1

www.rti.orgRTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

Using EGRA data for differentiated instruction: Learning profiles and

instructional needs in Uganda

Margaret (Peggy) Dubeck & Jonathan Stern

Background

2

EGRA: Early Grade Reading Assessment§ A direct child assessment that measures a specific set of skills that

contribute to reading with understanding in alphabetic languages

§ Open-source, locally adapted, used in 65 countries, 100 languages

§ Provides a common language to discuss children’s literacy abilities

§ Used as a baseline, evaluate programs, guide instructional content

§ A mix of timed & untimed subtasks chosen for the research question

3Source: Dubeck & Gove, 2015

1. Listening comprehension2. Vocabulary (receptive)3. Orientation to print4. Initial Sound Identification5. Segmentation (phonemes or syllables)6. Letter Name Identification7. Letter Sounds Identification

8. Syllable Identification9. Familiar Word Reading10. Non-word Reading11. Oral Reading Fluency 12. Reading Comprehension13. Cloze14. Dictation15. Interview

Developmental TheoriesChildren vary in how quickly they advance, influenced by orthographicstructure, but they tend to follow the same pattern of literacy

development. This can be used to design and differentiate instruction.

4

Caravolas et al, 2012; Chall, 1983; Dunlap & Perfetti, 2008; Ehri, 1995; Frith, 1986; Invernizzi & Hayes, 2004: Seymour et al, 2003

Stage0 Prereading

Stage1InitialReadingordecoding

Stage2Confirmation &Fluency

Stage3ReadingforLearning

Stage4MultipleViewpoints

Stage5Construction&Reconstruction

Emergent

Beginner

Transitional

Intermediate

Advanced

Prealphabetic

Partialalphabetic

Alphabetic

Consolidated-alphabetic

Automatic

Logographic

NoviceAlphabetic

MatureAlphabetic

Orthographic

Logographic

Alphabetic

Orthographic

3

Using Learning Profiles to Inform Instruction

1. Using assessment data to guide instruction is a common practice for instructional improvement (Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Hamilton, 2009; Vellutino et al, 2006; Zutell, 1998)

2. Higher effects when instruction is matched to student’s needs (NICHHD, 2000)

3. EGRA reports often provide descriptive statistics across subtasks • Some report authors categorize learners into reading categories• Categories not consistently well-defined, or related to instruction

needs

4. Recent method based on developmental theories, created five learner profiles tied to instructional needs (Stern,Dubeck,Dick,inreviews)

Example: Previous use of Learner Profile Methodology(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Letter ID(% Correct of

attempted)

Invented Words

(% Correct of attempted)

Invented Words (Correct per

minute)

Initial Sound

(% Correct of attempted)

Oral Reading Fluency

Reading Comp

(% Correct of Attempted)

Nonreader ref -57.3* -25.0* -0.8 -37.3* -49.5*Beginner 25.6* ref -13.4* -0.1 -21.9* 10.3*Instructional 28.4* 23.3* ref ref ref 23.8*Fluent 29.0* 27.3* 11.3* 3.5t 27.2* refGrade 3 Ready

31.0* 30.5* 15.3* 9.8* 37.6* 41.0*

R2 0.34 0.59 0.65 0.07 0.78 0.52

Column 1: Nonreader profile - much lower letter knowledge. Instruct here.

Column 2: Beginner profile - much lower invented words. Instruct decoding.

Columns 3: 4, 5: Instructional profile - lacking decoding automaticity, similar to lower profiles on initial sounds, in the middle on ORF. Need fluency instruction.

Column 5: Fluent profile - lower reading comprehension than 3 profiles. Need oral language instruction.

4

Methods

Methods§ RQ1: Does the learner profile methodology used previously distinguish

group membership at a single time point in a Bantu language?§ RQ2: Can the learner profile methodology show change in membership at

two time points? § Participants: Archival data (n=2820) from USAID’s Uganda SHRP program;

Luganda instruction P1-P4, Luganda EGRA§ Measures: EGRA subtasks (see upcoming slides) § Procedures:

Learner Profiles Defined

Nonreader Inability to read a single word from the passage

Beginner Correctly read less than half of the overall passage

Instructional Correctly read more than half the passage but not all

Fluent Read all of the passage but with low comprehension

Next Level Ready Read all of the passage with high comprehension

5

Learner Profile Categories for Luganda Passage

Learner Profile Categories

Nonreader0 wordsBeginner≤20 cwpmInstructional21-42 cwpmFluent≥ 43 cwpm ≤79% comprehensionNext Level Ready≥ 43 cwpm80% comprehension

Results

6

Results: Possible influence of local language instruction

§ Fluent category (reads fluently with low comprehension, had too few members (.22%)

§ Therefore, the fluent category was dropped.

§ All subsequent analysis based on 4 categories

RQ1: Does the learner profile methodology used previously distinguish group membership at a single time point in a Bantu language?

Learner Profiles

Letter Sound

Zero Scores

PhonoAware.

Zero Scores

ListeningComp

Zero Scores

Invented Word

% Attempted

Reading Comp

% Attempted

Nonreader 46.8% 11.5% 17.6% 1.6% 0%

Beginner 10.6% 4.5% 5.5% 48.6% 43.1%

Instructional 7.8% 3.4% 2.2% 78.3% 84.9%

Next Grade Ready 3.2% 0% 4.6% 88.6% 94.5%

Nonreader: Predicted by letter sounds, phonological awareness and listening comprehension; need instruction with these emergent skills

Beginner: Much lower than others on invented words; need decodingInstructional: Slower with sufficient comprehension; need fluency

7

RQ2: Can the methodology show change in membership at twotime points?

Limitations & Recommendations

1. The analysis was conducted with cohort samples.

2. The category of “fluent” (reading accurately & an appropriate rate) was not useful with this sample.

a. Additional analysis exploring the home language of these learners (Luganda is the local language but not necessarily the home language of the entire sample.)

b. Explore this methodology with another Bantu language that is a second language to the learners.

3. Explore the cut points with two passages of different lengths administered simultaneously to the same children.

4. Explore the distribution of profiles within classrooms.

5. Heterogeneity should be considered when planning instruction.

8

ReferencesCaravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Mousikou, P., Efrim, C., Litavský, M., Onochie-Quintanilla, E., ... & Hulme, C. (2012). Common patterns of prediction of literacy development in different alphabetic orthographies. Psychological Science, 0956797611434536. Chall, J.S., (1967). Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 0034654312465472.Dubeck, M. M., & Gove, A. K. (2015). The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA): Its theoretical foundation, purpose, and limitations. International Journal of Educational Development, 2015, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.004 Dunlap, S. & Perfetti, (2008). Learning to read: general principles and writing system variation. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first-and second-language literacy development (pp. 14–39). Routledge.Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116-125. Frith, U. (1986). A developmental framework for developmental dyslexia, Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 67-81. Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S. S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A., Wayman, J. C., Pickens, C., Martin, E., & Steele, J. L. (2009). Using Student Achievement Data to Support Instructional Decision Making. United States Department of Education,Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/279Invernizzi, M., & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental spelling research: A systematic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 216–228.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD) (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of psychology, 94(2), 143–174.Stern, J. S., Dubeck, M. M.,Dick, A. (in reviews).Using EGRA Data for Targeted Instructional Support: Learning Profiles and Instructional Needs in Indonesia Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of learning disabilities, 39(2), 157-169.Zutell, J. (1998). Word sorting: A developmental spelling approach to word study for delayed readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14(2), 219-238.

More Information

Webele!

Margaret (Peggy) DubeckSenior Literacy ResearcherRTI Internationaldubeck@rti.org@pegdubeck