward more complex ones.
Sentence expansion and sentence combining are
useful activities. For example, the two sentences,
“My brother is tall. My brother is fast.” can be
combined to My brother is tall and fast. This can
be also combined with “He won the race” and
expanded to My tall and fast brother won the race.
Instruction on combining sentences should be
integrated into writing, and should not be an
isolated drill (e.g., using worksheets). Teachers can
demonstrate and model the process of combining
and modifying sentences during various processes
of writing such as drafting and revising.
n Demonstrate how to use multiple writing
strategies during various phases of
writing process (Graham et al., 2012).
Writing involves an iterative process of various
phases including planning (what to say and how
to say the content), drafting (initial, rst draft),
revising (making changes), editing (changes in
writing conventions such as punctuation), and
publishing (sharing) (see Figure 7). Good writers
typically do not follow this sequence linearly or
spend the same amount of time in each process.
Instead, they go forward or backward depending
on needs. Dierent writing strategies are relevant
and useful in each phase of writing. For instance,
during the planning phase, students need to select
and organize ideas. During the drafting process,
students need to nd ways to express ideas using
precise vocabulary and sentences, and appropriate
text structures (see Graham, 2006, Graham et al.,
2012; Harris, Graham, Mason, & Fridlander, 2008;
Limpo & Alves, in press for further research-
validated writing strategies). During revision
process, students revise their writing, paying
attention to expressions, organizations, and others'
feedback. Then, the composition is read with a
focus on spelling and punctuation and writing
conventions (i.e., editing). Finally, nished product
is shared with peers in the class, school, and
com munit y.
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
Writing for meaning and various purposes is
not a commonly taught activity in schools in
developing countries. In addition, materials to write
on are often scarce. Even workbooks for children are
generally reused from year to year, and students jot
down answers in their own copy books if they have
them. In fact, disposable materials are generally
Figure 7. Iterative writing process
Planning
Initial draftPublishing
Editing Revising

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 41
frowned upon as not cost eective. Some options to
mitigate the cost of new workbooks for writing every
year include having students write down their own
stories or having older grade students make books
with stories for lower grade students. This sort of
practice with writing—for expression and not for
form—is critical. Story Weaver, from Pratham Books,
and the African Storybook Project, oer opportunities
for nascent writers (including students) to write their
own stories. However, the online interface that both
programs demand could be an obstacle to getting
students to write in contexts where electricity and
internet connectivity are an issue.
Assessment Considerations
Spelling is typically assessed through dictation
tasks. An important aspect of spelling assessment
is the analysis of spelling errors—whether
student’s misspelling is due to lack of phonological,
orthographic, or morphological understanding.
Careful examination of spelling errors reveals much
information about what students know, and know but
confuse (e.g., see spelling error analysis in Arabic,
Abu-Rabia & Taha, 2006), and instruction should
target areas that students know but confuse (see
Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnson, 2012). In
general, spelling words with consistent sound-symbol
correspondences on the syllable initial and nal
position develops rst, followed by medial vowels,
and then words with inconsistent sound-symbol
correspondences.
Written composition is typically assessed by asking
students to write about a given topic or prompt,
which may or may not accompany illustrations
or reading materials (writing after gathering
information from the assigned reading). Compared to
reading, evaluation of writing (written composition)
is relatively more complex, and there are multiple
approaches34 (Espin, Weissenburger, & Benson, 2004;
Kim et al., 2014). In general, ‘quality’ of writing is
evaluated using a rubric. Table 3 shows an example
of a writing quality rubric, which can be modied to
dierent scales such as 1-5 or 1-7, for instance.
Another widely used evaluation approach is writing
productivity (amount of writing) as indicated by the
number of words written.35 Although the amount of
writing is not an end goal of writing, quality writing
requires certain amount of writing and elaboration.
Not surprisingly, writing productivity has a moderate
to strong relation with writing quality, particularly
for beginning writers (Abbott & Berninger, 1993;
Kim et al., 2014, Kim, Al Otaiba, Wanzek, & Gatlin,
2015; Wagner, R. K. et al., 2011). Therefore, writing
productivity may be used as one indicator of writing
prociency for beginning writers.
Whichever evaluation approach is employed, there
are some important guidelines to keep in mind. First,
establish clear and consistent evaluation criteria.
When looking for quality of writing, various aspects
are considered such as idea development, organization
of ideas, use of vocabulary and varying sentence
structures. Then all these dierent aspects (ideas,
organization, vocabulary, and sentence use) have to
be consistently considered across the rating scale. If
quality of writing does not include judgements on
handwriting and spelling, then the raters or teachers
have to be careful not let these writing conventions
inuence their scoring of writing quality. Second,
consistently apply evaluation criteria. When teachers
evaluate students’ writing quality based on the
rubric, it is important to apply the rubric consistently
across times so that students receive consistent
scores regardless of when student’s writing was
evaluated (i.e., within-rater reliability). If multiple
34 Most widely used in school settings in the US are quality rubric similar to what is shown in Table 3. Other approaches include writing
productivity (amount of writing) and curriculum-based writing. The latter has been typically used in special education in the US.
Although reliability and validity evidence exists for curriculum-based writing (see McMaster & Espin, 2007), it requires further study
for its utility in school settings.
35 When counting number of written words, recognizable words with invented spelling are counted. Excluded are nonsensible string of
words or multiple repetition of the same words.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy42
Criteria 1 2 3 4
Idea
development
Little evidence of
ideas is present.
A sense of a main
idea is emerging.
Ideas are overall coherent
but lacks focus. Details are
found.
Main are coherent, focused,
logical, and novel. Details
are appropriate.
Organization No evidence of
organizational
structure
Emerging evidence
of organizational
structure
Logical organization but
some mishaps
Logical and eective of
organization
Vocabulary
and sentence
use
Little evidence
of eect use of
vocabulary and
sentences (few words
and sentences)
Vocabulary words
are mostly common
words and sentence
structure is simple.
Some interesting and
descriptive vocabulary
words are used, and
attempts to use varied
sentences are made.
Vocabulary words are
precise. Sentence structures
are appropriate for
expressing the main idea
cle arly.
Spelling Few words are spelled
co r rectly.
Many high frequency,
one-syllable words
tend to be spelled
co r rectly.
Many words are spelled
correctly, but many errors
are found for multisyllabic
words.
Spelling is mostly correct.
Punctuation Punctuation is not
used.
Punctuation use is
limited.
Commonly used
punctuations are correctly
used.
Various punctuations
are attempted and used
co r rectly.
people are involved in evaluation, consistency
across raters (inter-rater reliability) needs to be
established. Establishing consistency or reliability
requires rigorous training (Kim et al., 2014; Kim,
Schatschneider, Wanzek, Gatlin, & Al Otaiba, under
review). Three, collect multiple samples of writing
(Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011; Kim et al., under
review). Assessing students’ writing on a single task
or genre does not provide a full, clear picture about
the student’s writing skill. Therefore, it is important
to assess students’ writing skill using multiple
prompts or tasks.
ICT Considerations
Computers, tablets, and mobile devices may
provide opportunities for students to practice
their writing skills, as well as for teachers to
evaluate student work. Recent innovations include
the Bloom software, which enables users to create
their own books, and Story Weaver software, which
facilitates the writing of stories. However, evidence
from developing country settings on the eects of
Table 3. Sample rubric of writing quality on a scale of 1-4.
the use of this software is not currently available.
Despite widespread concerns, there is no evidence
of a negative eect of text messaging among youth
on conventional spelling (Bushnell, Kemp, & Martin,
2011; Plester, Wood, & Joshi, 2009).
Research Gaps
There is a severe lack of research on writing
development and intervention in low-resource
countries. Therefore, research is sorely needed
to address some foundational questions such as
achievement levels of writing for students in
developing countries, factors that contribute to
writing development (school, student level factors
including gender), eective instructional approaches
to develop spelling and writing skills, and teacher
capacity to teach and evaluate writing. In particular,
attention is needed to assess writing skills at the
discourse level (i.e., written composition tasks and
evaluative approaches) that is reliable and valid, but
does not require extensive training.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 43
Chapter 4.
Key Factors and Actors Responsible for
Improving Early Grade Literacy Skills in
Developing Country Contexts
Section A. Promoting Literacy in
Multilingual Environments
Background: What and Why Literacy
Acquisition in Multilingual Contexts?
In many parts of the world, literacy acquisition
occurs in multilingual contexts where children are
expected to acquire literacy in multiple unfamiliar
languages. Multilingualism impacts learning
and reading outcomes at several levels and raises
important questions about how to ensure that
children in multilingual environments are able to
learn in languages they do not speak and understand.
Any learning requires comprehensible input—
learning cannot occur when content is presented
in an incomprehensible manner (Vygotsky, 1978).
One essential component for comprehensibility is
the language of instruction (“the language used for
teaching the basic curriculum of the educational
system,” Ball, 2011, p. 13)—instruction is delivered
in a language comprehensible to students. Students
learn better, including reading and writing, in a
familiar language than in an unfamiliar language
(Alidou et al. 2006; Ouane & Glanz, 2011; PASEC, 2015;
Ramirez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991; Thomas & Collier,
2002) and students’ learning is negatively impacted
when students are not familiar with the language
of instruction (Marsh et al., 2002; PASEC, 2015;
Yahannes, 2009). These eects persist over a lifetime,
with higher earnings accruing to students who begin
their schooling in their mother tongue (Patrinos
& Velez, 2009). Yet, more than half of the world’s
L1: First language. A person’s rst spoken
language, and usually a mother tongue or a
home language. In multilingual contexts, a
person may have more than one L1.
L2: Second language. A person’s second spoken
language, which can be acquired at any point
after the rst, and can be acquired through
various mediums, e.g. school, movies, friends
and community interactions, or the market. In
multilingual contexts, a person may acquire
more than one L2.
out-of-school children do not have access to their
languages in schools. In many countries, including
Brunei, Timor Leste, Pakistan, Bhutan, and Haiti,
50 to 95% of the children in school are learning in a
language they do not speak at home (Kosonen, 2005).
When it comes to literacy acquisition in multilingual
contexts, Cummins (1979, 2001) postulated that oral
language and cognitive skills depend on each other
for development, and cognitive skills developed in
L1 facilitate learning in L2 (i.e., transfer of cognitive
skills from L1 to L2; Ball, 2011; Dutcher, 1994; Hewlett
Foundation, 2014). Empirical studies have suggested
that students develop cognitive skills in a familiar
language better than in an unfamiliar language
(Dutcher, 1994). Therefore, it is important for
students to develop cognitive skills (e.g., higher-order
reasoning skills) in a familiar language, which, then,
facilitates L2 literacy acquisition.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy44
Literacy acquisition in multilingual context involves
careful consideration at multiple levels of system. At
the child level, each language impacts the learning
of the next in signicant and predictable ways (see
below; e.g. August & Shanahan, 2006). As such,
multilingual education contexts present important
opportunities and some challenges for improving
learning outcomes. At the regional level, education
stakeholders and parents grapple with the question of
which languages are linked to identity, self-esteem,
and socioeconomic mobility, and must try to balance
limited resources to help children access the benets
of both/all languages. At the national level, policy
makers must decide which languages should serve as
the languages of schooling, which languages should
be taught as additional languages, and at what point
transitions should occur from one language to the
next.
Evidence from Developing
Countries
Evidence about literacy
acquisition in multilingual
contexts is moderate. Despite
a commonly held belief among
some parents and teachers
that L1 instruction might be
unfavorable for L2 acquisition
(Akyeampong et al., 2011;
Altinyelken, Moorcroft, & van der Draai, 2014;
Dutcher, 1994), extant evidence suggests that there
is no disadvantage of L1 instruction in L2 language
and literacy instruction, and L2 reading skills might
develop faster if students have already developed
reading skills in L1. Students learning to read in L1
had a higher achievement in reading in 14 southern
African countries (Hungi & Thuku, 2010) and other
countries (Hovens, 2002; RTI, 2008). In Gambia (RTI,
2008; Hsieh & Jeng, 2016), South Sudan (Laguarda &
Woodward, 2013), Guinea-Bissau and Niger (Hovens,
2002) students learning to read in L1 performed
better in reading than those learning to read in L2.
In contrast, in Morocco, although Arabic-speaking
children initially scored higher than Berber-speaking
children in tests of Arabic literacy achievement, the
dierence disappeared after 5 years of instruction
(Wagner, D. A., Spratt, & Ezzaki, 1989). Finally, in
a recent study (PASEC, 2015), students in 10 sub-
Saharan Francophone African countries were assessed
on their academic achievement in reading and math.
The language of instruction in the vast majority of
these countries is a colonial language (i.e., French
and English) that is unfamiliar to most children.
An exception was Burundi where instruction was
provided in language familiar to most students (i.e.,
Kirundi). Findings revealed that in all the countries
but Burundi a high percentage of students did not
reach sucient prociency level in reading and math.
In contrast, in Burundi, the majority of students—
approximately 8 out of 10 students in reading and
9 out of 10 students in math—reached sucient
prociency level. This nding is particularly notable,
given that a greater percentage of students received
instruction from teachers without pre-service
training in Burundi than those in the other countries
in the study (PASEC, 2015).
These results of greater learning in L1 are in line
with ndings that L2 reading is impacted by L1
language and literacy development—L1 skills transfer
and signicantly impact L2 reading development
(e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006; Geva & Zadeh,
2006; Koda, 2008). This transfer is manifested in
dierent ways, including: (1) signicant correlations
between phonological awareness in two languages of
varying degree of linguistic distances (see August &
Shanahan, 2006 for two alphabetic languages; Kim,
2009 for alphasyllabic and alphabetic languages;
and Wang, Yang, & Cheng, 2009 for morphosyllabic
and alphabetic languages) (see Branum-Martin,
Tao, & Garnaat, 2015); (2) L2 phonological awareness
predicting L2 reading; and (3) L1 reading skills
predicting L2 reading skills (see Koda & Reddy, 2008).
Although some degree of transfer occurs in all writing
system pairs, the degree of transfer is dependent on
the pair of languages being acquired, and therefore,
the nature of the language and writing system must
be taken into consideration when planning language
transitioning. For example, transfer between two

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 45
closely-related languages and between two alphabetic
languages is likely to occur more quickly than
between two dierent kinds of writing systems (see
Nakamura & de Hoop, 2014).
Despite the consistent suggestions that students’
achievement is higher when they receive instruction
in a familiar language, and L1 oral language skills
facilitate L2 literacy acquisition, there has been few
randomized control studies that can indicate causal
inferences. A recent study, however, employing a
randomized control trial design indicates a positive
eect of L1 instruction on literacy achievement
(Piper, Zuilkowski, & Ong’ele, 2016). In this study,
students in Grades 1 and 2 in Kenya were assigned to
two conditions. In one condition, students received
literacy instruction in two ocial L2 (English and
Kiswahili). In the other condition, students received
instruction in L1 in addition to the ocial languages.
Students who received L1 instruction had higher
achievement in EGRA literacy outcomes measured
with eect sizes ranging from .3 to .6 (Piper et al.,
2016).
In multilingual contexts, L1 instruction typically
transitions to L2, and various language transition
models exist. In subtractive models, students develop
prociency in the ocial language but lose their
L1 prociency. In many contexts, this is actualized
by having the ocial language or L2 as a medium
of instruction from the outset of formal schooling
and not teaching L1 in the formal school setting.
In transition models or early/late exit models, the
target of schooling is to acquire prociency in the
ocial language (L2), but instruction starts in L1
and gradually transitions to the L2 either after 1-3
years (early exit) or 5-6 years (late exit). In additive
bilingual education, L1 and ocial language are both
used as medium of instruction.
Despite the existence of various language transition
models, evidence is highly limited about the
comparative impact of these various models on
language and literacy acquisition in low-income
multilingual contexts. Studies from developed
countries suggest a need for providing sucient
instruction in L1 (5-6 years) to help develop
cognitive skills, which then facilitates L2 acquisition
(see Ball, 2011 for a review). According to another
estimate, a child needs to know a certain number
of words in each language to be able to become an
independent learner of that language (e.g. 3,000
word families in English and 2,200 in French) (Little,
Goullier, & Hughes, 2011). However, research-based
thresholds have not been determined for many
languages used as L1s in the developing world.
Although initial evidence about the superiority of
a transitional bilingual program over a subtractive
model in the African context is suggestive (Hovens,
2002), rigorous research using a randomized control
design is needed to elucidate conditions which best
support students’ language and literacy acquisition
in multilingual contexts, including the point at
which students have acquired sucient language
prociency and developed cognitive skills in L1 to
benet L2 acquisition.
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
n To the extent possible, ensure quality
instruction in a language most familiar
to the child—most times this will be
their Mother Tongue or L1
Learning is facilitated when instruction is
provided in a language that is familiar to
students. The premise of the benet of learning
in L1 for L2 acquisition is quality instruction in
L1. Quality literacy instruction should incorporate
explicit and systematic instruction on reading
as well as oral language (see Chapter 3). Oral
language prociency is a necessary condition
for literacy acquisition, and children continue to
develop their L1 language prociency well into
adolescence. L1 instruction does not just mean
teaching through the language, but should include
systematic teaching of L1 language itself (Ball,
2011; Tabors & Snow, 1994).
For the most eective literacy outcomes (not
only in the mother tongue or local language,

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy46
but also in all other subsequent languages), it
is best to begin teaching literacy to children in
their mother tongue, L1, or very familiar language
rst in order to build foundational literacy skills
that can then transfer to L2 literacy acquisition.
Although the exact threshold point of transfer
is not empirically identied, research suggests
introducing L2 reading instruction after a certain
level of L1 reading prociency is reached (see Ball,
2011). A corollary of this reasoning would be to
group children by skill level in their L1 reading,
rather than starting the L2 with all students at
a particular grade. In extremely heterogeneous
classrooms or in situations where dividing children
by language groups seems articial or unnatural,
literacy acquisition can begin in a language of
wider communication or a regional language that
all children are procient in. In many contexts,
this requires empirically establishing oral language
prociency and not relying on self-reports or
census data for language ability.
n Bridging into an L2 by building L2 oral
language prociency
As in L1 literacy acquisition, various aspects of
oral language skills are involved in dierent
aspects of literacy skills. Therefore, language
sounds (phonological ability), morphological
structures, vocabulary, and discourse level oral
language skills in L2 should be explicitly taught
to build foundations for L2 literacy acquisition.
As noted in Chapter 3, small grain size domains
of oral language such as phonological awareness
and morphological awareness take a relatively
short time to learn, provided access to explicit
and systematic instruction. In contrast, acquiring
sucient prociency in larger grain sizes such as
vocabulary and discourse level oral language skills
(listening comprehension and oral production)
takes years.
n Create curricula, standards, benchmarks,
assessments, and instructional methods
that reect the language systems
(phonology, orthography primarily)
As noted in chapter 3, languages vary in the
phonological units that map onto orthographic
symbols. Therefore, it is important to understand
these phonological and orthographic features in
phonological awareness instruction. When creating
curricular sequence and scope parameters in any
particular language, it should be in line with the
cognitive demands of that language and writing
system. For example, instructional focus on
symbol-sound correspondences (decoding-related
skills) is prolonged (e.g., grade 5) in South Asian
akshara compared to other alphabetic writing
systems because akshara has a great number of
highly similar orthographic symbols.
n Build teachers' own language prociency
in the language of instruction
It is not uncommon in multilingual contexts
for teachers not to be procient in the language
of instruction (often colonial languages) or not
trained on how to use L1 or L2 as a medium of
instruction (Akyeampong et al., 2011; Gacheche,
2010; Mitton, 2008; Muthwii, 2004). In Senegal,
fewer than 7% of teachers expressed condence
in teaching in the language of instruction
(Akyeampong et al., 2011). Only 28% of teachers in
Kenya reported that they were trained on using L1
as a medium of instruction (Begi, 2014; also see
Akyeampong et al., 2011). When teachers do not
have prociency in the language of instruction,
they do not implement the language of instruction
and, instead, teach in L2 or in the language in
which they are procient (Akyeampong et al.,
2011; Piper & Miksic, 2011; Piper, Schroeder, &
Trudell, 2016). Similarly, approximately two thirds
of teachers were not comfortable teaching in L2
(English) in Ghana (RTI, 2011). When teachers
teach in a language in which they lack prociency,
instructional quality is poor—complex concepts
are not explained properly (Muthwii, 2004) and

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 47
instruction is dominated by “safe talk” which does
not make great demands on students (Gacheche,
2010). In contrast, when teachers teach in their
procient language, pedagogy is richer (EdQual,
2010). Therefore, teachers should be provided with
sucient training to build their own language
prociency in the language of instruction and to
learn how to provide instruction in the language of
instruction (e.g., strategic use of code-switching—
alternating between two or more languages in
conversations; Akyeampong, 2011; DeStefano et
al., 2012; Dutcher, 1994; Falconer-Stout et al.,
2015; Kyeyune et al., 2011; Mitton, 2008; Piper &
Milksic, 2011). Although building teachers' own
language prociency requires resource allocation
and has a high initial cost, it is cost-eective when
considering prevention of repetition and dropout
(e.g., Guatemala, Patrinos & Velez, 2009).
n Reect contextual issues and local needs
Language of instruction is a complex issue,
embedded in various sociopolitical contexts.
Therefore, language policy needs to work with
local needs and build the necessary infrastructure
to support language instruction in whatever
language(s) are used (Benson, 2004). In many
multilingual contexts, there is a disconnect
between students’ L1, teachers’ L1, and the
language of instruction. It is also not uncommon
that students in the same class have dierent L1s.
In Zambia, for instance, the number of students
speaking the language of instruction at home
varied from 18.7% to 82% depending on the region
(Falconer-Stout et al., 2015). In areas of Malawi
where Chiyao is the predominant language, 61% of
students spoke Chiyao but the majority of teachers
(67%) did not (Chilora & Harris, 2001). In places
like Fiji there is no single dominant L1. In these
contexts, creative approaches to meet local needs
should be considered including team teaching,
trading classes, and using paraprofessionals from
the community (Benson, 2004). Therefore, prior to
implementing L1 language and literacy instruction
in a particular region, a good understanding about
local contexts and languages spoken in the region
is necessary (e.g., language mapping,36 Benson,
2004) to have a clear picture about local language
instructional needs and ensure that the local
language needs are met (see Pepsen, Benson,
Chatbott, & van Ginkel, 2015).
Moreover, it is important to involve all stake-
holders (Benson, 2004; Jones, 2012; Pepsen et
al., 2015) in the decision-making process around
languages of instruction. Although studies from
psychological and learning perspectives suggest a
favorable outcome of L1 instruction for L1 and L2
language and literacy acquisition, local agency,
teachers, and parents might have reservations
about instruction in local languages or L1 for
various reasons, including perceived economic
advantages (Akyeampong et al., 2011; Altinyelken,
Moorcroft, & van der Draai, 2014; Commeyras &
Inyega, 2007; Iyamu & Ogiegbaen, 2007; Khejeri,
2014; Opoku-Amankwa & Brew-Hammond, 2011;
Piper & Milksic, 2011; Trudell & Piper, 2014;
Watson, 2007). These concerns often motivate
stakeholders to pressure for an early transition
model (i.e., where children transition from learning
in L1 to learning in L2 in early primary; Jones &
Barkhuizen, 2011).
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
The choice of a language of instruction has
implications for the development and provision
of learning materials (Benson, 2004). While it is
desirable for children to receive initial reading
instruction in mother tongue or at least in a language
they understand, some mother tongues or L1s do not
have a written orthography. The process of developing
and standardizing this can take years, although much
progress has been made both by governments and
groups like Summer Institute for Linguistics (SIL)
36 Language mapping refers to gathering information about languages spoken in dierent geographic areas and prociency levels of
speakers (Pepsen et al., 2015).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy48
and the Institute for Popular Education in Mali.37 For
example, L1 implementation took a prolonged time in
Malawi due to lack of human and material resources
at both the classroom and the teacher training level
(Kamwendo, 2008). Teachers needed to be trained
to teach in the various L1s but there was a severe
lack of materials beyond Chichewa and English.
Likewise, publishing in L1 is often not lucrative for
publishers in developing country contexts unless the
government is the principal purchaser. Many people
do not have disposable income to spend on books,
and parents often prefer to spend their money on
books in written in former colonial languages such
as English, French, Portuguese and Spanish (Edwards
& Ngwaru 2011; Opoku-Amankwa, Edu-Buandoh, &
Brew-Hammond, 2014). Hence, a serious investment
of time and resources is required to develop the
materials necessary to eectively implement a L1
language policy in countries where a dominant and/
or a colonial language have been used as the national
language of instruction (Klaus 2003; Malmberg,
Mwaura, & Sylva, 2011; Opoku-Amankwa et al., 2014).
Strategies to facilitate multiple language materials
development processes for multilingual contexts
include the development of a common structure
and agreed upon content to be used in materials
development across languages, exible formatting to
accommodate many languages, capacity building of
local technical experts, and community involvement
(Pepsen et al., 2015).
Assessment Considerations
One potential benet of L1 instruction is that
it allows one to accurately evaluate whether
students’ learning diculty is due to lack of language
skills in L2 or other cognitive functioning issues
(which are assessed in L1). However, this requires
availability of language, cognitive, and literacy
assessments in L1. Although assessments such as
EGRA have been, and can be adapted to L1 considering
language and orthography characteristics (Gove &
Wetterberg, 2011), their primary focus is reading,
and consequently broader language and cognitive
assessment (e.g., working memory; inference-
making) tools are limited (see Chapter 3).
ICT Considerations
Technologies, such as mobile phones, e-readers,
and tablets, may oer at least partial solutions
to many of the challenges of multilingual contexts.
These devices can carry multilingual dictionaries,
reading material in mother tongues, audio and video,
and other electronic media that can help children
learn how to read in multiple languages. Where
available, ICTs may be particularly helpful when
teachers themselves are not rst language speakers
of the language of instruction. Software such as
that used in the Bridges to the Future Initiative in
South Africa actively facilitates learning in multiple
languages, allowing children to switch back and
forth between languages (Wagner, D. A., 2014).
Furthermore, resources such as SIL's Bloom software
may increasingly help to produce the types of reading
material needed in a range of languages, expanding
the often limited amount of content available in
mother tongues.
ICTs can provide access to texts in various languages,
generally at a lower cost than for printed books. A
recent review of mobile literacy interventions notes
text-provision programs in Chile and South Africa,
for example (Wagner, D. A., 2014), while Worldreader's
mobile and tablet materials available in 43 languages
have been used by more than 2.5 million people since
2010 (Worldreader, 2014).
Research Gaps
Eorts and initiatives in providing instruction in
a language that is familiar to students are under
way in developing countries (e.g., Ethiopia, Gambia,
Kenya, Mali, Philippines), and many of these employ
language transitional models—transitioning from
37 For more information on SIL, see http://www.sil.org and for more information on IEP, see http://iepmali.org/index.php?lang=en

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 49
local, familiar language to L2 (see Mother Tongue
Based-Multilingual Education;38 Pepsen et al., 2015
for resources and guidelines). However, information
from rigorous empirical evaluation is lacking about
eects and costs of various language transition
models. The impact of various models of language
transition is unclear for many important outcomes
such as L2 language and literacy acquisition and
repetition/dropout rates in various multilingual
contexts. The reading experts interviewed for this
report noted that the transition from L1 to L2 was an
area ripe for research in developing country contexts.
Similarly, although the language transition models are
based on the theoretical model of transfer of cognitive
skills from L1 to L2, our understanding of the transfer
of cognitive skills from L1 to L2 is primarily based on
correlational studies. Future studies are warranted
to reveal causal evidence. In addition, the hypothesis
of linguistic threshold or optimal transition point
(Cummins, 1976) requires a systematic and rigorous
scientic investigation. Although this idea is attractive
and plausible, quantifying a threshold is a complex
task and thresholds are likely to vary depending on
the target skill.
Also needed is our understanding about the impact
of language policy and implementation at the local
levels. In many multilingual contexts, national
language policy is often not observed at the local
levels (Trudell & Piper, 2014). Therefore, rigorous
large-scale longitudinal randomized control studies
are needed in order to investigate the impact of
language of instruction in real-life contexts (i.e.,
an intent-to-treat study39). Related critical issues
include teacher education and training and teacher
assignment in relation to language of instruction
(see Section B below). Moreover, given that some
parents and teachers' negative perceptions about L1
38 http://www.mlenetwork.org/
39 The intent-to-treat design in a randomized controlled study, adherence to the treatment or lack thereof is not included in the
analysis. Therefore, all participants are included in the analysis once they The intent-to-treat design in a randomized controlled
study, adherence to the treatment or lack thereof is not included in the analysis. Therefore, all participants are included in the
analysis once they were assigned into conditions regardless of their actual implementation of the treatment (Gupta, 2011).
40 Note that teacher knowledge and practice are inuenced by their beliefs, values, and philosophical orientation (Paris, Wasik, &
Turner, 1991; Fang, 1996).
instruction is one of the important reasons and forces
in determining the extent to which L1 instruction is
adopted and implemented at the local level, it would
be informative to investigate the eect of a public
information campaign about L1 instruction.
Section B. Teacher Knowledge and
Teacher Education
Background: What and Why Teacher
Knowledge and Education?
Any theory of change for improving students'
literacy skills necessarily involves teachers'
beliefs and knowledge about literacy development
and instruction as well as their ability to use that
knowledge in their teaching practice. Therefore,
teacher education, including pre-service training
(initial teacher education) and in-service training
(continuing professional development), is central
to eorts to improve students’ literacy acquisition.
Teacher knowledge and quality teaching40 are
important to student achievement (McEwan, 2014;
Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005), including improving
children’s literacy skill development (DeStefano et
al., 2012; EDC, 2014a; McCutchen et al., 2002; Moats
& Foorman, 2003; Piasta, Connor, Fishmann, &
Morrison, 2009).
"The quality of an education system cannot
exceed the quality of its teachers"
(quote from a Korean ocial cited in Barber &
Mourshed, 2007, p. 13) aptly describes the fact that
teachers are at the center of education systems.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy50
A competent teacher needs to have a complex array
of professional knowledge for successful teaching.
Figure 8 shows various aspects of teacher knowledge,
including content, pedagogical, and technological
knowledge. When applied to literacy instruction,
teachers, for example, have to understand theories
and the development of oral language, cognition,
reading, and writing (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2004;
Moats, 2009; see Chapter 3). They also have to know
how to teach oral language, reading, and writing.
Teachers should be able to use standard educational
technologies such as books, chalk and blackboard
as well as others such as computers, mobile phones,
and tablets. Furthermore, critical in this framework
are the intersections of these dierent aspects such
as pedagogical content knowledge (what teaching
approaches t the target content); and technological
pedagogy content knowledge (how to connect
knowledge of technology with literacy skills and use
it for teaching literacy skills).
Evidence from Developing
Countries
Many teachers in developing
countries are not prepared
to teach reading and writing
with particular diculty
with teaching higher-order
skills such as listenening
comprehenion, and reading
comprehension (Akyeampong
et al., 2011; Chestereld et al., 2005; Falconer-Stout
et al., 2015; Kyeyune et al., 2011). Grade 2 teachers in
the Philippines showed ‘decient’ and ‘inadequate’
practices in various aspects of teaching at baseline
(Clark-Chiarelli & Louge, 2016). Many teachers in
low-income countries do not know how to identify,
monitor progress, and provide intervening instruction
for students who need further help (Akyeampong
et al., 2011; Tilson et al., 2013a). Furthermore,
many teachers in sub-Saharan countries had little
understanding about links between L1 and L2 literacy
Figure 8. Aspects of teacher knowledge based on Mishra and Koehler (2006),
modied for teaching literacy skills.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Technological Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge
Technological
Pedagogical
Knowledge
Technological
Content
Knowledge
• Theory, development,
and assessment of
language, reading and
writing development
• Cognitive, socio-
emotional, and physical
development
• Local language, culture,
and orthography
• Teaching and learning about
language, cognition, reading
and writing
• Engaging and motivating
students
• Class management
(instructional time, large
classes, student behavior)
• Teaching in multilingual
contexts
• Standard technologies
such as books, chalk and
blackboard
• Other technologies such as
computer and digital video
Content
Knowledge
Pedagogical
Knowledge
Technological
Knowledge

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 51
acquisition and how to teach in multilingual contexts
(Akyeampong et al., 2011).
Evidence indicates that teachers’ attitudes, practices,
and instructional strategies are all important
predictors of student success (EDC, 2014a; see also
Westbrook et al. 2013 for a review). High teacher
expectations result in improved student outcomes
and vice versa (EDC, 2014a). Teachers with greater
knowledge of literacy instruction after teacher
training implemented reading instruction to a greater
extent, and their students achieved higher literacy
skills in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EDC,
2014). Eective teaching practices included exible
use of grouping patterns, frequent use of additional
learning materials, eective lesson planning,
dierent types of questions (e.g. open and closed),
and providing both a safe learning environment and
feedback (see, e.g., Connor et al., 2014; Pianta et al.,
2005 for evidence from US; see Westbrook et al., 2013
for a review from developing countries41).
Evidence is growing about the eect of teacher
training on student literacy achievements. In Latin
America and Caribbean contexts, teachers who
received in-service training on literacy instruction
through the CETT (Centers for Excellence in Teacher
Training) program had greater knowledge about
teaching literacy, and implemented the literacy
strategies they were taught, and their students had
higher achievements (Chestereld & Abreu-Combs,
2011). Training improved knowledge of literacy
instruction and attitudes and beliefs toward literacy
instruction and acquisition for educators such as
supervisors and teachers (RTI, 2016a). Furthermore,
training improved literacy instructional practices
for primary grade teachers in the Philippines (Clark-
Chiarelli & Louge, 2016*) and Yemen (Pleiss et al.,
2016*). In Nigeria, teachers who received training on
reading instruction employed reading instructional
practices more frequently (e.g., presenting letter
names and sounds, asking reading comprehension
questions) (RTI, 2016a). In the Democratic Republic
of Congo, teachers’ knowledge of teaching reading
and writing explained students’ reading performance
(EDC, 2014a). Students whose teachers received more
intensive training including coaching outperformed
those whose teachers received more a supercial level
of training (Tilson et al., 2013a). Similarly, students
whose teachers received instruction on evidence-
based literacy instruction had higher literacy skills
in Jordan (RTI, 2014a) and Liberia (DeStefano et al.,
2013*).
In sum, accumulating evidence indicates rigorous
training can change teachers’ attitudes, knowledge
and instructional practices, and improve students’
literacy achievements. Although promising, the
body of literature largely consists of descriptive and
observational studies, or multi-component, project-
based studies of which teacher training and coaching
were part. Consequently, less is known about
eectiveness of various teacher training models and
teacher education policy.
Summary of Important Design
Considerations and Challenges
Teacher education is multi-faceted, including
regulations, standards, assessment, recruitment,
initial teacher education, in-service training
programs, and retention, and evaluation (Wilson,
2008). Covering all these aspects is beyond the
scope of the present report.42 Instead, below are
key considerations to building capacity for literacy
instruction in low-income countries.
n Establish curriculum aligned with
evidence on eective literacy instruction
in teacher education and professional
training.
Teachers need an understanding of how literacy
is acquired, how to teach literacy skills in the
classroom, and how to use assessments to inform
instruction. Areas for teacher knowledge in
41 Note that many of the studies reviewed here did not include student literacy outcomes.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy52
content, pedagogy, and technology for literacy
instruction (see Figure 8) directly map onto what
is covered in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 (Section A). In
other words, teacher training, either preservice
teacher education or ongoing professional
development, should, at minimum, target the
following areas: orthography, oral language, and
cognition. Knowledge about orthography refers
to how sounds and meanings in a language are
mapped onto the writing system of a language,
and includes orthographic symbols, the alphabetic
principle, graphophonological knowledge, and
orthographic patterns. Knowledge of oral language
includes phonological structure, semantic structure
(morphology and vocabulary, grammar), and
language use (pragmatics). Cognitive factors
include working memory, attentional control, and
higher-order thinking skills such as reasoning,
inference, perspective taking, and comprehension
monitoring.
The primary place where newly certied teachers
gain their knowledge about subject content and
pedagogy is preservice teacher education programs
(Akyeampong et al., 2011, 2013; Kyeyune et al.,
2011). Therefore, curriculum in preservice teacher
education programs is critical to ensuring that
teacher candidates acquire necessary skills for
literacy instruction. As documented Chapters 2
and 3, evidence about what needs to be targeted
for eective literacy instruction in developing
countries is accumulating, and therefore, should
be incorporated into the teacher education
curriculum (Piper & Korda, 2011b). In particular, in
many low-income countries, there have been no
specic courses targeting teaching reading, and
reading has been folded into language teaching
in teacher education curriculum (Akyeampong
et al., 2011; EDC, 2013; Kyeyune et al., 2011).
This creates misalignment between the teacher
education curriculum and the elementary grades
curriculum—reading curricula in the elementary
grades in many countries have been updated
recently, whereas many teacher education curricula
have not been revised in parallel (Akyeampong et
al., 2011; Pryor, Akyeampong, Westbrook, & Lussier,
2012). The literacy curriculum should encompass
content, pedagogy, and technology (or ICT) and
their intersections shown in Figure 8. Teacher
education courses often focus on subject content,
but not pedagogy (Akyeampong et al., 2011, 2013;
Bunyi, Wangia, Magoma, Limboro, & Akyeampong,
2011), which is essential in the professional eld
of teaching (Akyeampong et al., 2013; Bunyi et
al., 2011). Then, performance benchmarks and
standards for teacher education curriculum should
be clearly dened and aligned with theory and
empirical evidence about teaching literacy (see
Chapters 2 and 3; Adekola, 2007; Pryor et al., 2012).
Student teaching (or practicum) is an important
part of curriculum in pre-service teacher education
programs, and should be tightly connected
to coursework, and should be systematically
organized and supervised. However, gaps between
courses and practicum have been consistently
reported (Akyeampong et al., 2011; 2013) such
that what is taught in teacher training programs
does not match with the real world of teaching—
dominant instructional approaches in preservice
programs are lectures and taking and copying
notes with little connection and opportunity to
teach (Akyeampong, 2003). Moreover, student
teaching is often short without sucient
opportunities to observe and participate in
teaching (Akyeampong et al., 2013; Kyeyune et al.,
2011), and are not systematically supervised and
supported by both expert teachers and college
42 One example of an important factor, but is beyond the scope of the current report is recruitment of qualied teacher candidates
considering local needs. Many prospective teachers in sub-Saharan Africa do not meet qualifying grades for entry into training
programs, which then requires them to take remedial courses (Akyeampong, 2003). When it comes to literacy instruction, recruiting
local teachers who are uent in the language of instruction and familiar with local social and cultural contexts (Young, 2009) is
important to promote students’ literacy acquisition (Ball, 2011). In order to attract and sustain strong prospective teachers to pre-
service teacher training programs, incentives should be oered such as subsidizing teacher candidates’ studies, particularly for those
who can teach in needed areas (UNESCO, n.d.).

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 53
tutors (Akyeampong et al., 2011; Hardman, Abd-
Kadir, & Tibuhinda, 2012).
n Develop expertise of teacher education
faculty in literacy acquisition and
instruction.
An important corollary is building capacity of
faculty in teacher education programs about
literacy acquisition and instruction based on
growing empirical evidence. In many contexts,
faculty at teacher education programs lack
knowledge about literacy acquisition and
instruction (EDC, 2013) as well as classroom
teaching experience. Evidence-based curriculum
is necessary but curriculum itself does not ensure
rigorous, quality training of prospective teachers
on content and pedagogy of teaching literacy
skills (Akyeampong et al., 2011; Binks-Cantrell,
Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, 2012; Ginsburg, Rose,
Adelman, 2011; Hardman, Ackers, Abrishamian,
& O'Sullivan, 2011). Capacity building of faculty
in teacher education programs is particularly
important for sustainability of quality teacher
education in literacy education.
n Provide systematic and sustained in-
service (or continuing) training.
Systematic and sustained continuing professional
development is particularly important in low-
income countries where new reading curricula
in elementary schools have been recently
implemented, and consequently the vast majority
of educators (teachers and supervisors) have
not received corresponding training in teaching
reading. Actual participation in professional
development varies largely in sub-Saharan Africa
(Akyeampong et al., 2011; Hardman et al., 2011;
Kyeyune et al. 2011), and the vast majority of
trainings are small-scale and ad-hoc one-time
programs (see Akyeampong et al., 2011).
One consistently reported challenge in
implementing literacy interventions has been
changing teachers' instructional behaviors (Clark-
Chiarelli & Louge, 2016; Falconer-Stout et al., 2015;
Piper & Korda, 2011b; RTI, 2011, 2014c, 2015b). In
a multicomponent intervention study in Ghana,
many teachers were found to adhere to only part
of the teacher's guide on literacy instruction (RTI,
2011). In Jordan, teachers had diculty adopting
new pedagogies into their instructional practice,
and expressed that their new literacy curriculum
added too much work and burden to them. Perhaps
this explains teachers' overwhelming response
that they were not likely to continue the systematic
literacy instruction even after they acknowledged
their positive attitudes towards new literacy
instruction and student outcomes (RTI, 2014a).
Teachers developed certain teaching styles
and beliefs over the years based on their own
experience of learning, learning in the teacher
education programs, and their own practice.
Therefore, changing their beliefs and instructional
behaviors would not be achieved easily after
a few training sessions (see EDC, 2014b for
some recommendations about implementing a
teacher training program). Support structure is
necessary to sustain newly learned knowledge and
instructional approaches. Sustaining new behaviors
requires a programmatic, multi-faceted approach
where continuing professional development is
institutionalized and systematic for both newly
qualied teachers, experienced teachers, and other
stakeholders (e.g., teaching assistants, supervisors,
and principals; Akyeampong et al., 2011; Bunyi et
al., 2011; Dall, Losert, Purwadi, Bandi, Triatmoko,
Maskoen, 2015; EDC, 2014a; Gabr, Gavin, Lambert,
& Mourad, 2015; Raupp et al., 2015). Teachers
benet from continued feedback and support,
including refresher training, support visits, and
coaching on a regular basis (e.g., Dall et al., 2015;
Dubeck et al., 2015; EDC, 2013, 2014a; RTI, 2014a,b,
2016a; Piper & Korda, 2011a; Pouezevara et al.,
2013).
Cluster-based mentoring programs or Teacher
Study Groups are examples of continuing
professional development strategies implemented
in sub-Saharan Africa, Philippines, and Pakistan
(Barrett et al., 2007; EDC, 2014; Hardman et al.,

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy54
2011; Kraft & Epstein, 2014; Piper & Korda, 2011b;
Piper & Zuilkowski, 2015; RTI, 2014a, 2016a) and
elsewhere. Various forms exist, but generally,
teacher educators or experienced teachers serve as
mentors and facilitators, and work with teachers
in a cluster of schools (see an example in Nigeria,
RTI, 2016a; Pakistan, Barrett et al., 2007; in Liberia,
Piper & Korda, 2011b). It is important to ensure
that coaches spend sucient time on pedagogical
support for teachers. For instance, in Kenya, lower
teacher-coach ratios (10 teachers per coach versus
15 teachers per coach) were related to positive
student outcomes (Piper & Zuilkowski, 2015).
Frequent supervisor or coach visits were associated
with higher student reading skills (RTI, 2015a).
For all these options, cost and eciency must
be worked out (Dubeck, Jukes, Brooker, Drake, &
Inyega, 2015). Teacher education and professional
development requires a signicant amount of time
and associated cost (Darling-Hammond, Chung
Wei, Andree, & Richardson, 2009). In examining
cost and eciency for initial teacher education
programs, factors such as class sizes, tutor-trainee
ratio, contact hours per week (teaching periods),
and the cost per trainee should be considered
(Akyeampong et al., 2013) in relation to student
achievement (Tilson et al., 2013a).
Consideration of Environmental
Characteristics and Resources
Teacher education should include training on how
to create instructional materials, and how to use
and integrate available resources in local contexts.
In addition, teacher resource rooms or centers can
be created within schools or clusters to store and
share materials, especially in environments where
they are scarce; even more desirable is the inclusion
of shelves and locking cabinets or trunks in school
classrooms. While it is clear that the core texts for
reading instruction, such as leveled readers, cannot be
created by teachers who are just learning how to teach
reading, support materials for a print rich classroom
can be, if teachers have the supplies and space. For
instance, in Ethiopia, where clusters were formed, the
teachers in the cluster schools had access to a resource
room at the partner college (Piper, 2010b).
As for instructional materials for teacher training,
highly structured, scripted manuals and teacher
guidebooks have proven eective for ensuring direct
instruction in reading for in-service trainings (e.g.,
Piper & Korda, 2011; Piper et al., 2015; Tilson et al.,
2013a; EDC, 2013). However, no research is available
about textbooks and instructional materials for pre-
service training programs.
Assessment Considerations
Several projects developed direct teacher knowledge
and attitudes assessments (see EDC, 2014a; EDC,
2015; Falconer-Stout et al., 2015; RTI, 2016a), and
teacher and leadership surveys and questionnaires
(Falconer-Stout et al., 2015; Pouezevara et al.,
2013; RTI, 2014a; Spratt et al., 2013; Tilson et al.,
2013a). These have been crucial in revealing many
characteristics in the current status of teacher
knowledge, pedagogical approaches in literacy
instruction, and teachers and education leaders’
attitudes and beliefs about literacy acquisition and
instruction in developing countries. However, these
have been primarily used as part of professional
development in multi-component intervention
projects, and has not been applied yet to pre-service
teacher education contexts. Thus, once pre-service
teacher education curriculum is aligned with recently
emerging scientic evidence (see above), assessments
of pre-service teachers’ developing knowledge also
should be aligned with the revised curriculum. Then,
the assessments used in these previous project can be
useful starting places to develop such assessment of
teacher knowledge.
"Good teachers are costly, but bad teachers
cost more."
Bob Talbert

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 55
Similarly, classroom observations also reveal valuable
information about instructional practices and the
extent to which eective instructional practices
are implemented. Various classroom observation
protocols have been developed and widely used
(Adelman et al., 2015; Clark-Chiarelli & Louge, 2016;
Falconer-Stout et al., 2015; Raupp et al., 2015; RTI,
2011, 2014a, b, 2015c, 2016a; Spratt et al., 2014; Tilson
et al., 2013a,b), and can be adapted and used in teacher
education contexts.
ICT Considerations
ICTs have the potential to be particularly important
in areas where the shortage of a quality teaching
workforce is a serious challenge, or in rural areas,
where teachers may have less access to face-to-
face training. Several ICT options such as use of
video (EDC, 2014a) and other forms of technology
(e.g., online forums; Kucan, Palincsar, Khasnabis, &
Chang, 2009; Greene, 2015; RTI, 2014b) are potentially
promising and further studies are required to
determine their eectiveness (Abadzi, 2012; Abadzi
& Martelli, 2014). An e-learning portal, for example,
could provide teachers, supervisors, and school
administrators access to learning materials (see work
in Egypt, RTI, 2014c; EDC, 2013). Teacher education
programs could include the distribution of lesson
plans and teacher guides on tablets, as in the PRIMR
program in Kenya (Piper, Zuilkowski, & Mugenda,
2014), the usage of mobile phones to text information
to teachers (as in the HALI project in Kenya; see
Brooker et al., 2010), or the loading of enrichment
activities and pronunciation sound clips on various
devices. Interactive audio instruction has been used
in Mali and South Sudan (EDC, 2013, 2014b) as well as
in the Democratic Republic of Congo (EDC, 2014a).
In Indonesia, where internet access via mobile
phone is fairly widespread, a collaboration of
the International Literacy Association, the Nokia
Corporation, the Pearson Foundation, and the
Collaborative for Teaching Learning implemented a
hybrid training program for literacy teachers that
combined traditional in-person trainings with a
range of online videos and student materials (Greene,
2015). Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
(TESSA) and Bridge IT projects in Latin America
incorporated smartphones, educational videos, and
MP3s, but technical challenges were encountered (e.g.,
diculty with internet connection; Agyei & Voogt,
201143). Therefore, potential roadblocks and solutions
in using ICT for teacher education policy should
be carefully considered, including the reliability
of internet access and the identication of devices
that can be used with the resources available (e.g.,
solar powered tablets). Despite these issues, teacher-
focused ICT programs have become widespread.
A recent series of UNESCO publications on mobile
learning details teacher support and training projects
in North and Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and
the Middle East (UNESCO, 2012).
Research Gaps
Gaps are many and wide in all areas noted above,
particularly as it relates to literacy instruction
and associated student outcomes. The experts
interviewed for this report also pointed out that
research on how to train teachers to teach reading
for comprehension was lacking. The following
are some of the salient overarching questions:
eective incentive programs that attract strong
teacher candidates, keep them in teaching forces
(e.g., attracting teachers who are procient in the
language of instruction and students' L1), actually
teach at school (e.g., teacher absenteeism, Piper &
Korda, 2011a; Raupp et al., 2015; RTI, 2016a), and
adopt new evidence-based instructional approaches;
cost and nancing of various approaches to pre-
service and in-service teacher education to enhance
teachers' capacity to deliver eective literacy
instruction; innovative approaches to connect
learning experiences in teacher education and
actual classroom teaching with regard to literacy
instruction; eective in-service professional
43 Although this study was in the context of mathematics education, the gist of the idea is applicable here.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy56
The following example is drawn from the EGRA
Plus: Liberia, which was a two-year project (2008-
2010) with multiple components including explicit
instruction of a multicomponent intervention,
teacher training, coaching of teachers, and sharing
student reading performance with parents. This
example is to illustrate a general approach (and
its variation) to teacher training and coaching
that is widely adopted in many multi-component
intervention studies with eects in student literacy
outcomes (see above). See Piper and Korda (2011) for
results of the project.
The project employed the “training of trainers”
model where coaches were trained by experts,
followed by coaches’ training of teachers in a
cluster-based face-to-face training. Coaches also
provided school-based support.
Coaches and teachers were trained for 5 days with a
focus on the following content.
– Foundational knowledge on how beginning
readers learn to read, including assessments
– Practice in learning to pronounce speech sounds
in a target language
– Overview of the curriculum lessons
– How to teach each lesson with an emphasis on
instructional routines
On Day 1, trainees learned about the relations of
phonological awareness and reading, and received
training on articulating sounds of the target
language (i.e., English).
On Day 2, trainees learned about assessments
(i.e., EGRA), and practiced administration. They
were provided with assessments, and watched
demonstration of assessment administration. This
was followed by actual practice of administration of
tasks with trainers’ supervision. Practice and role-
play included commonly observed administration
errors. Furthermore, trainees practiced scoring and
consistency in scoring (i.e., reliability).
On Day 3, trainees practiced teaching literacy
lessons. Modeling was provided and trainees
practiced in pairs. Instructional components were
discussed and claried with iterative process of
modeling and practicing.
On Day 4, trainees learned about progress-
monitoring assessment, reviewed EGRA assessment,
and practiced administering them. Trainees also
practiced a dierent lesson to teach to colleagues or
to students on the following day.
On Day 5, trainees taught lessons to the group,
which were videotaped. Strengths of the lesson as
well as recommendations for improvement were
discussed, followed by further practice, if necessary.
In addition to this training, coaches also provided
a refresher training for an additional 5 days,
covering topics such as foundational knowledge of
reading development, lesson plans, instructional
routines, practicing lesson delivery, administration
of assessments, and discussion of working with
parent-teacher association. Coaches visited on a
regular basis (2-3 times per month in Year 1; once
per month in Year 2), following a schedule and
scope of work according to a work plan. During
visits, coaches conducted the following.
– Observe classroom instruction using an
observation checklist, and ensure that reading
instruction is implemented daily.
– Examine classroom setup to ensure instructional
materials (e.g., word cards, decodable books) are
readily available for instructional use.
– Provide modeling of instruction. During lesson
modeling, the teacher observed the coach’s
instruction and completed the observation
checklist, followed by facilitation of teaching the
lesson.
– Assess a few students on reading skills.
– Meet with the principal to garner continued
support for reading instruction.
Illustrative Example of Teacher Training and Coaching

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 57
developmental approaches (see Lewin, 2004 and
Westbrook et al., 2013 for types of training programs);
and various approaches incorporating ICT related
to literacy instruction for teacher training and its
impact on teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and
student outcomes. In addition, rigorous evaluation of
various teacher education policies on student literacy
outcomes is necessary. When randomized control
studies are not feasible, alternative approaches such
as phased implementation should be evaluated with
rigor (Tilson et al., 2013a). Finally, a large gap exists
regarding capacity building of teacher education
faculty with regard to literacy instruction. No studies
have systematically tested dierent approaches to
teacher educator training, how teacher educators
develop their own capacity and practice in literacy
instruction, and how these factors are linked to
student literacy achievement.
Section C. Parental and Community
Engagement
While this report focuses largely on school-
based reading programs, children’s
experiences in their families and
communities clearly impact literacy development
as well. Family experiences related to literacy vary
in aspects such as the value placed on reading, the
presence of books in the home as well as literacy-
related practices such as adults reading with children,
and opportunities for verbal interaction (Hess &
Holloway, 1984). This is typically referred to as home
literacy environment and is typically measured by
surveys (see Dowd & Friedlander, 2016 for a sample
home literacy environment survey).
In developed countries, a large body of research
demonstrates that various aspects of home literacy
environment do indeed aect children’s emergent
literacy skills, including vocabulary, letter knowledge,
and concepts of print (Dynia, Lawton, Logan, &
Justice, 2014; Hayiou-Thomas, Dale, & Plomin,
2012; Kim, 2009; Niklas & Schneider, 2013; Sénéchal
& LeFevre, 2014). While a recent USAID-funded
literature review found mixed evidence for the eects
of home reading programs, the authors did nd
that the Dialogic Reading approach did have eects
on children's vocabulary and other early literacy
outcomes, though the eects may not persist over
time (Cao, Ramesh, Menendez, & Dayaratna, 2014).
While parental and community
engagement have been studied
extensively in the U.S. and
other developed countries,
less evidence is available in
developing countries. A handful
of studies do provide some
emerging evidence on the
subject. In Zambia, a study of 72
rst-graders in Lusaka linked
orthographic awareness and
decoding ability to parents' attitudes toward reading
and reading activities in the household (Chansa-
Kabali, Serpell, & Lyytinen, 2014). In a study of 50
children in Bangalore, India, Kalia and Reese (2009)
found an association between parental book reading
and early literacy skills. A Save the Children study
in Malawi found associations between parental
attitudes toward children’s literacy learning—for
example, “I feel condent I can help my child learn
to read”—and children’s literacy skill improvement
during an academic year (Dowd, Wiener, & Mabeti,
2010). Both parental literacy and the presence of
print materials in the home were related to children’s
literacy performance in Iraq (Brombacher, Collins,
Cummiskey, Kochetkova et al., 2012). In a rare
comparative study across four multiple developing
countries, Friedlander (2013) found that home literacy
environment factors accounted for between 1.2 and
14.9% of the variance in models predicting student
literacy outcomes in the Philippines, Uganda, Mali,
and Ethiopia. As a whole, these studies suggest
that home literacy environment factors support the
development of children’s literacy skills in developing
countries in the same manner as they do in wealthy
countries. However, it may be that certain aspects
of the home literacy environment, such as access to

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy58
print materials, are particularly important in contexts
where schools and libraries are undersupplied with
books, and most children have little formal exposure
to text.
Further research is needed not only to elucidate
the relationships between the broader home and
community environments with literacy development,
but also eective strategies to increase community
involvement to promote students’ literacy
achievement. Although some projects (e.g., RTI, 2015c;
also see many Literacy Boost studies by the Save the
Children) have implemented home and community
activities, which is in the right direction (see Figure
1 in Chapter 2), their eectiveness is unclear. In
particular, it is important to identify eective ways
to involve parents and community members with
low literacy levels into literacy programs. Parents
must be able to read well enough to coach their
children (Cao et al., 2014). This suggests that parent
literacy programs may be complementary to early-
grade reading interventions. Older siblings may also
be resources within the household for new readers,
as on average youth literacy rates are higher than
adult literacy rates in developing countries (UNESCO,
2015). Despite these challenges, programs around the
world have incorporated various degrees of parental
involvement into literacy programs—from the Family
Literacy Project in South Africa to the Vanuatu
Literacy Education Program (UNESCO, 2008).
A recent USAID review investigated the potential of
behavioral change communications approaches to
further the impact of early grade reading programs
(Schmidt, 2014). Such methods, which have, to date,
generally been used for health promotion, may
provide new strategies for literacy promotion at
the household and community level. For example,
a behavioral change communications intervention
could focus on changing parent-child reading
behaviors in the home. Given that school-based
approaches alone have not proved sucient to reach
the goal of widespread reading prociency among
early grade children in many developing countries,
broadening the scope of literacy interventions beyond
the school is a necessary step. Some programs, like
Save the Children's Literacy Boost, have begun to
routinely incorporate home and community reading
components into early grade interventions.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 59
Chapter 5.
Long-run Consideration of Literacy
Programs: Costs, Financing, Scaling up,
and Sustainability
Background: What and Why?
All literacy programs should be designed in
ways that are sensitive to issues of cost and
sustainability. International aid uctuates, as it did in
the aftermath of the global nancial crisis (Tilson et
al, 2013a), and the percentage of aid dedicated to basic
education varies over time as well. Some countries
obtain over 50% of their education budgets from
international aid, putting their education systems at
great risk during times of economic turmoil (UNESCO
Institute of Statistics, 2011).
Improving literacy instruction will have long-term
eects for student outcomes and system eciency,
but only if programs are implemented widely and
supported locally as well as at higher levels of the
educational system. In a recent report examining
14 case studies, Robinson, Winthrop, & McGivney
(2016) identied four key components of successful
scaling up: design, delivery, nance, and enabling
environment. While the authors note that contextual
factors inuence scaling processes, these four broad
areas are likely critical to long-term success.
Evidence from Developing
Countries
Relatively little comparable
student-level cost
eectiveness data is currently
available. In a randomized
control trial in Kenya, the
Primary Math and Reading
Initiative (PRIMR) intervention
program was both cheaper per child and more cost-
eective than the existing government program, in
terms of words per minute per dollar spent (Piper et
al., 2014). In Mozambique, the full implementation of
the Aprender a Ler early grade literacy intervention
cost an additional $2.75 per student, but resulted
in greater literacy learning than in control schools
(Raupp et al., 2015). By contrast, in the Malawi
Teacher Professional Development Program every
dollar spent per child increased children’s oral
reading uency by just one word per minute (Tilson et
al., 2013a), which is relatively expensive. This limited
body of research does not allow for a conclusion as to
the likely impact of changes in literacy instruction on
national education budgets.
Promising Practices
While rigorous evidence is limited, the
experiences of chiefs of party and literacy
technical experts working in developing countries
suggest several possible approaches to enhancing
cost-eectiveness and sustainability. The rst
and most critical step in ensuring that literacy
programs are sustainable is the careful examination
of the per-student costs of programs. Costs may
not be signicantly higher than existing costs of
literacy instruction, particularly when the potential
enhancements of system eciency are taken into
account—students who read better may be less
likely to repeat grades and more likely to complete
education cycles. However, it is possible to leverage
potential eciencies through improved technical
specications for books (along with improved capacity

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy60
to develop technical specications), reduction
of corruption in procurements and better supply
chain management, for example. The feasibility
of establishing a Global Book Fund to help to
mitigate some of these challenges has been explored
through a combined donor initiative (Results for
Development, 2016).
For best comparability, literacy program evaluators
need to present per-child costs, including teacher
training and supervision, materials, and information
and communication technology. Where possible,
program planners and donors should work with
existing government structures, such as pre- and in-
service teacher education organizations, rather than
creating costly and duplicative structures. Materials
costs are another area of concern as regards
sustainability; intervention approaches are often too
costly for national scalability as initially designed
(Davidson & Hobbs, 2013).
Second, it is important for donors to develop long-
term partnerships to allow for scaling up and
sustainability. When successful aid-supported
programs transfer to government control, the
programs’ eects often weaken (Bold, Kimenyi,
Mwabu, Ng’ang’a, & Sandefur, 2013), and system-
wide success stories are rare (Levin, 2010). One of our
interviewees put it as such:
I think the main issue we deal with is that
projects are organized to have deliverables
and those deliverables don’t match what
governments do. So, if you just do the thing
you have to do and convince your donor
that you’re doing a good job, and you skip
the step of working within the government
structures, you can get a deliverable done,
but you haven’t done it through the people
who have to sustain it.
Interviewees also commented that donor agencies
should commit to longer funding periods that allow
teachers, parents, and other stakeholders to adapt
to new approaches and see positive eects. Longer
cycles allow for more stable planning, as well as for
greater creativity in recipient countries (Birdsall,
Levine, & Ibrahim, 2005). It is critical to build
capacity (Smith, 2005), including among inuential
local champions who will support the program in
the future. As capacity increases, the potential for
signicant local ownership increases as well.
Third, donors and program evaluators must provide
countries with the necessary evidence to justify the
continuation and expansion of literacy programs.
While there is currently a paucity of publicly-
available cost-eectiveness data, particularly from
medium- and large-scale experimental studies,
international donors should jointly commit to the
sharing of such information. Guidance is available
from a number of sources on the analysis of cost-
eectiveness data (Dhaliwal, Duo, Glennerster, &
Tulloch, 2012). Program eects on their own are
insucient for the purposes of judging whether
a program is worthy of highly limited resources,
particularly in an environment where international
education aid is decreasing.
Research Gaps
Unfortunately, there is currently not enough
data from rigorous studies to compare cost-
eectiveness across types of education interventions
(McEwan, 2014) and early grade literacy programs.
Evaluations have, to date, focused more on outcomes
than per-student costs and sustainability factors.
The gures presented above for programs in
Kenya, Mozambique, and Malawi suggest that costs
may vary, but are not directly comparable due to
dierences in what is included in per-child program
costs. On a broader scale, greater research is also
needed regarding the political and economic factors
that are supportive of long-term educational policy
change sustainability.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 61
Chapter 6.
Conclusion
Substantial eorts and strides have been made in
the last decade to promote early literacy skills
for students in developing countries. Reviewing
many documents for the present report convinced us
that we have a better understanding about what it
takes to impact 100 million children’s lives through
enhanced literacy skills. At the same time, several
themes emerged, oering lessons and directions for
the next generation as we implement the Sustainable
Development Goals, particularly, of ensuring inclusive
and quality education for all and promote lifelong
learning.
First, improving students’ literacy skills requires
systemic eorts, involving stakeholders at multiple
levels (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1). As illustrated in the
chapters, these involve factors related to student,
teachers, family members, those in the community,
and in larger contexts. Therefore, simultaneous,
concerted, and organized eorts are needed to
address multiple, complex, and large system issues
such as building individual and institutional capacity
and garnering commitment and support from
government at the national and local levels (political
support and commitments, social and cultural
capital).
An important corollary to systems change is the
incorporation of a long-term, cumulative-eects-
perspective. Changing systems, and habits of learning
(students) and teaching (teachers) themselves take
time and practice. Learning is cumulative such that
eective instruction in one grade alone does not
ensure literacy acquisition. Instead, students need to
be exposed to quality instruction in oral language,
reading, and writing throughout their schooling
experience. This is particularly important for
higher-order skills such as listening comprehension,
reading comprehension, and written composition as
development of these skills depend on development of
lower-level language and cognitive component skills.
Similarly, teacher learning is cumulative, and requires
sustained opportunities to learn and practice new
pedagogical skills and approaches. The vast majority
of studies in developing contexts were project-based,
tied to short-term funding, and did not allow for
longer-term planning and skill development. This
might be attributed to an unspoken assumption that
change can and will happen in a short time. The
incremental nature of reorienting a whole system full
of diverse actors toward new practices and behaviors
is often unacknowledged. Longer project cycles would
allow for time to trace systemic change as well as
pupil achievement over a more realistic period of
time.
Second, while much has been learned, there are
still large and deep research gaps. Projects with
multicomponent interventions constitute the venue
for much of the recent international research on
early grade literacy, and projects tend to take a
comprehensive approach (e.g., multiple skills are
targeted, teachers are trained and coached, and
materials are developed simultaneously), as opposed
to an experimental study where one or a limited
number of targets are carefully manipulated. The
multicomponent intervention is reasonable and
necessary in the contexts where literacy instruction
is nearly nonexistent. On the other hand, however,
the downside of this approach is that it is dicult
to manipulate and tease specic information on the
“active ingredient(s)” in a large scale such as eective

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy62
combination of components and amount (dosage). For
instance, although emerging evidence suggests that
scripted lesson plans facilitate literacy instruction,
fully addressing the eect of scripted lessons requires
manipulating this aspect alone carefully (highly
scripted lessons versus lessons with little explicit
directions and dictions) while holding other things
constant (e.g., intervention content).
The ndings in the present report, in combination
with previous ndings in developed countries,
provides good initial ideas about how to provide
literacy instruction in developing countries. However,
some fundamental questions still largely remain
open such as eective ways to enhance higher-
order skills such as oral language skills, reading
comprehension, and writing (written composition);
and how much instructional time is necessary or
sucient for dierent literacy component skills in in
dierent contexts. While these questions will provide
foundational information about what works, this is
far from sucient to ensure inclusive and quality
education for all and promote lifelong learning. We
need to develop a more ne-grained understanding
about what works for whom in what context. Many of
the reviewed studies revealed that eects varied
as a function of multiple factors such as student
characteristics (gender, socio-economic backgrounds,
disability status), home literacy environment, school
characteristics (types and management structure),
region (rural or urban), and language context (L1
vs. L2). Understanding these nuances is necessary
to move beyond access to and provision of quality
education, and obtain the goal of ensuring inclusive
and equitable quality education (UN Sustainable
Development Goals).
Consistent with its systemic nature, system-level
research gaps need to be addressed (e.g., teacher
education, and language policy; see relevant chapters).
For instance, one such question is how to incorporate
research ndings on eective literacy instruction
into the system including teacher education and
the ministries of education. Others that are not
directly addressed in this report, but are important to
students’ learning, include early childhood education,
childhood health factors, and the direct and indirect
costs of education.
The third major theme that emerged in the review
was a great need for establishing standards for quality
reporting of projects and studies to inform future
projects and studies. As noted earlier, we acknowledge
that project reports serve various audiences and
purposes. However, lack of consistency and necessary
information makes it dicult to compare results
across contexts, replicate, and analyze them to
identify factors that contribute to success or failure.
Large variation existed in the documents reviewed
in the extent to which important information was
reported including quality of measures (e.g., reliability
and validity; equivalence of assessments at dierent
time points), process of assignment to condition,
implementation quality, sample attrition, analytic
approaches (e.g., accounting for unit of assignment,
baseline performance), basic statistical information
at baseline and endline (e.g., means, standard
deviations, bivariate correlations), and eect sizes.
All of this information is necessary to adequately
evaluate quality of conclusions and the studies. One
example of a reporting guideline can be found at the
What Works Clearing House in the US context.44
Also glaringly absent in many documents were a
clear description of instructional approaches in the
treatment and comparison conditions. When it comes
to treatment condition, although many documents
noted that multi-components were targeted (i.e.,
phonological awareness, orthographic symbol
knowledge, word reading, reading uency, reading
comprehension, and oral language), the nature of
lessons or scope and sequence were not illustrated,
nor were they clearly referenced. Detailed description
of comparison condition is also important because
this is the counterfactual condition against which
the treatment condition is pivoted. Note that this
44 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 63
reference condition is not same across contexts, nor
are they the same at dierent times even in the same
context (e.g., instructional approaches in comparison
condition may change). Therefore, clear descriptions
about instructional approaches in the treatment and
comparison conditions provide crucial contextual
information about what works or does not work in
what contexts and to what extent.
Eorts thus far changed and improved many
millions of students’ lives around the globe. Many
actors were involved in this grand eort, and have
played crucial roles to make this positive change
at a global scale. The positive results we have seen
in this report behooves us to further challenge
ourselves to move the eld forward by reviewing and
reecting on lessons learned and make even greater
positive changes in students’ literacy acquisition and
consequent life opportunities for all children.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy64
References
Abadzi, H., & Martelli, M. (2014). Ecient reading for Arab
students: Implications from neurocognitive research.
Paper presented at the World Summit of Innovation
in Education. Doha, Qatar.
Abadzi, H. (2012). How can teacher training in low-income
countries become more eective? Innovations through
observational learning research. Washington, DC:
Global Partnership for Education.
Abadzi, H., & Martelli, M. (2014). Ecient reading for Arab
students: Implications from neurocognitive research.
Paper presented at the World Summit of Innovation in
Education (WISE). Doha, Qatar.
Abadzi, H., Crouch, L., Echegaray, M., Pasco, C., &
Sampe, J. (2005). Monitoring basic skills acquisition
through rapid learning assessments: A case study
from Peru. Prospects, 35(2), 137-156.
Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural
equation modeling of relationships among
developmental skills and writing skills in
primary- and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 478-508.
Abrami P. C., Savage R. S., Wade C. A., Hipps G., & Lopez
M. (2008). Using technology to assist children
learning to read and write, in T., Willoughby, & E.
Wood (Eds.), Children’s Learning in a Digital World (pp.
129–172). Oxford: Blackwell.
Abu-Rabia, S. (2000). Eects of exposure to
literary Arabic on reading comprehension in
a diglossic situation. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(1-2), 147–157. http://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1008133701024
Abu-Rabia, S. (2007). The role of morphology and short
vowelization in reading Arabic among normal and
dyslexic readers in Grades 3, 6, 9, and 12. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 89-106.
Abu-Rabia, S., & Taha, H. (2006). Phonological errors
predominate in Arabic spelling across grades 1-9.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 167-188.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Learning and
thinking about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Adekola, O. A. (2007). Language, literacy, and learning in
primary schools: Implications for teacher development
programs in Nigeria. Washington, DC: The World
Bank.
Adelman, M., Baron, J.D., Blimpo, M., Evans, D.K.,
Simbou, A., & Yarrow, N. (2015). Why do students
learn so little? Seeking answers inside Haiti’s classrooms.
World Bank Working Paper 96500. Washington, DC:
World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/22064/
Why0Do0student0e0Haiti0s0classrooms.
pdf?sequence=1
Adolf, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should
the simple view of reading include a uency
component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 19, 933–958.
Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. (2011). ICT use in the teaching
of mathematics: Implications for professional
development of pre-service teachers in Ghana.
Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 423-
439.
Ahmed, M. (2011). Dening and measuring literacy:
Facing the reality. International Review of Education,
57, 179-195.
Ah-Vee, A. (2001) The role of a ‘movement’ in the process of
standardization of the orthography of Kreol and in the
process of the development of the language: A case study
of Mauritius 1975-1999. Textes-Etudes et Documents
No. 9. Réunion: Ibis Rouge Editions.
Akyeampong, K. (2003). Teacher training in Ghana: Does
it count? Multi-site Teacher education research project
(MUSTER). Country report one. University of Sussex
Institute of Education, Centre for International
Education.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 65
Akyeampong, K., Lussier, K., Pryor, J., & Westbrook,
J. (2013). Improving teaching and learning of
basic maths and reading in Africa: Does teacher
preparation count? International Journal of
Educational Development, 33, 272-282.
Akyeampong, K., Pryor, J., Westbrook, J., & Lussier, K.
(2011). Teacher preparation and continuing professional
development in Africa: Learning to teach early reading
and mathematics. Center for International Education,
University of Sussex.
Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-utne, B., Diallo, Y. S., Heugh,
K., & Wolf, H. E. (Eds.). (2006). Optimizing learning
and education in Africa—the language factor: A
stock-taking research on mother tongue and bilingual
education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris, France:
Association for the Development of Education in
Africa.
Allington, R. (2002). What I've learned about eective
reading instruction from a decade of studying
exemplary elementary classroom teachers. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 83, 740-747.
Altinyelken, H. K., Moorcroft, S., & van der Draai,
H. (2014). The dilemmas and complexities of
implementing language-in-education policies:
Perspective from urban and rural contexts
in Uganda. International Journal of Educational
Development, 36, 90-99.
Anastasi, A., & Drake, J. D. (1954). An empirical
comparison of certain techniques for estimating
the reliability of speeded tests. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, XIV, 529-540.
Apel, K., & Diehm, E. (in press). Morphological awareness
intervention with kindergartners and rst and
second grade students from low SES homes: A
small ecacy study. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
ASER Centre. (2011, January 14). Annual Status of
Education Report 2010. Retrieved from http://
images2.asercentre.org/aserreports/ASER_2010_
Report.pdf
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy
in second-language learners: Report of the national
literacy panel on language minority children and youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Azami, S., & Pava, C. (2014). Literacy Boost Afghanistan
Year 1. Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/literacy-
boostafghanistan-year-1-october-2014
Badiable, A., Guajardo, J., Fermin, R., & Robis, E. J. C.
(2013). Literacy Boost Metro Manila endline report.
Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/literacy-
boost-metro-manila-endlinereport-2013
Baker, L., & Stein, N. (1981). The development of prose
comprehension skills. In C. Santa & B. Hayes (Eds.),
Children’s prose comprehension: Research and practice
(pp. 7–43). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Ball, J. (2011). Enhancing learning of children from diverse
language backgrounds: Mother tongue-based bilingual
or multilingual education in early childhood and
early primary school years. Victoria, Canada: Early
Childhood Development Intercultural Partnerships,
University of Victoria.
Banerji, R. (2016). Annual Status of Education Report
(ASER) assessment in India: Fast, Rigorous
and frugal. In UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
Understanding what works in oral reading assessments
(pp. 187-200). Montreal, Canada: UNESCO.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-
performing school systems come out on top.
Barrett, A. M., Ali, S., Clegg, J., Hinostroza, J. E., Lowe,
J., Nikel, J… Yu, G. (2007). Initiatives to improve
the quality of teaching and learning: A review of
recent literature. Background Paper for the Global
Monitoring Report 2008. Paris, UNESCO.
Bear, D. W., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston,
F. (2012). Words their Way: Word study for phonics,
vocabulary, and spelling (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/
Allyn & Bacon.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing
words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Begi, N. (2014). Use of mother tongue as a language of
instruction in early years of school to preserve the
Kenyan culture. Journal of Education and Practice.
5(3), 37-49.
Bekman, S., Aksu-Koc, A., & Erguvanli-Taylan, E. (2011).
Eectiveness of an intervention program for six-
year-olds: A summer-school model. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 19, 409-431.
Benson, C. (2004). Do we expect too much of bilingual
teachers? Bilingual teaching in developing
countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 204-2 2 1 .

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy66
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham,
S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading:
Connections between language by hand and
language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35,
39–56.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Graham, S., Abbott,
R. D., Abbott, S. P., ... Reed, E. (1997). Treatment
of handwriting problems in beginning writers:
Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 587-605.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Graham, S., Abbott, R. D.,
Brooks, A., … Reed, E. (1998). Early intervention for
spelling problems: Teaching functional spelling
units of varying size with a multiple-connections
framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
587-605.
Berznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization
of processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, IN., Publishers.
Beuermann, D. W., Cristia, J., Cueto, S., Malamud, O.,
& Cruz-Aguayo, Y. (2015). One Laptop per Child
at home: Short-term impacts from a randomized
experiment in Peru. American Economic Journal:
Applied Economics, 7(2), 53-80.
Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, M., & Hougen,
M. (2012). Peter eect in the preparation of reading
teachers. Scientic Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536.
Birdsall, N., Levine, R., & Ibrahim, A. (2005). Towards
Universal Primary Education: investments,
incentives, and institutions. European Journal of
Education, 40(3), 337–349.
Bold, T., Kimenyi, M., Mwabu, G., Ng'ang'a, A., &
Sandefur, J. (2013). Scaling up what works:
Experimental evidence on external validity in
Kenyan education. Center for Global Development
Working Paper (321).
Borkum, E., He, F., & Linden, L. L. (2013). The eects
of school libraries on lnaugae skills: Evidence from
a randomized controlled trail in India. Michael
and Susan Dell Fondation for Room to Read:
Washington, DC.
Boyle, H., Al Ajjawi, S., & Xiang, Y. (2014). Topical
Analysis of Early Grade Reading Instruction. EdData II
Technical and Managerial Assistance, Task 15: Data
for Education Programming in Asia and the Middle
East. Washington, DC: Research Triangle Institute
for USAID.
Branum-Martin, L., Tao, S., & Garnatt, S. (2015).
Bilingual phonological awareness: Reexamining the
evidence for elations within and across languages.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 111-125.
Brombacher, A., Collins, P., Cummiskey, C., Kochetkova,
E., & Mulcahy-Dunn, A. (2012). Student performance
in reading and mathematics, pedagogic practice, and
school management in Jordan. Prepared for USAID
by RTI International under the Education Data for
Decision Making (EdData II) Project, Task Order No.
AID-278-BC-00019. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, USA: RTI.
Brooker, S., Okello, g., Njagi, k., Dubeck, M. M., Halliday,
K. E., Inyega, H., & Jukes, M. C. H. (2010). Improving
educational achievement and anaemia of school
children: design of a cluster randomized trial of
school-based malaria prevention and enhanced
literacy instruction in Keyna. Trials, 11 (93), 1-1 4.
Brown, C. (2013). Literacy Boost Indonesia: Endline report
2013. Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/literacy-
boost-indonesia-endlinereport-2013
Bunyi, G. W., Cherotich, I., & Piper, B. (2012). Primary
Math and Reading (PRIMR) Program: Kenya Education
Policy Study Report. EdData II Task Order No.: AID-
623-M-11-00001, Research Triangle Institute.
Bunyi, G. W., Wangia, J., Magoma, C. M., Limboro, C. M.,
& Akyeampong, K. (2011). Learning to teach reading
and mathematics and inuences on practice: A study
of teacher education in Kenya. University of Sussex,
Centre for International Education.
Bushnell, C., Kemp, N., & Martin, F. H. (2011). Text-
messaging practices and links to general spelling
skill: A study of Australian children. Australian
Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology,
11, 27-38.
Cao, Y., Ramesh, A., Menendez, A., & Dayaratna, V. (2014).
Out-of-school parental and community involvement
interventions. Washing ton, D.C.: USAID.
Cardoso, M., & Dowd, A. J. (2016). Using literacy boost
to inform a global, household-based measure of
children’s reading skills. In UNESCO Institute of
Statistics, Understanding what works in oral reading
assessments (pp. 106-117). Montreal, Canada:
UNESCO.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 67
Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and
early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed),
Morphological aspects of language processing
(pp. 189–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chansa-Kabali, T., Serpell, R., & Lyytinen, H. (2014).
Contextual analysis of home environment factors
inuencing the acquisition of early reading skills
in Zambian families. Journal of Psychology in Africa,
24(5), 410-419. doi:10.1080/14330237.2014.997008
Chestereld, R., & Abreu-Combs, A. (2011). Center for
excellence in teacher training (CETT) two year impact
study report. USAID Bureau for Latin America and
Caribbean.
Chestereld, R., Culver, K., Hunt, B. C., & Linan-
Thompson, S. (2005). A reective study of teacher
professional development in the Latin American and
Caribbean regional centers of excellence for teacher
training. Final Report.
Chigona, A., & Chigona, W. (2010). An investigation of
factors aecting the use of ICT for teaching in the
Western Cape schools. In T. Alexander, M. Turpin,
& J. P. van Deventer (Eds.), ECIS 2010 Proceedings.
Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria.
Chigona, A., Chigona, W., & Davids, Z. (2014). Educators'
motivation on integration of ICTs into pedagogy: A
case of disadvantaged areas. South African Journal of
Education, 34(3), 1-8.
Chilora, H., & Harris, A. (2001). Investigating the role
of teacher’s home language in mother tongue policy
implementation: Evidence from IEQ research ndings in
Malawi.
Cho, J.-R., McBride-Chang, C., & Park, S.-G. (2008).
Phonological awareness and morphological
awareness: Dierential associations to regular and
irregular word recognition in early Korean Hangul
readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 21, 255–2 74.
Clark-Chiarelli, N., & Louge, N. (2016). Teacher quality as
a mediator of student achievement. In UNESCO Institute
of Statistics, Understanding what works in oral reading
assessments (pp. 30-40). Montreal, Canada: UNESCO.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Commeyras, M., & Inyega, H. N. (2007). An integrative
review of teaching reading in Kenyan primary
schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 258-281.
Collins, P., & Messaoud-Galusi, S. (2012). Student
performance on the Early Grade Reading Assessment
(EGRA) in Yemen. Prepared for USAID by RTI
International under the Education Data for Decision
Making (EdData II) Project, Task Order No.
EHC-E-07-04- 00004-00. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, USA: RTI.
Connor, C., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Crowe, E.,
Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2013). A
longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study
on the accumulating eects of individualized
literacy instruction on students’ reading from rst
through third grade. Psychological Science, 24, 1408-
1419.
Connor, C. M., Spencer, M., Day, S. L., Giuliani, S.,
Ingebrand, S. W., McLean, L., & Morrison, F. J.
(2014). Capturing the complexity: Content, type,
and amount of instruction and quality of the
classroom learning environment synergistically
predict third graders' vocabulary and reading
comprehension outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 106, 762-778.
Cristia, J. P., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., &
Severín, E. (2012). Technology and child development:
Evidence from the One Laptop per Child program.
Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development
Bank.
Crouch, L., & Gove, A. (2001). Leaps or one step at a time:
Skirting or helping engage the debate? The case
of reading. In J. Hawkins and J. Jacob (Eds.), Policy
Debates in Comparative, International and Development
Education (pp. 155-174). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Crouch, L., Korda, M., & Mumo, D. (2009). Improvements
in reading skills in Kenya: An experiment in the
Malindi district. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
Cueto, S., & Leon, J. (2012). Psychometric characteristics of
cognitive development and achievement instruments in
round 3 of Young Lives. Young Lives Technical Note
25. Oxford, UK:Young Lives, Oxford Department
of International Development (ODID), University
of Oxford. http://www.grade.org.pe/upload/
publicaciones/Archivo/download/pubs/NDMtn25.pdf

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy68
Cummins, James. (1976). The inuence of bilingualism
on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research
ndings and explanatory hypotheses. Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1-43.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language
prociency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters.
Working Papers on Bilingualism Toronto, 19, 197-202.
Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why
is it important for education? Sprogforum, 7(19), 15-20.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2004).
Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their
knowledge calibration in the doman of early
lit eracy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139-167.
Dall, F., Losert, L., Purwadi, A., Bandi, Triatmoko, S.,
Maskoen, Y. Y. (2015). Indonesia: Prioritas mid-term
evaluation.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., &
Richardson, N. (2009). Professional learning in
the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Oxford,
OH: National Sta Development Council.
Davidson, M., & Hobbs, J. (2013). Delivering reading
intervention to the poorest children: The case of
Liberia and EGRA-Plus, a primary grade reading
assessment and intervention. International Journal of
Educational Development, 33(3), 283–293.
Del Valle Catalan, M. J. (2016). Assessing reading in the
early grades in Guatemala. In UNESCO Institute of
Statistics, Understanding what works in oral reading
assessments (pp. 255-266). Montreal, Canada:
UNESCO.
DeStefano, J., & Miksic, E. (2007). School Eectiveness in
Maissade, Haiti. Washington, DC: Equip2, AED and
USAID.
DeStefano, J., Ralaingita, W., Costello, M., Sax, A., &
Frank, A. (2012). Task order 7: Early grade reading and
mathematics in Rwanda. Research Triangle Park, NC:
RTI International.
DeStefano, J., Slade, T., & Korda, M. (2013). Liberia Teacher
Training Program (LTTP): Midterm assessment of the
impact of early grade reading and math interventions.
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
DFID. (2013). Pedagogy, curriculum, teaching practices and
teacher education in developing countries. University of
Sussex, Centre for International Education.
Dhaliwal, I., Duo, E., Glennerster, R., & Tulloch, C.
(2012). Comparative Cost-Eectiveness Analysis to
Inform Policy in Developing Countries: A General
Framework with Applications for Education.
Dickinson, D. K., & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relation between
language experiences in preschool classrooms and
children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language
and reading abilities. Child Development, 82, 870-
886.
Dixon, P., Schagen, I., & Seedhouse, P. (2011). The impact
of an intervention on children's reading and
spelling ability in low-income schools in India.
School Eectiveness and School Improvement, 22(4),
461-482,
Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008).
The roles of respect for parental authority and
parenting practices in parent-child conict among
African American, Latino, and European American
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 1-10.
Dowd, A. J., & Friedlander, E. W. (2016). Home literacy
environment data facilitate all children reading.
In UNESCO Institute of Statistics, Understanding
what works in oral reading assessments (pp. 22-29).
Montreal, Canada: UNESCO.
Dowd, A. J., & Mabeti, F. (2011). Malawi Literacy Boost 2010
Year 2 Report, Washington, DC: Save the Children.
Dowd, A. J., Wiener, K., & Mabeti, F. (2010). Malawi
Literacy Boost 2009 Year 1 Report. Washington DC:
Save the Children.
Draper, K., & Spaull, N. (2013). Examining oral reading
uency among rural grade 5 English second
language (ESL) learners in South Africa: An
analysis of NEEDU 2013. South African Journal of
Childhood Education, 5, 44-77.
Du Plessis, J., Tietjen, K., & El-Ashry, F., Creative
Associates (2016). The Yemen early grade reading
approach: Striving for national reform. In UNESCO
Institute of Statistics, Understanding what works in
oral reading assessments (pp. 239-254). Montreal,
Canada: UNESCO.
Dubeck, M. M., & Gove, A. (2015). The early grade reading
assessment (EGRA): Its theoretical foundation,
purpose, and limitations. International Journal of
Educational Development, 40, 315-322.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 69
Dubeck, M. M., Gove, A., & Alexander, K. (2016).
School-based assessments: What and how to
assess reading. In UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
Understanding what works in oral reading assessments
(pp. 41-57). Montreal, Canada: UNESCO.
Dubeck, M. M., Jukes, M. C. H., Brooker, S. J., Drake, T.
L., & Inyega, H. N. (2015). Designing a program
of teacher professional development to support
beginning reading acquisition in coastal Kenya.
International Journal of Educational Development, 41,
88-96.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Eective Practices
for Developing Reading Comprehension,” in A.
E. Farstup & S. J. Samuels (eds.), What Research
has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 205-242)
International Reading Association, Newark,
Delaware.
Dunlop, M. (2015). Literacy Boost Metro Manila endline
report, March 2015. Washington, DC: Save the
Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.
se/library/literacy-boost-metromanila-endline-
report-march-2015
Dutcher, N. (1994). The use of rst and second
languages in education. A review of international
experience. Pacic Island Discussion Paper Series No. 1.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Dynia, J. M., Lawton, K., Logan, J. A. R., & Justice, L. M.
(2014). Comparing emergent-literacy skills and
home-literacy environment of children with autism
and their peers. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 34(3), 142-153.
Education Development Center, Inc. (2013). “Road to
reading” USAID/PHARE. Final report. Washington, DC:
USAID.
Education Development Center, Inc. (2014a). 2014 nal
evaluation report: Teachers’ literacy knowledge,
instructional practices, and their students’ reading
performance in PQUED-supported schools in the
Democratic Republic of The Democratic Republic of
Congo. Washington, DC: USAID.
Education Development Center, Inc. (2014b). SSTEP nal
report. Washington, DC: EDC.
Education Development Center, Inc. (2016). Early-grade
literacy in Rwanda: Taking stock in 2016. Washington,
DC: EDC.
EdQual. (2010) Language of Instruction and Quality of
Learning in Tanzania and Ghana.
Edwards, V., & Ngwaru, J. M. (2011). African language
publishing for children in South Africa: challenges
for translators. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 14, 589-602.
Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell:
Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20,
19–36.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading:
Phases and ndings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme
(E d s.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook (pp.
135–154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Elley, W. B. (2000). The potential of Book Floods for
raising literacy levels. International Review of
Education, 46, 233-255.
Elley, W., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading
on second language learning. Reading Research
Quarterly, 19, 53-67.
Espin, C. A., Weissenburger, J. W., & Benson, B. J. (2004).
Assessing the writing performance of students in
special education. Exceptionality, 12, 55–66.
Evans, N. (2009). Study of Malian primary teachers’ beliefs,
attitudes and practices with respect to learning to read
and write. Bamako, Mali: Education Development
Center, Inc. for the USAID/PHARE Program.
Falconer-Stout, Z., Messner, L., & Wedekind, V. (2015).
Time to Learn midline impact evaluation. Washing ton,
DC: USA ID.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs
and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47-65.
Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share , D. L. (1993).
Eects of listening to story reading on aspects
of literacy acquisition in a diglossic situation.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28(1), 70-79.
FHI360 (2014). Malawi Timawerenga! We Can Read! Endline
Report: Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) and
Household Literacy Survey. Fixed Obligation Grant
(FOG) Award No. AID-OAA-F-12-00039. FHI360 for
USAID: Blantyre, Malawi.
Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual
environment, attention allocation, and learning in
young children: When too much of a good thing
may be bad. Psychological Science, 25, 1362-1370.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy70
Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading:
Is it valid for dierent types of alphabetic
orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23,
553-576.
Florit, E., Roch, M., & Levorato, M. C. (2014). Listening
text comprehension in preschoolers: A longitudinal
study on the role of semantic components. Reading
and Writing, 27, 793 -817.
Foorman, B. R., Koon, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A., &
Truckenmiller, A. (in press). Examining general
and specic factors in the dimensionality of oral
language and reading in 4th and 10th grades.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 884-899.
Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco,
A., & Foorman, B. F. (2008). Form eects on the
estimation of students' oral reading uency using
DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315−342.
Friedlander, E. (2013). Environmental factors associated
with early reading achievement in the developing
word: A cross-national study. International Journal of
Educational Research, 57, 25-38.
Friedlander, E., Gasana, J., & Goldenberg, C. (2014).
Literacy Boost Rwanda: Reading assessment report.
Washington, DC: Save the Children.
Friedlander, E., Hordofa, T., Diyana, F., Hassen, S.,
Mohammed, O., & Dowd, A.J. (2012). Literacy Boost.
Dendi, Ethiopia. Endline II—nal report. Washington,
DC: Save the Children. http://resourcecentre.
savethechildren.se/library/ literacyboost-dendi-
ethiopia-endline-ii-nal-repor t
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental
dyslexia. In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Marshall & M.
Coltheart (Eds.), Surface Dyslexia, Neuropsychological
and Cognitive Studies of Phonological Reading. (pp 301-
330). London: Erlbaum.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R.
(2001). Text reading uency as an indicator of
reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and
historical analysis. Scientic Studies of Reading, 5,
23 9 -2 5 6.
Gabr, A., Gavin, M., Lambert, V., & Mourad, S. (2015).
Final performance evaluation of the Education Support
Program (ESP), USAID/Egypt. DevTech Systems.
Gacheche, K. (2010). Challenges in implementing a
mother tongue-based language-in-education
policy: Policy and practice in Kenya. POLIS Journal,
4(Winter), 1-45.
Gebreanenia, Z., Sorissa, M., Takele, M., Yenew, A., &
Guajardo, J. (2014). Literacy Boost Tigray: Ethiopia
endline evaluation report. Washington, DC: Save the
Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.
se/library/literacy-boost-tigrayethiopia-endline-
evaluation-report
Geva, E., & Zadeh, Y. Z. (2006). Reading Eciency
in Native English-Speaking and English-as-
a-Second-Language Children: The Role of Oral
Prociency and Underlying Cognitive-Linguistic
Processes. Scientic Studies of Reading, 10, 31-57.
Gilles, J., &Quijada, J. (2008). Opportunity to Learn:
A high impact strategy for improving educational
outcomes in developing countries. Working Paper
of the Educational Quality Improvement
Program 2 (EQUIP2) funded by the United
States Agency for International Development
(USAID) under Cooperative Agreement No.
GDG-A-00-03-00008-00.
Ginsburg, M., Rose, J., & Adelman, E. (2011). EQUIP2
lessons learned in education. Teacher professional
development: A guide to education project design,
evaluation, and implementation based on experiences
from EQUIP2 projects in Djibouti, Liberia, and Pakistan.
Glewwe, P., Kremer, M., and Moulin, S. (2009). Many
children left behind? Textboook and test scores in
Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
1(1), 112 – 135.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading,
and reading disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Gove, A., & Wetterberg, A. (Eds.). (2011). The Early Grade
Reading Assessment: Applications and Interventions to
Improve Basic Literacy. Research Triangle Park, NC:
RTI International.
Gove, A., Chabbott, C., Dick, A. DeStefano, J., King,
S., Mejia, J., & Piper, B. (2015). Early learning
assessments: a retrospective. Background Paper for
Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015.
UNESCO. Paris: France.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 71
Gracia, J. R., & Cain. K. (2014). Decoding and reading
comprehension: a meta-analysis to identify which
reader and assessment characteristics inuence the
strength of the relationship in English. Review of
Educational Research, 84, 74-111.
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching
of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S.
Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 187- 207). New York: Guilford.
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C.,
MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N.
(2012). Teaching elementary school students to be
eective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012- 4058).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002).
Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling,
writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 4, 669-686.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing
writing: The benets of formative assessment.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S., and Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read:
Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A
Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and
instruction. New York; Newark, DE; Urbana, IL:
Teachers College Press; International Reading
Association; National Council of Teachers of
English.
Greene, K. (2015). Teaching the teachers: Global projects
enhances literacy instruction in Bangladesh and
Indonesia. Reading Today, 42-44.
Guajardo, J., Hossain, M., Nath, B.K.D. and Dowd, A.J.
(2013). Literacy Boost Bangladesh endline report.
Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/literacy-
boost-bangladesh-endlinereport-2013
Gupta, S. K. (2011). Intention-to-tereat concept: A revew.
Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2, 109-112.
Haz, F. & Tudor, I (1989). Extensive reading and the
development of language skills. English Language
Teaching Journal, 43, 4-11.
Harber, C. (2014). Education and international development:
Theory, practice and issues. Oxford, UK: Symposium
Books Ltd.
Hardman, F., Abd-Kadir, J., & Tibuhinda, A. (2012).
Reforming teacher education in Tanzania.
International Journal of Educational Development, 32,
826-834.
Hardman, F., Ackers, J., Abrishamian, N., & O’Sullivan, M.
(2011). Developing a systemic approach to teacher
education in sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging lessons
from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education,
41(5), 669-683.
Harris, K., Graham, s., Mason, L. H., & Fridlander, B.
(20 08). Powerful writing strategies for all students.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful dierences in
the everyday experience of young American children.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Hayes, D. P., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary
simplication for children: A special case of
"motherese"? Journal of Child Language, 15, 395-410.
Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2012).
The etiology of variation in language skills changes
with development: a longitudinal twin study of
language from 2 to 12 years. Developmental Science,
15(2), 233-249.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, Life, and
Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge
University Press.
Hess, R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1984). “Family and
school as educational institutions. Review of Child
Development Research, 7, 179–222.
Hewlett Foundation. (2014). Learning to improve learning:
Lessons from early primary interventions and
evaluations in India and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Heyneman, S.P., J.P. Farrell, and M.A. Sepulveda-Stuardo.
(1978). Textbooks and Achievement: What We Know
(Sta Working Paper No. 298). Washington, D.C.:
World Bank Database.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of
reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy72
Hovens, M. (2002). Bilingual education in West Africa:
Does it work?. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 5(5), 249-266.
Huang, H. S., & Hanley, R. (1997). A longitudinal study of
phonological awareness, visual skills, and Chinese
reading acquisition among rst-graders in Taiwan.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20,
249 -2 6 8 .
Hudson, R. F., Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Torgesen, J.
K. (2009). The complex nature of reading uency:
A multidimensional view. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 25, 4-32 .
Hungi, N., & Thuku, F. W. (2010). Variations in reading
achievement across 14 southern African school
systems: Which factors matter? International Review
of Education, 56(1), 63-101.
Hsieh, P. J. & Jeng, M. (2016). Learning-by-doing: The
early literacy in national language programme
in the Gambia. In UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
Understanding what works in oral reading assessments
(pp. 92-105). Montreal, Canada: UNESCO.
International Energy Agency. (2015). World Energy Outlook
2015. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Iyamu, E. O., & Ogiegbaen, S. E. A. (2007). Parents and
teachers' perceptions of mother-tongue medium
of instruction policy in Nigerian primary schools.
Language, culture and curriculum, 20(2), 97-108.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking
the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Jae, S., Lowe, Z., & Mahesri, F. (2012). Ghana iREAD
2 study: Final evaluation. Worldreader. Retrieved
from http://ww w.worldreader.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/01/iREAD-nal_web2.pdf
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., &
Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual dierences
in reading comprehension and reading uency.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.
Jonason, C., Guajardo, J., Nath, B.D., & Hossain, M. (2014).
Literacy & Numeracy Boost Bangladesh endline, April
2014. Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/literacy-
numeracy-boost-bangladeshendline-april-2014
Jonason, C., & Solomon, S. (2014). Literacy Boost Somali
region, Ethiopia: Endline report 2014. Washington,
DC: Save the Children. http://resourcecentre.
savethechildren.se/library/literacyboost-somali-
region-ethiopia-endline-report-2014
Jones, J. M., (2012). The eect of language attitudes on
Kenyan stakeholder involvement in mother tongue
policy implementation. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 33(3), 237-2 5 0.
Jones, J. M., & Barkhuizen, G., (2011). It is two-way
trac: Teachers’ tensions in the implementation
of the Kenyan language-in-education policy.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 14(5), 512-530.
Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G., & Quiroz, B. (2012).
Cognitive component of componential model of
reading applied to dierent orthographies, Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 480-486.
Juel, C. Grith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition
of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in rst
and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 2 43-255 .
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins,
A. (2008). Experimental evaluation of a preschool
language curriculum: Inuence on children’s
expressive language skills. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 983-1001.
Kalia, V., & Reese, E. (2009). Relations between Indian
children's home literacy environment and their
English oral language and literacy skills. Scientic
Studies of Reading, 13(2), 122-1 45.
Kamwendo, G. H. (2008). The bumpy road to mother
tongue instruction in Malawi. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 29, 353-363.
Karki, V. and Dowd, A. J. (2013). Literacy Boost Kapilvastu,
Nepal: Year 1 report, 2013. Washington, DC: Save the
Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.
se/library/literacy-boostkapilvastu-nepal-year-1-
report-2013
Kellogg, R. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive
developmental perspective. Journal of Writing
Research, 1, 1-2 6.
Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & van den
Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation
across dierent media. Journal of Research in Reading,
31(3), 2 59-27 2 .

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 73
Kendeou, P., Papadopoulos, T. C., & Kotzapoulou,
M. (2013). Evidence for the early emergence of
the simple view of reading in a transparent
orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 26(2), 189 -2 04 .
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S.
(2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early
elementary school: The independent contributions
of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765-778.
Khejeri, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use
of mother tongue as a language of instruction in
lower primary schools in Hamisi district, Kenya.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
4(1), 75-85.
Kim, Y.–S. (2007). Phonological awareness and literacy
skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role
of body–coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,
67–93.
Kim, Y.-S. (2009). The relationship between home
literacy practices and developmental trajectories
of emergent literacy and conventional literacy
skills for Korean children. Reading & Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 57-84.
Kim, Y. -S. (2011). Proximal and distal predictors of
reading comprehension: Evidence from young
Korean readers. Scientic Studies of Reading, 15, 167-
190.
Kim, Y.-S. (2015a). Language and cognitive predictors of
text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate
analysis. Child Development, 86, 128-144.
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2015b). Developmental, component-based
model of reading uency: An investigation of word
reading uency, text reading uency, and reading
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50,
459–481.
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2016a). Direct and mediated eects of
language and cognitive skills on comprehension or
oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141,
101-120.
Kim, Y.–S. G. (2016b). Systematic and Evidence-based
Literacy Instruction. South Korea: Hakjisa.
Kim, Y. -S. (under review). Why the simple view of reading
is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading
using a direct and indirect eect model of reading
comprehension (DIER).
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Sidler, J. F.,
Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential
skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study.
Learning and Individual Dierences, 21, 517-525.
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J. F., & Greulich, L., &
Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality
of rst grade written composition. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 199-21 1 .
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B.
(2015). Towards an understanding of dimension,
predictors, and gender gaps in written composition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 79-95.
Kim, Y.-S., Park, C., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Is oral/
text reading uency a “bridge” to reading
comprehension? Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 79-99.
Kim, Y.-S. G., & Petscher, Y. (in press). Literal
Comprehension and Inferential Comprehension:
Dimensionality and Predictors in Narrative and
Informational Texts. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal.
Kim, Y.-S., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman,
B. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading uency
matter in predicting reading comprehension?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 652-667.
Kim, Y.-S., & Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of
listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,
49, 269-281.
Kim, Y.-S. G. & Schatschneider, C. (in press). Expanding
the developmental models of writing: A direct and
indirect eects model of developmental writing
(DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology.
Kim, Y.-S. G., Schatschneider, C., Gatlin, B., Wanzek, J.,
& Al Otaiba, S. (under review). Writing evaluation:
An investigation of rater and task eect on reliability of
writing scores for children in Grades 3 and 4.
Kim, Y.-S. G., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Text (Oral) reading
uency as a construct in reading development: An
investigation of its mediating role for children from
Grades 1 to 4. Scientic Studies of Reading, 19, 224-
242.
Kim, Y.-S. G., & Yun, J. (in press). Language learning
and teaching: Promoting interactive talk in the
classroom. In V. Grøver, P. Uccelli, M. Rowe, &
Lieven (Eds.), Learning through language: Towards
an educationally informed theory of language learning.
Cambridge University Press.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy74
Kipp, S., Strigel, C., & Pouezevara, S. (2016). Tangerine Full
User’s Guide. Washington, D.C.: RTI International.
Klaus, D. (2003). The use of indigenous languages in early
basic education in Papua New Guinea: A model for
elsewhere? Language and Education, 17(2), 105-111.
Koda, K. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on
second-language learning to read. In K. Koda & A.
M. Zehler (eds.), Learning to read across languages.
New York: Routledge, 68–96.
Koda, K., & Reddy, P. (2008). Cross-linguistic transfer
in second language reading. Language Teaching, 41,
497-508.
Kosonen, K. (2005). The role of language in learning:
What does international research say? In First
language rst: Community-based literacy programmes
for minority language context in Asia, 87–95. Bangkok:
UNESCO.
Kraft, R., & Epstein, A. I. (2014). Final performance
evaluation of the improving quality of primary education
program (IQPEP). Final report. AMEX International.
Kucan, L., Palincsar, A. S., Khasnabis, D., & Chang,
C.-I. (2009). The video viewing task: a source of
information for assessing and addressing teacher
understanding of text-based discussion. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 25(3), 415-423.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of
developmental and remedial practices. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Kyeyune, R., Mirembe, R., Baleeta, M., Sentongo, J.,
Nambi, R., Katende, G., … Lussier, K. (2011). Teacher
preparation and continuing professional development in
Africa (TPA): Learning to teach reading and mathematics
and its inuence on practice in Uganda. Uganda:
University of Sussex Centre for International
Education.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory
of automatic information processing in reading.
Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Laguarda, A. I., & Woodward, W. P. (2013). They own this:
Mother tongue instruction for indigenous Kuku
children in Southern Sudan. School Psychology
International, 34(4), 453-469.
Lee, L. W., & Wheldall, K. (2009). An examination of the
simple view of reading among beginning readers in
Malay. Reading Psychology, 30(3), 250-264.
Lepola, J., Lynch, J., Laakkonen, E., Silvén, M., & Niemi,
P. (2012). The role of inference making and other
language skills in the development of narrative
listening comprehension in 4-6- year-old children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 259-282.
Levin, B. (2010). The challenge of large-scale literacy
improvement. School Eectiveness and School
Improvement, 21(4), 359–376.
Levin, I., Saiegh-Haddad, E., Hende, N., & Ziv, M. (2008).
Early literacy in Arabic: An intervention study
among Israeli Palestinian kindergartners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 29, 413-436.
Lewin, K. M. (2004). The pre-service training of teachers-
does it meet its objectives and how can it be improved?
Background paper for the EFA global monitoring report.
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (in press). Tailoring
multicomponent writing interventions: The eects
of coupling self-regulation and transcription
training. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Little, D., Goullier, F., & Hughes, G. (2011). The European
language portfolio: The story so far (1991-2011). The
European language portfolio.
Malik, S., Balfour, B. J. V., Nzabonimpa, J. P., Cozzolino,
S., Dib, G., & Dowd, A. J. (2015). Endline evaluation
of Rwandan Children’s Book Initiative (RCBI). Save the
Children.
Malmberg, L.-E., Mwaura, P., & Sylva, K. (2011). Eects of
a preschool intervention on cognitive development
among East-African preschool children: A exibly
time-coded growth model. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 26(1), 124–133.
Malone, D. (2003) Developing curriculum materials for
endangered language education: Lessons from the
eld. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 6(5), 332-2 4 8 .
Marsh, H., Hau, K., & Kong, C. (2002). Multilevel
causal ordering of academic self-concept and
achievement: Inuence of language of instruction
(English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong
students. American Education Research Journal, 39(3),
727–763.
McBride-Chang, C. (1998). The development of invented
spelling. Early Education and Development, 9, 1 47 -160.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 75
McBride-Chang, C., Tardif, T., Cho, J.-R., Shu, H.,
Fletcher, P., Stokes, S. F., Wong, A., & Leung, A.
(2008). What’s in a word? Morphological awareness
and vocabulary knowledge in three languages.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 437-462.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and
working memory: Implications for a theory of
writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas,
S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., … & Gray, A. L.
(2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher
knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69-86.
McEwan, P. J. (2014). Improving learning in primary
schools of developing countries: A meta-analysis
of randomized experiments. Review of Educational
Research, 1–42.
McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features
of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A
literature review. Journal of Special Education, 41,
68–84.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technical pedagogical
content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
Mitton, G. (2008). Success in early reading: Pilot project in
Mali and Niger— Implementation report. GAD ML10080
and NER064. Washington, DC: Plan International.
Retrieved from https://globalreadingnetwork.net/
eddata/success-early-reading-pilot-project-mali-
and-niger-implementation-report-g-mitton-2008
Moats, L. C. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching
reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 379-399.
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring
teachers’ content knowledge of language and
reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23-45.
Moulvi, Z.F., Pisani, L., Dowd, A. J., Burki, E., & Mithani,
S. S. (2014). PEPAS Literacy Boost Pakistan. Endline
report. Washington, DC: Save the Children.
Moulvi, Z.F., & Pava, C. (2014). Literacy Boost Quetta,
Pakistan, Year 2. Washington, DC: Save the
Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.
se/library/literacyboost-quetta-pakistan-year-2-
november-2014
Mtenje, A. & Mchazime, H. (2001). Preparing for mother-
tongue education: The Malawian experience. In
PRAESA (compiled by Beckett, T.) Reports on Mother-
Tongue Education, 61-64. Cape Town: PRAESA/
UFSIA.
Mungoi, D., Mandlante, N., Nhatuve, I., Mahangue, D.,
Fonseca, J., & Dowd, A. J. (2010). Endline report of
early literacy among pre-school and primary school
children in Gaza Province, Mozambique. Washington
DC: Save the Children.
Muthwii, M. J. (2004). Language of instruction: A
qualitative analysis of the perceptions of parents,
pupils and teachers among the Kalenjin in Kenya.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(1), 15–32.
Nag, S. (2007). Early reading in Kannada: The pace
of acquisition of orthographic knowledge and
phonemic awareness. Journal of Research in Reading
30, 1, 7–22.
Nag, S., Chiat, S., Torgerson, C., & Snowling, M. J.
(2014). Literacy, foundation learning and assessment in
developing countries: Final report. Education Rigorous
Literature Review. Department for International
Development. Retrieved from https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/literacy-foundation-
learning-and-assessment-indeveloping-countries
Nag-Arulmani, S., Reddy, V., & Buckley, S. (2003).
Targeting phonological representations can help
in the early grades of reading in a non-dominant
language. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 49-68.
Nakabugo, M. G. (2016). What and how to assess reading
using household-based, citizen-led assessments:
Insights from the Uwezo annual learning
assessment. In UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
Understanding what works in oral reading assessments
(pp. 58-65). Montreal, Canada: UNESCO.
Nakamura, P., & de Hoop, T. (2014). Facilitating reading
acquisition in multilingual environments in India
(FRAME-India): Final Report. American Institutes for
Research.
National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (2000). Report of the National Reading
Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientic research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Oce.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy76
Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2013). Home literacy
environment and the beginning of reading and
spelling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1),
40-50.
Ntuli, D., & Pretorius, E. J. (2005). Laying foundations
for academic language competence: The eects of
storybook reading on Zulu language, literacy and
discourse development. Southern African Linguistics
and Applied Language Studies, 23(1), 91–109.
Onderi, H. & Croll, P. (2008). In-service training needs
in an African context: A study of head teacher and
teacher perspectives in the Gucha District of Kenya.
Journal of In-Service Education, 34(3), 361-373.
Opel, A., Ameer, S. S., & Aboud, F. E. (2009). The eect of
preschool dialogic reading on vocabulary among
rural Bangladeshi children. International Journal of
Educational Research, 48, 1 2-2 0.
Opoku-Amankwa, K., & Brew-Hammond, A. (2011).
'Literacy is the ability to read and writing English':
Dening and developing literacy in basic schools in
Ghana. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 14(1), 89-106.
Opoku-Amankwa, K., Edu-Buandaoh, D. F., & Brew-
Hammond, A. (2015). Publishing formother tongue-
based bilingual education in Ghana: Politics and
consequences. Language and Education, 29, 1-14.
Ouane, A. and Glanz, C. (eds.) (2011). Optimising Learning,
Education and Publishing in Africa: The language
factor. A review and analysis of theory and practise in
mother tongue and bilingual education in sub-Saharan
Africa. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Life-Long
Learning and Tunis Belvedere: Association for the
Development of Education in Africa.
Pallante, D., & Kim, Y.-S. (2013). The eect of a
multicomponent literacy instruction model on
literacy growth for kindergartners and rst grade
students in Chile. International Journal of Psychology,
48, 747-761.
Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and
children's reading performance: A comparative
study of 25 countries. Educational Research &
Evaluation, 14(6), 489-505.
Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of
reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 184-
202.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The
development of strategic readers. In R. Barr et al.
(E d s.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 609-640).
New York: Longman.
PASEC (2015). PASEC2014 Education system performance
in Francophone sub-Saharan Africa: Competences and
learning factors in primary education. Programme
d’Analyse des Systèmes Educatifs de la CONFEMEN,
Dakar (Senegal).
Patrinos, H.A., & E. Velez (2009). Costs and benets
of bilingual education in Guatemala: A partial
analysis. International Journal of Educational
Development, 29, 594-598.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction
of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 8, 317-3 44.
Petscher, Y., & Kim, Y.-S. (2011). The utility and accuracy
of oral reading uency score types in predicting
reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology,
49, 107-129.
Pepsen, A., Benson, C., Chatbott, C., & van Ginkel,
A. (2015). Planning for language use in education:
Best practices and practical steps to improve learning
outcomes. NC: RTI International, Research Triangle
Park.
Pianta, R., Howes, C. Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Cliord,
R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-
kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers:
Do they predict observed classroom quality and
child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental
Science, 9, 14 4-159.
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishmann, B. J., & Morrison,
F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy
concepts, classroom practices, and student reading
growth. Scientic Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224-248.
Pinto, C. (2010). Impact of Literacy Boost in Kailali, Nepal
2009-2010: Year 1 report. Washington, DC: Save the
Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/
library/literacy-boost-kailalinepal-year-1-report
Piper, B. (2010a). Kenya early grade reading assessment
ndings report (William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
research report). Retrieved from https://
globalreadingnetwork.net/eddata/kenya-egra-
re s u lts-20 0 9.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 77
Piper, B. (2010b). Ethiopia early grade reading assessment.
Data analytic report: Language and early learning.
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
Piper, B., & Korda, M. (2011a). EGRA Plus: Liberia. Program
evaluation report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
Piper, B., & Korda, M. (2011b). EGRA Plus: Liberia. Overview
of a sustainable reading intervention. Research
Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
Piper, B., & Kwayumba, D. (2014). The Primary Math
and Reading Initiative (PRIMR): Kisumu Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) Intervention:
Endline Report. Research Triangle Institute, NC: RTI
International.
Piper, B., & Miksic, E. (2011). Mother tongue and
reading: Using early grade reading assessments
to investigate language-of-instruction policy in
East Africa. In A. Gove & A. Wetterberg (Eds.),
The Early Grade Reading Assessment: Applications
and interventions to improve basic literacy (139-182).
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
Piper, B., Jepkemei, E., & Kibukho, K. (2015). Pro-
poor PRIMR: Improving early literacy skills for
children from low-income families in Kenya. Africa
Education Review, 12(1), 67–87.
Piper, B., Schroeder, L., & Trudell, B. (2016). Oral reading
uency and comprehension in Kenya: Reading
acquisition in a multilingual environment. Journal
of Research in Reading, 39, 133-152.
Piper, B., & Zuilkowski, S. S. (2015). Teacher coaching
in Kenya: Examining instructional support in
public and nonformal schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 47, 173-183.
Piper, B., & Zuilkowski, S. S. (2016). The role of timing in
assessing oral reading uency and comprehension
in Kenya. Language Testing, 33(1), 75-98.
Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., Kwayumba, D., & Strigel,
C. (2016). Does technology improve reading
outcomes? Comparing the eectiveness and cost-
eectiveness of ICT interventions for early grade
reading in Kenya. International Journal of Educational
Development, 49, 204-2 1 4.
Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., & Mugenda, A. (2014).
Improving reading outcomes in Kenya: First-year
eects of the PRIMR Initiative. International Journal
of Educational Development, 37, 11–21.
Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., & Ong’ele, S. (2016).
Implementing mother tongue instruction in
the real world: Results from a medium scale
randomized controlled trial in Kenya. Comparative
Education Review, 60(4).
Pisani, L., & Alvarado, M. (2014). Literacy Boost El Salvador
endline report, November 2014. Washington, DC: Save
the Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.
se/library/literacyboost-el-salvador-endline-
report-november-2014.
Pisani, L., Puta, S., Ni, L., Giri, B., Alesbury, C., & de
Fretes, M. (2014). Literacy Boost Belajar Indonesia
midline and endline report. Washington, DC: Save the
Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/
library/literacy-boost-belajarindonesia-midline-
endline-report.
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the
relationship between children’s knowledge of
text message abbreviations and school literacy
outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
27, 1 45-161.
Pouezevara, S., Costello, M., & Banda, O. (2013). ABE/
LINK Malawi Teacher Professional Development Support
(MTPDS). Malawi reading intervention: Early Grade
Reading Assessment (EGRA). Final assessment—2012.
Creative Associates international, Washington, DC.
Pouezevara, S. L., & Khan, R. (2008). Training secondary
teachers in rural Bangladesh using mobile
technology. ICT in Teacher Education: Case Studies
from the Asia-Pacic Region, 86-94.
Pritchett, L., & Beatty, A. (2015). Slow down, you’re going
too fast: Matching curricula to student skill levels.
International Journal of Educational Development, 40,
276-288.
Pryor, J., Akyeampong, K., Westbrook, J., & Lussier,
K. (2012). Rethinking teacher preparation and
professional development in Africa: An analysis of
the curriculum of teacher education in the teacher
of early reading and mathematics. The Curriculum
Journal, 23(4), 409-502.
Ramirez, J., Yuen, S. & Ramey, D. (1991) Final Report:
Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion
Strategy, Early-exit and Late-exit Transitional Bilingual
Education Programs for Language-minority Children.
Washington DC: United States Department of
Education.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy78
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for
understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2009). Teaching
reading uency to struggling readers: Methods,
materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 25, 192-204.
Raupp, M., Newmann, B., Reves, L., & Lauchande, C.
(2015). Impact evaluation for the USAID/APRENDER A
LER project in Mozambique: Year 2 (Midline 2) IE/RCT
Report, Final Report. Washington, DC: USAID.
Reinke, W. M., Stromont, M., Herman, K. C., & Newcomer,
L. (2014). Using coaching to support teacher
implementation of classroom-based interventions.
Journal of Behavior Education, 23, 150-167.
Results for Development and International Education
Partners Ltd. (2016). Global Book Fund Feasibility
Study: Final Report. University Research Co., LLC -
Center for Human Services (URC-CHS) for USAID:
Washington, DC.
Riddell, A. (2012). The Eectiveness of Foreign Aid to
Education: What Can Be Learned? Retrieved from
https://ww w.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/les/
wp2012-075.pdf
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain. J. F. (2005).
Teachers, schools and academic achievement.
Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
Rolla San Francisco, A., Arias, M., Villers, R., & Snow,
C. (2006). Evaluating the impact of dierent early
literacy interventions on low-income Costa Rican
kindergarteners. International Journal of Educational
Research, 45(3), 188–201.
Robinson, J. P., Winthrop, R., & McGivney, E. (2016).
Millions learning: Scaling up quality education
in developing countries. Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution.
Rosenkranz, E., Jonason, C., & Kajangwa, D. (2014).
Literacy Boost Burundi endline report, August 2014.
Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/literacy-
boost-burundi-endline-reportaugust-2014.
Rosekrans, K., Sherris, A., & Chatry-Komarek, M. (2012).
Education reform for the expansion of mother
tongue education in Ghana. International Review of
Education, 58, 593-618.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on
instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5),
262-268.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1995). Functions for
teaching well-structured tasks. Journal of
Educational Research, 88, 262-268.
Roth, K., & Guinee, K. (2011). Ten minutes a day: The
impact of interactive writing instruction on rst
graders’ independent writing. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 11, 331-361.
RTI International. (2008). The Gambia Early Grade Reading
Assessment (EGRA): Results from 1,200 Gambian
Primary Students Learning to Read in English. EdData
II – Report for the World Bank.
RTI International (2009a). Early Grade Reading
Assessment toolkit. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International. Downloaded from le:///C:/Users/
ykim/Downloads/EGRA_Toolkit_9Apr09%20
eon&agCLEANED.pdf.
RTI International (2009b). Evaluation initiales des
competences fondamentales en lecture-ecriture base
sure l’utilisation de l’outil “EGRA” adapted en Francais
et en Arabe au Mali. Produced under the USAID Mali
PHARE project : Bamako, Mali. Downloaded from
le:///C:/Users/Helen%20Boyle/Downloads/PHARE_
Rapport_EGRA_2009_nal_word%20(1).pdf
RTI International (2011). Task order 7 NALAP formative
evaluation report, Ghana. Research Triangle Park, NC:
RTI International.
RTI International (2014a). Education data for decision
making (EdData II): National Early Grade Literacy and
Numeracy Survey-Jordan: Intervention Impact Analysis
Report, Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
RTI International (2014b). USAID/Kenya primary math
and reading (PRIMR) initiative: Final report. Research
Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
RTI International (2014c). Girls’ improved learning
outcomes: Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC:
RTI International.
RTI International (2015a). The Primary Math and Reading
(PRIMR) Initiative DFID/Kenya rural expansion
programme: Bungoma and Machakos endline study.
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 79
RTI International (2015b). Tout Timoun Ap Li – ToTAL
(All Children Reading) nal report, REVISED, 2 August
2012–5 December 2014 [Haiti]. Prepared under the
Education Data for Decision Making (EdData II)
project. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00K911.pdf
RTI International (2015c). Early Grade Reading Assessment
(EGRA) National Baseline Assessment in Mali. Prepared
under the EdData II Technical and Managerial
Assistance, Task Number 31 Contract Number BPA
No. EHC-00-04-0004 Task Order Number AID-
688-M-14-00006. le:///C:/Users/Helen%20Boyle/
Downloads/Mali_EGRA_Report_EN_October%20
14 _Reviewed%20by%20USAID_FINAL1%20(2).pdf
RTI International (2016a). Nigeria reading and access
research activity (NARA): Results of an approach to
improve early grade reading in Hausa in Bauchi and
Sokoto States. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
RTI International (2016b). Early Grade Reading Assessment
Toolkit, Second Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC:
RTI International. https://globalreadingnetwork.
net/resources/early-grade-reading-assessment-
egra-toolkit-second-edition
Rugh, A. B. (2012). International development in practice:
Education Assistance in Egypt, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Sahin, I. (2006). Changing emphasis: Rethinking Turkey’s
early literacy instruction. ERIC ED501240.
Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2005). Correlates of reading uency
in Arabic: Diglossic and orthographic factors.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18,
559-582.
Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2007). Epilinguistic and
metalinguistic phonological awareness may be
subject to dierent constraints. First Language, 27,
385–405.
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive
applications – Fourth Edition. San Diego, CA: Jerome
M. Sattler, Publisher.
Save the Children (2012). Literacy Boost Toolkit
Introduction. Washington, DC: Save the Children.
Downloaded from: http://www.savethechildren.
org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-
df91d2eba74a%7D/6931.PDF
Save the Children (2013). Reading is the future: Lekti se
lavni: baseline-endline assessments report [H a i t i].
Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/
reading-future-lekti-se-lavni-baseline-
endlineassessments-report
Save the Children (2014). TiANA nal evaluation report
for ST Anthony and Namadidi education zone, Zormba
rural, Malawi, September 2014. Washington, DC: Save
the Children. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.
se/library/tiana-nal-evaluationreport-st-
anthony-and-namadidi-education-zoneszormba-
rural-malawi
Schmidt, K. (2014). Applying lessons from behavior change
communications to the design of an intervention
promoting family and community support for learning to
read. Washing ton, D.C.: USAID.
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A
distributed, developmental model of word
recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4),
523-568.
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Continuity and
change in the home literacy environment as
predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading.
Child Development, 85(4), 1552-1568.
Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., Pagan, S., & Lever, R. (2012).
The role of invented spelling on learning to read
in low-phoneme awareness kindergartners: a
randomized-control-trial study. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 917-934.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K.,
Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen,
J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in
kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE
2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/
publications/practiceguides.
Share, D. L., & Blum, P. (2005). Syllable splitting
in literate and preliterate Hebrew speakers:
Onsets and rimes or bodies and codas? Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 182–202.
Smith, H. (2005). Ownership and capacity: Do current
donor approaches help or hinder the achievement
of international and national targets for education?
International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4),
445–455.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy80
Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y.–S. (2007). Large problem
spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for English
language learners. In R. K. Wagner, A. Muse, & K.
Tannenbaum, (Eds.) Vocabulary acquisition and its
implications for reading comprehension (pp. 123-139).
New York: Guilford Press.
Spratt, J., King, S., & Bulat, J. (2013). Independent
evaluation of the eectiveness of Institut pour
l’Education Populaire’s “Read-Learn-Lead” (RLL)
program in Mali. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International. Retrieved from https://www.rti.org/
pubs/mali_rll_eval_endline_report.pdf
Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes and
consequences of individual dierences in early
reading acquisition. In R. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R.
Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307 – 342).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tabors, P. O., & Snow, C. E. (1994). English as a second
language in preschool programs. In J. C. Richards
(E d .), Educating second language children: The whole
child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (103-
125). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Taha, H., & Saiegh-Haddad, E. (in press). The role of
phonological versus morphological skills in the
development of Arabic spelling: An intervention
st u d y. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
Tam, T. (2012). Decreasing our breakage rate. San
Francisco: Worldreader. Retrieved from http://www.
worldreader.org/blog/how-we-decreased-our-
breakage-rate/
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of
school eectiveness for language minority students'
long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity and
Excellence.
Tilson, T., Kamlongera, A., Pucilowski, M., & Nampota, D.
(2013a). Evaluation of the Malawi teacher professional
development support (MTPDS) program. Final
Evaluation Report.
Tilson, T., Allemano, E., Mereku, K., & Marfo, K. (2013b).
Evaluation of the USAID-funded textbooks and learning
materisals programs (TLMP) in Ethiopia, Ghana,
Malawai, Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. TLMP in
Ghana.
Tompkins, V., Guo, Y., & Justice, L. M. (2013). Inference
generation, story comprehension, and language
in the preschool years. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 403-429.
Treiman, R., Levin, I., & Kessler, B. (2007). Learning
of letter names follows similar principles across
languages: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 87-106.
Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICT in education.
Washington, DC: infoDev / World Bank. Available
at: http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.8.html
Trudell, B., & Piper, B. (2014). Whatever the law says:
Language policy implementation and early-grade
literacy achievement in Kenya. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 15(1), 4-21.
UNESCO. (2008). Family literacy: A global approach to lifelong
learning. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong
Learning.
UNESCO (n.d.). Teacher policies and practices to
address EFA. downloaded from http://www.
teachersforefa.unesco.org/v2/phocadownload/
consoldidatedcasestudies_anglophone.pdf
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2011). Financing education
in sub-Saharan Africa: Meeting the challenges of
expansion, equity, and quality. Montreal, QC: UNESCO
Institute for Statistics.
UNESCO (2012). Mobile learning for teachers. Paris:
UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/
en/unesco/themes/icts/m4ed/mobile-learning-
resources/unescomobilelearningseries/
UNESCO (2013). UNESCO policy guidelines for mobile learning.
Paris: UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0021/002196/21964 1E.pd f
UNESCO (2015). Education for All Global Monitoring Report.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2016). Every child should have a textbook. Policy
paper 23, Global Education Monitoring Report. Paris.
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2016). Understanding
what works in oral reading assessments. Montreal,
Canada: UNESCO. http://dx.doi.org/10.15220/978-92-
9189 -196-2- en.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy 81
UNICEF & UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2014). All
children in school by 2015: Global initiative on
out-of-school children, regional report, West and
Central Africa. UNICEF Regional Oce: West and
Central Africa.
Vagh. S. B. (2016). Is simple, quick and cost-eective
also valid? Evaluating the ASER Hindi reading
assessment in India. In UNESCO Institute of
Statistics, Understanding what works in oral reading
assessments (pp. 202-212). Montreal, Canada:
UNESCO.
Verger, A., Novella, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (Eds.) (2012).
Global education policy and international development:
New agendas, issues and policies. New York, NY:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Villarán, V. (2010). Evaluación Cualitativa del Programa
Una Laptop por Niño: Informe Final. Lima, Peru:
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.
Vygotsky, L. S., (1978). Mind in society: The development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wagner, D. A. (2003). Smaller, quicker, cheaper:
Alternative strategies for literacy assessment in
the UN literacy decade. International Journal of
Educational Research, 39, 293-309.
Wagner, D. A. (2011). Smaller, quicker, cheaper: Improving
learning assessments in developing countries.
International Institute for Educational Planning.
Paris: UNESCO.
Wagner, D. A. (2014). Mobiles for Reading: A Landscape
Research Review. JBS International, Inc and
USAID. Retrieved from http://www.youblisher.
com/p/1234054-Mobiles-for-Reading-A-Landscape-
Research-Review/
Wagner, D. A., Castillo, N. M., Murphy, K. M., Crofton,
M., & Zahra, F. T. (2014). Mobiles for literacy in
developing countries: An eectiveness framework.
Prospects, 44, 119-132.
Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J., & Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does
learning to read in a second language always put
the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence
from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 31–48.
Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E.,
Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the
development of written language. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 203–220.
Wang, M., Yang, C., & Cheng, C. (2009). The contributions
of phonology, orthography, and morphology in
Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 30, 291–31 4.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E. A.,
Edmonds, M., & Kim, A.-H. (2006). A synthesis of
spelling and reading interventions and their eects
on the spelling outcomes of students with LD.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 528-543.
Watson, K. (2007). Language, education and
ethnicity: Whose rights will prevail in an age of
globalization? International Journal of Educational
Development, 27, 252-265.
Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding
instruction to improve the reading and spelling
performance of elementary students at risk for
literacy diculties: A best-evidence synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 81, 170–2 0 0.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning
language and using language to learn. Portsmouth,
N.H: Heinemann.
Westbrook J, Durrani N, Brown R, Orr D, Pryor J, Boddy
J, & Salvi F (2013). Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching
Practices and Teacher Education in Developing
Countries. Final Report. Education Rigorous Literature
Review. Department for International Development.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A.
L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book
reading intervention in day care and home for
children from low-income families. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 679-689.
Wickramesekara, P., Navaratnam, S., & Guajardo, J.
(2014). Literacy Boost, Gampaha District Sri Lanka
country oce endline report—December 2014.
Washington, DC: Save the Children. http://
resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/
literacyboost-gampaha-district-sri-lanka-
country-oceendline-report-december-2014
Wilson, S. (2008). The Emperor’s New Clothes: Do
We Really Need Professional Education and
Certication for Teachers? In Marilyn Cochran-
Smith, Sharon Feiman-Nemser, and John McIntyre
(E d s.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education:
Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts (3rd edition),
pp. 851-54. New York: Routledge.

Landscape Report on Early Grade Literacy82
Wolf, M. (2001). Dyslexia, uency, and the brain. York Press:
Timonium, MD.
World Bank (2016). Implementation completion and
results report on a grant in the amount of US$19.2
million to the Independent State of Papua New
Guinea for a Reading Education (READ-PNG)
Project. Report No: ICR00003637
Worldreader. (2014). Empowering reading everywhere: 2014
Annual Report. San Francisco: Worldreader.
Yohannes, M. A. G. (2009). Implications of the use of
L1s versus English as languages of instruction for
academic achievement in Ethiopia. In B. Brock-
Utne & and I. Skattum (Eds.), Languages and
education in SSA: A comparative and transdisciplinary
analysis (pp. 189-199). United Kingdom: Symposium
Books.
Young, C. (2009). Good practices in mother tongue-
rst multilingual education. In M. Redmond (Ed.),
Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction:
Policies and experiences in Southeast Asia (pp. 120-
135). Bangkok: The Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Organization (SEAMEO) Secretariat.
Zhou, Y., McBride-Chang, C., & Wong, N. (2014). What is
the role of visual skills in learning to read? Frontiers
in Psychology, 5, 776-776.
Ziegler, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition,
developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across
languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–2 9.

7200 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 600
Bethesda, MD 20814
www.globalreadingnetwork.net