Attachment J.13 -Nigeria Draft National Reading Framework.pdf

July 2020

NATIONAL READING

FRAMEWORK

Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council

Amendment 01 - Solicitation Number: 72062021R00001 - LEARN to Read Activity Attachment J.13 – DRAFT National Reading Framework

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

RATIONALE FOR A NATIONAL READING FRAMEWORK: EVIDENCE FROM A DECADE OF RESEARCH ON YOUNG

CHILDREN’S READING SKILLS IN NIGERIA

NATIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR READING (NEF-R)

FOUR PERFORMANCE LEVELS

TABLE 1: DEFINITIONS OF THE PROFICIENCY LEVELS

TABLE 2: MINIMAL GRADE-LEVEL EXPECTATIONS – LOWER PRIMARY

TABLE 3: MINIMAL GRADE-LEVEL EXPECTATIONS – UPPER PRIMARY

CRITERIA FOR GRADE-LEVEL TEXTS

TABLE 4: CRITERIA, END-OF-GRADE-LEVEL TEXTS, P1 TO P4

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF GRADE-LEVEL TEXTS

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CRITICAL READING SKILLS

COMMITMENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

CONTRIBUTORS, NATIONAL READING FRAMEWORK

NATIONAL EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR READING, ALL PERFORMANCE LEVELS

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

SAMPLE P1 TO P4 TEXTS AND ASSOCIATED READING COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS FOR NINE LANGUAGES

EDO

P1 EKI VBE OLUDO ẸRE

P2 IMADE LE EVBARE

P3 IBORU OZO

P4 OSATO LE ỌFINOTỌ

EFIK

P1 ISAN USUN IWAN

P2 UDUA UDEP NPKO

P3 EKPE ETIN AKPANIKO

P4 IWAN EDEM-ESA MMA-NKO

FULFULDE

P1 JEEBU E YAHA JANNGIRDE

P2 (TITLE)

P3 (TITLE)

P4 CANYOL BEƊI

HAUSA

P1 (TITLE)

P2 (TITLE)

P3 (TITLE)

P4 (MARYAM’S MOTHER)

IGBO

P1 UDO NA NKỊTA

P2 EJIKE NA NNỤNỤ YA

P3 EWI NA OKE

P4 (TITLE)

IZON

P1 ERI

P2 (TITLE)

P3 (TITLE)

P4 IKPAIKPAI

KANURI

P1 ADAMU

P2 (TITLE)

Grade 3

P3 (TITLE)

P4 (TITLE)

TIV

P1 (TITLE)

P2 (TITLE)

P3 (TITLE)

P4 (TITLE)

YORUBA

P1 (TITLE)

P2 (TITLE)

P3 (TITLE)

P4 (TITLE)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DFID Department for International Development EFR Evaluation Framework for Reading FMoE Federal Ministry of Education GPF Global Proficiency Framework LGA Local Government Authority LGEA Local Government Education Authority NEI Plus Northern Education Initiative Plus NERDC Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council NEF-R National Evaluation Framework for Reading NRF National Reading Framework OLC Oral Listening Comprehension ORF Oral Reading Fluency P1 Primary 1 P2 Primary 2 P3 Primary 3 P4 Primary 4 P5 Primary 5 P6 Primary 6 RANA Reading and Numeracy Activity RARA Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity RC Reading Comprehension SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UBEC Universal Basic Education Commission UNESCO United Nationals Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development

Message from the Executive Secretary

The National Reading Framework (NRF) for primary is another milestone in the effort of the Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC) and her partners to institutionalize reading in Nigeria. The idea of entrenching the teaching of reading in the Nigerian schools began with the introduction of reading into the English Studies Curriculum of the 9-Year Basic Education Curriculum revised in 2012. The subsequent NERDC Five-Year Strategic work Pan (2015 – 2019) identified the development of a National Reading Framework as a priority for the institutionalization of the teaching of reading in Nigerian schools.

The heart of the reading framework is the National Evaluation Framework for Reading (NEF-R). This framework outlines the critical reading skills that pupils must be able to demonstrate at the end of each grade, from primary 1 (P1) to primary 6 (P6), regardless of where they live or the language they speak. It ensures that State Ministries of Education across the country hold their pupils to the same minimal reading standards. These standards are ambitious, but at the same time achievable, if all stakeholders commit to making improved reading outcomes a priority.

The NEF-R is evidence-based. It draws from the extensive national and international research base on the skills pupils need to develop to become autonomous readers, and the pace at which these skills develop, over time. The NEF-R aligns with the Global Proficiency Framework (GPF) for Reading, P1 to P9, developed by the international community to measure progress on Sustainable Development Goal 4: “Inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015, p. 104). This alignment ensures that pupils in Nigeria are held to the same standard as their counterparts from around the world.

The NEF-R constitutes a blueprint for curriculum and instructional materials developers by outlining the critical reading skills that must figure in future reading curricula, as well as in textbooks and other reading instructional materials developed by the public and private sector for use in Nigerian primary schools. It is also a blueprint for national, state and donor-based assessments as it outlines the reading skills that must be assessed in future assessments.

Textbox 1: Goal of the National Reading Framework The National Reading Framework defines, for all those working to support improved reading instruction in Nigeria, common goals to work towards, as well as common measures against which to assess progress.

In addition to the NEF-R, the National Reading Framework describes the level of texts pupils must be able to read and understand at the end of each grade, from P1 to primary four (P4). These precisions will bring much needed consistency to future national and state assessments and provide textbook and instructional materials developers with clear guidelines on the nature of texts sought.

The NRF also calls for performance standards to be established for critical reading skills at each grade levels. These standards describe, in quantitative terms, how could is “good enough” for essential skills like oral reading fluency and comprehension. Performance standards constitute clear, easy to understand goal for pupils to strive for, at each grade level. They also provide parents, teachers, and educational officials with a common means of determining whether pupils are meeting those goals.

Finally, the NRF outlines a series of evidence-based commitments that, if honored, will strengthen the delivery of reading programs at the classroom level, and ensure that future generations develop the level of reading skills required to participate as equals in the global economy. These commitments are anchored in the lessons learned from over a decade of rigorous evaluations of young children’s reading skills in Nigeria and backed by lessons learned from the global research community.

The National Reading Framework is the fruit of a national collaboration, led by the NERDC, between the Federal Ministry of Education and its associated agencies and the State Governments representing all ten language groups in Nigeria. It was developed with the support and collaboration of international development partners and organisations, notably the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the Department for International Development (DFID). The active participation of this broad range stakeholders in the development of the NRF underscores the critical importance of improved reading outcomes to raising educational standards in our country, and by extension, to our national development. I would like to

Commitments moving forward

Performance Standards

Criteria, End of grade-level texts

Evaluation Framework

Diagram 1: Components of National Reading Framework recognize the dedication and the expertise these individuals brought to the initiative, and to express our profound gratitude to them for the assiduity with which they devoted themselves to the challenge of charting a pathway for the future.

(Signature of the Executive Secretary)

Rationale for a National Reading framework: Evidence from a decade of research on young children’s reading skills in Nigeria.

Nigeria has been working to improve reading skills in early primary for almost a decade. During that time, Federal and State governments have worked with development partners to pilot reading initiatives in Primary 1 (P1) to Primary 3 (P3) in Northern Nigeria. All these programs have focused on improving pupils’ reading skills by:

• Having pupils learn in a language they understand and use outside the classroom and at home;

• Training teachers in effective, evidence-based reading instructional practices;

• Distributing reading instructional materials, in local language, keyed to these instructional practices;

• Increasing the amount and variety of reading materials in classrooms, and ensuring that pupils can take these materials home, each evening, to practice reading;

• Ensuring these new reading materials are at appropriate levels of difficulty, that the themes addressed are engaging and reflective of pupils’ everyday experiences;

• Training headteachers in research-based instructional leadership practices associated with increases in pupils’ reading performances;

• Increasing parental and family involvement in children’s reading development.

A recent review of ten different evaluation studies carried out between 2010 and 20191 revealed that:

• Pupils in reading intervention programs have better Hausa and English reading skills than pupils in other schools. They are better able to identify letters, syllables, and words, and to understand what they have read. The differences are statistically significant in all cases. These pupils also have better reading comprehension skills, although the improvements in reading comprehension are less pronounced than those for the lower-level skills listed above.

• Providing sustained support over time results in higher reading scores. The longer pupils are in a reading intervention program, the better their reading skills. A recent NEI Plus study found that the rate with which P2 and P3 pupils were able to correctly read syllables, measured by calculated the number of correct syllables read in one minute, 1 See Evans, N. (2020). What we know about young children’s reading skills: A desk review of 2010-2019 Early Grade Reading Assessments. Report produced for NERDC, with funding from USAID, Nigeria.

doubled in Sokoto State and tripled in Bauchi State in the two year period between 2016 and 2018.

• The more time teachers devote to reading instruction, and the more time they give pupils to read independently during the school day, during or outside of reading classes, the better pupils read. Pupils in classes where teachers devote more time to reading instruction have higher ORF scores, as do pupils whose teachers give them time to read independently during the school day.

• When states introduce targeted reading interventions, the amount of time pupils spend reading or learning to read goes up. These pupils spend more learning to read than pupils in non-reading intervention schools. The differences in all cases are statistically significant.

• When states introduce targeted reading interventions, pupils’ access to reading materials increases dramatically. In studies carried out between 2011 and 2016, for example, 5% to 28% of teachers in non-reading intervention schools reported having an adequate number of reading textbooks. A 2015 study found that in schools with reading interventions, the percentage was generally over 90%.

• Pupils who have reading materials at home, who read more at home, or have someone at home who reads to them, have higher reading scores. Whether or not pupils read at home, or had someone who read to them, turned out to be single greatest determinant of pupils’ reading performance. These pupils had significantly higher reading scores that pupils who did not have reading materials at home, did not read at home or who did not have someone at home who read to them.

• Pupils in classes where teachers have had either preservice or in-service training in reading instruction score higher on reading assessments. There is a positive correlation between specialized training in reading instruction and pupils’ reading scores. Teachers in reading intervention schools are far more likely to trained in evidence-based reading practices and to use these practices in the classroom.

• Pupils in classes where teachers make greater use of evidence-based reading instructional strategies have higher reading scores. The more teachers use evidence-based reading instructional strategies presented in preservice or in-service programs, the better pupils read.

• Pupils whose parents are involved in supporting reading development by reading to pupils or helping them with their homework read better than pupils whose parents are not involved. Parental involvement in young children’s reading development is an important determinant of how well children learn to read.

The national findings summarized above confirm those found in the global literature on effective reading instruction, namely that:

• How well pupils learn to read is determined by the amount of time they spend reading or learning to read. Pupils in classrooms where teachers allocate more reading instructional time to reading-related activities score higher on reading assessments (Allington, 2002).

Instructional time as one of five policy-related initiatives identified as correlating with improved learning outcomes (Dobbie & Fryer, 2013).

Time-related factors include the extent to which pupils engage in independent reading.

Pupils who do more independent reading outside of the classroom have better reading skills (Greaney 1980; Anderson, Fielding & Wilson 1988; PIRLS 2006; PISA 2009).

Moreover, the more independent reading they do, the higher they score on reading achievement tests. This correlation holds for both high-resource as well as low-resource countries, where access to reading materials is limited (Chansa- Kabali, Serpell, & Lyytinen 2014; Dowd, Wiener, & Mabeti 2010; Friedlander 2013, 2015;

Wagner 2018, all cited in Friedlander, Arshan et al., 2018).

Our own national research confirms one of the most important discoveries in the global research literature, namely that the amount of time spent reading outside of school is, in fact, the best predictor of pupils’ reading comprehension, vocabulary, oral reading fluency, grammar and spelling skills (Anderson, Wilson & Fielding 1988;

Greaney 1980; Guthrie & Greaney 1991; Taylor, Frye & Maruyama 1990; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992; Stanovich 1992; Cox & Guthrie, 2001). The correlation holds when researchers control for a variety of health, wealth, and school factors. For this reason, increasing the amount of reading pupils do outside of class has been identified as a means of reducing social and educational inequities.

Textbox 2: Correlation between independent reading and reading scores

Pupils who read the most score in the top quartile in international reading achievement tests like PIRLS: those who score on the 90th percentile spend five times as many minutes reading as pupils who score on the 50th percentile, and more than 200 times as many minutes per day reading as pupils at the 10th percentile (Anderson Fielding & Wilson, 1988). Better readers spend more time reading independently and make more significant gains in reading achievement than less able readers (Watkins & Edwards 1992).

• How well pupils learn to read is determined by their degree of access to high quality reading materials. When pupils have access to an adequate quantity of texts, and to texts that are at their reading level, reading outcomes improve (Allington 2002).

Reading improves when pupils receive reading materials at their reading level, and teachers use them effectively as part of an evidence-based reading instructional program (EDC 2016).

• How well pupils learn to read is determined by the degree to which their teachers have been trained in effective reading instructional practices. Pupils’ reading scores improve when they have access to reading materials, when teachers are aware of the skills their pupils need to develop and how these skills develop over time, and finally when teachers teach these skills explicitly and systematically (Tilson, Kamlongera et al., 2013; EDC 2016; RTI 2015).

Research from high-resource countries (see, for example, Allington 2002) suggests that high-quality teacher preservice and in-service education is the best research-based strategy for improving reading outcomes. Studies conducted in low-resource countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, the Philippines, Jordan, and Liberia confirm this (EDC 2014; Clark-Chiarelli & Louge 2016; RTI 2014; DeStefano et al. 2013).

• How well pupils learn to read is determined by the extent to which their parents are involved in their reading development. Research from high resource countries shows that parental involvement in children’s reading development correlates with improved reading skills (OECD 2010). Children who have parents who read to them, whose parents regularly ask them to read aloud, or who monitor children’s learning perform better on reading assessments (Flouri & Buchanan 2004 – cited in Clark & Rumbold 2006). Parental involvement in reading has a more substantial impact on reading skills than family socio-economic or education levels (Ibid.).

Textbox 3: Link between independent reading and the development of foundational reading skills

When children read for pleasure, when they get “hooked on books”, they acquire, involuntarily and without conscious effort, nearly all of the so-called “language skills” many people are so concerned about: they will become adequate readers, acquire a large vocabulary, develop the ability to understand and use complex grammatical constructions, develop a good writing style, and become good (but not necessarily perfect) spellers. Although free voluntary reading alone will not ensure attainment of the highest levels of literacy, it will at least ensure an acceptable level. Without it, I suspect that children simply do not have a chance.

S. Krashen 2004, p. 85

There is emerging evidence that the same situation is true for low-resource countries.

The 2016 Landscape report (Kim et al. 2016), for example, cited studies conducted in Zambia (Chansa- Kabali et al. 2014), India (Kalia and Reese 2009), Malawi (Dowd, Wiener, & Mabeti 2010) and Iraq (Brombacher, Collins, et al. 2012) that found positive correlations between parental involvement and improved pupil reading skills.

Frielanders’ 2013 four-country study (Philippines, Uganda, Mali, and Ethiopia) found similar results: home literacy environment factors accounted for between 1.2 and 14.9% of the variance in models predicting pupils’ literacy skills.

• How well pupils learn to read is determined by the language in which they learn to read. Pupils learn better when they learn in a language they know and understand (Alidou et al. 2006; PASEC 2015; Thomas & Collier 2002; Marsh et al. 2002).

Two factors in the international research literature found to correlate with improved reading scores that have not been extensively studied in Nigeria are the degree to which teachers regularly assess pupils’ progress and use that information to adjust future instruction, and instructional leadership at the school level and beyond. In the case of the latter fact, recent meta-studies ((Seashore Louis et

al. 2010; Leithwood et al. 2014) have suggested that the second most significant impact on pupils’ learning outcomes, after teacher instructional practices, is headteacher instructional leadership.

Pupils in schools where headteachers adopt the evidence-based instructional leadership practices outlined in Textbox 3 have higher learning outcomes.

Rationale for a National Reading Framework

How well pupils read in the early grades predicts their reading abilities at higher grade levels (Butler et al. 1985; Stainthorp & Hughes 2004; Wagner et al. 1997). It also strongly predicts pupils’ overall academic success (Francis et al. 1996; Juel 1988; Lipson & Wixson 1997; Snider & Tarver 1987; Wharton-McDonald et al. 1998).

Textbox 4: Correlation between instructional leadership practices and pupils’ learning outcomes

Six instructional leadership practices that correlate with higher pupil learning outcomes include:

• establishing a clear, school-wide focus on improving learning outcomes (Leithwood et al.

2014; Robinson et al. 2008);

• setting and communicating expectations around learning (Ibid);

• ensuring that teachers use evidence-based instructional practices and available instructional resources effectively;

• monitoring pupils’ learning outcomes (Ibid);

• ensuring teachers have access to and participate in professional development, and

• establishing strong school-community-home partnerships (Ibid.).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/#R7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/#R57 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/#R69

The strong correlation between pupils’ reading skills and their academic performance is the primary reason by countries around the globe are dedicating considerable resources to improving pupils’ reading skills. Nigeria cannot afford to be left behind in this global initiative.

The evidence from our own reading evaluations, coupled with those from the international literature, suggest that if we are to improve the reading skills of young children across the country, we need a national reading initiative that builds on and leverages what we have learned from the pilot programs introduced over the past decade. This National Reading Framework provides the foundation for such an initiative. At its core is a National Evaluation Framework for Reading (N-EFR). This framework outlines the critical skills pupils must be able to demonstrate at the end of each grade-level, from P1 to P6, regardless of where they live or the language that they speak. Such a consensus will ensure that State Ministries of Education across the country hold their pupils to the same minimal reading standards. The minimal expectations outlined in Evaluation Framework align with those of the recently published Global Proficiency Framework (GPF) for Reading, developed to provide countries with a common lens for reporting on Sustainable Development Global (SDG) 4.1. The alignment of the Evaluation Framework with the GPF ensures that pupils in Nigeria are held to the same standards as pupils around the globe.

The Evaluation Framework constitutes a blueprint for future curriculum and instructional materials developers. It is also a blueprint for national, state and donor-based assessments as it outlines the reading skills that must be assessed in future assessments.

The NRF also includes detailed descriptions of the types of texts pupils are expected to read and understand at the end of each grade level, from P1 to P4, including their level of difficulty, for each of ten different languages. These descriptions should guide publishers and authors in the development of future instructional materials, thereby ensuring that pupils are presented with texts that are at appropriate levels of difficulty. They should also guide the development of future grade-specific assessments. The detailed descriptions are designed to bring much needed national consistency and comparability to the teaching and evaluation process.

The NRF also lays out a case for grade-specific performance standards for key critical reading skills like oral reading fluency for all languages of instruction, and outlines processes and principles the must guide the establishment of these standards. It references the case of the newly developed oral reading fluency standards established for Hausa, P2, and articulates a commitment to establish similar standards for other languages and grade levels, and to ensure these standards are communicated to all educational stakeholders and used to monitor progress.

Finally, if the NRF is to serve as a catalyst for improving the reading skills of young people across this country, stakeholders at all levels leverage the lessons learned from a decade of national research on young children’s reading skills and institute a targeted program of interventions to improve those skills. To that end, the NFR ends with a series of ten evidence-based commitments that national, state, and local actors, together with development partners, must adopt and champion, over the next decade, if Nigeria is to join the ranks of high-performing reading countries. These commitments form the basis of a shared, concerted effort to improve reading learning outcomes across our country. They are a call to action to all those working to improve the quality of education in our country.

That initiative must be research-based. It must draw from the national and international evidence base on specific factors that result in improved reading outcomes summarized above.

National Evaluation Framework for Reading (NEF-R)

The National Evaluation Framework for Read (NEF-R) was developed classroom teachers, curriculum and evaluation specialists, and languages specialists from ten different language groups, and representatives of development partners working to support improved reading instruction, under the leadership of the NERDC. The NERDC would like to acknowledge the immense contributions of these individuals2 to the development process. Without their time, assiduity and dedication, the Framework would not exist.

The NEF-R defines the minimum reading proficiency levels that learners are expected to attain at the end of each level of primary, from P1 to P6, for critical reading skills. These levels are research-based. They describe the minimal level of skills and competencies that pupils must be able to demonstrate in order to be successful learners at the subsequent grade level. The expectations align with those articulated in the UNESCO Global Proficiency Framework (GPF)for P1 to P6, developed to provide countries with a common measure for reporting progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. In aligning the NER-R with the GPF, Nigeria is ensuring that its learners are head to international standards.

The NER-F serves multiple purposes:

• It provides detailed minimum proficiency expectations (called Proficiency Level Descriptors, or PLDs) that states and the national level, as well as development partners, can use to develop future assessments. It provides a basis for establishing equivalent scores on different reading assessments, allowing for comparability of results over time and across jurisdictions or reading interventions.

• It provides curriculum developers with a common list of core skills that must figure in future reading curricula, for all languages and jurisdictions. Have a shared understanding of these skills is a first step in developing curricula that will ensure that pupils across the country develop the same reading skills, and to the same extent.

• It provides publishers and other instructional materials developers with clear indications of the targeted skills at each grade level. This will enable them to develop materials that better meet the needs of schools across the country.

• It provides curriculum and evaluation specialists with a reference for establishing evidence-based performance standards for critical skills at each grade level (see next section for a discussion of performance standards). Performance standards describe, in objective, easy-to-understand terms, how good is “good enough”. Once established, they become the primary measure for determining whether pupils at a given grade level have met the minimal expectations for their grade level.

Four performance levels The NEF-R describes the performance pupils at of four different levels of proficiency can demonstrate at

2 See appendix for list of contributors.

each grade level, for each key reading skills:

Table 1: Definitions of the proficiency levels

PROFICIENCY LEVELS DEFINITION

“Does Not Meet” Minimum Expectations

Learners lack the most basic knowledge and skills. As a result, they generally cannot complete the most basic grade-level tasks.

“Partially Meets” Minimum Expectations

Learners have limited knowledge and skills. As a result, they can partially complete basic grade-level tasks.

“Meets” Minimum Expectations

Learners have developed adequate knowledge and skills. As a result, they can successfully complete the most basic grade-level tasks.

“Exceeds” Minimum Expectations

Learners have developed superior knowledge and skills. As a result, they can complete complex grade-level tasks.

The performance described for the level “Meets Minimal Expectations” aligns with the performance specified in the UNESCO GPF. That alignment means that pupils who meet minimal expectations in the NEF-R will necessarily meet the minimal expectations set by UNESCO for SDG reporting.

The appendix contains the full NER-F, with performance level descriptors for all four levels, for each of the skills retained. It should be noted that the framework does not include descriptors for the “Does Not Meet” level. Instead, the performance of pupils at this level of performance is below that of the lowest pupil in the “Partially Meets Minimal Expectations” level.

Tables 2 and 3 on the following pages summarize the level of performance corresponding to “Meets Minimal Expectations”. Table 2 outlines minimal expectations for early primary (P1 to P3), Table Y3for upper primary (P4 to P6).

Table 2: Minimal Grade-Level Expectations – Lower Primary

3 Simple inferential comprehension questions are questions that do not require the reader to draw conclusions. They may involve recognizing information that is expressed in different words from those used in the original text, identify relationships that are not explicitly stated in the text (for example, causal relationships that are not explicitly stated by a connector like “because”), or speculating on the actions of a character. When inferring, student must use information in the text.

4 Simple inferential comprehension questions are questions that do not require the reader to draw conclusions. They may involve recognizing information that is expressed in different words from those used in the original text, identifying relationships that are not explicitly stated in the text (for example, causal relationships that are not explicitly stated by a connector like “because”), or speculating on the actions of a character. When inferring, pupils must use information in the text.

5 What constitutes familiar or unfamiliar (new) words depends on the context and pupils’ prior knowledge. These words should be identified prior to reading or telling the text to pupils.

6 What constitutes familiar or unfamiliar words depends on the context and learners’ prior knowledge. They should be identified prior to reading the text aloud to learners.

PRIMARY 1 PRIMARY 2 PRIMARY 3

A. ORAL LISTENING COMPREHENSION

A1 Locate & understand ideas expressed in grade-level stories read aloud or told orally by others A1.1 Locate information directly or explicitly stated in stories or texts NL: Locate most explicit information, either in text or illustrations.

EN: English - Locate most basic explicit information (e.g., the name of a character) when the information is prominently stated in the text and located in one or more sentences.

NL and EN: Locate most basic directly stated information (e.g., the name of a character) located in one or more sentences.

NL and EN: Locate explicitly stated, detailed information about events, ideas or characters.

A1.2 Interpret information based on clues in stories or texts (NL ONLY in P1) NL: Identifying simple inferences3 from explicit information located in consecutive sentences; Sometimes able to identify the general idea of a text. Able to reword events in a text in his/her own words, although rewording lacks detail.

NL: Identify some simple inferences4 when the clues are explicitly stated and found in consecutive sentences. Have difficulty when clues are located throughout the text.

NL: Make simple inferences using explicit clues in consecutive sentences or in different parts of the text.

EN only: Make simple inferences using explicit clues in consecutive sentences or in a short paragraph.

A2 Understand the meaning of words in grade-level stories read aloud or told orally by others (NL Only in P1)

NL: When listening to longer texts, identify the meaning of familiar words and some unfamiliar (new) words.5

NL: When listening to longer texts, identify the meaning of familiar words and some unfamiliar (new) words

NL: Use contextual or morphological clues to identify the meaning of familiar and unfamiliar words when listening to longer texts6.

EN: Use morphological clues to identify the meaning of familiar and unfamiliar words when listening to simple, short texts.

B. PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS

B1 Identify and manipulate sounds in spoken words B1.1 Identify syllable sounds in spoken words NL and EN: Identify most initial syllable sounds and some end sounds in two or three syllable words, or identify, most of the time, if a given syllable sound is heard at the beginning or end of a three-syllable word but has difficult if syllable is in middle of word. Can generate some words that start with a given syllable sound.

NL and EN: Sort 2 to 4 syllable words by the number of syllables. Identify if a spoken syllable is heard in the beginning, middle or end of a 3 or 4-syllable word. Makes some mistakes when asked to do the above.

B1.2 Identify phoneme sounds in spoken words (English only) EN: Identify most initial phoneme sounds in short one or two syllable words and some end sounds. Can generate some words that start with a given phoneme.

EN: Locate and isolate letter sounds (phonemes) at the end or in the middle of short, one to three syllable words most of the time. Count out and identify the number of phonemes in short, spoken words. Add or remove a sound at the beginning of a word to make a new word. Makes some mistakes when asked to do the above.

C. CONCEPTS OF PRINT AND PARATEXTUAL FEATURES

C1 Identify basic features of print NL and EN: Identify most of the basic features of books, i.e., the front cover, back cover, illustrations and title page

NL and EN: Identify some basic information in illustrations that adds additional information about characters, setting, or plot, or about the topic of a text

NL and EN: Identify some basic information in illustrations, as well as words in text, to answer questions about when, where, why or how key events occurred. Make some mistakes.

C2 Interpret paratextual features NL: Usually able to identify the title of a book or a text but has difficulty explaining its purpose or explaining it completely, without support from teacher

NL and EN: Distinguish sentences and paragraphs in a text most of the time; Identify if a sentence is a statement or a question most of the time, based on punctuation.

NL and EN: Usually Identify if a sentence is a statement, a question or an exclamation most of the time, based on punctuation;

Identify most basic typographical features common to stories and informational texts (titles, subtitles, images, photos, diagrams, table of contents, et.) and give a very basic description of the roles of some of the features.

7 Minimal fluency standards should be evidence-based, language-specific and reflect the minimal level required to read with comprehension in the language of instruction.

D. ALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE

D1 Identify letter names and letter sounds NL and EN: Identify or locate letters (upper and lower case) and letter combinations studied in P1, as well as the sounds they make. Identify letters at a regular pace, but it is obvious that the automatism is not entirely achieved. Sometime make mistakes or hesitate when identifying certain letters (or letter combinations) and the sounds they make.

D2 Read, globally words that cannot be read by decoding NL: Recognize globally and quickly most of the words borrowed from English that frequently appear in P1 texts and cannot be read via decoding

EN: Recognize globally and quickly most high-frequency English words, as well as very familiar words with irregular letter-sound combinations (i.e., that cannot be read via decoding skills).

NL: Recognize globally and quickly most of the P2 words borrowed from English that frequently appear in P2 texts and cannot be read via decoding

EN: Recognize globally and quickly most high-frequency P2-level English words, as well as very familiar words with irregular letter-sound combinations (i.e., that cannot be read via decoding skills).

D3 Use letter-sound knowledge and blending skills to read words (familiar and invented), in isolation and in sentences NL - Read most 3 to 4 syllable, familiar words accurately, especially the most frequent ones by orally blending spoken syllables together, although sometimes with noticeable syllabication. Has difficulty reading words of more than 4 syllables. It is obvious that the automatism is not completely achieved EN - Read accurately frequent, simple words of 2 to 4 syllables with and easy letter-sound correspondences. Sometimes make mistakes with longer (more than 3 syllables) or difficult words (those with irregular letter-sound matches or silent letters)

NL - Accurately decode most short (2 to 4 syllable) familiar words in a text, especially the most frequently encountered ones. Sometimes read slowly, and syllable by syllable.

Sometimes make decoding errors when reading longer words. Hesitate sometimes when reading and have difficulty reading words of more than 4 syllables.

EN - Accurately decode most short, familiar words in a text with regular easy letter-sound correspondences. Sometimes make mistakes with longer (more than 3 syllables) or difficult (with irregular letter-sound matches) words.

E. FLUENCY

E1 Read simple, short grade-level texts accurately NL and EN: Read aloud at a pace and accuracy rate that meets minimal country standards for P1

NL and EN: Read aloud at a pace and accuracy rate that meets minimal country standards for P2

Read aloud at a pace and accuracy rate that meets minimal country standards7 for fluency for P3

8 What constitutes familiar or unfamiliar words depends on the context and pupils’ prior knowledge. They should be identified prior to having pupils read the text.

F. READING COMPREHENSION

F1 Understand the meaning of words in grade-level texts NL with dialectal varieties – Identify the meaning of most familiar words in simple, P1-level texts; Identify equivalent local words or expressions for some unfamiliar P1-level words in textbooks or other reading materials

In EN, understand the meaning of most short, familiar words in simple, P1-level texts

NL with dialectal varieties – Identify equivalent local words or expressions for most unfamiliar P2-level words in textbooks or other reading materials

NL and EN: Identify the meaning of most familiar words, including when they have regular morphological changes (plurals or simple affixes) or are used in unfamiliar ways

NL with dialectal varieties – Identify equivalent local words or expressions for most unfamiliar words and expressions used in P3-level texts

NL and EN: Use morphological and contextual clues to identify the meaning of a variety of familiar words and unfamiliar words8. Identify words in texts with related meaning or describe the difference between related words;

Sometimes make mistakes with the above.

F2 Generate words for, or sort words by, given semantic categories NL and EN: Sometimes makes mistakes when sorting words into semantic categories (e.g., colors, clothing) or Identifying some words belonging to a given, GP1-level semantic category; Given 3 or 4 objects or illustrations of objects, sometimes makes mistakes identifying the one that does not belong to the same semantic category

NL and EN: Sometimes make mistakes when sorting words into semantic categories or Identifying some words belonging to a given, P2-level semantic category; Given 3 or 4 words, sometimes make mistakes identifying the one that does not belong to the same semantic category

NL and EN: Sometimes make mistakes when sorting words into semantic categories or Identifying words belonging to a given, P3-level semantic category; Given 5 or 6 P3-level words, sometimes make mistakes identifying the one that does not belong to the same semantic category;

F3 Retrieve or locate explicitly stated information at the sentence or text level NL and EN - Locate most of the basic, explicit information (e.g., a character's name) in a text when the information is stated explicitly, in a single sentence.

NL and EN - Retrieve explicit pieces of information from a single sentence.

NL and EN: Retrieve prominent, explicit information from two consecutive sentences.

F4. Interpret information at the sentence or text level, based on clues in the text F4.1 Make simple inferences

Interpret information by tracking most close noun or pronoun references in text.

NL and EN: Interpret information by filling in obvious missing information in one sentence or two consecutive sentences.

F4.2 Establish main and secondary ideas ------------------ ------------------ NL and EN: Establish the general topic of a short text.

G. ATTITUDES TOWARDS READING AND MOTIVATION TO READ

G1 Engage in class and school reading activities NL and EN: Always engage in group reading activities, although not always with enthusiasm, purpose or understanding; Is willing to read

NL and EN: Always engage in group reading activities, although not always with enthusiasm, purpose or understanding; Willing to read

NL and EN: Read for longer periods of time without losing interest or concentration;

Read increasingly longer texts without losing interest or motivation.

G2 Engage in out-of-school reading activities L and EN: Participate in at home or out of school reading activities on a semi regular basis (not daily).

NL and EN: Participate in at home or out of school reading activities on a semi regular basis (not daily).

NL and EN: Participate in at home or out of school reading activities on a semi regular basis (not daily).

Table 3: Minimal Grade-Level Expectations – Upper Primary

PRIMARY 4 PRIMARY 5 PRIMARY 6

A. ORAL LISTENING COMPREHENSION

A1.2 Interpret information based on clues in stories or texts ( Draw basic conclusions that reflect an adequate understanding of the ideas, events, or characters in a text.

Make logical generalizations.

A2 Understand the meaning of words in grade-level stories read aloud or told orally by others (NL Only in P1)

Identify how the meaning of words changes depending on the context and tonal variation but has difficulty when changes involve nuances.

C. CONCEPTS OF PRINT AND PARATEXTUAL FEATURES

C2 Interpret paratextual features Identify most basic typographical features common to P4-level tests types (stories, poems, informational texts, cartoons, etc.), and give a very basic description of the roles of some of the features; Identify some of the features when they are missing.

Identify if a sentence is declarative, interrogative, imperative or exclamatory; If they are a full sentence, a fragment or a run-on. Sometimes makes mistakes when doing so.

Make basic predictions but logical about the content and themes of stories, drawing on a variety of features (e.g.

title, cover, illustrations, blurb etc.)

Identify most basic typographical features common to P5-level tests types (poems, informational texts, new articles, poster, stories, letters, etc..) and give a very basic description of the roles of some of the features; Identify some of the features when they are missing.

Identify if a sentence is declarative, interrogative, imperative or exclamatory; If they are a full sentence, a fragment or a run-on. Sometimes makes mistakes when doing so.

Identify capitalization and formatting patterns in titles;

Makes mistakes sometimes

Identify most basic typographical features common to P6-level tests types (poems, informational texts, news articles, stories, letters, pamphlets, directions or instructional materials, etc..) and give a very basic description of the roles of some of the features; Identify if some of the features (titles, subtitles, etc.) are missing

Identify if a sentence is declarative, interrogative, imperative or exclamatory; If they are a full sentence, a fragment or a run-on. Sometimes makes mistakes when doing so.

Identify capitalization and formatting patterns in titles;

Makes mistakes sometimes

Interpret some information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g., in charts, graphs, diagrams, timelines, etc.).

Make basic predictions about the content of texts by looking at text features. Predictions are generally justifiable but not always detailed Interpret some information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g. indexes, maps, charts, lists, photographs, menus, glossaries, tables of contents.).

Make basic predictions about the content of texts by looking at text features. Predictions are generally justifiable but not always detailed

Identify some information that is present in visuals (tables, graphics, etc.) that are not present in the text and vice versa

F. READING COMPREHENSION

F1 Understand the meaning of words in grade-level texts NL with dialectal varieties – Recognize and explain the meaning of some of the most common P 4-level idioms, adages, and proverbs of the region; Identify the local equivalent of some P 4-level words found in texts

Usually, but not consistently, identify words in texts that come from other languages or cultures. Can sometimes identify if the words have maintained the meaning they had in the original language.

Use morphological and contextual clues to identify the meaning of a familiar words and unfamiliar words when the clues are explicit, and to distinguish the meaning of some closely related words with different shades of meaning.

NL with dialectal varieties – Recognize and explain the meaning of some of the most common P5-level idioms, adages, and proverbs of the region; Identify the local equivalent of some P5-level words found in texts

Usually, but not consistently, identify words in texts that come from other languages or cultures. Can sometimes identify if the words have maintained the meaning they had in the original language.

Identify the meaning of unfamiliar words, expressions and figurative expressions when the clues are explicit and some basic figurative language; distinguish the meaning of some closely related words with different shades of meaning.

NL with dialectal varieties – Recognize and explain the meaning of some of the most common P6-level idioms, adages, and proverbs of the region; Identify the local equivalent of some P6-level words found in texts

Usually, but not consistently, identify words in texts that come from other languages or cultures. Can sometimes identify if the words have maintained the meaning they had in the original language.

Identify the meaning of unfamiliar words and phrases, including basic figurative expressions and closely related words, using clues (contextual, morphological, syntactic) that have been explicitly taught and are easy to identify and use.

F3 Retrieve or locate explicitly stated information at the sentence or text level Retrieve explicit information in a paragraph when the information is prominent and easy to locate; has difficulty if the information is less prominent or involves details.

Retrieve explicit information in text or basic paratextual features when the information is prominent and easy to locate; has difficulty if the information is less prominent or involves details.

Retrieve explicit prominent or less prominent information in a text or in basic paratextual features, when there is limited competing information.

F4. Interpret information at the sentence or text level, based on clues in the text F4.1 Make simple inferences Make simple inferences about behaviors, feelings, or events by relating one or more prominent, explicitly stated pieces of information in the text, regardless of where the

Establish causal relationships when the supporting information is explicitly stated in the text (but not

Relate two or more prominent pieces of information in the text or paratextual features to:

information is in the text; has difficulty if the information is less prominent (involves details) or there is some competing information.

necessarily in consecutive sentences) stated and there is no competing information.

Identify points of view or positions when the supporting information is explicitly stated in the text (but not necessarily in consecutive sentences) stated and there is no competing information.

o Provide simple explanations of most behaviors, feelings, or causes of events o Recognize the general purpose of a text o Identify some evidence in a text that supports an idea or a position o Draw basic conclusions

F4.2 Establish main and secondary ideas Establish the general, main idea of a text most of the time, if it is prominently stated.

Establish the main idea of a text most of the time, as well as some prominent key secondary ideas.

Establish the main idea of a text and most prominent key secondary ideas in a text and generally sequence prominent ideas and identify one or two idea or event that relates to or supports a main idea.

F4.3 Identify familiar grade-level text types Recognize most of the text types encountered in grade 4 when the clues are obvious or prominent.

Recognize most of the text types encountered in P5 when the clues are obvious or prominent. ------------------

F5 Reflect on information F5.1 Establish connections between main idea of a text and one’s personal experience and/or general knowledge Establish basic connections between the ideas in the text a their personal experiences or general knowledge.

Establish basic connections between the ideas in the text and their personal experiences or general knowledge.

Establish basic connections between the ideas in the text and their personal experiences or general knowledge.

F5.2 Differentiate fact from opinion

Differentiate facts from opinions when clues are prominent or require simple inferences.

1. ATTITUDES TOWARDS READING AND MOTIVATION TO READ

G1 Engage in class…