Achieving reading skills in a contextualized, inclusive way to mitigate the risk for conflicts – what does evidence-aligned reading instruction tell us?

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session

Proposal

By the end of 2024, close to 50 million children were displaced by conflict and violence . Education can sometimes contribute to conflict, e.g., in cases of discrimination, and is usually negatively impacted by conflict. However, through smart education policies that focus on equity and inclusion, some risks for disputes and conflicts can be mitigated.
Providing a literacy learning environment that respects local languages and enables a supportive reading and writing learning environment for children, countries can reduce the “learning poverty”, mitigate divisions and promote social cohesion. More successful learning programs may also reduce drop-out rates, which can also reduce risks, especially for youth. Building on a strong education system, literacy builds shared foundations and can support stability in systems.
This session builds on the forthcoming GEEAP paper and highlights what the evidence in low- and middle-income countries shows has worked for successful literacy programs. It discusses the benefits of children learning reading in their home language, and provides an evidence-aligned approach for successful literacy programs.

Numerous factors influence the development of skilled readers, from the characteristics of the target language and writing system to those of the student. Becoming a skilled reader is a multi-year process wherein skills are learned and developed through classroom instruction and practice.

One of the challenges for governments and schools is that despite the availability of high-quality evidence on “what works”, many school systems do not align reading instruction with existing evidence on effectiveness. Debates in some contexts have focused on whether to make explicit instruction in letter-sound relationships—phonics—a key feature of reading instruction. Research shows phonics to be centrally important in the initial stages of learning to read in many languages, and the scientific consensus supports its systematic and explicit instruction. But phonics alone is not synonymous with a fully evidence-aligned reading curriculum. Rather, reading comprehension results from systematic, explicit instruction on multiple subskills that include oral language development, phonological awareness, phonic-based decoding, fluency and automaticity, and others. Furthermore, context and inclusion throughout the process are important components to avoid division.
The session will explore which learning processes best facilitate the acquisition of reading skills which underlies many other skills and much knowledge acquisition. The speakers will present what evidence-based information can be used when designing reading policies and instructions, and how to align the education system to achieve lasting success while also contributing to social cohesion and inclusion. It will also look at the systems and local contexts that facilitate optimum success.

Agenda (time):
1. Welcome (Chair: FCDO) (3 min)
2. Evidence-aligned reading instruction to lower learning poverty: Overview of the GEEAP-endorsed paper based on evidence from LMICs (GEEAP Secretariat) (5 min)
- The presenter will provide an overview of the forthcoming GEEAP-endorsed literacy paper
3. The key components of successful literacy programs – highlighting elements that foster local context and inclusion: Parts 1 and 2 (Gates Foundation and World Bank) (20 min)
- The presenters will summarize the state of evidence on how to develop the necessary subskills along the trajectory of reading development that ends in skilled reading – with a strong focus on evidence from LMICs.
- While the principles of effective reading instruction apply to the majority of languages, teachers can and should adapt instruction to the local context and to students’ needs. In other words, adopting evidence-aligned instruction does not mean that all teachers in an education system must teach exactly the same material. For instance, the choice of reading material may be guided by local languages, cultural diversity, and other considerations.
- The presenters will also highlight the importance and benefits of learning to read in a home language (L1) first before transitioning to an L2.
4. How peace education can be integrated in reading instruction (APHRC) (10 min)
- To understand how teachers change behavior and make instructional decisions, IMBP posits that individual beliefs are the driving force behind behavioral change. The research questions were guided by the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction (IMBP).
- The team collected data and analyzed it to enhance their understanding of behavioral change in teaching, and the discussion of the results shows how peace education can be integrated in reading instructions.
5. Discussants (Language and Learning Foundation and consultant) (4.5 min each)
6. Engaging questions for the audience – (facilitated by GEEAP Secretariat) (5 min)
7. Q&A (facilitated by chair) (20 min)
8. Closing (Chair) (3 min)

The panel members have a diverse background – both in their expertise (implementation, or research or academia), as well as geographically.

Sub Unit

• Global Literacy SIG

Chair

• Maria Brindlmayer, GEEAP, BE2 / KM Excell

Individual Presentations

• 2. Evidence-aligned reading instruction to lower learning poverty: Overview of the GEEAP-endorsed paper based on evidence from LMICs - Maria Brindlmayer, GEEAP, BE2 / KM Excell

• 3. The key components of successful literacy programs – highlighting elements that foster local context and inclusion – Part 1 - Benjamin Piper, Gates Foundation

• 3. The key components of successful literacy programs – highlighting elements that foster local context and inclusion – Part 2 - Jaime Saavedra, The World Bank Group

• 4. How to integrate peace education successfully in reading instructions - Moses Ngware, African Population And Health Research Center

Discussants

• Dhir Jhingran, Language and Learning Foundation

• Margaret Peggy Dubeck, independent