Punjab Education Assessment System (PEAS), Education ... · CT Certificate of Teaching DfID...

Punjab Education Assessment System (PEAS), Education Department, Govt. of the Punjab


Acknowledgment Punjab Education Assessment System (PEAS) would like to acknowledge with thanks the support it has received from many individuals and institutions in conducting the third round of provincial assessment in 2007. Thanks are particularly due to: • Special Secretary Schools, Education Department, Govt. of the

Punjab. • National Education Assessment System (NEAS), Ministry of

Education, Govt. of Pakistan. • Director Public Instruction, Elementary Education. • Director Public Instruction, Secondary Education. • Executive District Officers (Education). • Principals of Teacher Training Institutions. • Educationists/Experts for their valuable technical input • World Bank for its technical and financial support for NEAS/PEAS

activities. In addition, thanks are also due to the District Education Officers, Staff of Teacher Training Institutions, Test Administrators, Head Teachers, Teachers, Parents and specially students for giving their valuable time to participate in assessing students learning achievements at National and Provincial Level. PEAS Staff


List of Abbreviations AIOU Allama Iqbal Open University (Islamabad) ACER Australian Council for Educational Research AEAC Area Education Assessment Centre ATC Assessment Training Centre AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir B.Ed. Bachelor of Education CT Certificate of Teaching DfID Department for International Development DoE Department of Education ETS Educational Testing Service FCE Federal College of Education (Islamabad) FANA Federally Administrated Northern Areas FATA Federally Administrated Tribal Areas GCET Government College for Elementary Teachers IAEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement ICT Islamabad Capital Territory IER Institute of Education and Research (University of the Punjab) IPI International Partnering Institution IRT Item Response Theory M.Ed. Master of Education MoE Ministry of Education MCQ Multiple Choice Question NAT National Achievement Test NEAS National Education Assessment System NIP National Institute of Psychology (Quaid-e-Azam University) NPCC National Planning and Coordination Committee NWFP North West Frontier Province PITE Provincial Institute of Teacher Education PTA Parent Teacher Association PTC Primary Teaching Certificate PPS Probability Proportional to Size PEACE Provincial Education Assessment Centers SAT Scholastic Ability Test SMC School Management Committee SD Standard Deviation TA Technical Assistance TOEFL Test of English as Foreign Language TIMSS Trends in Mathematics and Science Study


Executive Summary The Government of Pakistan as well as Government of the Punjab is committed to improve the quality of education along with its efforts to increase enrolment and access. This commitment is reflected in the government's policy documents (National Education Policy 1998-2010, Education Sector Reforms 2001-05) and in its reaffirmation at international forums to include quality outcomes such as student achievement scores as performance monitoring indicators in the education sector. A specific priority within the overall plan is to: “Build assessment capacity at the school, provincial and federal levels to better measure learning outcomes and improve the quality and effectiveness of programme interventions.” Most of the assessment activities in the past have been project driven in Pakistan. There is little institutional base either at the Federal or Provincial level to sustain assessment activities beyond the project timelines. Neither the traditional school examinations nor the external public examinations and selection tests for admission to institutions of higher education, sufficiently fulfill the criteria of standardization and comparability required for a monitoring indicator. National Education Assessment System (NEAS), Ministry of Education at Federal level and its associated centers in the Provinces and Areas (AJK, FATA, FANA), have been established as a priority programme to institutionalize students assessment as a permanent feature of education system. Punjab Education Assessment System (PEAS), Education Department, Govt. of the Punjab is responsible to conduct assessment tests for national and provincial purposes. Central to these efforts is the development of institutional capacity of the Departments of Education at the provincial and area levels to monitor standards of education. Within Pakistan, NEAS/PEAS have established a partnership with the Institute of Education and Research (IER), University of Punjab, Lahore and with the Federal College of Education (FCE) Islamabad as its Assessment Training Centers (ATCs). The International Partnering Institutions (IPIs) of NEAS are the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), the University of Melbourne, Australia and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the United States. NEAS/PEAS have planned a sample-based national/provincial assessment, at Grade 4 and at Grade 8, in four subjects: • Language • Mathematics • Science • Social Studies


The objectives of NEAS/PEAS are: • Informing Policy: the extent to which geography and gender are

linked to inequality in student performance. • Monitoring Standards: how well the curricula are translated into

knowledge and skills; • Identifying correlates of achievement: the principle determinants of

student performance and how resource allocation might be re-directed • Directing Teachers’ Efforts and Raising Students’ A chievements:

Assisting teachers to use data to improve student performance.

This report includes the details of curriculum based test development at NEAS and its associated centers, the basic issues and procedures for selection of national sample, particularly the problems of low enrolment in some rural areas and the application of sampling weights to rectify the imbalances of the population due to low enrolment especially in rural areas. Results of the first round of national assessment 2005, in terms of scaled achievement scores and the impact of background and context variables on students’ achievement are also presented.

The achievement scores of VIII Grade students in subject of Mathematics and Urdu are reported on a scale of 1-1000, with a mean set at 500 and a standard deviation of 100. This scale is the same as in TIMSS, SAT, TOEFL etc used in international studies. The scaled mean scores obtained in 2007 can be used as baseline for reporting trends over time as well as for comparing the average and relative performance of different groups of students. The 2007 baseline scaled means scores can also be used to set targets for improvement of learning achievement to be reflected in future rounds of national/provincial assessment. On this scale, the Punjab Urdu scaled mean score is 541 and the Mathematics mean score is 471, English mean score is 503. The mean score of Urdu is above the set mean of 500 but mean sore of Math is below the set mean of 500. The national scaled mean scores in Urdu and Math are 512 and 458 respectively. English test was not taken at national level; it was only conducted in Punjab.

The 2007 results show that achievement test scores are also well below the international average Mathematics score of 495 in TIMSS 2003 but there are four countries (Iran, Philippines, Morocco and Tunisia) whose Mathematics scores are lower than the Pakistan/Punjab Mathematics score. This comparison is only indicative and not entirely valid because of the differences in the NEAS/PEAS and TIMSS curriculum framework, sampling outcome, test administration conditions and students’ learning environment.

The analysis of background and context variables in relation to achievement scores revealed that several variables related to student home background, teaching-learning processes and teaching practices are associated with students’ achievement positively or negatively.

Students who reported that they were allowed to ask questions in class scored significantly higher than those who were not allowed to ask questions. Similarly, students who reported getting homework achieved significantly


higher means scores than that of those students who did not get any homework in subjects of Mathematics and Urdu.

Supporting inputs from family were also associated with higher mean scores. Students who were taught by their brother at home scored significantly higher in Urdu and Mathematics. Students who are taught by mother in Urdu have showed better results, whereas in Math their results are low. The students who do not take help from any member of family have also shown good performance on both subjects.

Students and teachers emphasis on homework completion and teachers explanation of individuals homework mistakes have positive impact on students achievement in Urdu and Math. The level of achievement increases as the emphasis on homework increases.

The effect of speaking local language along with national language was also checked. It appeared that effect of local language during teaching of Urdu is negative, as the level of speaking local language increases the level of student’s achievement decreases. It means that while teaching Urdu teachers should always use Urdu language in class. On the other hand the affect of using local language in Mathematics is positive. With the increase of use of local language the achievement of students also increase, but excessive use of local language in Math is negative. It means that understanding of concepts easy if it is elaborated in local language along with Urdu as a mixed method of instruction.

The qualification of most of the teachers fall in three major groups of Intermediate, Bachelor and Master, it appeared that the students who are taught by teachers with Intermediate qualification have shown better performance both in Urdu and Math with scaled mean score 554 and 488 respectively. Gender wise difference of achievement of students was also made. It appeared that the female students who are taught by female teachers have shown significantly better performance in Urdu whereas female teachers are also significantly better than male teachers in Urdu. On the other hand male students have shown better performance in Math as compared to female students. Male teachers have also performed better than female teachers in the subject of Math.

Comparison of students’ achievement was also made with reference to

the use of blackboard by their teachers. It appeared that student who are taught by teachers using blackboard in the class have good achievement in Urdu as compared to other group. Whereas in Math there is no difference between both groups in their achievement. The students who come to school by their own car have shown high achievement in Mathematics. It shows that students better socio-economic


status has positive impact on students achievement in Math and Urdu. Whereas the students who come school by foot has shown low achievement in Urdu. One of the reasons may be that in rural areas most of the students go to school by foot and rural students have shown low achievement in Urdu in our analysis by location. There is no significant difference between students who go to school by public transport and private transport.

Reported availability of teaching resources (library, textbooks, teaching guides, curriculum document) did not make any significant difference to the mean scores of students in either Urdu or Mathematics.

The percentage of physical punishment to boys is high than girls with

51.4% and 48.6% respectively. Whereas percentage of punishment is high in rural area schools with 62.5% as compared to urban areas schools with 37.5%. Physical punishment is high in high schools than middle and higher secondary schools. There is no strong relation with punishment and students achievement.

Watching television more than three hours showed negative impact on achievement in Math. Whereas in Urdu watching television upto two to three hours has positive impact on achievement of students. But when watching television crosses the limit of more than three hours it shows negative impact on performance. T.V may be used as useful source for the improvement of language learning.

There was a significant difference in mean scores of students whose teachers reported teaching two or more classes together in the same period as compared to those whose teachers taught a single class. The mean scores of the students taught by the teachers reporting teaching only one class were better than that of those who were taught by a teacher teaching more than one classes at a time.

Finally, it would be pertinent to note that the development of a national/provincial assessment system is a complex and challenging task. The preparation and implementation of the 2007 assessment was carried out under tight deadlines. The grade 8 assessment instruments were piloted in May 2006. These instruments were marked and coded by the NEAS/PEAS team; data entry was outsourced and item analysis was carried.

These activities were performed with insufficient staff in the NEAS/PEAS. To ensure that the assessment was conducted in an efficient and timely manner many of the staff was assigned multiple tasks. The capacity building of staff was carried out through hands on work and training with support from Technical Assistance(TA) of World Bank consultants and NEAS/PEAS partnering institutions. Lack of staff works against sustainability and institutionalization of the NEAS/PEAS network. Furthermore, NEAS/PEAS sample design in 2005 has posed some logistics problems and for 2007 NEAS has employed a modified design which will reduce some of


the problems without compromising the representative or random features of the sample.

NEAS/PEAS have generated a large amount of data which can be used for research to identify specific variables that are associated with high student achievement. It is anticipated that when staff from NEAS and its associated centers proceed for higher studies they will be able to use this year’s and future NEAS databases for carrying out such studies. Teacher training institutions and University departments of Education, Psychology and other Social Sciences in Pakistan can also use this database for research.


Chapter-1

Introduction National and Provincial Assessment: Quality education is the main concern of all the nations in the world. Pakistan like

other developing nations is facing many challenges to improve its education system.

These challenges include access, equity and equality of education facilities

throughout the country. In spite of all these challenges relating to expansion of

educational facilities, quality education is the top priority. Quality of education in any

country cannot be improved without knowing its strengths and weakness. An

effective mechanism is needed to monitor the system effectively and identify the

factors affecting the quality positively or negatively. Assessment of students learning

achievement and identification of factors affecting students’ learning has been

recognized as an effective tool to know the strength and weaknesses in the existing

practices.

Students’ learning assessment aimed at monitoring the education system as a whole is

a world wide emerging trend. students' learning achievement levels along with

background information related to students, parents, teachers, head teachers and

school lead to analyze the existing state of affairs and suggest measures to improve

the system.

Government of Pakistan realized the benefits of national assessment of students’

learning and launched National Education Assessment System (NEAS) project at

federal level along with Provincial/Area Education Assessment Centers/Systems.

Stepping forward towards national assessment is the evidence of federal and

provincial governments’ concern for quality of education. Punjab Education

Assessment System (PEAS) is the institutionalized form of Provincial Education

Assessment Centers (PEACE) project in Punjab. NEAS has been mandated to

conduct national assessment with the help of provincial education assessment

centers/systems at Grade IV and VIII levels.


National Education Assessment System (NEAS) seeks consultancy of international

experts on various components of assessment to conduct national assessment as well

as to build the capacity of its personnel. Consultants build the capacity of NEAS and

PEACE/PEAS staff on various aspects like assessment framework development, test

item development, assembling the tests, test administration, marking and scoring of

the instrument, data analysis and report writing.

This report presents the findings of the grade VIII students’ learning achievement

assessment in Punjab in the year 2007. Achievement tests in the subjects of

Mathematics, Urdu and English were developed on the basis of assessment

frameworks aligned with the objectives of the national curriculum.

Assessment Instruments

National/ Provincial assessment aims at determining the learning achievement levels

of the students and factors affecting their achievement. Achievement tests were

developed to assess the learning achievement of the students and to explore the

factors affecting students' learning, background questionnaires for students and

parents, teachers and head teachers were developed. Field report of the test

administrators also provided data regarding environment and facilities in schools.

Achievement Tests Achievement tests in the subjects of Mathematics, Urdu and English at Grade-VIII

level were developed to assess students' learning in 2007. Test items are developed

according to the assessment frameworks and expected learning outcome given in the

curriculum document. Instruments developed to assess the learning achievement of

the students are pilot tested and analyzed on software based on item response theory

(IRT). A brief detail of the achievement test is given in the proceeding section.

Mathematics Achievement Test Achievement test to assess the students' learning in Mathematics at Grade-VIII level

was based on two dimensional assessment framework1. This framework was aligned

with the objectives of the National curriculum. The dimensions of the assessment

framework were mathematical abilities and content domains. Mathematical abilities

1 See Mathematics assessment framework on Annexure-IV


were comprised of conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge and problem

solving skills. Content domains were number sense and operations, measurement,

geometry and spatial sense and data analysis, statistics, probability and information

handling.

Assessment frameworks and table of specifications2 were developed with the

consensus of subject experts from all the provinces and areas under consultation with

international consultants hired by NEAS. Two forms were developed for

Mathematics test comprising 33 items each.

Urdu Language Achievement Test Proficiency in any language has four main components i.e. listening, speaking,

reading and writing. Only reading and writing skills can be assessed through paper

and pencil test. Proficiency of Grade-IV students in Urdu language was assessed

through reading and writing tests. Both the reading and writing tests were taken at a

time through the same test booklets.

Reading tests was developed on a two dimensional assessment framework3. One

dimension was context of reading and the other was aspects of reading. Context of

reading included reading for literary experience, reading for information and reading

to perform a task. Aspects of reading were categorized as forming a general

understanding, developing interpretation, making reader/text connection and

examining content and structure. National curriculum objectives were also taken into

account while developing test items. Some items were developed to asses the

students' ability in grammar as per requirements of the curriculum objectives. Two

forms of reading test were developed. Each form provided the student with an

opportunity to read three types of text i.e. one for literary experience, one for

information and one to perform a task. There were thirty two MCQs with the reading

texts to assess the reading proficiency of the students.

Writing framework aimed at assessing the writing proficiency of the students in three

categories i.e. narrative writing, informative writing and persuasive writing. Students

2 See table of specification on Annexure-II 3 See Annexure-III


were given prompts inviting them to narrate, inform or persuade in their writing.

Prompts were very simple and elaborated to enable the Grade-IV students to exhibit

their writing proficiency by giving written response to these prompts.

English Language Achievement Test

English test was comprised of three sections i.e. reading, writing and grammar. There

were four text paragraphs for reading followed by MCQs to assess the students

reading proficiency according to the language framework. There were four prompts

inviting to students to write for information, narration and persuasion. Some

questions were to assess the students’ proficiency in grammar. There was a passage to

assess punctuation skills of students. Students were asked to write the passage with

complete punctuation and three subsequent questions were asked to check their

knowledge of punctuation. Some words were given to be used in writing sentences.

Background Questionnaires

Three background questionnaires were developed to explore the factors in home and

school environment affecting the learning of students. One questionnaire was for

students and parents to collect information regarding home and family, other was for

teachers to explore the teacher related factors affecting students’ learning and the

third was for head teachers to explore the school environment. Many questions were

also there in the field report of the test administrators which provided a lot of data

about physical facilities available in schools.

Understanding PEAS Results Students’ ability/proficiency in certain subject is reflected by their true response on

the achievement test. Students’s responses on achievement tests are analyzed through

items response theory (IRT) based software. One parameter IRT model i.e Rach

Model is employed for calibration of test items and students responses. The Rach

analysis gives the students proficiency/ability in terms of standardized scores ranging

from -5 to +5. A person securing zero score means that he has an average ability in

the subject.

The standardized scores ranging from -5 to +5 are converted into scaled scores

ranging from 0 to 1000 so that the score become more understandable for a common


man. Mean scaled scores are computed to report the learning achievement level of

the students in all the three subjects assessed in 2007 assessment. Scaled mean scores

are also reported for sub groups of the sampled students e.g. Rural, Urban, Male and

Female etc. The comparison of mean scaled scores is shown in bar charts as well as in

the tables. The PEAS uses widely accepted statistical procedure in analyzing the

data. Microsoft Excel is used for data entry, after completion of data entry files are

converted into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) file format. IRT based

one parameter model software Conquest is used to analyze the data. This software

gives the ability measures of the students in terms of standardized scores and item

difficulty measures. SPSS is used for basic descriptive/summary statistics and

comparing the means of different groups of students.

Sample for Assessment of Students’ Learning In Punjab

Sample selection is very crucial aspect of any research study, true representative

sample is essential for the findings to be generalizable. Punjab sample was a part of

national sample for national assessment of students’ learning. The list of Government

schools prepared by National Education Management Information System (NEMIS)

was used in the sampling frame. Stratified random sampling procedure was employed

to select the schools for assessment. There were three agreed strata i.e. province/area,

gender (girls/boys), location (rural/urban) for the national sample. Sampling frame for

the provinces was divided into four parts with respect to gender and location of the

school. Sample was selected proportionate to number and size of schools in each

stratum. Sampling unit in the sampling frame was school, therefore sample comprised

of schools selected from each stratum. It was decided that twenty students will be

selected from each school for administering the achievement test. If there was only

one section with more than twenty students, twenty students were selected randomly

by the test administrators. If there were more than one sections of class VIII in a

school the one section was selected randomly and then twenty students were selected

randomly from that section. If there were less than twenty students in a school all the

students were taken to administer the test. To rectify the sampling imbalances due to

stratification sampling weights were also computed and applied while analyzing the

data.


The Punjab sample covered almost entire province. The sample was comprised of 226

schools from 34 districts of Punjab. The following map of Punjab and table shows the

coverage of 2007 assessment sample.


Detail of Sample Schools for Large Scale Testing in Mathematics and Urdu for Grade-VIII 2007.

Female Male Sr.#. Districts

Rural Urban Rural Urban Total

Schools 1 Bahawal Pur Nil 1 3 1 5 2 Bahawal Nagar 5 1 2 1 9 3 Lodhran 1 Nil 1 Nil 2 4 Faisal abad 8 3 5 3 19 5 Gujranwala 6 3 1 6 16 6 Hafiz abad Nil 1 3 Nil 4 7 Rawalpindi 1 6 4 2 13 8 Attock Nil 1 1 1 3 9 Jhelum 1 1 3 Nil 5 10 Chakwal 3 1 3 1 8 11 Gujrat 4 1 1 1 7 12 Jhang Nil 2 1 2 5 13 T.T.Singh 5 2 2 1 10 14 Rahim Yar Khan 2 3 4 3 12 15 Lahore Cantt. Nil 6 2 8 16 16 Lahore City 1 2 Nil 3 6 17 Kasur 1 Nil Nil 3 4 18 Sheikhupura 2 Nil 1 3 6 19 Mianwali 2 3 Nil 1 6 20 Bhakkar Nil 1 Nil Nil 1 21 Layyeh 1 1 Nil Nil 2 22 Khushab 1 Nil 1 1 3 23 Multan 1 1 1 3 6 24 Khanewal 1 2 2 1 6 25 Muzzafar Garh 1 1 1 Nil 3 26 D.G.Khan 1 Nil Nil 1 2 27 Rajan Pur Nil 1 Nil Nil 1 28 Narowal 3 2 2 Nil 7 29 Sialkot 2 2 6 2 12 30 Sahiwal 1 2 1 Nil 4 31 Pakpattan 1 Nil 1 Nil 2 32 Okara 1 Nil 2 2 5 33 Vehari 1 2 2 1 6 34 Sargodha 2 2 Nil 3 7 35 Mandi Baha-ud-din 1 1 Nil 1 3

Total 60 55 56 55 226


The English test was conducted in Punjab only. The sample covered almost entire

province. The sample was comprised of 210 schools, including 10 English medium

schools, from 34 districts of Punjab. The following table shows the coverage of 2007

assessment sample in Punjab.

Detail of Sampled Schools for Large Scale Testing in English for Grade-VIII 2007 PEAS.

Female Male Sr.#. Districts

Rural Urban Rural Urban Total

Schools 1 Bahawal Pur - 1 3 1 5 2 Bahawal Nagar 4 1 2 1 8 3 Lodhran 1 Nil 1 Nil 2 4 Rahim Yar Khan 2 3 3 2 10 5 Faisal abad 7 3 4 2 16 6 Jhang Nil 2 1 2 5 7 T.T.Singh 4 2 2 1 9 8 Gujranwala 5 3 1 4 13 9 Hafiz abad Nil 1 3 Nil 4

10 Rawalpindi 1 5 3 2 11 11 Attock Nil 1 1 1 3 12 Jhelum 1 1 3 Nil 5 13 Chakwal 3 1 2 1 7 14 Gujrat 3 1 1 1 6 15 Lahore Cantt. Nil 10 2 11 23 16 Lahore City 1 2 Nil 2 5 17 Kasur 1 Nil Nil 3 4 18 Sheikhupura 2 Nil 1 3 6 19 Multan 1 1 1 2 5 20 Khanewal 1 1 2 1 5 21 Muzzafar Garh 1 1 1 Nil 3 22 D.G.Khan 1 Nil Nil 1 2 23 Rajan Pur Nil 1 Nil Nil 1 24 Narowal 2 2 2 Nil 6 25 Sialkot 2 2 4 2 10 26 Sahiwal 1 2 1 Nil 4 27 Pakpattan 1 Nil 1 Nil 2 28 Okara 1 Nil 2 2 5 29 Vehari 1 2 1 1 5 30 Sargodha 2 2 Nil 2 6

31 Mandi Baha-ud-din 1 1 Nil 1 3

32 Mianwali 2 2 Nil 1 5 33 Bhakkar Nil 1 Nil Nil 1 34 Layyeh 1 1 Nil Nil 2 35 Khushab 1 Nil 1 1 3

Total 54 56 49 51 210


Chapter-2 Students Learning Achievement Level in the Subjects of Mathematics and Urdu

Comparison of Punjab with Rest of the Nation

Scaled Mean (500), (Score range 0-1000)

Comparison of Punjab With Rest of the Nation

Urdu

Level of Significance at .05 Alpha

Math


Punjab 541 471 Rest of the Nation 477

Sig. 440

Sig.

National 512 458

The scaled mean score of Punjab in Urdu is significantly higher than other Provinces/areas. Similarly the scaled mean score of students in Mathematics in Punjab is significantly different than rest of the nation. Whereas the scaled mean score of Punjab in Urdu (541) and Math (471) is more than overall mean score of nation (512) in Urdu and (471) in Math. School Location: and Students Achievement:

Comparison of Students Achievement with Regard to Location

496

561

430

530

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Name of Subjects

Sca

led

Mea

n S

core

Rural 530 496

Urban 561 430

Urdu Math

The above graph shows that performance of rural students is better in Mathematics where as performance of urban students is better in Urdu. This difference in scaled mean score is statistically significant.


School Gender: Comparison of Male and Female Students Learning Achievement

The achievement level of girls is significantly higher in Urdu than boys, whereas the achievement level of boys is higher in Mathematics than girls. This shows that girls seems to be strong in language than boys. On the other hand boys seems to be strong in Mathematics than girls. School Level:

Comparison of Schools by Level with Students Achievement in Urdu and Math

Comparison of schools by level

Math


Urdu

Level of significance at .05 Alpha

Middle Schools 491 540 High Schools 466 539

.048 Significant difference

Higher Secondary Schools 455

.000 Significant

553 .000

Significant difference

It is evident from the comparison of level of schools that the achievement of students in Math with score 491 is higher in Middle Schools. Whereas the students of Higher Secondary Schools scored high in Urdu. The performance of High school students is averaged in Math. Whereas the performance of middle schools and high schools is not almost same. One of the possible reasons of high score of middle schools students in Mathematics may be due to rote memorization of students as they are pressurized by teachers to do so instead of getting the true sense of calculation.

Comparison of Students Achievement with Regard to Gender

Boys, 529

Boys, 480

Girls, 560

Girls, 457

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Urdu Math Test taken in Subjects

Boys Girls

Scaled Mean Score


Chapter-3 Students Learning Achievement Level in the Subject

of English

Performance of Grade VIII students on English Test An achievement test was developed by PEAS to assess grade VIII students’ learning in English. Teat was based on language assessment framework and objectives of grade VIII English curriculum. Test aimed at assessing the reading and writing ability of the students. Test was pilot tested and analyzed on Item Response Theory (IRT) based software employing one parameter Rasch model prior to administering in 2007 provincial assessment. Test was administered in 210 sampled schools from all the districts of Punjab. Twenty students were selected randomly from every sampled school to administer the test.. Students’ responses on achievement test were analyzed on IRT based software and standardized achievement scores of the students were computed ranging from -5 to +5. These scores were scaled setting mean at 500 with standard deviation of 100. The scaled scores range from 0 to 1000. Achievement level of students on English test is termed as mean scaled scores.

Achievement Level of Grade VIII students in Punjab The following table summarizes the achievement of grade VIII students on English test in terms of scaled mean scores. Table: Summary of Students’ Performance on English Test

Scaled mean score of 503 can be interpreted as the achievement of grade VIII students in public schools of Punjab is at average level as a scaled score of 500 is regarded as an average score.

Analysis of Students’ Performance on the Test IRT base analysis enables to notice the performance of students on various components of the test i.e. on various skills tested through the test. Person item map on next page presents the performance of the students on reading and writing test items. Crosses on the left side of the line represent the students and there items on the right side arranged along the scale measuring students’ ability and item difficulty. It is the beauty of Rasch analysis that it gives person ability and item difficulty on the same scale.

No. of Students Scaled Mean Score SD Maximum Minimum

4097 503 85.5 857.51 13.13


Comparison of achievement in English by Gender Students were asked to mention their sex in the students’ background questionnaire.

Scale mean scores of Male and Female students were computed and compared to

check the statistical significance of difference. Following table summarizes the

analysis.

Table: Summary of t-statistics comparing Female and Male Students’ performance

Groups Number Scaled Mean Score Difference t-value Sig.

Female 1283 511

Male 1511 494 16.54 5.26 .000

Summary of analysis shows that girls out performed than boys on English test.

Difference was found to be statistically significant. This result verifies the phenomena

of better performance by girls as compared to boys in public schools.

Comparison of achievement by Administrative Gender of school (Girls, Boys) Provincial assessment sample included boys and girls schools. Comparison of

students’ achievement was done with respect to administrative gender of the school.

Summary of analysis is presented in the table below.

Table: Comparison of students’ achievement by School Gender

Groups Number Scaled Mean Score Mean Difference t-value Sig.

Girl Schools 2187 518.55

Boy Schools 1910 485.85 32.7 12.39 .000

Results revealed that students from girl schools performed better on English test as

compared to students from boys schools. Difference was highly significant. Girl

schools seem to be out performing than boy schools in teaching of English.

Comparison of Achievement by Location (Rural, Urban) Achievement of students was compared with respect to location of their residence i.e. rural and urban. Following table presents the comparison of achievement by location.


Groups Number Scaled Mean Score Difference t-value Sig.

Rural 2166 503.3

Urban 1655 505.6 2.3 .847 .397.

There was a slight difference between the performance of rural and urban students which was not statistically significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that state of affairs is the same with respect to teaching of English in rural and urban public schools.

Comparison of students’ achievement with respect to gender and location Chart below presents the achievement of students on English test with respect to their gender and location of residence.

Students Gender, Location and Student Achievement

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

Scaled Score

Scaled Mean Scores

Scaled Mean Scores 467 502 503 520

Rural Boys Urban Boys Rural Girls Urban Girls

Urban girls are at the top and rural boys are at the bottom. Scaled mean scores of girls are better than boys whether from rural or urban background.

Help in studies at home

Students were asked that who helped them in studies at home. Scaled mean scores of the groups of the students with respect to their response on the question were computed and compared. Chart below shows the comparison of students’ achievement on English test.


440

460

480

500

520

Scaled Score

Scaled Mean Scores

Scaled Mean Scores 513.855 511.21 466.173 492.127 489.572 490.403 508.172

NFather 1356

Mother 1198

Brother 324

Sister 182

Self 602 Other 89Tutor 296

It can be noted that most of the children reported their parents’ help. Students who were helped by their parents whether father or mother, performed better as compared to those who were not helped by their parents. Students helped by tutor performed better than those who are not helped by any person and who are helped by brothers, sisters or any other person at home. Parents help was proved to be the most effective support for learning.

Punishment and achievement

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

Scaled Scores

Scaled Mean Scores439.0868 483.975 488.1002 511.2376

Daily Often Sometimes Never

Medium of Instruction and Students Achievement: Some of the public schools in Lahore have sections with English as medium of

instruction. Data were analyzed to compare achievement of students from classes

with English medium of instruction and that of from Urdu medium of instruction in

Lahore. Table shows summary of analysis.

Negative effect of Punishment on students’ achievement is visible on the chart. Achievement decreases as the punishment increases.

Punishment has negative effect on achievement.


Groups Number Scaled Mean Score

Difference t-value

Sig.

Urdu 343 529.3139 Medium of instruction English

209 623.6311 94.31

14.547

.000

Students from English medium of instruction classes out performed on English test as

compared to those from Urdu medium of instruction classes. It must be noted that

only the top scorers are usually selected for English medium classes. Therefore, one

must be careful while attributing this difference to medium of instruction only, the

difference may be due to the selection of students.


Chapter-4 Students Background and Their Learning

Achievement

Students Age: Comparison of students’ achievement by age in Urdu

Age of the students Frequency percentage Scaled

Mean Score 17 Years & above 581 13.1 515 16 years 657 14.8 525 15 Years 1216 27.4 544 14 years 1258 28.4 551 13 Years 592 13.4 553 12 Years 92 2.1 555

Graph above shows that most of the students in eight class fall in the age span of 14

and 15 years. But the performance of students at the age of 12 and 13 years is highest.

There is no significant difference between the performance of students of age 12 and

13. It means that students who get admission in the school at the age of five years

give the best performance. It appears from graph No. that as the age of students

increase their performance in Urdu decreases. There seems a relationship between age

and performance. The students’ whose age is 17 years and above have shown lowest

performance.

17 Years and above 15 Years 14 years

13 Years 12 Years

520

530

540

550

16 years Age of the students


Comparison of students’ achievement by age in Mathematics

Age of the students Frequency percentage Math Scaled Mean Score

17 Years & above 581 13.1 462 16 years 657 14.8 464 15 Years 1216 27.4 469 14 years 1258 28.4 474 13 Years 592 13.4 484 12 Years 92 2.1 480

Comparison of students’ achievement by age in Mathematics

The performance of students in Math has almost the same trend as in Urdu. The

student at the age of 12 and 13 statistically has almost the same performance and has

highest performance than other age groups. Whereas the students of age 16 and 17

have statistically same and lowest performance than other age groups.

Student Location: The following diagram presents the comparison of Grade-VIII Rural and Urban

students’ achievement in 2007 assessment in the subjects of Mathematics and Urdu.

Comparison of students’ achievement by location in Urdu

Students Location Percentage Urdu Scaled Mean Score

Level of Significance

Math Scaled Mean Score


Rural 46.8 528 492

Urban 53.2 558

Sig.

445

Sig.

Total 100.0 541 471

17 Years and above 16 years

15 Years 14 years

13 Years 12 Years

Age of the students

465

470

475

480


The gender wise representation of students in overall sample is near equal. The

achievement level of urban students in Urdu is higher than rural students. It

implicates that as the urban students have rich Urdu culture and they have more

access to media and other resources. Whereas the students of rural areas with scaled

mean (492) have high achievement in Mathematics than students living in urban

areas. There is a room for further research in these finding that why rural students

have high achievement in Math.

Family Size:

Comparison of Family Size with Students Achievement

Total Sibling of students

Frequency Percentage Urdu Scaled Mean Score


3 or less 700 15.8 549 471

4 to 6 2436 55.0 542 468

7 to 10 1228 27.7 535 475

11 and above 69 1.6 532 481

Total 4433 100.0 541 471

From the above table it can be viewed that most of the students fall in second

ant third category i.e. Who’s total number of siblings (brothers and sisters)

ranging from 4 to 6 and 7 to 10 respectively? This shows that in our society

mostly family size range from 4 to 10 kids.

Rural Urban

Location (Student Report)

Urdu Math

100

200

300

400

500

Scaled Mean Score

528 558

492 445


Comparison of different grouped family strength shows that as the number of kids

increases the performance of students in Urdu decreases. The most common reason

may be that parents do not find enough time to communicate with their children for a

long time so that they become stable in language. Mother plays major role in teaching

language to children. But if mother is unable to give sufficient time to each kid it may

affect the language proficiency of students. ANOVA test was applied with post hoc

comparison by applying Scheffe test. All the groups are significantly different from

each other by performance. The group of students who have 3 or less number of

brothers and sisters have high achievement than other groups.

On the other hand if we see the above graph it appears that in Mathematics the

picture is quite different than Urdu. Here we can see that as the number of brothers

and sisters increases the achievement level of students increases except that second

group having family size from 4 to 6. It is possible that as the students have more

opportunities to learn mathematics from elder brother and sisters they may have better

achievement in Mathematics. Post hoc test shows that all the students’ categories are

significantly different from each other in achievement level.

Comparison of students’ achievement by language spoken at home in Urdu and Math

� Urdu � Math

Variables

3 or less 4 to 6 7 to 10 11 and above

Number of brothers and sisters

475

500

525

550

Values

� �

� �

� �

� �

Number of Brothers , Sisters and Students Achievement


Language spoken at home by students





Urdu 1037 24.2 553 448

Punjabi 2844 66.2 535 470

Siraiki 412 9.6 563

Post hoc test shows

Significant difference in

groups 527

Post hoc test shows

Significant difference in

groups

Total 4293 100.0 541

472

In Punjab three languages are spoken at home with almost 66% speak Punjabi, 24%

Urdu and 10% Siraiki. Punjabi is the most spoken language at home by a family

which is a reality. There are some other languages like Barahwi, Balochi, Pashto,

Sindhi, Kashmiri and Hindko but their frequency is quite little that may not be

considered for analysis. All the groups have statistically significant difference in

achievement

Comparison of groups based on language spoken at home shows that students who

speak Siraiki at home has highest achievement in Urdu and Mathematics. Students

with Punjabi home language have lowest performance in Urdu but they are averaged

in Mathematics in comparison to Urdu and Siraiki group. It is interesting if it is

further explored that why Siraiki group has high achievement in both subjects. Urdu

group do not have high achievement even in Urdu subject.

Urdu Punjabi Siraiki

Urdu Math Subjects

100

200

300

400

500

553 535 563

448 470

527

Comparison of students’ achievement by language spoken at home in Urdu and Math


Liking of Subject:

Comparison of students’ achievement in Urdu and Math by likeness of subjects

Which of the following subjects do you like most





Urdu 2029 46.2 531

Sig. difference 465

Social studies 206 4.7 544 468

Math 1240 28.2 545

No significant difference

between Math & S. Studies 483

Science 921 21.0 559

Sig. Dif. 471

Post hoc test

shows Significan

t differenc

e in groups in

Math Total

4396 100.0 541

471

Most of the students with 46% have shown their likeness in Urdu whereas the least

interest is in Social Studies with only almost 5% students has selected this option.

Math and Science has been placed at second and third priority respectively. To see

the mean difference statistically Post hoc test was applied for group comparison after

seeing their significance in ANOVA. In Mathematics all the groups are statistically

significant from each other. Whereas in Urdu achievement test Urdu and Science

group has significant difference from other groups, whereas the achievement of Math

and Social Studies group has no significant difference.

Urdu

Math Social studies Science

Liking of Subject and Students Achievement

Urdu Math Variables

100

200

300

400

500

Scaled mean score

531 545 544 559

465 483 468 471


The graphical display of data shows that achievement of students in Urdu is higher

for Science group. It means that the person who has scientific attitude and thinking

they perform better in all subjects. Whereas on the right side of graph the bars above

Math shows that the students who liked Math has highest achievement in Math. So

this implicate that liking subject has positive impact on Math and liking of scientific

subjects supports achievement in other subjects as well.

Overall performance of groups in total achievement in both subjects of Urdu and

Math

Which of the following subjects do you like most

Mean score of Scaled Mean Score of Urdu and Math


Urdu 498.20

Social studies 507.20

Sig. difference between Urdu vs Social Studies and Math ,

Science group Math 514.71

Science 514.92

No significant difference between Math an Science group

The performance of science and math group is high in both Urdu and Math tests. It

shows that students who like these subjects are high achiever and have scientific

attitude. Whereas the students who like language and social studies do not possess

scientific thinking and have low achievement level.

Students Gender:

Diagram given below shows the comparison of male and female students learning

achievement in 2006 assessment in the subjects of Mathematics, Science, Social

Studies and Urdu

Students gender





Boys 2204 49.8 530 479

Girls

2221 50.2 559

Significant difference between boys and girls in

Urdu Score

458

Significant difference between boys and girls in

Math Score Total

4425 100.0 541

471


The representation of boys and girls students in sample data is almost equal which provides a good comparison of both groups. Girls students learning achievement in Urdu is higher than boys students which looks logical as it is seen in international researches that girls have good communication and language skills than boys. Quite contrary to that boys significantly scored higher in Math than girls with scaled mean score 479 which shows that boys have better mathematical skills than girls.

The above graph gives us a good depiction of this significant difference of boys and girls in both subjects. Learning Support At Home:

MotherOther family member

FatherElder sister

TutorElder brother

Nobody

Who teaches you at home

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Freq

uenc

y

3.48%

6.23%

10.85%

17.22%18.13%

20.89%

23.19%


Boys Girls

Gender (Student Report)

Urdu Score Math Score

Subjects

100

200

300

400

500

Scaled Mean Score

530 559

479 458

Students Gender and Students Achievement


The above graph shows that most of the students study without taking help of others. Whereas mothers are less helpful to their kids in their study.


Percentage Urdu Scaled Mean Score


Elder brother

22.8 530

Other family member

6.6 534

Sig. difference between Elder brother and other

family members

Elder sister 15.4 540

Father 11.5 541

No significant difference between Elder sister and

Father Tutor 16.6 546

Nobody 24.0 549

Mother 3.1 559

Significance difference between tutor and nobody

group

Significance level is checked at alpha .05 The above table shows that most of the students almost (24%) do not take home

support of any kind in their study. Whereas out of students who get help at home

most of them get help from their elder brother (22%). Mother is the lowest helper at

home in students learning in Urdu.


Percentage Math Scaled Person Measure


Tutor 16.6 459

Mother 3.1 461

No Significance difference between tutor and mother

Elder sister 15.4 469

Other family member 6.6 471

No significant difference between

Elder sister vs family members

Father 11.5 472

Nobody 24.0 475

Elder brother 22.8 478

There is Sig. difference between

Father vs , Nobody Nobody vs Elder brother

The above table shows that the students who are helped in studying at home by tutor

and mother showed lowest achievement in Math test. There is no significant

difference between the tutor and mother group achievement. Whereas the student who

get help from elder brother showed high achievement.


Mode of Commutation: The above graph shows that most of the students (70%) goes to school on foot, whereas only 1.2% goes to school by public transport which the lowest percentage out of all means of transportation. It implicates that whether most of the students do not have their own transportation means or otherwise they have close accessibility to school.

Comparison of groups with regard to their scaled mean score in Urdu .

How do you go to school


(1)On foot (70.15%) 3100 70.2 537

(2) by public transport (1.22%) 54 1.2 548

(3) private transport (10.16%) 449 10.2 548

(4) own car (18.47%) 816 18.5 551

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level In Urdu students who come school by their own car has shown the high achievement as compared to all other groups. Whereas the students who come school on foot has shown low achievement in Urdu. One of the reason may be that in rural areas most of the students go to school on foot and rural students has shown low achievement in Urdu in our analysis by location. Multiple comparisons of groups were made to see the difference at .05 levels. There is no significant difference between students who go to school by public transport and private transport.

Comparison of groups with regard to their scaled mean score in Math

How do you go to school

Frequency Percentage Math Scaled Mean Score

(1) by public transport (1.22%) 54 1.2 453

(2) private transport (10.16%) 449 10.2 462

(3) on foot (70.15%) 3100 70.2 470

(4) own car (18.47%) 816 18.5 481

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. The students who come to school by their own car have also shown high achievement in Mathematics. It findings shows that students better socio-economic status has positive impact on students achievement in Math and Urdu. Multiple comparisons of groups were made to see the difference at .05 level. All the groups are significantly different from each other in their performance in Math.


Physical Punishment: The above graph shows than almost 55% students reported that they get physical punishment always which is a high percentage of physical punishment being given to students at school. Only a very limited number of students almost 1.6% reported that they do not get physical punishment.

Physical punishment statistics by gender, location and school level

By Gender By Location By School Level Physical punishment

Boys Girls Rural Urban Middle High Higher

Sometimes (43%)

72.0% 28.0% 61.9% 38.1% 19.8% 69.5% 10.6%

Always (55%)

51.4% 48.6% 63.1% 36.9% 26.7% 59.9% 11.5%

Total (Average)

61.70% 38.30% 62.50% 37.50% 23.25% 64.70% 11.05%

The above table shows that percentage of physical punishment to boys is high than girls. Whereas percentage of punishment is high in rural area schools with 62.5% as compared to urban areas schools with 37.5%. Physical punishment is high in high schools than middle and higher secondary schools.

Comparison of Frequency of Punishment with Students achievement level. Do you get physical punishment in school Urdu Scaled Mean Score Math Scaled Mean Score Never 516 453 Some times 530 461 Always 552 480 Total 541 471

Langscal Lang. Scaled Person Measure StMathScal Math Scaled Person Measure

Variables

Never Some times Always Do you get physical punishment in school

450.0000

475.0000

500.0000

525.0000

550.0000

Values

Physical Punishment and Students Achievement


As reported by students about the level of punishment they get from teachers, the

performance of these students has been compared by using multiple comparison

statistics of post hoc test at .05 level of significance. All these three groups are

significantly different in their achievement in Urdu and Math test. It appears from the

graph that as the frequency of punishment increases the achievement level of

student’s increases too. Although there seems a relationship between punishment and

achievement but statistically it’s not so significant. The Pearson correlation of

punishment with Urdu achievement is r =.138 where as in Math it is r .095. So we can

not say that this increase in achievement in directly related with punishment.

Watching T.V. at Home

Students were asked about the time spend for watching T.V with four options i.e. No

time, about an hour, two to three hours, more than three hours. The following table

shows the comparison of all these four groups of students with reference to their

achievement in Urdu and Math to see the difference in their achievement and to see if

any relation exists in watching T.V. and their performance.

How much time do you spend watching TV

Math Scaled Mean Score Urdu Scaled Mean Score

No time 484 535 About an hour 467 543 Two to three hours 460 551 More than three hours 473 518 Total 471 541 The table shows that watching television more than three hours shows negative

impact on achievement in Math. Whereas in Urdu watching television upto two to

three hours has positive impact on achievement of students. But when watching

television crosses the limit of more than three hours it shows negative impact on

performance. T.V may be used as useful source for the improvement of language

learning. A post hoc test shows that all the groups are statistically significant different

in their performance.

Language Spoken at Home Following diagram presents the frequency of the students with different home

languages. There were three main languages i.e. Punjabi (64%), Saraiki (9%) and

Urdu (23%) mostly spoken in Punjab. Other languages reported were Barahwi,

Pushto, Sindhi, Kashmiri and Hindko etc. Students with all these languages being


very low in representation that may not me considered sufficient for analysis. Only

three main languages have been taken for consideration in analysis.



0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Fre

quen

cy

1,03724.16%

2,84466.25%

4129.6%


Above graph shows that Punjabi is the mostly spoken language in Punjab with 66.25%. Urdu and Siraiki are second and third mostly spoken languages with 24.16% and 9.6% respectively. Comparison of different languages spoken groups in achievement of Urdu and Math.


Urdu Scaled Mean Score


Urdu 553 448 Punjabi 535 470 Siraiki 563 527 Total 541 472


It appears that Siraiki speaking students has shown better achievement in both subjects of Urdu and Math. Punjabi speaking students has shown low achievement in Urdu language and have average position in Math test. Whereas Urdu speaking students have shown low achievement in Mathematics but could not show better performance than Siraiki speaking students. There is need to further explore that why Siraiki students has shown better performance in both subjects? Homework:

Frequency of homework given to students

A question was asked from students “how often do you get homework in Urdu” and “how often do you get homework in Math” with four options i.e Daily, Once a week, Twice a week and Never. The following table shows simple percentage of responses of students regarding frequency of homework assigned to them in Urdu and Mathematics.

Frequence of Homework given to students

44

20

16

20

17

29

51

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Daily Once a week Twice a week Never

levels of homework given

Per

cent

age

of res

pose

s

Urdu

Math


Urdu Scaled Mean Score Math Scaled Mean Score

Variables

100

200

300

400

500

Values

553 535

563

448 470

527

Language Spoken a Home and Students Achievement


Data shows that in Urdu mostly daily homework is assigned to students. Or it is given

once a week. A large number of students have reported that they have not been given

homework in Urdu, which needs our attention towards the improvement of students’

homework in Urdu. On the other hand in Mathematics most of the students have

reported they are given homework of Math twice a week. It means that Math is being

neglected in schools and is not being regularly taught and given homework.

Time given by students to complete homework

A question was asked from students “About how much time do you spend on

studying or doing homework in Urdu” and “sb15_1 About how much time do you

spend on studying or doing homework in Math” with four options i.e Less than 15

minutes, 15-30 Minutes, 31-60 Minutes and More than 60 Minutes. The following

table shows simple percentage of responses of students regarding frequency of

homework assigned to them in Urdu and Mathematics.

The above table shows that majority of the students in Urdu (80%) and Math (86%)

have reported that they complete their homework in 15 to 30 minutes. It shows that

they give a very limited time to study at home to these subjects.

Homework checking in Urdu and Math

A question was asked from students “How often do the teachers check your

homework in Urdu” and “How often do the teachers check your homework in Math”

with four options i.e Daily, Once a week, Twice a week, and Never. The following

table shows simple percentage of responses of students regarding frequency of

homework checking by teachers in Urdu and Mathematics

Time given to complete homework by students in Urdu and Math

2

80

8

9

1

86

6

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Less than 15 minutes 15-30 Minutes 31-60 Minutes More than 60 Minutes Level of time span given to homework

Percentage of responses Urdu Math


The above table shows that majority of students in both subjects reported that their

homework is regularly checked on daily basis, but even then there are significant

number of students who reported that their homework is checked on weekly basis.

Explanation of mistakes in homework in Urdu and Math

Collective emphasis of these variables on achievement

Four items were asked to know about the emphasis on homework by the teachers and

students from students in Urdu and Math subjects. All these four questions were

Homework checking by teachers

63

19

16

2

68

17

14

1 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Dailly Once a week Twice a week Never level of homework checking

Percentage of responses

Urdu Math

Explanation of mistakes in homework

8

64

6

25

69

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Never Sometimes Always Level of explanation of mistakes

Percentage of responses

Urdu Math


computed and three level of emphasis were developed to make three categories of

students including students and teachers who give low emphasis on homework,

medium emphasis and high emphasis respectively. Their mean difference is

calculated to know their achievement in the relevant subject. The following table

shows the three level of emphasis on homework by students and their teachers and

their mean difference are given in each subject. All these categories have shown

significant difference in their performance after applying ANOVA at .05 level and

post hoc analysis test for group comparison.

Level of teachers and students emphasis on homework in Urdu and Math



Low emphasis 540 465

Medium emphasis 542 475

High emphasis 547 459

540 542547

465

475

459

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

Low emphasis Medium emphasis High emphasis

Urdu

Math

Graphical representation of the data shows positive trend in Urdu that the level of

achievement increases as the emphasis on homework increases. Whereas in Math it

also shows positive trend up to second level of emphasis but it decreases as high level

of emphasis is given.


Multiple regression analysis of homework with student’s achievement:

Four different questions were asked from students about the frequency of homework

they are given, time they spare for doing homework, frequency of checking of

homework by teacher and explanation of mistakes in homework by teachers. To

know the effect of these dimensions on the achievement of students Regression

analysis was run to see the degree of relationship of different indicators of homework

with student’s achievement in Urdu and Math. The R in Math shows that there is

week relationship between the homework indicators and achievement. R Square

shows the percentage of difference that these variables collectively account for in

achievement of students and it only shows difference of about 1%. Where is in Urdu

it is 1.3%.

Questions Asked to students R R Square Beta

Coefficient

Homework in Math

How often do you get homework in Mathematics

.026

About how much time do you spend on studying or doing homework in Mathematics

-.043

How often do the teachers check your homework in Mathematics

-.039

When they check your homework, do the teachers explain your mistakes in Mathematics

.101 .010

.061

Homework in Urdu How often do you get homework in Urdu

-.063

About how much time do you spend on studying or doing homework in Urdu

.051

How often do the teachers check your homework in Urdu

.046

When they check your homework, do the teachers explain your mistakes in Urdu

.115 .013

.064

The above table shows that the students who’s teachers explain their mistakes in

homework has high Beta value and shows high level of relationship with overall

achievement in Math. In Urdu the same indicator shows high relationship with overall

achievement. It is important not only to give homework but to give time to doing


homework, checking of homework and its explanation is also important. So emphasis

should also be given on regular checking and explanation of homework.

Use of Local Language in Instruction:

A question was asked from “How often does the teacher use the local language to

explain a concept or procedure in Urdu and Math” with three options showing

categories i.e Never, Sometimes, and Always for answer by marking a tick in the

relevant box. The objective was to see the effect of local language during instruction

of two different types of subjects like Urdu and Math. The following table shows the

percentage of responses of students as reported by them in questionnaire in both Urdu

and Math subjects.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Never

Sometimes

Always

Never 22 24

Sometimes 38 36

Always 40 40

Urdu Math

The above graph shows that almost 40% students have reported that their teacher

speak local language during instruction of Urdu and same percentage in Math subject.

Whereas almost 38% has reported that their teacher speaks local language during

instruction in Urdu and 36% reported in Math. An average of both Urdu and Math

students about 23% has reported that their teacher do not use local language during

instruction of Urdu and Math. It appears that in both subjects almost equal percentage

of students are taught in local language during teaching of Urdu and Math.


The above graph shows that the effect of local language during teaching of Urdu is

negative, as the level of speaking local language increases the level of student’s

achievement decreases. It means that while teaching Urdu teachers should always use

Urdu language in class. On the other hand the affect of using local language in

Mathematics is positive. With the increase of use of local language the achievement

of students also increase, but excessive use of local language in Math is also negative.

It means that understanding of concepts easy if it is elaborated in local language and

Urdu as a mixed method of instruction. Complete use of local language has negative

affect on students’ achievement. If medium of instruction is in local language it will

help to improve the concepts of students in Sciences and Math. After applying

ANOVA at .05 level and post hoc analysis test for group comparison it appeared that

all these categories have shown significant difference in their performance.

Leave from School:

Students were asked three questions regarding taking leave from school due to

different reasons. As we know that parents pull them out of school to get their help in

home business. This may affect the performance of students in academic

achievement. To explore the affect of taking leave from school students were asked to

following questions “Do you …ever have to take leave from school to look after your

brothers or sisters” “Do you…. ever have to take leave from school to help with the

561

541

534

459

481

470

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Urdu Math

Urdu 561 541 534 Math 459 481 470

Never Sometimes Always


harvesting” and “work outside to earn money”. The following graph shows the

percentage of students who take leave due to different reasons.

47.5

23.5

15.4

05

101520253035404550

Pe

rcen

tage

of l

eav

e ta

king

stu

dent

s

sister

s/brot

her

harvesti

ng

earn

ing m

oney

category of leave

Percentage of students who take leave due to this reason

The above graph shows that mostly (47.5%) students take leave from school to look

after their siblings at home. Where as (23.5%) students take leave from school due to

help their parents in harvesting. It is worth to explore that almost 15.4% students have

to work to earn their food and help their parents in earning money. This shows the

social status of students, that they even are unable to given full concentration to their

study. Now the question is that who are the parents who let their children to take

leave from school. Following graph shows the profession of parents and their kids

frequency of taking leave for taking care of their siblings at home.


Agri. Land owner

Agri. Wage earner

Artisan (skilled worker , plumber carpenter, mechanic etc.)

Small Business Owner

Government Service

Technical

Supervisory

Junior management

Middle management

Father Occupation

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Cou

nt

9.03%

29.49%

13.25%

32.1%

11.32%

1.92% 0.75% 0.75% 1.39%

Do you …ever have to take leave from

school to look after your brothers or

sisters

Yes

Bar Chart

The above graph depicts that almost 32% students whose father is small business

owner have to take leave more than others. Secondly almost 30% students whose

father is Agriculture wage earner have to take leave. It appears that their parents

remain busy in their work and the students have to take care of their brothers and

sisters.

Leave from School and Achievement:

To know the impact of leave on student’s achievement all three categories of leave

were computed and three categories were made to make their level of leave taking.

To see the impact of leave on achievement student’s achievement in Urdu and Math

was averaged.

Frequency of reasons of taking leave

Mean Score of Scaled Mean Score of Urdu and Math

Leave for one reason 503

Leave for two reasons 503

Leave for three reasons 493

Total 502


There is no significant difference between students who take leave for one and two

reasons. But students who take more than one reasons have significantly shown low

achievement.

Co curricular Activities and Achievement Co curricular activities are as important as the academic learning to improve the

different dimensions of personality of students. In our schools these activities are

squeezing due to extra concentration to curriculum only. Now students are racing to

get highest marks in academic achievement but neither teacher nor parents are paying

heed towards the promotion of co curricular activities. To know the factual position

about students participation in co curricular activities some questions regarding Naat,

Qirat, Drama, Debate, and Physical exercise were asked. Response was got on three

levels ie Never, Sometimes and Always.

Frequency of Taking Leave and Student Achievement

Leave for one reason Leave for two reasons Leave for three reasons

Total Leave

494

496

498

500

502

Values


The above graph shows that mostly students do not participate in drama, debate and

qirat. These three areas are most neglected. Some efforts should be made to improve

the participation of students in these activities. Most of the students have reported that

they participate in games and physical exercise. The high response in this area may be

that those students may also have responded positive even who play in the break or in

the morning time in the school. But this do not shows that games are in abundance in

schools. Second most reported activity is Naat and Qirat respectively. These activities

are regular activities which are performed in daily morning assembly and in all

functions of schools.

Students Activities at Home:

Students were asked to report their time spending in different activities at home by

asking different question with the regard to television, computer games, talking with

friends, doing jobs at home, participate in sports, reading book for recreation, using

internet and doing homework. They were asked to report their activities at time level

from Never, less than one hour, between one to two hours, and more than that.

Following chart shows their frequency of their activities at home.

Participation in co curricular activities

45

32

69

53

27

40

49

26

36 40

15 19

5 10

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Qirat Hamd,Naat Drama Debate Games

Nature of activities

Never Sometimes Always


Mean of responses

1.141.23

1.791.90 1.92

2.05

2.71

3.01

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

using Internet Play computergames

watch televisionand videos

Play or talk withfriends

Play sports Read a book forenjoyment

Do jobs at home I do homework

Nature of activities at home

Mean of responses

Most of the students have reported that they do homework at home. Their second

priority is to do work at home in helping their parents and reading book for

enjoyment. Very less number of student have reported that they use internet and

computer at home, one of the reasons could be non availability of internet and

computers to most of the students at home.

To explore the relationship of these activities with their achievement in Urdu and

Math regression analysis was done in both subjects. Following table shows the beta

and t value of each activity which shows their association with the relevant subject

achievement.

Urdu R= .182

(R Square= .033)

Math R=.112

(R Square= .012)

Before going to school or after coming back from school

Beta coefficient

t value Beta coefficient

t value

I watch television and videos 023 17.257 -.061 -47.256 I play computer games .009 6.675 -.028 -20.506 I play or talk with friends -.106 -78.488 .004 3.256 I do jobs at home -.051 -38.029 .035 26.123 I play sports -.044 -32.290 .072 53.269 I read a book for enjoyment .096 71.592 .002 1.452 I use the Internet -.037 -26.981 -.027 -20.004 I do homework .074 55.453 -.061 -47.256


The above table shows that in the students who read a book for enjoyment has

positive relationship with Urdu achievement. Further who do homework, and watch

television has also positive relation with Urdu achievement. The highest beta value in

Math achievement is associated with playing sports by students and doing jobs at

home.

Use of Blackboard and Achievement: Students were asked to report whether their teacher uses blackboard during instruction. They were asked to report on dichotomous responses Yes or No. Their mean comparison was also done on in Urdu and Math. Following table shows mean difference between students who are taught by blackboard and who don’t.

Does your teacher use blackboard while teaching in class


Level of significance by using t test (.000)


Level of significance by t test (.078)

Yes (98.9%) 543 470

No (1.1%) 515

Significance difference

473

No Significance difference

Total 543 470

t -test of was run at .05 level of significance

The above table shows that most of the students with98.9% have reported that during

instruction blackboard is used , whereas only 1.1% have reported that blackboard is

not used during teaching.

Use of Blackboard in classroom

543

470

515

473

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

Urdu Math Subjects

Yes No


The above graph and table shows that student who are taught by using blackboard in

the class have good achievement in Urdu as compared to other group. Whereas in

Math there is no difference between both groups in their achievement.

Questioning in Classroom and Students Achievement:

Students were asked to report whether their teacher allow them to ask question during

instruction. They were asked to report on dichotomous responses Yes or No. Their

mean comparison was also done on in Urdu and Math. Following table shows mean

difference between students who are allowed and who don’t

Does your teacher allow you to ask questions in the class ?


Level of significance by using t test (.000)


Level of significance by t test (.000)

Yes (95.7% 543 472 No (4.3%)

521


466

Significance

difference

Total 542 471

The above table shows that most of the students with 95.7% have reported that during

instruction they are allowed by the teacher to ask question, whereas only 4.3% have

reported that they are not allowed to ask questions in the classroom during teaching.

The above graph shows that students who are allowed to ask question in the

classroom during teaching have shown better performance in Urdu with mean score

Yes No

Does your teacher allow you to ask questions in the class ?

Questioning in Class by Students and Their Achievement

Scaled Person Measure

Math Scaled Person Measure

100

200

300

400

500

543 521

472 466


643 as compared to 621, with statistically significant difference. The statistics about

Math also shows that students who are allowed to ask questions have high

achievement in test. It means that asking questions in the classroom have positive

impact on students’ achievement irrespective of the subject difference. Measures

should be taken to professionally develop teachers to make practice in the classroom

to allow students to ask questions.

Parents Interaction and Interest with Students and Achievement:

Students were asked to rate their parents interaction with them by asking following

questions. (1). In eneral, how often do your parents discuss books, films or television

programmes with you? (2.) In general, how often do your parents discuss how well

you are doing at school? (3.) In general, how often do your parents take the main

meal with you? They were asked to rate them on three point rating with showing

levels i.e. Never, Sometimes, Always. The following table shows the percentage of

their responses in different activities of interest.

As reported by the students it appears that most of the parents do dinner with their

children and they also discuss with them about their study in school. Regression

analysis was done to explore the association of these variables with students’

achievement in Urdu and Math. Following table shows the beta and t value of each

variable which shows their association with the relevant subject achievement.

Although there is a minor value of R and R Square, which shows that their collective

association with dependent variable is not so strong as there may also be some other

variable which are causing change. Overall residuals are showing greater change than

independent variables being explored to see association.

Parents Interest in Students Study and Activities

38

4 1

42

27

13 20

69

85

0 10

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Discuss about films,books, tv programmes

Discuss about study Take meal with you Activities of Interest

Never Some times Always


Urdu R= .065

(R Square= .004)

Math R=.055

(R Square= .003)

Parents’ interaction with students at home regarding following activities and their association with achievement.

Beta coefficient


t value

In general how often do your parents discuss books, films or television programmes with you?

.002 1.782 -.018 -14.534

In general how often do your parents discuss how well you are doing at school?

.055 42.062 .055 42.642

In general how often do your parents take the main meal with you

.028 21.342 -.009 -6.789

Regression analysis shows that parents discussion with their children regarding their study at school have positive association with their achievement in Urdu as well as Math with equal Beta value (.055). It indicates that parents discussion may have positive impact on students overall achievement. To further explore the intensity of this variable and it impact on achievement following comparison is made.

In general, how often do your parents discuss how well you are doing at school?


Level of significance



Never 532 454

Some times 535 466

Always 545

Post hoc comparison showed that

all groups are significant at

.000 474

Post hoc comparison showed that

all groups are significant at

.000 Total 541 471

ANOVA test of significance was run at .05 level of significance

The above depiction of data in graphical form shows that as the level of discussion of parents with students increases their level of achievement also increases.

Urdu Scaled Mean Score Math Scaled Mean Score

Never Some times Always

In general, how often do your parents discuss how well you are doing at school?

460

480

500

520

540

Scaled Mean Score


Students Attitude towards Subject and Their Achievement: Mathematics: Students were asked to rate some statements to know their attitude towards Math. All the statements

were computed and converted into three levels with the hierarchy from low to high attitude. Following

table and graph shows the scaled mean score of students in mathematics with respect to their level of

attitude towards Math.

.

Level of attitudes in Math Math Scaled Person Measure


Low attitude 440 Moderate attitude 449 High attitude 468

All three groups are significantly different in

achievement

Total 462

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

The above graph shows that students attitude towards Math has positive impact on their achievement in Math. As the attitude level increases the achievement of students also increases which shows positive impact. Urdu: Students were asked to rate some statements to know their attitude towards Urdu. All the statements were computed and converted into three levels with the hierarchy from low to high attitude. Following table and graph shows the scaled mean score of students in mathematics with respect to their level of attitude towards Urdu.

Level of attitude towards Urdu

Urdu Mean Score Level of significance

Low attitude 513

Medium attitude 522

High attitude 548

All three groups are significantly different in

achievement

Total 542

Low attitude Moderate attitude High attitude level of attitudes

440

450

460 Scaled Mean Score

�

�

�

440

449

468

Students Attitude towards Subject and Achievement


The above graph shows that students attitude towards Urdu has positive impact on their achievement in Math. As the attitude level increases the achievement of students’ also increases which shows positive impact. Parents Education and Students Achievement:

Father Education:

The percentage of fathers who’s education is matriculate are in abundance with 35.21% and of primary pass fathers is the second big group with 26.41%. It indicated that most of the fathers of students in government schools are not highly educated. The table below shows the comparison of level of education of fathers of students and their achievement. Comparison is made both in Urdu as well as in Math.

Father Education and Students Achievement Urdu Math

Level of Education Urdu Scaled Mean Score


Level of Education



Intermediate (class XII passed) (10.65%) 535

This group is significantly different from other groups.

Matriculate (class X passed) 468

This group is significantly different from other groups

completed primary school (26.41%) 541

Intermediate (class XII passed)

471

Matriculate (class X passed) (35.21%)

541 completed primary school

471

There is no significant difference

between these groups

Higher Education (7.36%) 542

There is no significant difference among these groups

Higher Education 474


Illiterate (20.36%)

544


Illiterate

477


The above table shows that students who’s father is illiterate shows better performance in both subjects.

Low attitude Medium attitude High attitude

Level of attitude toward Urdu

520

530

540

Scaled Mean Score

�

�

�

513

522

548

Students Attitude towards Subject and Achievement


Mother Education: Most of the mothers of students in our sample are illiterate with almost 45%. A second big percentage is of mothers who possess primary level education. The table below shows the comparison of level of education of mothers of students and their achievement. Comparison is made both in Urdu as well as in Math.

Mother Education and Students Achievement Urdu Math

Level of Education


Level of significance Level of Education



Completed primary school (33.73%)

539 This group is significantly different

from other groups.

Intermediate (class XII passed)

465 This group is significantly different from other groups

Illiterate (45.26%) 541

There is no significant difference between Illiterate vs Matriculate

completed primary school

469

There is no significant difference between Primary vs Illiterate Primary vs Higher Edu.

Matriculate (class X passed) (15.26%)

543 Illiterate

470

Higher Education (1.76%)

544 Higher Education 471

Intermediate (class XII passed) (3.99%)

544

There is no significant difference among these groups Inter vs Matric Inter vs Higher Edu. Matriculate

(class X passed)

472

There is no significant difference among these groups

The above table shows that the children of educated mothers have performed better in language. But there is no logical sequence of performance in Math. Parents Occupation and Students Achievement: Father Occupation: Fathers of the students were asked to report their occupation. Following table shows the frequency and percentage of the fathers of students by occupation.


Agriculture Small business Government service

Skilled craftsman

technical, managerial, professional

(Father's Occupation)

0

10

20

30

40Pe

rcent

34.7%

31.28%

14.86%14.09%

5.07%

Father Education

The above graph shows that fathers of most of the students are in agriculture, small business, government service and skilled craftsman occupations in descending order. Mothers of the students were asked to report their occupation. Following table shows the frequency and percentage of the mothers of students by occupation.

Agriculture Small business

Government service

Skilled craftsman

technical, managerial, professional

Housewife

(Mother's occupation)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perce

nt

2.63% 1.89% 0.95% 0.81% 0.98%

92.75%

(Mother's occupation)


The above graph shows that mother of most of the students are household with almost 93%. Help in Homework and Students Achievement: Students were asked to report about the help they get from father, mother, guardian

and other people at home in completing their homework. The achievement of their

students was compared by applying regression to explore their relationship with the

subject of Urdu. Following table shows their level of association by indicating their

Beta value against each statement. Overall affect of all these variables is not

significant.

Urdu

R= .031 (R Square= .001)

Math R=.060

(R Square= .004)

Who helps students in completing homework at home

Beta coefficient


t value

Father help in home work -.012 -5.259 .000 -.168 Mother help in home work .026 12.860 -.065 -33.790 Guardian help in home work -.003 -1.614 -.013 -6.658 Other people help in home work -.003 -1.346 -.018 -7.948

Regression analysis shows that mother help in completing homework have positive

association with their achievement in Urdu with Beta value (.026). It indicates that

mother help may have positive impact on students overall achievement. Contrary to

Urdu the association of mother help have negative impact on achievement in Math.

As we know from research that female are comparatively week in mathematics so

their help in math has negative impact on achievement of students. There is need to

improve the mathematical skills of female students, teachers and mothers. But in

Math there is no significant positive impact of any variable. To further explore the

intensity of variability of mother help and it impact on achievement in Urdu

following comparison is made.

Help by mother in completing homework


Level of significance by t-test


Level of significance By t-test

Yes 546 459 No 540


474



The above table shows that mothers’ help in Urdu have positive impact on

achievement of students whereas in Math it has negative impact. The reason may be,

that females are not good in mathematical calculations and conceptual understanding.

Parents Visits to School

Parents of students’ visits school for various reasons. Parents were asked to rate their level of visits for four reasons. Following table shows their frequency of visits to school for the reasons like i.e. to check child absence, to see child performance, school performance and discipline problems of child at school. Comparison of all these activities also shows their preference for each reason.

Parents Visits to School

30

17

24

50

8

13

17

11

29

32

29

19

12

18

14

9

21 20

16

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Child absence Child performance School performance Child discipline problem

Purpose of visit

Per

cent

age

of re

spon

ses

Never

Once a year

Once a month

after 15 days

Once a week

The above graph shows that most of the parents visits schools in a week to check

child absence(21%) child performance(20%) school performance (16%) and child

discipline problem (12%) respectively. Where as after fifteen days they mostly visit

to check child performance in study.


Chapter-5 Teachers Background and Students Learning

Achievement

Teacher Location and Students Achievement:

A question was asked about the location of teachers. Following table shows the

comparison of students who are being taught by rural and urban teachers.

Teacher Location





Rural 527 495 Urban 559

Significant difference 435


Total 542 467

The above table shows that students of urban teachers have significantly shown better

performance in language than student who are being taught by rural teachers. This

indicates that rural Urdu teachers are significantly less competent than urban teachers

in Urdu teaching. On the other hand, students of rural teachers are significantly better

in Mathematics than students of urban teachers. This indicates that teachers of rural

areas have better command in teaching Mathematics.

Teachers Age:

Teachers were asked to report their age span on five age categories. Following table

shows the percentage of teachers in different age span in both Urdu and Math

subjects.


Percentage of Teachers in Different Age Span In Urd u and Math

2

20

50

23

63

26

48

18

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Under 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

Categories of different age span

Per

cent

age

of r

esp

onse

s

Urdu(%)

Math(%)

The above table shows that teachers on Urdu are higher in percentage in age span of

36-45 years group. But teacher of mathematics are greater in age group 25-35 years.

Following table shows the

We can see in the above graph that the achievement of students who are being taught

by the teachers who are in the age span of “under 25” and “above 55” is significantly

low in Math. Whereas the achievement of students of teacher who are in between the

age 25 to 55 is almost the same and have statistically no significant difference.

Age of Teachers and Students Achievement in Math

433

469 468 471

454

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

Under 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55 Categories of Age

Math

Scaled Mean Score


Teachers age and Students Achievement in Urdu

536

545543

534

553

520

525

530

535

540

545

550

555

Under 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55

Categories of Age Span

Sca

led

Mea

n S

core

Urdu

We can see in the above graph that the achievement of students who are being taught

by the teachers who are in the age span of “under 25” and “46-55” is low in Urdu and

there is no significant difference between these groups. Whereas the achievement of

students who’s teacher are in between the age 25 to 45 is better and significantly

different But the student of teacher with age group 25-35 years have showed better

performance in language as compared to age group 36-45 years. Amazingly, the

achievements of students whose teachers have crossed the age of 55 years have

significantly high achievement in Urdu. They are near retirement age but they are

skilful in improving the students score.

Teacher Gender and Achievement of Students and Teachers

An analysis of students’ achievement with regard to their teachers’ gender was made

to see any association of teacher gender with students’ achievement. Following graph

shows


The above graph shows that the percentage of students in Urdu is about 51% female

and 49% male. Whereas male teacher are in greater percentage with 51% and female

with 49% in Urdu. Female students are in higher percentage than male in both

subjects. Whereas male teachers are in higher percentage in both subjects.

Teachers Gender and Students Achievement in Urdu an d Math

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Student Score(Urdu) Teacher Score(Urdu) Student Score(Math) Teacher Score(Math) Subjects wise achievement

Scaled Mean Score

Female Male

Percentage of Students and Teachers by Gender

51

49

52

49

49

51

48

51

46.5

47

47.5

48

48.5

49

49.5

50

50.5

51

51.5

52

Urdu Students Urdu Teachers Math Students Math Teachers Subject wise gender of students and teacher

Percentage of Responses

Female Male


The above graph shows that the female students who are taught by female teachers

have shown significantly better performance in Urdu whereas female teachers are

also significantly better than male teachers. On the other hand male students have

shown better performance in Math as compared to female students. Male teachers

have also performed better than female teachers in the subject of Math. All these

groups were analyzed by applying t-test to see the difference in their achievement in

both Urdu and Math. All the male and female groups are significantly different in

their achievement at .05 level of significance. The students of female teachers have

performed better in Urdu but it needs further investigation in research study to

explore that whether the performance of female students was due to competency of

female teachers or the difference was due to the general tendency of female students

toward better communication or natural ability to communicate well in language.

Teachers General Education and Students Achievement:

a. Urdu Teacher’s General Education and Students Achievement

Urdu teachers were asked to report about their academic qualification. Following

table shows the percentage of teachers that fall in that category.

Matriculation (class X)

Intermediate (class XII)

Bachelor (e.g., BA, BSc)

Masters Higher than masters

Urdu Teacher's General Education

0

10

20

30

40

Per

cent

4.03%

25.62%

35.74%

32.7%

1.91%

Urdu Teacher's General Education


Most of the Urdu teachers have general education upto the level of graduation with a

share about 36%. Maters and Intermediate are second and third in hierarchy of

education with 33% and 25% respectively.

In the following table students achievement has been compared with reference to their

teacher general qualification to see if threre any association present or to see the

performance of any particular group with significant performance or lowest

performance.

Out of three major groups of Intermediate, Bachelor and Master, it is evident from the

above graph that the students who are taught by teachers with intermediate

qualification have shown better performance with scaled mean score 554. Level of

difference from other groups was checked at .05 level of significance by applying

ANOVA and then Scheffe test in post hoc. All other groups have shown significant

difference in their performance in Urdu test.

Matriculation (class X) Intermediate (class XII) Bachelor (e.g., BA, BSc)


Teacher's General Education and Students Achievement in Urdu

532 534 536 538 540 542 544 546 548 550 552 554

Values

�

�

�

�

�

537

554

535

541

550

Teacher's General Education and Students Achievement in Urdu


b. Math Teacher’s General Education and Students Achievement

Math teachers were asked to report about their academic qualification. Following

table shows the percentage of teachers that fall in that category.

Matriculation (class X)

Intermediate (class XII)

Bachelor (e.g., BA, BSc)


Math Teacher's General Education

0

10

20

30

40

50

Per

cent

1.3%

16.88%

37.89%40.38%

3.55%

Math Teacher's General Education

Most of the Math teachers have qualification upto master level with almost 40% share

of total groups. Almost 38% possess Bachelors degree qualification and about 17%

have intermediate qualification. Whereas the teacher who possess matriculation and

higher than master degrees are in a very limited percentage of about 1.3% and 3.5%

respectively.


The achievement of students who’s teachers have intermediate qualification has

shown significantly better performance in Math test with Scaled Mean Score about

488. Out of the two major groups of Bachelor and Master degree holders the teachers

of later group have shown significantly better performance than the Bachelor group

with Scaled Mean Score about 469. All others group have shown significantly

different performance in Math test from each other. Level of difference from other

groups was checked at .05 level of significance by applying ANOVA and then

Scheffe test in post hoc.

Teacher’s Professional Education and Students Achievement

a. Urdu Teachers:

Teachers were asked to report their level of professional education. Professional

education was categorized into five categories ie PTC, CT, Diploma in Education,

B.Ed. and M.Ed. Frequency and Percentage of each category has been displayed in

the table given below on each bar to show its weight in the whole sample.

� Student Score � Teacher Score

Variables

Matriculation (class X) Intermediate (class XII)

Bachelor (e.g., BA, BSc) Masters

Higher than masters

Teacher's General Education and Students Achievemen t in Math

450

500

550

600

650

Values

� �

� �

�

�

�

� �

�

464 488

461 469

430

598

Student Score

672

619 634

545 Teacher Score


PTC CT Diploma in Edu.

B Ed M Ed.

Teacher's Professional Education

0

10

20

30

40

50P

erce

nt

2.47%

40.88%

2.82%

40.03%

13.8%

Urdu Teacher's Professional Education

Most of the Urdu teachers have professional education upto the level of C.T with a

share about 41%. B.Ed and M.Ed are second and third in hierarchy of education with

almost 40% and 14% respectively.

In the following table students achievement has been compared with reference to their

teacher professional qualification to see if there any association present or to see the

performance of any particular group with significant performance or lowest

performance.


� Teachers Score� Students Score

Scaled Score

PTCCT

Diploma in Edu.B Ed

M Ed.

Teacher's Professional Education and Student Achiev ement in Urdu

550

600

650

700

Sca

led

Mea

n S

core

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

622

665

627

703

725

552546 548

540534

The achievement of students who’s teachers have P.T.C. qualification has shown significantly better performance in Urdu test with Scaled Mean Score about 552 but this group is very short almost less than 3%. Out of the two major groups of C.T and B.Ed. degree holders the teachers of first group have shown significantly better performance than the B.Ed. group with Scaled Mean Score about 546. All others group have shown significantly different performance in Urdu test from each other. Level of difference from other groups was checked at .05 level of significance by applying ANOVA and then Scheffe test in post hoc. b. Math Teacher

PTC CT Diploma in Edu.

B Ed M Ed. Higher than M Ed

Math Teacher's Professional Education

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perc

ent

1.31%

29.01%

2.63%

48.86%

17.59%

0.59%

MathTeacher's Professional Education


Most of the Math teachers have professional education upto the level of B.Ed. with a

share about 49%. C.T. and M.Ed are second and third in hierarchy of education with

almost 29% and 18% respectively.

In the following table students achievement has been compared with reference

to their teacher professional qualification to see if there any association present or to

see the performance of any particular group with significant performance or lowest

performance.

� Students Math score� Teacher Math Score

Scaled Score

PTCCT

Diploma in Edu.B Ed

M Ed.Higher than M Ed

Teacher's Professional Education and Students Achie vement in Math

400

500

600

700

Sca

led

Mea

n S

core

��

��

�

�

�

�

��

�

446

471491

466 465

393

494

629

687

623

647

784

The achievement of students who’s teachers have Diploma in Education qualification

has shown significantly better performance in Math test with Scaled Mean Score

about 491 but this group is very short almost less than 3%. Out of the two major

groups of C.T and B.Ed. degree holders the teachers of first group have shown

significantly better performance with having scaled mean score 471 than the B.Ed.

group with Scaled Mean Score about 466. All others group have shown significantly

different performance in Math test from each other. Level of difference from other



Teachers Experience in Present School and Students Achievement Teachers were asked to report about their present tenure in this school. To know the

impact of static experience on the achievement of students, teachers were categorized


into different experience levels. Student’s performance has been checked according to

these categories.

Teachers Total Experience in the Present School

26

28

20

26

34

25

19

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5 and less than five 6 to 10 years 10.5 to 16 years 17 to 36 years

Categories of Experience

Per

cent

age

Urdu Teacher

Math Teacher

The above table shows that most of the Urdu teachers (26%) are in the same school for the last “6 to 10 years” category. Most of the Math teachers (34%) are in the same school for the last 5 or less category. A large number of teachers are of Urdu (26%) and Math (22%) is in the same school for more than 17years. Following table shows the comparison of students achievement who are being taught by teachers with different span of experience in the same school.

533

543

548

543

463

470

472

463

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

5 and Less 6-10 years 11 to 16 years 17 and above Categories of Experience

Scaled Mean Score

Urdu Score Math Score

Teachers Total Experience in Present School and Students Achievement in Urdu and Math


The teachers continuously working in the same after about 15 years show negative

impact on student’s performance. We can see that in both subjects the students

achievement has decreased as the experience of teacher exceed from 15 years. This

may be due to the reason that they become static in learning due to continuously

working in the same place or there is need to investigate further why the performance

of their students has decreased. All others group have shown significantly different

performance in Urdu and Math test from each other. Level of difference from other



Curriculum Provided by Ministry of Education in Urd u and Math. Teachers were asked to report about the provision of curriculum provided by Ministry

of Education, Islamabad to know that how much they consult curriculum or whether

curriculum is provided or not.

Almost 76% teachers in Urdu and 72% teachers in Math have reported that they have

been provide curriculum by the Ministry of Education, but factual situation is that

Ministry have never provided curriculum to school which shows that teachers have

misconception about curriculum.

Provision of Teacher Guide to Teachers:

Yes No

Curriculum provided by MoEdu in Urdu

Yes 75.5

No 24.5

Urdu Math

Curriculum provided by MoEdu in Urdu and Math

Yes 71.5

No 28.5


Teachers were asked about the provision of Teachers Guides by the Government.

Following table shows the responses of teachers in Yes and No and their percentage

that shows the provision rate of teachers guide.

About 46% teachers in Urdu and 38% teachers in Math have reported that they have

been provided Teachers Guides for Urdu and Math subjects.

Multi Grade Teaching and Students Achievement:

Teachers were asked to report whether they take two or more classed at one time in

any period. As due to shortage of staff in our schools teachers have to take combined

classes to control and teach the classes, but this may have some impact on the

performance of students. Following table shows the comparison of both groups who

are involved in Multigrade teaching and who don’t.

Multi grade Teaching and Students Achievement

Do you teach two or more classes at one time in any period?





Yes (17.3%) 527 456 No (82.7%) 545

Significant difference 469


Level of significance is checked at .05 Alpha It appears from the above table that the achievement of students who are taught by

Multigrade teaching strategy have performed low in Urdu and Math. This shows that

Multigrade teaching has negative impact on students achievement.

Availability of Teaching Kits to Urdu and Math Teachers:

Yes No

Teacher guide provided by MoEdu in Urdu

Yes 46.3 No 53.7

Urdu Math

Teacher guide provided by MoEdu in Urdu and Math

Yes 37.5

No 62.5


Teachers were asked to report whether they have teaching kit with them or not.

Following table shows the comparison of both groups who are involved in Multigrade

teaching and who don’t.

About 68% Math teachers have reported that they have Teaching Kit for teaching

students in Math. Almost 62% Urdu teacher have reported that they have teaching

kits available with them for use in teaching. Still there is a large number of teacher

who have reported that they do not have Teaching kit.

The above graph shows that the student’s achievement of those teachers is better who

have teaching kits in Urdu and Math subjects with mean score 544 in Urdu and 471 in

Yes No

Do you have the teaching kit? Math Urdu

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0 58.1

41.9

51.9 48.1


Availability of Teaching Kits and Students Achievme nt

544

471

537

462

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

Urdu Math Subjects

Scaled Mean Score

Yes No

Availability of Teaching Kits to Urdu and Math Teachers


Math. This shows that teaching kits usage may have positive impact on the

achievement of students. There is significant difference between the achievement of

students who are taught by teachers who have teaching kits and who don’t have

teaching kits.

Impact of Teachers Subject Knowledge on Students Achievement:

To see the association of teacher knowledge with students’ achievement, the results

of teachers test were correlated with students’ results in Urdu and Math. Teachers

score in Urdu was correlated with students score in Urdu and teachers score in Math

was correlated with students score inn Math. Regression analysis was done to see any

association between these two variables in both subjects.

Association of Urdu Teachers Test Score with Students Achievement Score

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .085 .007 .007 79.43495

Predictors: (Constant), tchlangscal Teacher Lang Scaled Person Measure

400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00

Teacher Lang Scaled Person Measure

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

Lang

. Sca

led P

erso

n M

easu

re

Cases weighted by Total Weight

Association of Teachers Subject Knowledge with Stud ents Achievement in Urdu

R Sq Linear = 0.007

There is a very week correlation between teachers subject knowledge and student

achievement in Urdu with R=.085 and R Square=.007 which means that this variable

do not affect the achievement of students in Urdu Subject very much.

Association of Math Teachers Test Score with Students Achievement Score

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .431(a) .186 .186 90.81553


a Predictors: (Constant), mathtchscal

200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00

Teachers Scaled MeansScore

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00St

uden

ts Sc

aled

Mea

n Sc

ore

Cases weighted by Total Weight

Association of Teachers Subject Knowledge with Stud etns Achievement in Math

R Sq Linear = 0.186

There is a very positive correlation between teachers subject knowledge and student

achievement in Math with R=.431 and R Square=.185 which means that this variable

may have affect about 19% on achievement of students in Math Subject. If teacher

have strong grip on subject knowledge it may bring positive change in students

achievement. The upward inclination of fit line shows that relationship is positive.

Teachers Expectations from Parents:

Teachers were asked to rate their expectations from parents regarding the following

question. Do you expect that parent should come to; to help you in the class, to

monitor your attendance, to discuss their children performance with you, to ensure

their children complete their homework, to ensure their children have a full set of

course books, to make sure that their children come to school?.


Graph shows that teacher have preferred that parents should come to school to ensure

students attendance, to ensure that students have full set of course and that they

complete their homework.

Teachers Satisfaction with School Administration and Students Achievement: Teachers were asked to give their views in dichotomous response list for the

following six statements. i.e. The school rules are fair, teachers participate in

important decisions about school improvement, teachers make constructive

suggestions in staff meetings, the Head Teacher applies the school rules fairly, the

Head Teacher takes initiatives to improve the school, and the Head Teacher is a good

administrator. Factor analysis was applied to see the association of items with the

overall construct. Principal component Analysis was done for extraction method. No

rotation method was used as all the items were loaded on the same component. All

the statements were loaded on the single component with Eigen value 1. Regression

analysis was also done to see the individual relationship of each item with Math

achievement of student but there only R=.085 and R Square=.007 only. Which shows

that as a collective this variable does not have any direct relation with achievement?

To see the indirect impact of these variables on the achievement of students in Math,

Teachers Expectations from Parents

77

15

6 1

73

20

5 2

69

22

6 3

23

45

27

4 8

14

39 38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Always Often Sometimes Never Level of expectation

Percentage Of Responses

ensure student attendance full set of course complete their homework. discuss children performance help you in the class.


these variables were computed and two level of satisfaction were formed to see the

comparison of low satisfied teachers with administration and high satisfied teachers

with administration. Following table shows the comparison of these two groups with

regard to their student’s achievement in Math.

Math teachers Level of Satisfaction

Math Scaled Mean Score Level of Significance

Low Satisfaction 437

High Satisfaction 468


.000

Level of significance is checked at .05 Alpha

The above table and graph shows that the performance of students who are being

taught by teachers satisfied with administration has high achievement in Math. It

means that this variable has an indirect relationship with achievement of students.

Low Satisfaction High Satisfaction

Level of Satisfaction

100

200

300

400

437 468

Scaled Mean Score

Teachers Satisfaction Level with Administration and Students Achievement


Explanation of Students Individual Mistakes:

Students were asked to report about the frequency of explanation of their individual

mistakes by their teachers with options i.e. Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly.

Following table shows the performance of students in Urdu and Math by comparison

of time duration each teachers gives for explaining individual mistakes.

Explanation of Mistakes and Students Achievement

Teachers Explanation to students their mistakes individually

Urdu Math

Weekly 542 468 Monthly 544 458 Quarterly 531 432 Yearly 434 402

Above graph shows that as the frequency of explaining individual mistakes in Urdu

and Math decreases their performance in both subjects decreases. This implicates that

teacher personal attention to students’ personal mistakes in subject increases students

performance.

Difficult Areas of Teaching:

Teachers were asked to report the subjects’ areas they can easily teach and identify

the areas which are difficult. Following table shows their level of difficulty in some

hard area which they difficult to teach.

Explanation of Mistakes by Teacher and Students Ach ievement

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Weekly Monthly Quarterly Yearly Time Duration

Scaled Mean Score

Urdu Math


Difficult Areas to Teach in Mathematics

Math teachers have reported that area of sphere, volume of cone, Pythagoras Theorem

and Information handling are the most difficult areas to teach for them.

Urdu teachers have reported that the areas of “information and scientific text”,

“Grammer-composites” and “Grammer-use of paragraphs, pronunciation” as the most

hard areas to teach.

Which of the following subjects areas can you easily teach

19.22 20.29

22.07 22.07

2.29

8.74

20.78

8.99

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Difficult

Pythagors' Theorem Area of the cone volume of the cone Area of the sphere

Converting base 2 and 5 to decimals Use of algebraic formulas Information handling Ratio and proportion

Difficult Areas for Teaching Urdu

1.9

26.6

5.8

7.9

24.3

8.2

19.4

6.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Difficult Areas


Prose story

Informative and scientific text

Poems (moral, patriotic, hamd & naat)

Grammar - use of idioms

Grammar - composites

Grammar - types of noun and verb

Grammar - use of paragraphs, pronunciation

Writing autobiography, story, letters, diary


Chapter-6 School Environment and Students

Achievement General Education of Headteachers

Heads of schools were asked about their general education. This information gives us

statistics about the level of education of headteacher and to see if there exist any

association of heads education with students’ achievement in the subject of Urdu and

Math.

Most of the head teacher possesses master degree. Percentage of this group in our

sample is about 71% and second group is Bachelor degree holder with 16% in the

hierarchy.

General Education of Headteachers and Students Achi evement

Urdu Math

Highest formal education completed by HT


Level of significance Highest formal education completed by HT



Intermediate (class XII) (1.79%)

523 This group is significantly different from other

groups.

Matriculation (class X) 433

Bachelor (e.g., BA, BSc) (16.42%)

536 Higher than masters 441

Matriculation (class X) (.93%)

537

There is no significant difference between Masters

473

Masters (71.13%) 540


Bachelor (e.g., BA, BSc) 477

Higher than masters (9.74%)

555 This group is significantly different from other groups

Intermediate (class XII) 529

All the groups are significantly different from each other in performance

It is obvious from the above table that Master degree holders and Bachelor degree

holders are greater in percentage among the whole group. The students of the schools

whose head holds master degree or above qualification have shown high achievement

in Urdu. Whereas in Math the performance of students of Bachelor degree holder

heads is better. Although the performance of Intermediate group is higher but this

group is very limited in number.


Professional Education of Headteachers: Heads of schools were asked about their professional education. This information

gives us statistics about the level of professional education of headteacher and to see

if there exist any association of heads education with students’ achievement in the

subject of Urdu and Math.

Professional Education of Headteachers and Students Achievement

Urdu Math

Professional Education


Level of significance Professional Education



CT(3.13%) 503

This group is significantly different from other groups Diploma in

Ed 375

B Ed (52.28%)

539 Higher than M.Ed.

412

M Ed. (40.41%)

543


PTC 441


Higher than M.Ed. (2.78%)

545 This group is no significant difference between M.Ed and Higher than M.Ed.

M Ed. 472

PTC (.46%) 571 This group is significantly different from other groups B Ed 473


Diploma in Ed (.93%)

619


CT 511


Most of the headteacher possess B.Ed. and M.Ed. degree. Percentage of these groups

in our sample is about 52% and 40% respectively. The students of schools with heads

having M.Ed. and B.Ed. has shown same performance. Statistically there is no

significant difference between the performance of students of these two groups in

Urdu. In the same way there is no significant difference of performance between the

students of B.Ed. and M.Ed. degree holders’ heads students in Math.

Daily Absenteeism in Schools:

In our schools students take leave from schools due to different reasons. But to know

that to what percentage are they daily absent from schools, heads of schools were

asked to report the percentage of daily absenteeism in their school on four options i.e

Less than 5%, 5-10%, 11-20% and More than 20%.


Less than 5% 5-10% 11-20% More than 20%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Pe

rcent

27.34%

59.31%

11.96%

1.39%

On a typical school day, about what percentage of s tudents are absent for any reason?

About 60% headteachers included in our sample has reported that the percentage of

daily absenteeism in their schools is from 5-10%.

Head teachers Views about Parents Participation in Schools:

Headteachers were asked to report their views about participation of parents in

students academic and school activities on five point rating scale i.e. V. low, Low,

Medium, High, and V.High. They were asked questions about “Parents cooperation in

students achievement”, “Parents interest in school activities” and Society and Parents

cooperation in school activities”.

Parents Participation in School and Students Achievement

Urdu Math

Parents Participation Level


Level of significance Parents Participation Level



Low Participation level

538 High Participation Level

455

Moderate Participation Level

543 Low Participation level

469

High Participation Level

556

All the groups are significantly different from each other in performance.

Moderate Participation Level

479


The high participation of parents increases students learning level in both subjects, but extraordinary involvement of parents have no positive impact in Math.


Headteacher Opinion about PTA/SMC/SC:

Headteacher were asked some questions to report about their views about the

existence and functions of PTA/SMC and SCs. Following questions were asked to

rate on dichotomous responses “Yes” and “No”. Is PTA/SMC present in the school?,

Funding of PTA/SMC from Government, Need for PTA/SMC in the school, and Is

PTA/SMC Co-operative?

About 83% headteachers have reported that PTA/SMC is present in their school.

Almost 98% headteacher feel that there is need for PTA/SMC/SC in the school. This

shows that headteacher think that these associations and committees may helpful in

the smooth functioning of school. Most of the headteachers have positive opinion

about the need of community participation in schools. About 72% headteachers

include in sample reported that funding of government is present for these committees

and councils. Regarding the cooperation of these committees and associations almost

79% headteachers opined that they are cooperative.

Use of Teaching Aids and Students Achievement:

While teaching teachers use different teaching aids to improve the instruction.

Headteacher were asked to report about their teacher whether they use teaching aids

during their instruction. A question “Do the teachers use teaching materials?” was

asked on rating options i.e. Never, Seldom, Usually and Always.

Opinion of Headteachers about PTA/SMC/SC

83

98

28

79

17

2

72

21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Is PTA/SMC present in the school

Is PTA/SMC Cooperative


Yes No

Need for PTA/SMC in the

Government Funding of PTA/SMC from school


Use of Teaching Aids by Teacher and Students Achievement

Urdu Math

Do the teachers use teaching materials?


Level of significance At .05 Alpha

Do the teachers use teaching materials?



Never (1.6%) 516

Usually 462

Seldom (21.5%) 527

Seldom 467

Usually (55.7%) 545 Never

476

Always (21.2%) 547

All the groups are significantly different in performance

Always 499

All the groups are significantly different in performance

The above table shows that use of teaching material during teaching has positive

impact on students’ achievement. The level of achievement increases as the level of

use of teaching aid increases in Urdu. Whereas in Math maximum use of teaching

aids result in better achievement. So we can say that overall teaching is supported by

teaching material.

Headteacher Views about Some Factors Affecting Students Achievement:

Headteachers were asked about some activities whethers these are considered as a

school matter, or policy matter or leave them upto teacher. Following issues were

asked to report on three options i.e corporal punishment, Homework, Recording and

reporting student progress, Explaining students mistakes, Dealing with weak students,

and Parental involvement.


Above graph shows that headteachers consider that corporal punishment is a policy

matter of government and they are not in a position to give their own view or

implement their own policy. Regarding homework assignment to students they do not

have any collective policy in school, its upto teacher whether he assign homework or

not. Headteachers do not take it as a government policy matter. We have seen that

homework has positive impact on students teaching, so some measures are necessary

to take in this regard. Most of the headteacher have given their views that recording

and reporting of students progress is upto teacher. This is also alarming situation as

keeping and maintaining record and then reporting to parents is very important for a

school but all this is left with teacher’s will. It should be a collective policy of school

or government as a whole. About 89% headteacher has reported that they consider

explaining of students mistakes by teacher as the matter of class teacher. Parents

involvement in teaching is considered by 41% headteachers as teacher concern, but

most of the headteachers about 46% has not shown any concern in this regard.

Involvement of Headteachers in Educational Activities:

The view of headteachers was got reported on a five point rating scale regarding these

educational activities i.e. Lesson planning and guidance for the teacher, Inspection of

the teacher classes, Managing the non teaching staff, To teach the students, Meetings

with parents. These activities were rated on a scale of categories i.e. Daily, Weekly,

after 15 days, Monthly, and Never.

Head teacher’s Views about Factors Affecting Students Achievement

6.2

0.5

1.4

1.9

5.1

46.5

21.0

88.3

66.2

88.9

79.8

41.4

72.8

11.2

32.4

9.2

15.1

12.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Corporal Punishment

Homework Recording Reporting Students Progress

Explaining Students Mistakes

Dealing with weak students

Parental Involvement

Percentage Of Responses

No Reference Upto Teacher Policy Statement


To know the level of participation and interest of headteachers as a whole these five

variables were computed and then converted into three level of participation. These

five variables were loaded on one component in factor analysis of eight variables.

These variables were analysed by using the extraction method of Principal

Component Analysis at Eigen value 1 after rotation by using Varimax method.

Headteacher Participation Level in Educational Activities and Students Achievement

Urdu Math

Headteacher Participation Level in Educational Activities



Headteacher Participation Level in Educational Activities



High 541

High 471

Medium 540

No significant difference Medium

484

Low 536

Significantly different from other groups

Low 424


The above graph shows that the increased involvement of headteacher in educational activities increases the level of students achievement. Active headteachers are more effective in raising students’ achievement.

Headteacher Involvement in Educational Activities

21.0

66.2

84.3

64.3

5.5

55.4

24.9

10.2

24.0

2.8

5.6

4.2

2.8

3.7

4.2

16.6

4.7

2.8

5.6

79.2

1.4

2.3

8.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Lesson Planning,Guiding

teachers

Inspection of Classes Managing staff Teaching Students Meeting with Parents

Activities

Percentage of Responses Daily

Weekly After 15 days Monthly Never


The above graph and table shows the positive impact of headteachers involvement in educational activities on student achievement. Description of School Facilities and Physical Conditions: Some data was gathered from headteachers and teachers by test administrators by asking questions on dichotomous responses. Following is the percentage of responses in “Yes” which shows percentage of availability of facilities in the schools. These physical facilities have been cross tabulated by gender, location and school level in sampled schools in Punjab.

By Gender By Location By School Level Availability of Physical Facilities Boys Girls Rural Urban Middle High Higher

Drinking Water 96.3% 98.2% 98.2% 96.3% 97.0% 97.4% 97.0%

Blackboard 98.2% 99.1% 98.2% 99.1% 98.2% 99.1% 97.2%

Library 79.6% 68.6% 69.9% 78.4% 76.1% 73.4% 73.8%

Playground 77.5% 60.0% 69.5% 68.0% 70.9% 68.2% 67.4%

Bulb/Tube Lights

99.0% 94.2% 93.2% 100.0% 97.6% 96.0% 97.6%

Electric Fans 96.3% 97.7% 94.0% 100.0% 96.0% 97.5% 96.2%

Toilets 90.8% 100.0% 92.7% 98.2% 94.3% 95.9% 95.0%

Boundary Wall 84.4% 97.6% 84.1% 98.2% 87.2% 92.4% 91.2%

Separate room for each class

62.3% 56.7% 56.0% 63.1% 58.8% 59.4% 61.2%

Charts/maps on walls in classroom

83.0% 94.3% 83.6% 94.1% 86.5% 90.0% 86.0%

Students work on walls in classroom

52.5% 61.8% 51.6% 62.6% 51.7% 58.8% 58.2%

� Urdu Scaled Mean Score

� Math Scaled Mean Score

Headteacher Participation Level in Educational Activities and Students Achievement

High Medium Low

425

450

475

500

525

Scaled Mean Score

� � �

� �

�

541 540 536

471

484

424


Review of above table shows that in boys’ schools the less available facility is

“students work on walls in classrooms” and “separate room for each class” with

percentage 52.5% and 62.3% respectively. The overall position of these two

conditions in all type of schools is worse. Almost fifty percent schools lack these

elements.

Class Size in Schools: In our sampled schools the averaged ratio of students is about 67 students per class.

The number of students per classroom have been categorized into five categories to

make more sensible picture of students in our schools. Following table shows the

frequency of students per class in sampled schools as reported by the headteachers.

35 or less students36-50 students

51-75 students76-100 students

101 and above students

Number of students per calssroom

0

10

20

30

40

Perc

ent

10.91%

23.65%

36.84%

14.25% 14.35%

Number of students per calssroom

The above graph shows that in most of our schools about 37% the number of students per class range from 51-75 students, which a very high ratio of students in class. This is mainly due to shortage of rooms in our schools. Instructional Time of School and Students Achievement: Data was collected regarding the total instructional time of school excluding assembly and break time. Following table shows the percentage of schools with reference to level of instructional time.


Instructional Time of School and Students Achievement

Urdu Math

Instructional time of school



Instructional Time of school



6 hours (21.69%) 538 4 hours 455

8 hours (1.86%) 540

No significant difference

8 hours

465

5 hours (74.24%) 542

Significantly different from others group except 8 hours group

6 hours

469

4 hours (2.21%) 546 Significance difference

5 hours

472 472

Significant

difference between

all groups

It appears from the above table that most of the schools have total instructional time about 5hours and 6 hours with 74%and 21% respectively. Appropriate school time is 5 hours a day and it has positive impact on school achievement. More than five hours daily schooling has negative impact on students’ achievement. Duration of a Class and Student Achievement: Regarding duration of a class in schools a question was asked from head teachers and teachers. As we know that time is a good factor for student’s achievement. But to know the duration of period which is suitable for this level of students is necessary. Following table shows the percentage of schools where the duration of period of for a class is categorized into four categories and impact of duration on students achievement.

Duration of Class in School and Students Achievement

Urdu Math

Duration of Class



Duration of class



45 Minutes (.91%)

513

40 Minutes 466

40 Minutes (24.38%)

536

30 Minutes 468

35 Minutes (49.85%)

540

35 Minutes 474

30 Minutes (24.86%)

554

Significant difference between all groups

45 Minutes 485

Significant difference between all

groups

From the above table it is clear that in both groups of Urdu and Math the most appropriate time for elementary students is 35 minutes as it is currently in most of the schools. The performance of other two major groups of 30 and 40 minutes is comparatively and statistically low than 35 minutes group. So we can say that this is the most appropriate time for a period or class in schools.


Building Condition of Schools: To know the existing condition of building of schools data was collected from schools on three point rating i.e. satisfactory, repairable and unsatisfactory. Following table shows the percentage of condition of building in sampled schools. Which may give the whole picture of scenario? From the above graph we may incur that condition of most of the schools is satisfactory as the frequency is higher in satisfactory group. About 55% schools have satisfactory condition of building. Where as about 37% schools are repairable. The percentage of unsatisfactory schools is also noticeable and needs some drastic measures to overcome this problem.

satisfactory repairable unsatisfactory

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perce

nt

55.09%

35.83%

9.08%

Building Condition of Schools

Deficiency of Physical Facilities in Schools: Data was collected to get information about the existing facilities of schools.

Following table shows the percentage of non-availability of physical facilities. These

statistics may help to draw the holistic picture of school.

By Gender By Location By School Level Non-Availability of Physical Facilities

Boys Girls Rural Urban Middle High Higher

Electric Supply 1.7% 3.1% 4.7% -- 1.1% 3.1% 1.4%

Water supply 1.8% .9% 1.8% .9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6%

Science Laboratory 25.1% 45.2% 49.7% 19.9% 32.9% 36.4% 33.9%

Heating 85.2% 79.1% 86.8% 77.2% 85.0% 81.5% 80.0%

Dispensary or medical facility 77.8% 81.9% 93.7% 65.5% 79.8% 80.7% 75.5%


The above table shows that in most of the schools heating system is not available. The

second most categories with dearth is dispensary or medical facility. Almost Science

laboratory is also not available in most of the schools.


NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT SYSTEM Table of Specification Urdu G8Test A NAT 2007

(UAGNAT07) (According to Item Number in Test)

Reading Section

Aspects of Reading Context For

Reading Forming A

General Understanding

Developing Interpretation

Making Reader/Text Connection

Examining Content & Structure

Total

Literary Experience

1, 3, 6, 8 5, 7, 9, 10 2 4 10

Information 18, 23, 24, 26 17, 21, 22, 25 20 19 10

Perform A Task

13 (CI 3), 16 (CI 6)

12 (CI 2), 14 (CI 4)

15 (CI 5) 11 (CI 1) 06

Total # 0f Items

10 10 03 03 26

Grammar Section

27, 28 (CI 7), 29 (CI 8), 30 (CI 9), 31, 32, 33 07

Writing Section

Narrative Writing = Item # 34 Informative Writing = Item # 35 Persuasive Writing = Item # 36

* CI: Common Items used in both versions

Annexure-I


NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT SYSTEM Table of Specification Urdu G8Test B NAT 2007

(UBGNAT07) (According to Item Number in Test)

Reading Section

Aspects of Reading

Context For Reading

Forming A General

Understanding

Developing Interpretation

Making Reader/Text Connection

Examining Content & Structure

Total

Literary Experience

1, 3, 4, 6, 2, 7, 8, 9 5 10 10

Information 17, 18, 22, 24 20, 21, 23, 25 26 19 10

Perform A Task

13 (CI 3), 16 (CI 6)

12 (CI 2), 14 (CI 4)

15 (CI 5) 11 (CI 1) 06

Total # 0f Items

10 10 03 03 26

Grammar Section

27, 28 (CI 7), 29 (CI 8), 30 (CI 9), 31, 32, 33 07

Writing Section

Narrative Writing = Item # 34 Informative Writing = Item # 35 Persuasive Writing = Item # 36

*CI: Common Items used in both versions


Table of Specification Mathematics, Achievement Test (A)

Grade-VIII, April 2007 .

Table of Specification Mathematics Achievement Test (B), Grade-VIII, April

2007.

Number Sense Geometry Data Analysis

Algebra Total

Conceptual Understanding

12,14,22,27 18,21,26 20 01,06,13 11

Procedural Knowledge

10,17,23,28,30 08,31,32 16 02,03,11,19 13

Problem Solving 07,09,15,24 05,33 - 04,25,29 09

Total 13 8 2 10 33

Number Sense Geometry Data Analysis Algebra Total

Conceptual Understanding 14,18,20,30 09,15,27 26 12,19,25 11

Procedural Knowledge 01,10,16,17,23, 28,31,32 06 03,07,11,21, 13

Problem Solving 02,08,13,22,24 05,33 - 04,29 09

Total 14 8 2 09 33

Annexure-II


Mathematics Framework

The Assessment Framework and Test Specifications From the consideration of the three dimensions and also the National Curriculum 2001 for Grades 8 the following Assessment framework has been developed: The Mathematical Content Strands The percentages found in the table are based on the weightage given in the curriculum. Sub- contents of the curriculum are calculated on the basis of these weight ages.

Minimum Percentage Distribution of Items for Grade 8 Content Strands

Content strand Grade 8 Number sense, properties and operation 40 % Measurement 10 % Geometry and spatial sense 15 % Data analysis, statistics, probability and information handling

5 %

Algebra and function 30% Total 100 %

Mathematical Abilities The distributions of items by mathematical abilities are according to the objectives of the curriculum. The weighting for each of the abilities is given in the form of a table

Mathematical Ability Weight age according to Curriculum Objectives Grade 8

Conceptual understanding 30% Procedural knowledge 40% Problem solving 30%

The transfer of these weight ages to the content strands is found in the table below: For example for the content Number sense, properties and operation 50% of the items are allocated in Grade 4. Of this 50%, 40% is allocated for conceptual understanding. The 40% of 50% will be 20.i.e 40*50=20%.

Minimum Distribution of Items by Mathematical Abili ties for Grade 8 (Test Specification Table)

Abilities/Level Number

Sense, Properties And Operation

Measurement Geometry And Spatial Sense

Data Analysis, Statistics Probability/ Information Handling

Algebra And Function

Total

G8 G8 G8 G8 G8 G8 Conceptual understanding

7 1 2 1 6 17

Procedural knowledge

10 2 3 2 9 26

Problem solving

7 1 2 1 6 17

Total no of items (%) 24 4 7 4 21 60

Annexure-III


The total number of items (taking into account the content strands and the mathematical abilities) in each national assessment will be 40 items for Grade 4 and 60 items for Grade 8. Therefore the minimum distribution of items is seen in the table below.

Minimum Distribution of the Type of Items for Grade 8

Content MCQ,s Constructed response G 8 G 8 Number sense, properties and operation 15 9 Measurement 3 1 Geometry and spatial sense 5 2 Data analysis, statistics, probability/information handling

3 1

Algebra and function 13 8 Total 39 21

The percentage of the MCQ, s and constructed response are in the ratio of 3:2 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are used as they:

• Are easily equated • Are easily scored without the need for complex keys and rubrics • Provide greater security of items • Increase the reliability of the data • Are more efficient • Predict valid measurement

Constructed Response Items Are Used As: • The results of these items have more value for policy making decisions. • An in-depth understanding of content can only be measured through

constructive response items. • They provide more authentic assessments and represent classroom teaching

and learning situations.

Punjab Education Assessment System (PEAS), Education ... · CT Certificate of Teaching DfID...

Documents

Transcript of Punjab Education Assessment System (PEAS), Education ... · CT Certificate of Teaching DfID...