This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 5.3.4 | Assessment of risk of bias in included studies Researchers reviewed the articles using separate quality review protocols (see Appendix D for full versions of each protocol) based on the type of study as follows:

In this study, we examine the relative contributions of syllabic awareness, phonemic awareness, and oral vocabulary knowledge in early akshara reading ability from Grades 1 through 5. The performance of 488 students in two states of South India, Karnataka (Kannada language) and Andhra Pradesh (Telugu language), was measured. Results from a commonality analysis indicate that there was an increasing independent contribution of syllabic awareness to Kannada and Telugu decoding through the five grades, but the unique contribution of phonemic awareness steadily declined through the five grades, as it became subsumed within syllabic awareness. The contribution of oral vocabulary knowledge did not present a clear pattern across the five grades. This study builds on a growing body of literature on the akshara orthographies to shed light on the precise nature of the developmental asymmetry in the dual syllabic and phonemic representation in akshara reading.

No abstract

No abstract

To address the evidence gap in making effective language of instruction (LOI) decisions, we propose a systematic review of the role of LOI choices in education programs and policies on literacy outcomes in multilingual educational contexts in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Grounded in a multidisciplinary theory of change (ToC) describing what factors link LOI choices and literacy outcomes, we will gather, organize, and synthesize the evidence on the specific role of the three LOI choices described in the ToC (teaching in mother tongue [MT] with later transition, teaching in a non‐MT language, or teaching in two or more languages at one time) and its impact on literacy and biliteracy outcomes. We will focus our systematic review and meta‐analysis only on quantitative and qualitative intervention studies from LMICs as these have the highest relevance for decision making in multilingual LMIC contexts. We will also only include languages that are relevant and commonly spoken in LMICs. For example, we will likely include studies that examine Arabic to English transfer, but not Arabic to Swedish transfer.