Assessment Report of Urban Out of School Children

SAMUNNAT NEPAL Kathmandu 2014

DRAFT 1

1

Assessment Report of Urban Out of School Children

For

Samunnat Nepal

Kathmandu

DRAFT 1

2

Acknowledgement

This report on the assessment of urban out of school children is the joint effort of many personnel for which Samunnat Nepal wishes to acknowledge their valuable contribution in the conduction of the assessment and this report.

Samunnat Nepal would like to cordially thank the team of NASA assessment analysts Mr Shyam Prasad Acharya, Sunita Shakya and Deviram Acharya for their consultancy in developing the research tools, carry out field visit orientation, data analysis and report writing. Special thanks go to Dr Bhojraj Sharma Kafle for developing a refined Nepali version of the report and for his technical feedback on the various aspects of the report.

Samunnat Nepal would like to thank UOSP level facilitators from Nepalgunj and Pokhara for gathering the UOSP students and supporting to carry out the assessment in the target areas. As this research study would be incomplete without the participation of the UOSP level students, we would like to acknowledge all the participant students. Finally, a vote of thanks to the two municipalities of Nepalgunj and Pokhara for their prime role during dissemination of the findings of this assessment report.

Samunnat Nepal would like to acknowledge the role of UNICEF for its financial contribution for supporting this assessment.

Thanks goes to the technical input from Mr Yubaraj Laudari, Mr Paban Adhikary as well as Yogesh Shrestha and Rosy Shakya for shaping this report.

Thanks to the board members and staff members of Samunnat Nepal for their feedback and carrying out this study.

Samunnat Nepal -fighting poverty for quality learning

DRAFT 1

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 3

Acronyms and Abbreviation 5

Executive Summary 6

Chapter 1 1

Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objectives of the UOSP assessment 2

1.3 Rationale of the UOSP assessment 2

1.4 Limitation 3

Methodology 4

2.1 Population and sample 4

2.2 Tools Development 4

2.3 Test administration 5

2.4 Scoring, analysis and interpretation 5

2.5 Reliability and validity of the test 6

2.6 Terms Definition 6

Chapter 3 8

Major Findings 8

3.1 Achievement in Nepali 8

3.1.1a Total achievement in Nepali 8

3.1.1b. Distribution of scores in Level I and II 9

3.1.2 Municipality wise achievement 11

3.1.3 Gender wise achievement 11

3.1.4 Caste/ethnicity wise Achievement 12

3.1.5 Mother tongue wise achievement 14

3.1.6 Student age and Achievement. 15

3.1.7 Family Economy and Student Achievement 16

3.1.8 Parents’ education status and achievement 17

3.1.9 Students’ previous education status and achievement 18

3.2 Achievement in Mathematics 19

3.2.1 Total Achievement in Mathematics 19

3.2.2 Distribution of score in Level I and II 19

3.2.3 Municipality wise achievement 22

3.2.4 Gender wise achievement 22

DRAFT 1

4

3.2.5 Caste/ethnicity wise Achievement 24

3.2.6 Mother tongue wise achievement 26

3.2.7 Relation between age of the students and Achievement 26

3.2.8 Family economy and student achievement 27

3.2.9 Parents’ education status and achievement 30

3.2.10 Students’ previous education status and achievement 30

3.2.11 Major fin dings from detailed item analysis and student performance 31

Chapter 4 33

Findings and Recommendation 33

4.1 Findings 33

4.1.1 Findings of Nepali 33

4.2.1 Findings of Mathematics 34

4.2.2 Content wise Findings 35

4.3Suggestions 36

Annex 1 : UOSP learning objectives. 38

Annex 2 39

Profile of UOSP children 39

Annex 3. Item wise Analysis 42

A. Nepali Level I 42

B. Nepali Level II 44

C. Mathematics Level I 47

D. Mathematics Level II 50

Annex 4 Test Paper Used in Study Error! Bookmark not defined.

A. Mathematics test paper Level I Error! Bookmark not defined.

B. Mathematics test Paper Level II Error! Bookmark not defined.

C. Nepali test paperLevel I Error! Bookmark not defined.

D. Nepali test paper Level II Error! Bookmark not defined.

E. Background questionnaire Error! Bookmark not defined.

References Error! Bookmark not defined.

DRAFT 1

5

Acronyms and Abbreviation

ANOVA: Analysis of Variance

CBS: Central Bureau of Statistics

DEO: District Education Office

DoE: Department Of Education

EFA: Education For All

ERO: Education Reform Office

FBC: Full Bright Consultancy

FSP: Flexible Schooling Program

Min: Minimum

Max: Maximum

NASA: National Assessment of Student Achievement

NLSS: Nepal Living Standard Survey

NFE: Non-Formal Education

NFEC: Non-Formal Education Centre

NER: Net Enrollment Rate

NGO: Non-Government Organization

OOSC: Out of school children

SD: Standard Deviation

SN: Samunnat Nepal

SOP: School outreach Program

SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Science

UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund

UOSP: Urban Out of School Program

DRAFT 1

6

executive summary

It is difficult to provide equal opportunity for all children through formal school education. Providing equal opportunity for all and ensuring quality of education has been a challenge. Different modalities of alternative education have been implemented through the government of Nepal like, OSP, SOP, FSP, open schools. Nepal has made tremendous progress on primary school net enrollment from 81% in 2001 to 96% in 2015 within the EFA period (2001-2015), with a raise of 15%. However, despite high enrollment, many children drop out and the number of children out of school is actually higher that the 5% not enrolled. NLSS estimated the number of such children to be 22% of primary school going age children (see background section 1.1) which is a significant number. They are not attending the school due to various socio-economic reasons. The latest record of Department of Education (DOE, 2071) shows 4% of the children are still out of school. The UOSP program has been carried out to ensure the Right to education for every child.

Due to the recent influx of urban migration, the Urban Out of School Program was implemented to cater to the learning needs of the huge number of out of school children seen in the urban areas working as manual laborers in various locations. The program was aimed to meet the learning needs of grade 3 by level I and grade 5 by level II. Although different education modes have been implemented, there has not been any assessment carried out to measure the learning of participants of the non-formal mode. In this aspect, the assessment of the UOSP graduates has been the first of its kind to measure their learning levels. This study was conducted for UOSP level I and II graduates in two municipalities of Nepalgunj and Pokhara to measure the learning level of the UOSP children in Maths and Nepali.

Altogether, 311 students (108 boys; 187 girls and 16 unknown) from level I and level II of 27 centers participated in the assessment. Learning assessment tools were developed as per the expected learning outcomes set by the UOSP program implementation manual. Background questionnaires and learning assessment tools were developed through joint meeting with experts and field workers. The assessment was conducted in two different days in two subjects mainly Nepali and Maths. Learning assessment tools were scrutinized by concerned subject teachers and experts. Answer key of the test items were developed and used as reference. Item wise response of students and background data were analyzed through SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science). The results were analyzed based on students' gender, caste/ethnicity, age, parents' education and other socio-economic indicators. The objectives of this study are:

To identify the average learning achievement of UOSP children.

To find the gender wise status of learning achievement

To identify the content area wise learning status in Nepali and Mathematics.

To explore the relationship between background of the UOSP children with their learning achievement

DRAFT 1

7

To explore the challenges and solutions for continuity after mainstreaming of UOSP graduates in formal schools.

The general findings of the study are as listed below:

Overall, mean achievement score is 62 percent in Nepali level I and II respectively. In mathematics, for level I achievement is 67 percent and for level II is 57 percent.

In Nepali, students of level I from Pokhara (65) achieved slightly higher than Nepalgunj (60). Similarly in level II, students from Pokhara achieved (67) higher than students from Nepalgunj (57). In Mathematics, level I students from Nepalgunj (71) achieved higher than that of Pokhara (62). Contrary, Level II Pokhara students (60) achieved slightly higher than Nepalgunj (54).

Girls achieved higher scores than boys in Nepali and Mathematics both in aggregate. Gender wise analysis between the municipalities has shown that girls performed better than boys in Level I in both subjects in both municipalities. However, Level II boys of Nepalgunj performed better than girls in Mathematics.

On the basis of caste/ethnicity of students, Dalit students are performing better like any other castes in aggregate. The study did not rule out ethnicity as a factor for better achievement.

Although not comparable to the students achievement for grades 3 and 5, the mean percentage of the UOSP level I and II children shows not much difference. However, UOSP children's performance variance (higher to lower gap) found high in small sample.

Suggestions

In Nepali, focus should be on free writing, applying knowledge in practical activities like writing letter, leave application etc. Special attention should be given in grammar related content while facilitating Nepali to the UOSP children.

While teaching mathematics in level I, focus on counting numbers in different situation, division problems, fractions and decimals. Practical exercise in fraction related problems and measurement (time/money/weight) is necessary.

While teaching mathematics in level II, focus on fraction, decimal, percentage. Additionally, practical exercises and discussions among students are necessary in using learnt facts and skills in daily life situations. This calls for training to the facilitators on content matters.

In order to enable all students to achieve a minimum level and harmonize the achievement of all students, UOSP classes have to be improved to make suitable for all kinds of students.

Learning from the good practices of Pokhara to improve the teaching and learning in Nepalgunj could be one way to improve UOSP program.

Applying multi grade multilevel approach is suggested to improve teaching and learning process in UOSP classes.

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

The UOSP program was initiated to support the Government's commitment for Education for All (EFA) global campaign by the year 2015. In the Nepalese context, out-of-school children are either the ones who have not yet experienced the formal or non-formal education or the ones who have left school due to various circumstances. According to the CBS (2014), 25% of out-of-school children left the school due to poor performance. The Nepal Living Standard Survey (CBS, 2011, p. 81) has identified that 9 percent of 6 to 24 years persons have never attended school. The reasons behind never attendance are: “parents did not want (30 percent), had to work at home (25.5 percent), not willing to attend (17.2 percent), too young (7.2 percent), too expensive (7.3 percent), disability (3.4 percent) and school far way (3.1 percent)”.The study conducted by Full Bright Consultancy (FBC, 2009) also supported those reasons. Besides, the FBC has also pointed out that the most prominent reason behind out-of-school children as a lack of awareness among parents(especially illiterate) on importance of education. Further, it has also shown a strong relationship between family income and children’s out-of-school status as a result of which children are forced towards child labor.

According to the latest Flash Report I (2013-14) of Nepal, nearly 5% (girls 5% and 4% boys) of primary school going aged children have never experienced the formal education and almost the same percent of students dropped the school in the primary level (DoE, 2013). However, the Nepal Living Standard Survey III has reported around 22% of primary school going aged children are out of school in 2011 (CBS, 2011). Likewise, UNICEF Nepal has stated 1.2 million children of age group 5–16 are out-of-school in Nepal (http://unicef.org.np/our-work/education). These statistics indicate the possibilities of huge number of out-of-school children either they just enrolled in school but hardly attended or dropped out.

The Nepal government has initiated many alternative education programs through non-formal education modality to address the out-of-school children like Flexible Education Program (FSP), Out of School Program (OSP) and School Outreach Program (SOP). However, those programs did not address the urban out-of-school children, hardcore groups, opportunity cost seeking groups and so on. Furthermore, government programs are mainly focused in rural areas. As a result, the EFA target of achieving the NER to 100 by 2015 is under achieved within the target period.

In order to meet the EFA target, many NGOs and INGOs are involved and working together with government in non-formal education programs to focus the out-of-school children. Due to the

DRAFT 1

2

recent high influx of migration from rural to urban areas many out of school children have become prominent in urban areas and working as manual laborers in small restaurants and households, these children are at a high risk of exploitation, abuse and violence and being involved in unsocial activities. In this regards, the urban out- of-school children has been developed to meet the learning needs of the urban poor out of school children. In addition, after completion of UOSP level I, the children are eligible to join grade 3 and after completion of level II, children are eligible to join grade 5.

Unlike other non-formal programs, the UOSP has a non-formal curriculum. Additionally, the UOSP is conducted in a flexible time. With the financial support from UNICEF Nepal, this program is being implemented in 8 Municipalities with the local NGOs as implementing partners.

1.2 Objectives of the UOSP assessment

1. To identify the average learning achievement of UOSP children.

2. To find the gender wise status of learning achievement

3. To identify the content area wise learning status in Nepali and Mathematics.

4. To explore the relationship between background of the UOSP children with their learning achievement and

5. To explore the challenges and solutions for continuity after mainstreaming of UOSP graduates in formal schools.

1.3 Rationale of the UOSP assessment

Generally, assessment is conducted to measure students’ learning progress against the curriculum objectives in terms of scores. There are many learning assessment studies conducted by different institutions in formal education, however, learning assessment of non-formal education has not yet been carried out. Hence, this assessment of UOSP is a landmark in the context of Nepal.

The non-formal education is un-structured and it is difficult to measure the learning level of students compared to the formal education. In this context, this assessment is important in measuring the learning level of UOSP enrolled children. To some extent, this study also compares the learning achievement of UOSP results with the formal education assessment 2012 NASA results of grade 3 and 5.

DRAFT 1

3

The study findings also exhibits the overall scenario of UOSP classes on whether the education delivered in UOSP classes are able to meet those children’s need as per the curriculum so that they can join the formal education after UOSP classes.

1.4 Limitation

This assessment study covers only two municipalities where the UOSP classes were running. Hence, the results may not be generalized to all areas. The assessment also covered only Nepali and Mathematics out of three subjects (Nepali, English and Mathematics) of UOSP.

DRAFT 1

4

Chapter 2

Methodology

2.1 Population and sample

For the assessment purpose, Nepalgunj (Banke) and Pokhara (Kaski) were selected purposively where the UOSP classes of both the levels were just completed. All the recent graduates of UOSP I and II levels were summoned to carry out the assessment. Only some children who were absent in the days of test were not covered. In total, 311 students attended the assessment 311 in Mathematics and 314 in Nepali, from level I and II participated in the assessment. (see table 2.1).The samples of children were from 27 centres.

Table 2.1.1 Sample characteristics

Categories Groups Number of students Nepalgunj Pokhara Total

Sex Male 44 64 108 Female 103 84 187 Not reported 11 5 16

Total 158 153 311

Caste/ Ethnicity

Brahman/Chhetri 1 19 20 Janjati 14 65 79 Madhesi and Muslim 61 5 66 Dalit 20 52 72 Other 31 7 38 Not reported 31 5 36

Level I

Nepali 88 72 160 Mathematics 88 71 159

Level II

Nepali 70 84 154 Mathematics 70 82 152

The table 2.1.1 is prepared based on the gender of the students. Variation in number of students in two subjects is because some students appeared in only one subject test and some filled only background questionnaire.

2.2 Tools Development

Two types of tools were used in the assessment – background questionnaire and subject wise test papers. For the development of the test papers, two day workshop was conducted in presence of the facilitators and coordinators of the UOSP classes from Banepa, Kavre along with Samunnat Nepal personnel. The team of UOSP coordinators and facilitators were oriented and

DRAFT 1

5

trained to write the items for the tests on the basis of the UOSP curriculum/learning objective. The achievement test papers were set for 2.5 hours and 15 minutes were allotted to fill the background questionnaires. A set of question papers for each level and subject were prepared and finalized by the team of assessment experts.

2.3 Test administration

A one day orientation was carried out to the UOSP centre coordinators/facilitators regards test administration procedure prior to the scheduled test date. Children from 27 UOSP centers viz. 21 from Nepalgunj and 8 from Pokhara participated in the assessment. Tests were administered in two days, first day for Mathematics and second day for Nepali. Tests were taken on two different dates: 27th& 28th August 2014 at Nepalgunj and 10th& 11th September 2014 at Pokhara. At Nepalgunj, all the children were summoned to accommodate in a large hall where they administered the tests; while in Pokhara, children gave the tests at their UOSP centers. The Facilitators helped children to fill in the student background questionnaires..Children were not allowed to take the assessment papers home as they administered the answers in the test papers and same questionnaires were used in both locations of Pokhara and Nepalgunj. Test papers were kept secured and not allowed to take with test takers because same test papers were used in Pokhara too.

2.4 Scoring, analysis and interpretation

The test papers of the students were scored by the trainers/supervisors of the UOSP. Scoring guideline was provided for each tested subject to the scorer. The marking was done by giving whole numbers (0, 1, 2 …).Scores were entered in the SPSS software. Then data were recorded and made ready for analysis. The test results were linked with students’ background information. Analysis mainly focused on the level and subject, but in some cases, overall database was analyzed to see the characteristics of UOSP students. Descriptive statistics: means, standard deviation, percentage, and frequency are reported to indicate achievement and for inference and interpretation test statistics viz. t- test was used to compare two means, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to compare multiple groups as per necessary. While looking for the significance level of difference of mean, p value is the basis, where p = 0.05 or less are considered significant and more than p >0.05 are not considered significant in both t-test and ANOVA or F-test. While the difference in mean score between and or among the group is significant, POST-hoc test is done to identify the degree of effect of any variable in some analysis. (see also section 2.6)

DRAFT 1

6

2.5 Reliability and validity of the test

While developing the test items, certain criteria of assessment were maintained based on the writer's and expert's judgment in (a) content validity coverage of all content areas (b) difficulty level – easy, medium and difficult items (c) cognitive level wise balance – Knowledge, comprehension, application, higher skills.

After the test administration, reliability of the test were examined subject-wise by using Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Mathematically, reliability is defined as the proportion of the variability in the responses to the survey that is the result of differences in the respondents. That is, answers to a reliable survey will differ because respondents have different opinions, not because the survey is confusing or has multiple interpretations. Overall reliabilities of the responses and other properties of the tests were as given in the table below:

Table 2.5.1 Reliability of test papers

Subjects Level Reliability (valid range: > 0.62) No. of items Full Marks Nepali

Level I 0.940 56 73 Level II 0.894 46 71

Mathematics

Level I 0.878 34 50 Level II 0.884 49 56

Analysis of all subject wise items shows that all version tests were reliable (alpha > 0.62) and internally consistent, meaning that the test papers can measure well what is meant to be measured.

2.6 Terms Definition

ANOVA: The method of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to test hypothesis that examines the difference between more than two means (Singh, 2007, p. 259). Through this test the researcher can get the F and p value as significance level.

p value: The probability of a test statistics is called p value (assuming the null hypothesis to be true). Null hypothesis is rejected when p value is less than 0.05 at 95% confidence level. The confidence level can be set to 99%, 98% or 90% according to the accuracy required by the researcher. Generally, we claim a significant effect if the p value is smaller than a conventional significance level 0.05 (Hinton et al., p. 372).

t-test: The independent-samples t test procedure compares means for two groups of cases. Employing significance test can conclude that the difference in dependent variable is due to the

DRAFT 1

7

independent variable and not due to other factors (Singh, 2007, p. 258). Through this test, the researcher can get the t and p value at a significant level.

SD (standard deviation): A measure of the standard (average) difference (deviation) of a score from the mean in a set of scores. It is the square root of the variance (Hinton et al., p. 373).

Reliability: A reliable test is one that will produce the same result when repeated (in the same circumstances). We can investigate the reliability of the test items in a test (such as the questions in a questionnaire) by examining the relationship between each item and the overall score on the test (Hinton et al., p. 372).

DRAFT 1

8

Chapter 3

Major Findings

This chapter presents the achievement status of UOSP graduates of Level I and Level II in Nepali and Mathematics. This chapter also compares the assessment results based on students’ background, which were filled by UOSP graduates with the assistance of the facilitators. Results of level I and level II are presented in the same table. However, those results are not comparable but they are comparable within the same level and subject.

3.1 Achievement in Nepali

3.1.1a Total achievement in Nepali

Nepali language is one of the subjects taught in the UOSP classes. The Nepali classes are run based on the textbook, Navajeevan, Mero Pyaaro Nepali for level I and Jeevanjyoti, Mero Pyaaro Nepali for level II. See Annex 1 for the learning objectives defined for Nepali subject.

The average achievement or mean score of UOSP children in level I and II for Nepali is 62 percent respectively. The full marks of Nepali -level I and II is 73 and 71 respectively. For the analysis purpose, the mean score is converted into 100 to present the results in percentage. The overall achievement of UOSP level I and II is presented in table 3.1.1.

Table 3.1.1 Total mean percentage of achievement in Nepali.

UOSP N Mean Min Max SD

Level I 160 62 0 97 23

Level II 154 62 0 96 19

The assessment result shows that around 2 percent of children had scored 0 in level I whereas there are 57 percent children who have achieved score above the average of level I, i.e. >62. In level II, slightly more than 1 percent of children had scored 0 and 52 percent had scored above the average of level II.

It is obvious from the result that there are some children (1 to 2 percent) who need rigorous support in their learning. So that they can achieve minimum benchmarks in learning. There were some children who were not even able to start anything in this assessment. Nevertheless, this assessment does not explore the reasons for not attempting any questions in the test. Thus, it is not clear whether those students have not learnt in the UOSP classes or they are not oriented with the exam system.

DRAFT 1

9

The positive aspect of this UOSP classes is that 57 percent of children of level I and 52 percent of children of level II are able to achieve high scores than the average of their respective levels in tested subjects. The results also show the huge variance between high and low achiever children of UOSP in all levels.

3.1.1b. Distribution of scores in Level I and II

Arranging the scores of students in ascending order and plotting the number of students in all score category, a distribution of scores is prepared. Distribution of the score of Nepali in Level I and II is presented in figure 3.1.1 and figure 3.1.2.

Figure 3.1.1 Score distribution of Level I in Nepali

Dataset and figure 3.1.1 shows that distribution of the score of students is geared upwards, most of the students have plotted in about 70-80. Distribution in the left is skewed. This shows that scores 70-90 are most frequently pointing out that many students have been able to perform high. On the other side, a reasonably countable percentage of students achieved below 20, meaning that there are many students under the expected level, who should be taken care to improve their studies.

DRAFT 1

10

Figure 3.1.2. Score distribution of Level II in Nepali

The above figures shows that the score of students in level II is normally distributed. The most frequent scores lie within the range 60 80. The normal distribution of score means that the performance of students are distributed lower to higher but majority of the students lie at the middle.

From the score distribution in level I and II provide important indication regards population and learning status of the students viz. (a) few students are left behind, who have not learnt anything in the classroom (score = 0), (b) major group of students achievement ranges from 50 80 indicating that many students have learnt the minimum and most of the students are able to achieve the most. (c) average score 62 in both level also indicates that students are able to perform well in most of the contents.

The Score distribution of students indicate a positive picture that most of the students are able to achieve the score above 40 percentage and most frequencies (mode) lie above 65. However, round two percentage students in level I and exactly about two percentage of students could not attempt any of the questions correctly (total score = 0) and none could attempt all items correctly (maximum score percentage = 97in level I and 96 in level II), indicating the need to pay special attention and additional support to the two percentage of UOSP students who achieved 0 score in test.

DRAFT 1

11

61 5963 64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Level I Level II

Mea

n Sc

ore

in P

erce

nt

Boys Girls Total

3.1.2 Municipality wise achievement

The municipality wise number of students participated and their corresponding achievement score is given n the table 3.1.2.

Table 3.1.2 Municipality wise achievement score in Nepali

Municipality Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Nepalgunj 88 60.3 23.9 70 57.0 14.4

Pokhara 72 64.5 23.1 84 66.8 19.5

Total 160 62.3 23.4 154 61.8 19.0

The mean achievement score of Nepalgunj and Pokhara is 60 and 65 respectively in level I whereas it is 67 and 57 in level II. Pokhara students have performed better than Nepalgunj students in both levels as they have scored 5 percent in level I and 10 percent more points in level II. In level I, the difference in achievement is not statistically significant but in level II the difference is statistically significant at p<0.005.

Datasets signals that Pokhara students are better than Nepalgunj students in both levels of UOSP and the achievement difference is high in level II (10 percent points) compared to level I (5 percent points). However, the datasets do not explain which factors could cause the Pokhara students to perform better in Nepali than that of Nepalgunj students.

3.1.3 Gender wise achievement

Girls’ participation in UOSP I (58 percent) and UOSP II (60 percent) are found higher than boys (39 percent in level I and 29 percent in level II) (see Figure 3.1.3 and table 3.1.3).

Figure 3.1.3 Gender-wise Achievement in level I and II

DRAFT 1

12

In both levels, girls have scored slightly higher than boys in Nepali. In level I, mean score of girls is 63 and boys is 61. Likewise, in level II, the mean score of girls is 64 percent whereas boys scored 59 percent in average. Hence, in both levels, boys are below the average of the respective levels. However, the gender gap is noticed high in level II (5 percent points) compared to level I (2 percent points). Despite the gender gap, the difference is not statistically significant (P > 0.05) in both levels.

The municipality and gender-wise achievement score is presented in the table 3.1.3.

Table 3.1.3 Municipality- and Gender-wise achievement score in Nepali

Municipality Sex Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Nepalgunj

Boys 32 60 22.1 12 57 15.2

Girls 56 61 25.1 43 57 14.5

Total 88 60 23.9 55 57 14.5

Pokhara

Boys 30 62 25.7 33 60 17.5

Girls 36 67 20.7 48 71 19.7

Total 66 65 23.1 81 67 19.5

Note: In Level I, one girl and in level II 2 girls have not stated the location.

For level I in both municipalities girls have slightly scored better. But in Nepalgunj, the achievement score of level II is the same for both girls and boys’.

The results from The National Assessment of Student Achievement tests 2011 and 2012, compared to the UOSP assessment both depict that girls are better in language skills and boys are comparatively better in Mathematics though the difference is not statistically significant.

3.1.4 Caste/ethnicity wise Achievement

There are six major caste/ethnic groups recorded in UOSP I and II Nepali datasets. A majority of the students are from Janajati (24 and 27 percent in level I and II). In contrast, students from Brahmin/Chhetri and Madhesi groups are in a minority. Table 3.1.4 and figure 3.1.4 show the \\distribution of students from various caste/ethnicity groups.

DRAFT 1

13

Table 3.1.4. Caste wise achievement in mathematics.

Caste Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Brahman/Chhetri 6 66.9 18.1 14 70.9 22.3

Janjati 38 64.2 23.5 41 61.8 19.5

Madhesi 6 69.4 20.3 2 65.5 5.0

Muslim 36 50.8 22.0 18 59.4 15.7

Dalit 35 61.5 25.4 29 68.4 15.2

Others 13 77.6 18.0 21 57.6 17.2

Not stated 26 66.2 21.1 29 55.0 21.4

Total 160 62.3 23.4 154 61.8 19.0

In UOSP I, the unidentified caste groups of students i.e., ‘Others’ have achieved a high score (78) followed by Madheshi group (69) . In UOSP II, Brahman/ Chhetri students’ score (71) is noted highest followed closely by Dalit group (68%). The Muslim students (51) are found to be under achievers in UOSP I and Not stated (55) categories have achieved low scores in UOSP II. The figure 3.1.2 shows a comparative achievement and the average of the respective levels against caste/ethnicity groups.

Figure 3.1.4. Caste/ethnicity wise distribution of students of UOSP I and II

67 6469

5161

786771

62 6559

6858 60

0

20

40

60

80

100

Achi

evem

ent s

core

in p

erce

nt

Caste/Ethnicity

Level I Level II Average level I & II

DRAFT 1

14

The figure 3.1.4 distinctively shows that Muslims are the only group who performed below the average line (dotted black straight line in figure 3.1.2.) in both levels (51 in level I and 59 in level II). It is necessary to note here that in level I, all the Muslim students are from Nepalgunj. However, in level II, only 1 percent of students are Muslims from Pokhara. Brahman/Chhetri (67 in level I and 71 in level II), Madhesi (69 in level I and 65 in level II) and Janajati (64 in level I and 62 in level II) students perform above the average in both UOSP levels.

The ANOVA shows the variation in achievement among the caste group is statistically significant at p < 0.05 in level I but it is not significant in level II (p=0.063).

The achievement scores in Nepali of Brahman/Chhetri, Madheshi and Janajati students are either above the average line of the respective level or slightly below or above the average line. Muslim students and other groups on the other hand are mostly below the average line as Nepali is not their first language. It seems Muslim students need more support and attention in UOSP classes.

3.1.5 Mother tongue wise achievement

For the convenience of the study purpose, the sample has been broadly divided into two categories– Nepali and Non-Nepali speakers. It was found that 42.7 percent of the total students from both levels were from Nepali mother tongue speakers and 42.4 percent of the total students from both levels are non-Nepali mother tongue speakers and rest (14.9 percent) were not reported.

Figure 3.1.5 Language wise achievement of UOSP I and II students

6761

56

6757 57

01020304050607080

Nepali (NI=62, NII=72)

Non-Nepali (NI=73, NII=60)

Not stated (NI=25, NII=22)

Achi

evem

ent s

core

in p

erce

nt

Students' Mother tongue

Level I Mean Level II Mean

DRAFT 1

15

The above figure shows that students who speak Nepali as their mother tongue are better in both levels (around 67 in both levels) than other categories. Nonetheless, the achievement difference in level I is not statistically significant however in level II, the difference is statistically significant (p <0.05).

Language has been an advantage and positively influencing the achievement of the Nepali speakers.

3.1.6 Student age and Achievement.

Many studies have shown students’ age as crucial factor in affecting students’ performance (Metsamuronnen & Kafle 2013; MoE, 2014). The majority of students in UOSP I (69 percent) are from age group 10 to 15 and in level II around 62 percent students are from the age group of 12 to 16. In level I, 22 percent students are less than 10 years old and around 9 percent students are above 15 years old. However, in level II, 23 percent students are above 16 years old and 15 percent students are below 12 years old .

Table 3.1.5. Students’ age wise achievement in UOSP I and II

Age Level I

Age Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Below 10 years 31 62.4 22.7 Below 12 years 20 58.5 15.0

10 to 15 years 96 63.8 23.9 12 to 16 years 84 62.5 18.7

Above 15 years 12 68.3 19.0 Above 16 years 31 66.2 18.2

Total 139 63.9 23.1 Total 135 62.7 18.1

In both levels, students who are above the target age groups have comparatively high achievement score (68 in level I and 66 in level II) than other age group in their respective level. However, the difference is not statistically significant in both levels (p > 0.05).

The age variation is found in UOSP classes though majority of them are from the target age groups for level I and II. The high achievement scores of older age groups of level I and II indicate that older aged students have already received some kind of formal or informal school experiences or they might be dropout from schools due to various circumstances in the past (see Table 3.1.8).

DRAFT 1

16

3.1.7 Family Economy and Student Achievement

The family's low socio economic status are one of the prominent cause for children to be driven into the child labor market. It is difficult to predict when children are forced to join the job market. This study also reflects the reality that children are involved in some kind of labor work for earning even before they reach 10 years old. Around 43 percent of level I students earned less than 1000 NRs per month whereas 21 percent of students earned more than 2000 NRs. A similar scenario is also found in level II – 48 percent earned less than 1000NRs and 23 percent earned more than 2000 NRs per month. In UOSP level I, 47 percent students had stated that they were involved in some kind of earning and in level II the number is even higher i.e., 53 percent.

Out of the total children who are working, 53 percent in level I and 47 percent in level II stated they did not know when they started to earn. The majority of students i.e., 59 percent in level I and 52 percent in level II are involved in paid work due to their poor economic condition. The data from the assessment shows that many UOSP students are involved in industry, hotel, household and other unidentified work. The table 3.1.6 shows the relation between their work status and achievement in Nepali.

Table 3.1.6 Students involved in work at present and achievement in Nepali

Work Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

1. Industry 4 67.1 22.8 4 54.2 10.1

2. Hotel 14 60.0 24.7 22 57.8 20.6

3. Other’s home 56 66.9 22.6 54 63.9 17.7

4. Other 40 61.5 27.8 42 67.0 15.3

5. Not stated 46 57.6 19.3 32 54.9 23.0

Total 160 62.3 23.4 154 61.8 19.0

There is no significant difference in relation to the UOSP students work status and achievement as is shown by P value in both levels. However, comparatively students of level I from industrial work (67) have scored slightly higher and in level II students involved in other type of job (67) have slightly higher achievement than others. However, the achievement difference is not statistically significant (p >0.05) in both levels.

DRAFT 1

17

From the gender perspective, boys are mainly involved in industrial and hotel sectors whereas girls are mainly working as household laborers. In this regards, in both levels where girls and boys are working in others' households, the girls’ achievement score is found low compared to boys and who had not stated their job type. But girls’ achievement score is found high when they were involved in other types of job.

Children’s involvement in work for earning shows that poor parents expect from children to support their family especially as they grow older. Girls are found working in other’s households whereas boys are mainly concentrated in hotel and other types of work. The findings from data analysis also shows that when girls are involved in household jobs their performance seems lower compared to those girls involved in other types of jobs.

3.1.8 Parents’ education status and achievement

Parents’ education plays a crucial role in children being educated especially when the mother is educated the positive impact upon the children is manifold. The table 3.1.7 presents the status of parents’ education and their children’s achievement in UOSP classes.

Table 3.1.7 Parents’ education status and achievement

Education status

Father’s education Mother’s education

Level I Level II Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Illiterate 72 63.1 24.7 50 65.7 15.7 93 62.5 23.7 60 65.9 18.1

literate 40 67.9 19.5 42 60.3 20.8 20 71.0 18.7 31 64.2 17.6

Not stated 48 56.4 23.4 62 59.7 20.0 47 58.2 23.9 63 56.6 19.7

Total 160 62.3 23.4 154 61.8 19.0 160 62.3 23.4 154 61.8 19.0

The above table shows that in level I, when father is literate, it gives nearly +5 point mean score than illiterate father while mothers’ literate background gives even more (+8 points). In contrast to level I, in level II the illiterate parents’ children have achieved slightly high score than just literate parents. Nevertheless, there is no similar pattern seen in UOSP levels in studied areas.

DRAFT 1

18

3.1.9 Students’ previous education status and achievement

The nature of UOSP class motivated those students who are within the target age groups. Among the target groups some of them have no educational background whereas some are drop out from the formal school. The table 3.1.8 shows the education status of UOSP level I and II students in the studied areas:

Table 3.1.8 Students’ previous education background and achievement

Education background Level I Level II

N Mean Min Max SD N Mean Min Max SD

Never attended formal school 55 61.4 0 95 23.2 28 55.3 24 87 15.8

Dropout from school 70 65.6 0 97 23.5 107 65.5 15 96 17.6

Not stated 35 57.1 0 95 22.9 19 50.3 0 82 24.4

Total 160 62.3 0 97 23.4 154 61.8 0 96 19.0

Around 44 percent (N = 70) students of level I and 70 percent (N = 107) students of level II are the drop out students and their achievement scores are comparatively better than those students who have never attended school or experienced any kind of education. The achievement gap is found high in level II (-11 percent point) than in level I (– 5 percent point) between school dropout students and who have never experienced formal school education. In level I, whether students have previous education experience or not, there are about 2% students who cannot even get score 1. Nonetheless, in level II, the minimum score 24 is achieved by those students who have never attended formal school and students who dropout from school have achieved minimum 15 score.

It is possible that in level I to some extent, students’ previous formal educational experience help in their learning but when they are in level II, students’ previous formal educational exposure did not necessarily affect their performance.

DRAFT 1

19

3.2 Achievement in Mathematics

3.2.1 Total Achievement in Mathematics

The learning objectives of Mathematics have covered the major content areas of general education curriculum including numeracy, arithmetic, algebra, statistics. Test papers have covered all those content areas mentioned. Scores of two different levels (level I and II) are comparable within the same level and same subject but not over the grades.

Overall achievement in Mathematics for UOSP level I and II is presented in table 3.2.1, as average achievement score in percentage of maximum scores (ie, full marks of test paper in level I is 50 and in level II is 56).

Table 3.2.1Totalachievement in Mathematics

UOSP N Mean Min Max SD

Level I 159 67 0 92 17.0

Level II 152 57 0 89 15.6

The average achievement of mathematics for out-of-school children in level I is 67 percent whereas it is57 in level II. Data shows that 58 percent of student achieved above the mean score (>67) in level I and 51 percent achieved above mean score (>57) in level II.

Dataset shows that most of the students are able to solve most of the items and achieve above average achievement inboth levels. However, zero scorers are also found in 2%, meaning that classes still have to be improved to make suitable for all kinds of students.

3.2.2 Distribution of score in Level I and II

The scores of all students are arranged in ascending order and plottedto prepare a distribution of scores. Distribution of the scoresinMathematics forLevel I and II is presented in figure 3.2.1 and figure 3.2.2.

DRAFT 1

20

Figure 3.2.1 Score distribution of Mathematics in Level I

Dataset and figure 3.2.1 shows that distribution of the scores of students is geared upwards, with most of the students achieving higher scores. Distribution is left skewed. This shows that scores 70-80 are most frequent and 80-90 were second frequent. Very few frequencies are above 90. This shows that many students have been able to perform well. On the other side, a countable percentage of students were achieving below 40, meaning that there are many students under the expected level, who should be taken care to improve their study.

Two peaks in the histogram indicate two distinctive population of learners: (a) the underachiever with a mean score of 50-60 and the , (b) high achiever with amean score of70-80, meaning that there are two kinds of students that are able to attend most of the questions. Thishistogram is also used to explain the effectiveness of the classes. The variation may be due tostudents themselves performing by attending dailyor teachers paying attention to some than others so that they performed differently.

DRAFT 1

21

Figure 3.2.2. Score distribution of Mathematics in Level II

The distribution score of level II students has been shown in figure 3.2.2. The frequent scores lie within the range 60 70 and most of the students' achievement score lies in between 40-80, meaning that learning level of the students as a whole is good.

From the score distribution figure of level I and II indicateimportant informationregards population and learning status of the students viz. (a) in both levels, there are two population, which is more distinct in level I, (b) few students are left behind, who have not learnt anything in the classroom (score = 0), (c) majority of the students' achievement ranges from 30 90 indicating that some students have minimum learning while many students are able to achieve the most. (d) an average score of 67 in level I and 57 in level II also indicate that students are able to master most of the contents.

The Score distribution of students indicate that majority of the students are able to achieve a score above 30 percentage and most frequencies (mode) lie above 60. However, around two percentage of students in level I and II respectively could not attempt any of the questions correctly (total score = 0) while none could attempt all items correctly (maximum score

DRAFT 1

22

percentage = 92 in level I and 89 in level II), indicating that there should be special attention and additional support as necessary to the UOSP students who achieved a zero score during the teaching learning process.

3.2.3 Municipality wise achievement

The number of test takers was different in Nepalgunj and Pokhara in both levels (see Chapter 2).Municipality wise mean score shows some idea of achievement level of students and gaps to improve in particular location. Achievement score of level I and II students in Mathematics is given in table 3.2.2 below:

Table 3.2.2 Municipality wise achievement score in Mathematics

Municipality Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Nepalgunj 88 71 14.1 70 54 13.3

Pokhara 71 62 19.0 82 60 16.9

Total 159 67 17.1 152 57 15.6

The mean achievement score of Nepalgunj and Pokhara are 71 and 62 respectively in level I whereas it is 54 and 60 respectively in level II. Students of Nepalgunj performed better than Pokhara by 9 percent in Level I but in level II, students of Pokhara outperform Nepalgunj by 6 percent. Difference in achievement of both grades is statistically significant (at p<0.05). The large difference in achievement between the municipalities may be the matter of further investigation for improvement.

Dataset shows that achievement for Level I in Mathematics of students of Nepalgunj (71) is 9 point higher than that of Pokhara (62). Conversely, in Level II the achievement of the students of Pokhara (60) outperform Nepalgunj (54) by 6 points. This difference in achievement is statistically significant in both levels.

3.2.4 Gender wise achievement

The boys and girls participating in the UOSP test sample was 39% and 58% respectively in level I and it was 30% and 62% respectively in level II. In both grades, population of girls are higher than boys. The gender wise achievement score is presented below:

DRAFT 1

23

Figure 3.2.3 Gender wise achievement in level I and II in Mathematics

In level I, mean score of girls (69) is 4 points higher than that of boys (65). In level II, mean score of girls (59) is 2 points higher than that of boys (57). However, the difference is not statistically significant in level I (p>0.05) but is significant in level II (p <0.05). In both levels, girls performed better than boys in both levels.

Achievement of boys and girls are 65 and 69 respectively in level I, girls outperform boys by 4 points. In level II, girls (59) outperform boys (57) by 2 points. However, these differences are not statistically significant in level I, meaning that boys and girls are performing equally but, in level II, difference is significant, girls are performing better than boys.

Table 3.2.3 Municipality- and Gender-wise achievement score in Mathematics

Municipality Sex Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Nepalgunj

Boys 32 70 12.4 12 57 9.1

Girls 56 72 15.0 47 54 12.4

Not reported - - - 11 51 20.2

Total 88 71 14.1 70 54 13.3

Pokhara

Boys 30 60 20.8 34 57 16.8

Girls 37 64 17.9 47 64 14.3

Not reported1 63 4 17.6 - - -

Total 71 62 19.0 82 60 16.9

65

57

69

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Level I Level II

Male Female

DRAFT 1

24

1. only 1 non-reported case in omitted. In both municipalities, girls in level I outperform boys in Nepalgunj by 2 percent and in Pokhara by 4 percent points. In level II, boys are ahead by 3 percent score in Nepalgunj but in Pokhara, girls are ahead by 7 points. In both municipalities, difference in achievement score based on sex is statistically significant in both levels.

It is notable that National Assessment of Student Achievement 2011 and 2012 carried out in grade 8 and 5 show that boys outperform girls in Mathematics. In grade 3, the difference in achievement is not significant.

Dataset shows that girls outperform boys significantly in level I in both municipalities. In level II, boys are performing better than girls in Nepalgunj, nonetheless, girls are performing better than boys in Pokhara.

3.2.5 Caste/ethnicity wise Achievement

The list of out of school children who appeared in the test from both levels show that most of them are from Janajati families (25.4%), followed by Dalit (23.2%) and Muslim (17.4%) and low number of Madhesi (3.9%) and Brahman/ Chhetri (6.4%). Caste/ethnicity wise achievement is listed in table 3.2.4 below:

Table 3.2.4. Caste/ethnicity wise achievement in mathematics.

Caste Level I Level II N Mean SD N Mean SD

Brahman/Chhettri 6 68 12.8 14 60 17.7

Janjati 39 62 19.6 40 58 16.1

Madhesi 10 65 18.4 2 53 5.1

Muslim 36 65 15.4 18 52 10.6

Dalit 42 71 17.9 30 64 12.5

Other 13 74 10.7 25 58 11.3

Not stated 13 73 12.8 23 50 21.5

Total 159 67 17.1 152 57 15.6

From the table 3.2.4, shows that achievement is not significant over any caste/ ethnicity. However the performance of Muslims and Madhesis in level II shows below average results.

DRAFT 1

25

Figure 3.2.4 Comparison of caste/ethnicity wise achievement of UOSP level I and II students

The figure 3.2.4 shows that in level I,Brahman/Chhetri, Dalit and other castes' achievement is above the mean ( mean = 67, shown in the dotted line) while Janajati, Madhesi, Muslims are below the average. In level II following the same pattern, Janajatis are above the average (mean = 57, shown in dotted line), while others remain the same. Although there is small variation of scores between the caste/ethnicity ,ANOVA shows that variation in achievement among the caste are not significant statistically (P>0.05) in both levels, meaning that variation in achievement is not due to the caste/ethnicity but, is due to other factors. Frequency of caste/ethnicity shows that almost all Muslim students come from Nepalgunj (only 1 student of Pokhara). Similarly, most of the Dalits come from Pokhara.

Most of the UOSP students are Dalit and least are from Brahman/Chhetri and Madhesi. In both levels Dalit students have achieved high (74) in level I and level II (64) (excluding Other caste category and non-response cases). Although there is a small variation between the caste/ethnicity score, ANOVA shows the variation among the caste is not statistically significant, meaning that variation in achievement is not due to the caste/ethnicity but, is due to other factors.

68

6062

5865

53

65

52

7164

74

58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Level I Level II

Achi

evem

ent i

n pe

rcen

tage

Caste/ethnicity category

Brahman/chhetri Janjati Madhesi Muslim Dalit OtherLevel mean

DRAFT 1

26

3.2.6 Mother tongue wise achievement

Although there are more than hundred languages spoken in Nepal, based on the majority, students’ mother tongue is broadly categorized into Nepali and others (non-Nepali). In both levels, Nepali speaking students (43.4%) and non-Nepali mother tongue speakers (43.1%) are almost equal in number while the remaining are non-reported .

Figure 3.2.5 Mother tongue wise achievement in level I and II

In level I Maths, Non-Nepali speakers have achieved better (70 percent) than Nepali speakers where as in level II Maths, Nepali speakers have achieved better (62 percent) than other language speakers. In reference to the average achievement (see dotted line), Nepali speakers have performed lower than Non-Nepali speakers. ANOVA shows that difference due to language is not significant (p>0.05) in level I and is significant in level II (at p <0.05). Further, variation in mean due to language in level II is about 8.5% (Eta squared = 0.085) shown by measure of association of mother tongue with average achievement from the post-hoc test.

Dataset shows that difference due to mother tongue is not seen significant in level I and difference is significant in level II, meaning that difference in mean of the students is not due to the language in level I. Variation in mean due to mother tongue is 8.5% in level II.

3.2.7 Relation between age of the students and Achievement

Many studies have shown students’ age as crucial factor in affecting students’ performance (Metsamuronnen & Kafle 2013; MoE, 2014) and students perform better at a proper age group. In the sample study, most of the students are in between the age 10-14 years in level I (85%) and 12-18 years in level II (91%).

6462

70

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Level I Level II

Achi

evem

ent i

n pe

rcen

tage

Language Category

Nepali Other

Level mean

DRAFT 1

27

Table 3.2.5. Students’ age group wise achievement in UOSP I and II

Age Level I

Age Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

8- 10 years 31 65 15.1 10- 12 years 22 57 11.1

10 to 15 years 99 69 16.1 12 to 16 years 85 58 13.7

Above 15 years 9 64 26.5 Above 16 years 30 61 18.0

Total1 139 68 16.7 Total1 137 58 14.4

1. Excluded non-reported cases of age.

In level I, students from 10-15 years group have achieved better than in level II, age above 16 years are achieving the most (61). Difference in mean score is not significant due to age in both levels. Students below 10 years in level I and below 12 years in level II are achieving lowest in Mathematics. Individually without grouping the age, students who are of 12 years are in largest number and also they are achieving the highest mean score (71) in level I. In level II, most of the students are in 14 years but their achievement is not highest, but 17 years students are achieving highest mean score (61%) in level II. In any case, age is not influencing the achievement significantly (p> o.05) while analyzing in group or individually.

Dataset shows that age is not an influencing factor in achievement in both levels. However, children of 12 years in level I are achieving highest (71) while in level II, children of 17 years seem to be achieving highest (61). Note that most of the students in level I are of 12 years and that in level II are of 14 years.

3.2.8 Family economy and student achievement

Family economic status and poverty are one of the prominent causes in forcing children into the child labor market. It is difficult to predict when children are forced to join the job market. This study also reflects the reality that children are involved in some kind of labor work for earning even before they reach 10 years old. According to International Labour Organisation (ILO), poverty is the greatest single cause behind child labour1. In this research, 58% students reported that they are getting some salary or benefit from the employer. Out of those respondents, round 2% students do not get any salary, 53% get salary below Rs. 1000, 30% get salary between Rs. 1200 to Rs. 2000, 11% get between 2500-5000 and only 3.7% get above 5000 salary. This reflects that most of the children are working very low paying jobs of Rs. 1000

1 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/areas/ipec/causes.htm

DRAFT 1

28

or below. Students monthly income from their job/work and achievement score has a negative correlation (r = -0.33 in level I and r = -0.18 in level 2). This indicates that achievement of high earning students' is low and vice versa. The possibility is that high earners don't have sufficient time for their study.

Analysis of family size shows that most of the students have 6 or more members in their family, indicating that most of them come from large or joint families. Most of the students (95 in level I and 82 in level II) reported that they have left the home because of poor economic condition, only 3% reported that they left home because of their own interest to work.

Dataset shows that most of the UOSP students are compelled to leave regular school and work due to poor economic condition of the family. Poor economic condition is positively correlated with the family size. There are some students who work without any salary, too many students (55%) get very low salary (below Rs. 1000) and 45% are getting salary more than 2000. The negative relation was found between the earning of the students of UOSP and their achievement. Higher the monthly income, lower the achievement.

Database shows that UOSP students are involved in industry, hotel, other’s home and some students did not report their work place. Involvement of male and female is illustrated in the figure below:

Figure 3.2.6 Involvement of male and female students in various workplace

62

24

12

16

96

40 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Male Female

Num

ber o

f stu

dent

s

Industry Hotel Other's home Other

DRAFT 1

29

Dataset shows that most of the girls (96) are involved in household work whereas most boys (24) are involved in hotel jobs although the other category of varying jobs is also significant. Very few students are working in industry, among them, mostly are boys.

Further analysis is done to see the relation between the type of job and achievement levels and points out the need to provide support and time flexibility to specific type of children. The table 3.2.6 shows the students present job and their achievement.

Table 3.2.6 Students involved in work at present and achievement

Work Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD

1. Industry 4 70 3.6 4 58 12.5

2. Hotel 14 65 9.3 22 54 20.0

3. Other’s home 56 69 18.6 56 57 9.3

4. Other 41 68 17.3 43 65 12.4

5. Not stated 44 65 17.5 27 49 21.6

Total 159 67 17.1 152 57 15.6

Students who are involved in industrial work (70) have a slight higher achievement score in level I and the low achievement is found among those students who are working in hotel (65) and who have not stated their job type (65). In level II, students who involved in other type of job have high achievement (65) and lowest is found among those students who are involved in hotel work (54) and who have not stated their job (49). The achievement difference is not statistically significant (p >0.05) in level I and is significant (p<0.05) in level II.

Children’s involvement in work for earning shows that poor parents expect children to support in their family economy especially with their growing age. Girls are mainly working in other’s home whereas boys are mainly concentrated in hotel and other types of work. When girls are involved in other’s home for work their performance seems lower compared to those who are involved in other types of jobs. Also, most of them have 6 or more member in their family, indicating that most of them come from big or joint family and they have left the home because of poor economic condition. Very few (3%) left home because of their own interest. Poor economic condition is positively correlated with the family size. There are some students who work without any salary. More than half the students (55%) get very low salary (below Rs. 1000) and 45% are getting salary more than 2000. The negative relation was found between the

DRAFT 1

30

earning of the students of UOSP and their achievement. Higher the monthly income, lower the achievement. 3.2.9 Parents’ education status and achievement Research has shown that the education of parents plays a crucial role in children being educated and in making a better future. The table 3.2.7 presents the status of parents’ education and their children’s achievement in UOSP classes.

Table 3.2.7 Parents’ education status and achievement

Education status

Father’s education Mother’s education

Level I Level II Level I Level II

N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

Illiterate 72 70 14.6 51 61 12.9 93 67 15.8 61 60 13.7

Literate 40 65 21.2 43 56 15.3 20 66 22.3 32 56 16.7

Not stated 47 66 16.5 58 55 17.5 46 67 17.3 59 55 16.6

Total 159 67 17.1 152 57 15.6 159 67 17.1 152 57 15.6

Contrary to research studies, achievement of students whose parents are illiterate is 70 and 67 in level I and II respectively, which is slightly higher than that of students whose parents are literate (65 and 66 in level I and II respectively). This sample study of students shows that the literacy of parents does not have positive effect upon the children's educational achievement. The reason is unknown, however, it can be argued that most UOSP children do not live with their parents as they live and work in other's house /factory/hotel etc. So, it could be that although literate, parents are not aware and cannot assist their children. Nonetheless, many illiterate parents are living with their children in the working place and are somewhat helping their children for the study too.

3.2.10 Students’ previous education status and achievement

Children coming to the UOSP class are either drop outs from formal school or never enrolled in schools. The table 3.2.8 shows the education status of UOSP level I and II students in the studied areas:

DRAFT 1

31

Table 3.2.8 Students’ previous education background and achievement

Education background Level I Level II

N Mean Min Max SD N Mean Min Max SD

Never attended school 55 66 19 90 13.5 28 58 42 76 10.3

Dropout from school 70 68 0 92 19.6 109 58 0 89 15.4

Not stated 34 68 0 85 17.1 15 49 0 80 22.8

Total 159 67 0 92 17.1 152 57 0 89 15.6

Around 44 percent students of level I and 71 percent students of level II are the drop outs and their achievement scores (68) is comparatively better than the achievement of students who have never attended school or experienced any kind of education (66) in level I. The achievement gap is not found in level II.

In both levels, whether students have previous education experience or not, there are some student who cannot get even score 1. Nonetheless, the minimum score 19 and 42are achieved by those students who have never attended school in level I and II respectively.

In level I, it is possible that to some extent students’ previous educational experience help in their learning but when they are in level II, students’ previous educational exposure not necessarily affects in their performance.

3.2.11 Major fin dings from detailed item analysis and student performance

The detailed item wise student performance is attached in Annex 3. Main findings of students in Mathematics are stated below :

Mathematics Level I

Around 23 percent students are not clear about counting and identifying the numbers correctly.

Students are able to arrange ascending and descending of the numbers below 100, add two or three digit numbers with carryover (64% or above correct).

Students are weak in fraction related problems. They are good in addition and subtraction problems and identifying information from the calendar.

Students are below average in division related problems, performing lower than average in problems related to time, money and weight.

DRAFT 1

32

Mathematics Level II

Students are able to distinguish true/false items correctly and has demonstrated above average achievement

Students are very good in simple basic numerical operations. They are still weak in division.

Student are performing below than average in percentage and identifying a pattern of descending order numbers.

Students are performing remarkably low in fraction and decimal related problems (1% to 15% correct answer).

Students are able to solve routing basic operations, however, they are found performing below average in simplification, geometry, division with remainder, verbal problems of basic operation and or verbal problems involving unit conversion, multiplication of three digits with two digits.

Students are average in simple interest, unitary method, very simple simplification, subtraction with borrowing.

Students are able to solve the problems that involves simple operation, but are weak in the problems that demand application of learnt facts and skills in daily life problems or new situations.

3.4 Comparison of UOSP with National Assessment

Although UOSP assessment is small scale assessment and sampling method and population is different, comparison of this result with NASA result would be interesting though the datasets are not statistically comparable. When UOSP graduate students of level I and II are compared with that of grade 3 and 5 results of formal school, results are somewhat close, which is given table 5.1 in comparative form.

Table 5.1 UOSP and NASA results

Categories UOSP Results NASA Results2

Level I Level II Grade 3 Grade 5 Mathematics total 67 57 60 53 Nepali total 62 62 63 60 Girls Mathematics 69 59 60 53 Boys Mathematics 65 57 60 54 Girls Nepali 63 64 64 61 Boys Nepali 61 59 63 59

1. Source : NASA 2012 results (MoE. 2014)

DRAFT 1

33

Chapter 4

Findings and Recommendation

4.1 Findings

4.1.1 Findings of Nepali

The average achievement of Nepali in level I and II is 62 percent, same in both levels. In level I, around 2 percent of children had scored 0 and in level II slightly more than 1

percent of children have scored 0. However, 57 percent of children of level I and 52 percent of children of level II are able to achieve high scores than the average of their respective levels.

Pokhara students have performed better than Nepalgunj students in both levels as they have 5 and 10 percent points more mean scores. In level I, the difference in achievement is not statistically significant but in level II the achievement difference is statistically significant at p <0.05.

Girls’ participating in UOSP I (58 percent) and UOSP II (60 percent) are found higher than boys.

In both levels, achievement of girls is slightly higher than boys in Nepali – in level I girls 63 and boys 61 and in level II girls 64 and boys 59. Gender gap is noticed high in level II (5 percent points) compared to level I (2 percent points) Note that National level assessments 2011 and 2012 show that girls are better in language skills like that in UOSP classes and boys are comparatively better in Mathematics though the difference is not statistically significant.

In level I, the ‘Other’ caste group has high score (78) whereas in UOSP II, dalit students have high score (68). The Muslim students (51) are found to be poorest in UOSP I and Other (58) categories are in UOSP II.

Nepali speakers are better in both levels (around 67 in both levels) than other categories.

In both levels, students who are above the target age groups have comparatively high achievement score (68 in level I and 66 in level II) than other age groups in their respective level.

59 percent in level I and 52 percent in level II students are involved in paid work due to poor economic condition of their family.

In both levels, girls’ achievement score is found low compared to boys when they are found working in household jobs and those who have not stated their job type. But girls’ achievement score is found high when they were involved in other types of job.

DRAFT 1

34

In level I, when father is literate, it gives nearly +5 point mean score than illiterate father and mothers’ literate background gives even more (+8 points). In contrast to level I, in level II the illiterate parents’ children have achieved slightly high score than just literate parents.

In level I, whether students have previous education experience or not, there are some student who cannot get even score 1. In level II, the minimum score 24 is achieved by those students who have never attended formal school and students who dropout from school have achieved minimum 15 score.

4.2.1 Findings of Mathematics

Distribution of score in both levels is not normal, there are two populations: low performer and high performer, more distinctly in level I.

Achievement of UOSP students in Mathematics is 67 percent in level I and 57 percent in level II.

Achievement in Mathematics of Nepalgunj students (71) is 9 point higher than that of Pokhara (62) in Level I. Conversely, in Level II achievement of students of Pokhara (60) is higher than Nepalgunj (54) by 6 points. Difference in achievement is statistically significant in both levels.

58 percent students achieved above the mean score in level I and 51 percent students achieved above mean in level II. Most of the students are able to solve most of the items and achieve above the average score, indicating that UOSP classes are effective in teaching students. However, 2%, are zero scorers. Achievement of boys and girls are 65 and 69 respectively in level I, girls outperform boys by 4 points. In level II, girls (59) outperform boys (57) by 2 points. However, these differences are not statistically significant in level I, meaning that boys and girls are performing equally, but in level II, difference is significant.

Dataset shows that difference due to mother tongue is not seen significant in level I and difference is significant in level II, meaning that difference in mean of the students is not due to the mother tongue language in level I. Variation in mean due to mother tongue is 8.5% in level II.

Most of the UOSP students are from Dalit and least are from Brahman/Chhetri and Madhesi. In both levels Dalit students have achieved high (74) in level I and 64 in level II (excluding Other caste category and non-response cases because they come randomly from different castes). Although variation between the caste/ethnicity looks wide in score, variation among the caste is not statistically significant, meaning that variation in achievement is not due to the caste/ethnicity but, is due to other factors.

DRAFT 1

35

Dataset shows that age is not an influencing factor for achievement in both levels. However, the highest mean score (71) has been achieved by 12 years old children in level I and 17 years students are achieving highest mean score (61) in level II. Most of the students in level I are of 12 years and that in level II are of 14 years.

Family size analysis shows that most of the students have 6 or more members in their family, indicating that most of them come from a large or joint family. Most of the students (95 students in level I and 82 in level II) reported that they have left their home because of poor economic condition, only 3% reported that they left home because of their own interest or themselves.

Children’s involvement in work for earning shows that poor parents expect their children to contribute to the family economy and this expectation is more for older aged children. Girls are mainly working in household jobs whereas boys are mainly concentrated in hotel and other types of work. When girls are involved in other’s home for work their performance seems lower compared to those who are involved in other types of jobs.

To some extent, students’ previous educational experience have helped in their learning in level I but when they are in level II, students’ previous educational exposure has not necessarily affected their performance.

4.2.2 Content wise Findings

Mathematics Level I

Almost 23 percent students are not clear about counting and identifying the numbers correctly.

Students are able to arrange ascending and descending numbers below 100, add two or three numbers of three digits with carryover (64% or above correct).

Students are weak in fraction related problems. They are good in addition and subtraction problems and identifying information from the calendar.

Students are below average in division related problems and weak in problems related to time, money and weight.

Mathematics Level II

Students are performing remarkably low in fraction and decimal related problems (1% to 15% correct answer).

Students are able to solve basic operations, however, they are below average in simplification, geometry, division with remainder, verbal problems of basic operation and or verbal problems involving unit conversion, multiplication of three digits with two digits.

DRAFT 1

36

Students are average in calculating simple interest, unitary method, very simple simplification, subtraction with borrowing. Students are able to solve the problems that involves simple operation, but are weak in the word problems that are related to daily life situations involving those basic operation for example shopping, fraction of number or sums.

Nepali Level I

Only 26% students could use (,) 68% could use (.) and 69% could use (?) correctly in the sentences when they were asked to use those punctuation marks. Only 23% students could appropriately use all those three signs.

Only 29.4 percentage of students could write the name of month under particular season.

Only 25 percent of the students could correctly rewrite the same text as given in the test paper.

Only 60.1 percentage of the students were able to identify joint letters.

Nepali Level II

66 percent students were able to create meaningful sentences. Only 35 percent students were able to prepare a greeting card as given example in test

paper. Students are weak in free-writing. Only 7.6 percent students were able to create free

writing with proper diction securing full score 5; at least 58 percent students were able to secure 3 or more.

Only 41 percent students could convert affirmative words to negative or vice versa and 43.9 percent students were able to convert masculine words to feminine or vice versa.

4.3 Suggestions

In Nepali, focus should be on free writing, applying knowledge in practical activities like writing letter, leave application etc. Special attention should be given in grammar related content while facilitating Nepali to the UOSP children.

While teaching mathematics in level I, focus should be on counting numbers in different situation, division problems, fractions and decimals. Practical exercise in fraction related problems and measurement (time/money/weight) is necessary.

While teaching mathematics in level II, focus on fraction, decimal, percentage. Additionally, practical exercises and discussions among students are necessary in using learnt facts and skills in daily life situations. This calls for a training to the facilitators on content matters.

In order to enable all students to achieve a minimum level and harmonize the achievement of all students, UOSP classes have to be improved to make suitable for all kinds of students.

DRAFT 1

37

Learning from the good practices of Pokhara to improve the teaching and learning in Nepalgunj could be one way to improve UOSP program.

Applying multi grade, multilevel approach is suggested to improve teaching and learning process in UOSP classes. Providing booklets of annual teaching-learning activity plan having content and procedure to learn along with worksheet could be used as an option. Providing flexibility in time is suggested as far as possible. Other possible methods could be introduced.

DRAFT 1

38

Annexes

Annex 1 : UOSP programme objectives.

To mainstream children aged 10-15 years into formal schools.

To provide second chance educational opportunities for children of primary age deprived of education.

To provide a supportive environment for all children within the school

catchment area to attend school.

To enroll UOSP graduates to grades 4 or 6.

DRAFT 1

39

Annex 2: Profile of UOSP children

General background data of level I and level II were combined to investigate some of the important information of the students. Altogether 311 participating student’s record and their response were the basis to draw following facts:

1. Living with : Most of the OSP children are living with their family (63%), other’s home (20%), road or any other place (3%), remaining did not response their living status.

2. Came within working place: Only a few students (92 number) responded in the question ”with whom did you come in the work place from home?”. Dataset shows that most of them (82.5%) come with family members or relatives. Remaining come with friends (6.5% ), with employer (4.3%) and alone (6.5%).

Most female are household labor and males work either in hotel or any other areas like shops, labor works.

4. Job started year : Most of OSP students start their job at the age of 9 or earlier. From the figure, it gives hint that home labor or child labor starts below their legal age of starting job according to the CRC convention.

5. Difficulty of the job : Sixteen percent of students are working in very difficult job in their work place. Difficulty of job is negatively correlating with their achievement.

6. Future aim : Students were asked to choose the options about their future aim regarding the education after completing their concerned level, student responses are presented in the figure 3.8.4

Figure A Student's future aim

15.1

56.9

27

10

10203040506070

Not reported a. Continue study b. Learn professional skill

both a. and b.

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s

Future aim categories

Percentage of student response on future aim

DRAFT 1

40

Dataset shows that most of the students (57%) want to continue the learning, 27% want to learn professional skill. Availability of further support may help them to fulfill their aim of studying and change their dream into reality.

6. Parents status of literacy and occupation : General status of the parents occupation is presented in figure B

Figure B. Status of the parents occupation

Most of the students of OSP reported that their parents are involved either in labor, agriculture or other kinds of low level jobs. The dataset points out that the mother's death (16%) has had a huge effect in their life. This also refers to the fact that the death or loss of mother has a huge repercussion for children falling into child labor.

Box A.

25

11 10

1

22

3 2

14

85

16 16

0 00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Other Agriculture Business dead or loss Labor Service Work in other's home

Perc

enta

ge o

f par

ents

Job categories

Percentage of parents based on their job status

Father Mother

87% UOSP children's are child labor because their family members were already child labor.

It can be supposed that children are likely to be child labor if there another family member is also doing the same kind of job. This may be because of economic condition or continuing the family job. A question was asked ”do you have any one of your family member who is working like you?”. Only 146 students responded in this question. Out of those, 87% students answered ”Yes” and remaining ”No”. This proves our assumption that whatever the reason is, there is most chance of being child labor if any member of the family is already involved in such jobs.

DRAFT 1

41

7 Monthly income of UOSP children Monthly Income of UOSP children

Income Rs. Number of students (N) N Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

0 6 1.9 3.3 3.3 100 3 1 1.6 4.9 150 1 0.3 0.5 5.5 200 3 1 1.6 7.1 300 9 2.9 4.9 12 400 4 1.3 2.2 14.2 500 25 8 13.7 27.9 600 9 2.9 4.9 32.8 800 3 1 1.6 34.4 1000 37 11.9 20.2 54.6 1200 9 2.9 4.9 59.6 1400 1 0.3 0.5 60.1 1500 29 9.3 15.8 76 1600 1 0.3 0.5 76.5 2000 16 5.1 8.7 85.2 2500 2 0.6 1.1 86.3 3000 12 3.9 6.6 92.9 3500 1 0.3 0.5 93.4 4000 3 1 1.6 95.1 5000 2 0.6 1.1 96.2 7000 1 0.3 0.5 96.7 8000 1 0.3 0.5 97.3 9000 3 1 1.6 98.9 10000 2 0.6 1.1 100 Total 183 58.8 100 Not reported 128 41.2 G. Total 311 100

DRAFT 1

42

Annex 3. Item wise Analysis

A. Nepali Level I

SN Item description QN % of correct answer

Remarks

1 Combined word - identify and write 1a 60

1b 67

2b 74 2 Use of sign [ ? ] 3c 69

[ । ] 3a 68 [ , ] 3b 26 3 word meaning:

1. पसल 5b 92

2 अ पताल 5c 82

3 बैक 5d 83

4 हु लाक 5e 85 4 dialogue completion [full marks 4] 6 2% missing Score 0

23

Score 1

23 Score 2

21

Score 3

22 Score 4 9 5 Paragraph construction: guided: [full marks 3] 7 3% missing Score 0

3

Score 1

11 Score 2

24

Score 3 59 6 Reading comprehension: poem [Q/A]

8a 53

8b 65 8c 82 7 Grammar - Aadararthi sabda

…………. आइ (ब हनी, आमा, केटो) 9a 79

…………. गयो (रमेश, आमा, मामा) 9b 79

…………. आयो (भाइ, केट , बुबा) 9c 78

…………. आउनुभयो (बुबा, केटो भाइ) 9d 72 8 Sentence formation guided

10a 73

10b 58

10c 55

10d 51

DRAFT 1

43

SN Item description QN % of correct answer

Remarks

9 writing correctly

केट आयो 11a 61

तमी जा ँ 11b 65 10 singular to plural

चरा 12a 73

गलास 12b 75

उनी 12c 76 11 verb

13a 71

13b 75

13c 70

13d 67 13e 71 12 Antonym

क ठन 14a 61 Question answer [sound identify] 14c 64 13 Sequential writing and make a paragraph 15 4% missing Score 0

24

Score 1

6 Score 2

6

Score 3

9 Score 4

23

Score 5 28 14 Re-write 16 Score 0

14 2% missing

Score 1

3 Score 2

6

Score 3

12 Score 4

38

Score 5 25 15 Word formation from given letters one word 17a 67 two word 17b 69 three word 17c 65 16 Picture interpretation 18 Score 0

49

Score 1

6 Score 2

16

Score 3

11 Score 4

12

Score 5 4 17 Sentence re-structure

19a 55

19b 60 18 Sentence construction using given word

DRAFT 1

44

SN Item description QN % of correct answer

Remarks

साइकल 20a 63

ए बुले स 20b 59

मजदूर 20c 55 19 Knowledge on month Before and after 14b 53 Before 21a 53 After 21b 59 Knowledge on day

Today 21c 73 No of days in a week 21d 71 Knowledge on season

season in month 21e 29 month of season 21f 37

B. Nepali Level II

SN Item description QN

% of correct answer Remarks

1 Word meaning

1a 75

1b 95 1c 74

2 Antonym

तातो 2a 93

असल 2b 75

लामो 2c 84

3 True False 3a 69

3b 69

3c 75

4 Sentence making

स मान 4a 88

ल य 4b 73

मृ यु 4c 70

झु पा 4d 66

5 Greeting card [with example] 5 2% missing score 0 8

score 1 12

DRAFT 1

45

SN Item description QN

% of correct answer Remarks

score 2 43

score 3 35 6 Use of sign:[ ? ] 6a 82

Use of sign:[ , ] 6b 78 Use of sign:[ ! ] 6c 61

7 Free writing [5 sentences] 7 2% missing score 0 25

score 1 5 score 2 10

score 3 24 score 4 27

score 5 7 8 Reading passage

8a 84 8b 76

8c 48

8d 52

9 Grammar: Bibhakti

ल,े लाइ, को 9a 86

मा, लाइ, बाट 9b 87

10 Leave letter 10 2% missing

score 0 36 score 1 8

score 2 9 score 3 21

score 4 18 score 5 6

11 Puzzle [adjective] 11 2% missing score 0 9

score 1 13 score 2 26

score 3 33 score 4 17

12 Masculine and feminine

12a 66

12b 58 12c 44

DRAFT 1

46

SN Item description QN

% of correct answer Remarks

13 Calendar

13a 82 13b 74

13c 57 13d 71

13e 83 14 Map instruction

14a 78 14b 70

14c 69 14d 78

15 Re-write [paragraph] 15 2% missing score 0 11

score 1 9 score 2 17

score 3 32

score 4 29

16 Positive and Negative Neg 16a 41

Pos 16b 42

17 Tense [MCQ]

Past 17a 61 Present 17b 56

Future 17c 50 18 Dialouge completion 18 2% missing

score 0 32 score 1 8

score 2 12 score 3 27

score 4 19 19 Picture interpretation 19 2% missing

score 0 29 score 1 3

score 2 10

score 3 19 score 4 26

score 5 11

DRAFT 1

47

C. Mathematics Level I

Objective Items

Q.No. 1 Six matching item that involves counting below 20.

Item description is short Correct Response percent Q1A Count the trees 94 Q 1B Count the cups 94 Q 1C Count the foot balls 92 Q 1D Count the flowers 95 Q 1E Count the houses 84 Q 1F Count the ants 08

Most of the students are able to count and write numbers. However, almost 23 percent students are not clear about counting and identifying the numbers that is reflected from score frequencies.

Q.No. 2 : True false items :

Item description is short Correct Response percent (a) 1 hour = 60 minuste 87 (b) 500 gm = half kg 92 (c) Triangle have four sides 75 (d) 2 ´ 3 divided by 3 gives 9 71 (e) 23680 has 6 at a place of thousand. 77

Remarks: More than 71 percent students are able to identify true of false statements involving

Q.No. 3 Multiple choice

Item description is short Correct Response percent M3A : Which is correct fraction of 0.034 36 M3B : Which is correct decimal number of 1/8 ? 4 M3C : Which is correct paisa of 7 rupees? 62 M3d : Name geometric shapes triangle, circle, rectangle and square 62

Remarks : students are weak in decimal and fraction.

DRAFT 1

48

Subjective Items

Item Correct response

percentage

Q5. Write three thousand five hundred and ten into numerals. 65

Q6. Arrange ascending : 15, 30, 38, 70, 85, 95 86

Q7. Arrange descending : 40, 25 15, 55, 65, 72 79

Q8. Identify roman numerals below X 64

Q9. Addition of two and three numbers 86

Remarks : Students area able to arrange ascending and descending of the numbers below 100, add two or three numbers of three digit without and with carry over (64% or above correct).

Q.No. Correct response percentage

Q10A : guessing the number in the box to get total 90

Q10B : guessing the number in the box to get difference 89

Q11A : Reading calendar – count days and compare 41

Q11B Reading calendar – how many Saturdays ? 81

Q11C Reading calendar – identify Nagpanchami day 79

Q11D Reading calendar – How many public holidays are there ? 28

Q12A Shade the fraction 2/5 from the figure 43

Q12B Guessing a number that comes in box (subtraction below 10) 88

Q12C Addition of four digit numbers 74

Q12D Verbal problem of subtraction 58

Remarks: Students are weak in fraction related problem. They are good in addition and subtraction problems, identifying information from the calendar.

DRAFT 1

49

Correct response percentage

Q13 Addition 60

Q14 Subtraction 53

Q15 Multiplication 87

Q16 Division 58

Q17 Simple verbal problem of subtraction 75

Q18 Difficult verbal problem of weight 39

Q19 Verbal problem of multiplication 65

Q20 Verbal problem of division 56

Q21 Verbal problem of money subtraction 38

Q22 Find area of rectangle 21

Q23 Tell the time by looking watch 42

Remarks: Students below average achievement in division related problems, performing lower than average in problems related to time, money and weight.

Problems of graph/chart :

Items Correct response percentage

Q24a Read graph and inform the value 91

Q14 Read graph and inform the value 75

DRAFT 1

50

D. Mathematics Level II

Objective Items

Q.no. 1 Identify true of false.

Item description is short (True or False) Correct Response percent

Q1A Seventy eight is written as 87 0.84

Q1B 6 8 = 14 0.89

Q1C Two days = 48 hours 0.88

Q1D 3 kilogram = 300 gram 0.68

Q1E If x + 2 = 6 then x = 4 0.56

Remarks : Students are able to distinguish true/false items correctly, correct response is above the average achievement.

Q.No.2 Matching items of basic operation

Item description is short Correct Response percent

Q2A 304 + 3 0.93

Q2B 318 3 0.52

Q2C 115 3 0.88

Q2D 117 3 0.83

Remarks: Students are very good in simple basic operation. They are still weaker in division.

DRAFT 1

51

Q.No. 3 Multiple choice items : Select the correct answer

Item description is short Correct Response percent

M3A Put correct sign in blank : 48 ___ 8 = 6 0.50

M3B Correct numeral of twenty four thousand two hundred and five 0.78

M3C Correct position of 8 in 7824 0.84

M3D Correct decimal number of 7/10 0.85

M3E 1 kilometer is equal to meter ……. 0.78

M3F Which is even number ? 0.85

M3G Which is in descending order? 0.23

M3H If Rs. 8 is spent from Rs. 16, what is its percentage? 0.22

Remarks : Student are performing below than average in percentage and identifying a pattern of descending.

Subjective Items

Item description is short Correct Response percent

Q4 Fill number in place value table and write the number in words 0.89

Q5 Name the geometric shapes 0.47

Q6 Write the shaded portion in fraction (Note : print mistake in figure) 0.01

Q7 Identify the equivalent fractions 0.03

Q8A Addition without carry over 0.84

Q8B Addition with carry over 0.82

Q9 Guess the number in box involving addition 0.90

Q10A Subtraction without borrowing 0.74

Q10B Subtraction with borrowing 0.63

DRAFT 1

52

Item description is short Correct Response percent

Q11 Verbal problem of addition 0.43

Q12A Simple multiplication 0.70

Q12B Multiplication of three digit number with two digit number 0.45

Q13 Verbal problem of multiplication 0.67

Q14A Simple division 0.63

Q14B Division with remainder 0.33

Q15 Verbal problem of division 0.67

Q16A very simple simplification 0.60

Q16B simplification involving two brackets and three operation 0.30

Q17 Unitary method 0.57

Q18A Write the name of three angles of the given triangle 0.45

Q18B Verbal problem of subtraction including unit conversion (dozen) 0.24

Q18C Convert 32% in fraction 0.24

Q18D find the value of x in 7x + 6x = 13 0.46

Q19 Find area of rectangle 0.22

Q20A Write the name of three angles of the given triangle 0.32

Q20B Addition of fractions 0.15

Q21A Write decimal into fraction 0.13

Q21B Write decimal into fraction 0.13

Q22 Simple interest 0.54

Q23A Read chart and give information 0.86

Q23B Read chart and calculate 0.85

DRAFT 1

53

Item description is short Correct Response percent

Q23C Read chart and calculate 0.76

Remarks

Students are performing remarkably low in fraction and decimal related problems (1% to 15% correct answer).

Students are able to solve routing basic operations, however, they are found performing below average in simplification, geometry, division with remainder, verbal problems of basic operation and or verbal problems involving unit conversion, multiplication of three digits with two digits.

Students are performing in the range of average in simple siterest, unitary method, very simple simplification, subtraction with borrowing.

Students are able to solve the problems that involves simple operation, but are weak in the problems that demand application of learnt facts and skills in daily life problems or new situation.