Reading Outcomes for the Blind and the Deaf: Tusome Special Needs - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

Reading Outcomes for the Blind and the Deaf: Tusome Special Needs Education Baseline

Dunston Kwayumba Arbogast Oyanga Tusome Early Literacy Programme

Tusome Early Literacy Programme

• 1. Objective: MoE Program aimed at improving literacy

Outcomes for children at early grades.

• 2. Scope: Regular primary schools, APBETs, SNE
• 3. Methods: Teaching and learning materials, training and

supervision

• 4. Duration: 2015 - 2019

SNE Baseline Study Objectives

• Establish a baseline to measure impact of the intervention

– Establish literacy outcomes for the blind and the deaf – Variation of outcomes by gender and grade – Establish factors related to literacy outcomes for the blind and the deaf

Research Design and Methodology

• Cross-sectional design
• Respondents

– Deaf children at class 1 and 2 – Blind children at class 1 and 2 – Teachers in schools for the blind and the deaf and head teachers of sampled schools

• Instruments

– Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) adapted for the deaf and the blind

• Blind pupils assessed using both English EGRA and Kiswahili
• Deaf pupils assessed using English EGRA

– Teacher and head teacher assessor administered questionnaires

Research Design and Methodology…ctnd

• Sample

– Undertook a census for schools for the blind – Schools for the deaf selected using the method of proportionate to population – 4 pupils at each grade targeted; systematic sampling was used for cases with more than 4 pupils per class. – Gender representation was established where possible – Head teachers and teachers interviewed for the selected sample

Research Design and Methodology…ctnd

• Adaptation of instruments

– Undertaken in collaboration with staff from KISE and MoE directorate of SNE – Two panels: one for instruments for the deaf and the other one for the blind – Instruments piloted in schools for the deaf and the blind

• Enumerator recruitment and training

– Specialized assessors: Braille readers and those who could sign – Trained for one week, assessed and IRR established – Undertook instrument field testing on one of the days

Major Findings – Response Rates

Blind pupil sample

Gender Class 1 Class 2 Total Boys 37 35 72 Girls 31 28 59 Total 68 63 131

Deaf pupil sample

Gender Class 1 Class 2 Total Boys 77 80 157 Girls 72 69 141 Total 149 149 298

Performance of Blind Pupils in English Subtasks by Grade

Class 1 Outcomes

Subtask Boys Girls Total

Letter sound fluency 11.9 8.3 10.3 Segmentation score (%) 47.4 51.9 49.9 Familiar word fluency 7.5 4.2 5.7 Oral reading fluency 7.4 5.0 6.1 Reading comprehension 15.4 13.0 14.1 ORF (regular) 15.9

Class 2 Outcomes

Subtask Boys Girls Total

Letter sound fluency 18.4 24.0 21.6 Segmentation score (%) 66.1 70.9 68.7 Familiar word fluency 10.2 13.6 12.1 Oral reading fluency 15.7 19.9 18.1 Reading comprehension 36.4 44.0 40.6 ORF (regular) 36.8

Performance of Blind Pupils in Kiswahili Subtasks by Grade

Class 1 Outcomes

Subtask Boys Girls Total

Letter sound fluency 11.1 8.9 9.9 Syllable fluency 7.6 6.5 7.0 Familiar word fluency 4.3 3.7 4.0 Oral reading fluency 4.0 3.2 3.6 Reading comprehension 16.7 13.0 14.7 ORF(Regular) 10.1

Class 2 Outcomes

Subtask Boys Girls Total

Letter sound fluency 18.4 26.2 22.7 Syllable fluency 14.9 20.3 17.9 Familiar word fluency 10.1 12.4 11.4 Oral reading fluency 9.0 11.5 10.4 Reading comprehension 37.1 44.6 41.3 ORF(Regular) 22.9

Performance of Deaf Pupils in EGRA English Subtasks by Grade

Class 1 Outcomes

Subtask Boys Girls Total

Letter sign fluency 31.6 30.0 30.7 Familiar word signage 1.8 1.8 1.8 Sign reading fluency 5.4 4.8 5.1 Signing comprehension score(%) 1.1 3.9 2.6 ORF (regular) 15.9

Class 2 Outcomes

Subtask Boys Girls Total

Letter sign fluency 43.4 36.8 39.8 Familiar word signage 5.4 4.5 4.9 Sign reading fluency 13.1 8.6 10.7 Signing comprehension score(%) 3.2 4.8 4.0 ORF(regular) 36.8

Signing Fluency Predictors

• 6.4
• 5.9

2.5 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.8 4.8 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 Language used at home not known Language used at school not known Attended pre-school Teacher uses SEE in instrution Mother can sign Was attending this school in January… Pupil has English textbook at home Pupil has sign language textbook at… Father can read and write Father can sign Signs in KSL at school Signs in KSL at home Signs in SEE at home RTI staff undertakes at least 3… Mother can read and write Signs in SEE at school Pupil has other books at home

Braille Reading Fluency Predictors

• 8.9
• 8.9
• 8.3

6.4 7.9 14.2

• 15.0
• 10.0
• 5.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Other books/reading materials in mother-tongue at home Speaks mother-tongue at school Repeated class Speaks English at school Mother can read and write English book in Braille

Challenges

• Signing language mix-up between KSL and SEE
• Assessors proficient in higher grade level Braille

while learners use grade 1

• Data on SNE is not accurate as a sampling

frame

• Costs – higher than studies for regular children

Recommendations

• Implement interventions to improve literacy
• Advocate for a standardized sign language
• Provide better instructional support
• Encourage the use of appropriate languages at school

and home

• Harness parental involvement and support

Recommendations….cntd

• Promote school attendance and pre-school
• Develop reading benchmarks for the deaf and the blind
• Develop / re-evaluate the language policy for the deaf

Conclusion Blind and deaf pupils need concerted intervention to improve literacy outcomes. The Tusome endline evaluation will establish the effectiveness of Tusome interventions.

Q & A Thank you

16