1 / 30

Impact Evaluation of the East African Quality in Early Learning (EAQEL) Initiative

This presentation, delivered by Moses Ngware, explores the impact evaluation of the EAQEL Initiative, a study conducted by the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) with funding from the Hewlett Foundation. The study employs a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) across two districts in Kenya and Uganda to assess whether the "Reading to Learn" (RtL) approach enhances literacy and numeracy among lower primary students. Key research questions include the influence of parental involvement and the identification of factors contributing to educational improvements.

aleda
Télécharger la présentation

Impact Evaluation of the East African Quality in Early Learning (EAQEL) Initiative

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact evaluation of the East African Quality in Early Learning (EAQEL) Initiative Presenter: Moses NgwareContributors: ERP teamAfrican Population and Health Research Center (APHRC)Supported by Hewlett/QEDC May 2010

  2. Content Background Research questions Design & methods Findings Policy implications

  3. Background An intervention study being implemented by AKF- Reading to Learn (RtL/scaffolding). Role of APHRC: Impact assessment of the proposed RtL

  4. Research Questions • Are children in lower primary grades (1, 2 and 3) able to read and do mathematics calculations more proficiently as a result of the RtL approach? • Are there differences in proficiency for children exposed to parental involvement in the RtL Approach (core model plus) compared: • to those exposed to the RtL Approach with no parental involvement (core model), • to control schools? • What are the key contributing factors to these improvements in numeracy and literacy in grades 1, 2 and 3?

  5. Randomised Control Trial (RCT) Four districts – 2 Kenya & 2 Uganda Treatment and control schools in each district 120 & 109 primary schools in Kenya & Uganda, respectively 229 HT, over 1000 teachers, 14,000 pupils, 7000 parents are targeted. Intervention: i. Core module in 1 district & ii. Core module plus in the other district. Design - EAQEL

  6. Sample determination, effect size & power calculations Assumptions (used OD software): Significance level = 0.05 Cell size (n) or # of pupils = 20 Effect size = 0.22 (informed by literature) Correlation coeff. = 0.10 For a power of 80%, 100 schools needed. For a power of 90%, 128 schools needed.

  7. Data Analysis Given that the causal effect for a single unit u cannot be observed, we aim to identify the average causal effect for the entire sample The ATE of t (relative to c) over U (or any sub-population) is given by: ATE =E [Y1(u) – Y0(u)] = E [Y1(u)] – E [Y0(u)]

  8. Data Analysis Outcome Time Treatment Average Treatment Effect on the Treated Treatment Group Control Group

  9. Design Issues - Kenya

  10. Methods - instruments • Assessment tools: • Single numeracy test for grades G1 – 3 • Single literacy test in Kiswahili or Lang’o G1-3 • Test items range from simple to difficult • Curriculum & assessment experts, practitioners and researchers were involved – for content validity. • All instruments were pre-tested. • Survey tools: • head teacher’s questionnaire • teacher questionnaire • pupil questionnaire • household questionnaire targeted parents/guardian

  11. Kenya’s districts: Kwale & Kinango Kwale Kinango Treatment Control Treatment Control Kensip Kensip Non-Kensip Non-Kensip Sampling Process - Kenya

  12. Uganda 2 Districts District 1: Core Model District 2: Core Model Plus Cluster of school zones Control Treatment Treatment Control Sampling process - Uganda

  13. BS Findings- Literacy written • Literacy written (several aspects tested) - Administered orally to the pupils and were to write answers on a provided booklet (mean is out of 100%)

  14. Literacy – 101 (Oral) • Oral literacy (several aspects)- Pupils were required to answer to a set of questions administered orally.

  15. Poor performance in written literacy in Kenya- Both grades- Average % score <40% Greater variability Literacy written – Distribution of score - Kenya

  16. Poor performance in written literacy in Kenya- Both grades- Average % score <10% Literacy written – Distribution of score -Uganda

  17. Literacy written – Distribution of score - Kenya • Better performance on oral literacy than written in Kenya

  18. Literacy written – Distribution of score -Uganda • Better performance on oral literacy than written in Kenya

  19. Oral Literacy competencies: Listening • Grade 1: High rating on Listening skills by country

  20. Oral Literacy competencies: Listening • Grade 2: High rating on Listening skills by country

  21. Oral Literacy competencies: speaking • Grade 1: High rating in Kenya than Uganda

  22. Oral Literacy competencies: speaking • Grade 2: High rating in Kenya than Uganda

  23. Oral Literacy competencies: Reading • Grade 1: High rating in Kenya than Uganda • Reading words scored lowly

  24. Oral Literacy competencies: Reading • Grade 2: High rating in Kenya than Uganda

  25. Class size and literacy score- Grade 1 • Correlation Kenya: -0.0256 • Correlation Uganda: 0.2369

  26. Class size and literacy score- Grade 2 • Correlation Kenya: -0.0918 • Correlation Uganda: -0.0477

  27. Availability of reading materials at school: - Story books

  28. Household characteristics • 43.96 of the household heads have primary education, with 34.81 with no education • 46% of the pupils are not give homework from school. • Among those given homework, 29.23% are not assisted in doing the homework- this varies by country (Kenya- 55.10% and Uganda – 20.79%) • 69% whose heads have no education, do not help their pupils in doing homework compared with 19% whose household heads have tertiary education

  29. Literacy 101: Regression coefficients

  30. Regression results [2] • Pupils who come home with homework and helped within the household score better- in Kenya • HH education: Pupils from households headed by heads with secondary and tertiary education score high- Kenya • Uganda only secondary education matters

More Related