ilm on wheels baseline assessment report - home | · pdf fileilm on wheels baseline assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
Funded by UKaid from the Department for International Development (DFID)
Ilm on Wheels
Baseline Assessment Report
October 2012
TeleTaleem (Pvt.) Limited
Plot 291, Street 3, I-9/3, Islamabad
Phone: +92 51 111 784 784 • Email: [email protected]
Website: www.teletaleem.com
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 2 of 36
Table of Contents
1. Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... 4
2. Background and objectives ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Project background ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Objectives of the baseline assessment .................................................................................................. 5
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Identification of target area .................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Identification and mapping of schools .................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Scoping survey ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.1 Survey questionnaire ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2 School survey and physical visits ...................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Sampling Design ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.5 School selection and treatment-control pairing ...................................................................................... 9
3.6 Pre-assessment ................................................................................................................................... 10
3.7 Satisfaction survey............................................................................................................................... 10
4. Findings and analysis ................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Baseline of Mathematics scores .......................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Baseline of student satisfaction ........................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 Quality of Instructions ...................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.2 Quality of material, text book and teaching aids .............................................................................. 13
4.2.3 Duration of class and length of instructions ..................................................................................... 14
4.2.4 Opportunities for questions and answers, collective and individual counselling .............................. 15
5. Appendices................................................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Scoping survey questionnaire – Part I ................................................................................................. 16
5.2 Scoping survey questionnaire – Part II ................................................................................................ 19
5.3 Satisfaction survey questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 22
5.4 Additional analysis ............................................................................................................................... 23
5.5 Score sheets of grade IV students ....................................................................................................... 28
5.6 Score sheets of grade V students ........................................................................................................ 32
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Comparison of education statistics across KPK ..................................................................................... 6
Table 3.2: Learning achievements in Maths and Science for Grade-IV students .................................................... 7
Table 3.3: Tentative list of target and control groups .............................................................................................. 9
Table 4.1: Distribution of average scores (%) and standard deviations of grade IV students ............................... 12
Table 4.2: Distribution of average scores (%) and standard deviations of grade V students ................................ 12
Table 4.3: Distribution of responses to questions 2, 3 and 9 ................................................................................. 13
Table 4.4: Distribution of responses to questions 6, 7, and 8 ................................................................................ 13
Table 4.5: Distribution of responses to questions 4, 5 and 12 ............................................................................... 14
Table 4.6: Distribution of responses to question 10 .............................................................................................. 14
Table 4.7: Distribution of responses to question 11 .............................................................................................. 14
Table 4.8: Distribution of responses to questions 13, 14 and 15 ........................................................................... 14
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 3 of 36
Table 4.9: Distribution of responses to questions 16, 17 and 18 ........................................................................... 15
Table 5.1: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by union councils .................................................................. 23
Table 5.2: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by union councils .................................................................. 23
Table 5.3: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by sex of the students .......................................................... 24
Table 5.4: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by sex of the students .......................................................... 24
Table 5.5: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by teacher qualification ......................................................... 24
Table 5.6: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by teacher qualification ......................................................... 25
Table 5.7: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by years of experience ......................................................... 25
Table 5.8: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by years of experience ......................................................... 25
Table 5.9: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by sex of the teachers .......................................................... 26
Table 5.10: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by sex of the teachers ........................................................ 26
Table 5.11: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by class sizes ..................................................................... 26
Table 5.12: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by class sizes ..................................................................... 26
Table 5.13: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by availability of electricity .................................................. 27
Table 5.14: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by availability of electricity .................................................. 27
Table 5.15: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by school distance from main road .................................... 27
Table 5.16: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by school distance from main road .................................... 27
Table 5.17: Score sheet of grade IV students ....................................................................................................... 28
Table 5.18: Score sheet of grade V students ........................................................................................................ 32
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 4 of 36
1. Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADO Assistant District Officer
DFID Department for International Development
DAI Development Alternatives, Inc.
EIF Education Innovation Fund
EMIS Education Management Information System
GPS Government Primary School
GGPS Government Girls Primary School
ICT Information and Communication Technology
KPK Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
NCHD National Commission for Human Development
NEAS National Education Assessment System
NEGD Non-Equivalent Group Design
UC Union Council
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 5 of 36
2. Background and objectives
2.1 Project background
Ilm Ideas is a three-year programme to award grants nationwide for the purpose of increasing access
to quality education for the children of Pakistan. Funded by UKaid from the Department for
International Development (DFID) and managed by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) Europe
and Cambridge Education, Ilm Ideas seeks to support:
1. Research studies to inform policy and strategic interventions
2. Activities to increase demand for greater transparency and accountability
3. Creative solutions to the challenges faced by the education sector
The programme consists of two Funds, which award competitive grants in Pakistan based on strategic
priorities, geographic balance and established programming criteria. The Education Innovation Fund
(EIF) seeks to support bright ideas for tackling challenges faced by the education sector in Pakistan. It
aims to tie the energy of the active non-governmental and private sectors with the experience of the
governmental sector, to find solutions with the potential to be taken to scale.
TeleTaleem was granted funding for implementing a pilot project titled “Ilm on Wheels” under the
Education Innovation Fund to increase access to quality education and to enhance student satisfaction
at primary school level. The project runs for nine months (July 2012 to March 2013) covering a
cluster of public primary schools in the district of Mansehra.
The Ilm on Wheels project aims to leverage advance learning methods to attain broad based access
and improved quality of education in public primary schools. The project employs a mobile satellite-
enabled van to provide ICT enabled student learning and assessments, supported by an advanced
learning technology platform. The mobile van delivers completely self-contained services on a
transactional basis, anytime, anywhere, with no additional infrastructure requirements. The project
targets students of grades IV and V for enhanced learning achievements in Mathematics by
connecting them to the widely available but inaccessible online learning content and tools.
2.2 Objectives of the baseline assessment
The objective of the baseline assessment is to establish benchmarks for evaluating:
a) Improvement in learning achievements in Mathematics;
b) Increase in parent and/or student satisfaction as a result of this project.
The project baseline assessment serves a dual purpose; first to assess the students’ educational
attainment and help the project team effectively plan learning activities of the intervention; and
secondly to measure the change brought about by the intervention through a comparison of baseline
and end-of-project assessment values.
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 6 of 36
3. Methodology
The evaluation methodology is based on the Non-Equivalent Groups Design (NEGD), which is a
widely used method of quasi-experimental evaluations and social research. This design takes into
account before and after comparisons of project (treatment) and similar (but not identical) control
populations. This method of evaluation is usually used where randomization is not possible.
The NEGD is structured like a pre-test/post-test randomized experiment, but it lacks the key feature of
the randomized designs – random assignment. In the NEGD, intact groups are used that we think are
similar as the treatment and control groups. In education, we might pick two comparable classrooms
or schools. In community-based research, we might use two similar communities. We try to select
groups that are as similar as possible so we can fairly compare the treated one with the comparison
one. But we can never be sure the groups are comparable. Or, put another way, it's unlikely that the
two groups would be as similar as they would if we assigned them through a random lottery. Because
it's often likely that the groups are not equivalent, this design was named accordingly to highlight this
distinction.
Though with respect to internal validity, quasi-experimental designs often appear to be inferior to
randomized experiments, there is something compelling about these designs; they allow for some
level of reliable analysis of results. Such designs are also used due to budget, time and human
resource constraints – all of which are applicable in this pilot project.
3.1 Identification of target area
Mandated by the objectives and thematic areas set forth by the Education Innovation Fund, the search
focused on districts with low learning achievement, low transition and high drop-out rates. At the
provincial level, KPK was picked because of the low learning achievements in comparison to rest of
Pakistan. Within KPK, Mansehra was identified as the area of interest because all the aforementioned
education indicators were significantly lower in comparison to other districts of KPK (Table 3.1).
Table 33.1: Comparison of education statistics across KPK
No Indicator KPK Average Mansehra Districts worse off than Mansehra
1 Increase in Enrolment (2005-2010) 15.1% 3.8% Abbotabad, Karak, Tank, Hangu
2 Drop-out Rate 45% 59% Kohistan, Battagram
3 Transition Rate 77% 62% Kohistan, Battagram
(Source: Annual Statistical Report of Govt. Schools, 2010-11, KPK E&SE)
Several studies over the years have provided ample evidence of the quality of education in the rural
areas of Pakistan. 81% of the primary schools in Pakistan belong to rural areas with enrolments of
13.327 million students. 54% of these schools do not have electricity and the rest have to work
through extended periods of blackouts. Availability of computer equipment and internet, especially at
primary school level, is almost non-existent. For provinces like KPK and Balochistan, security risks
and gender related issues provide additional limitations. Student competency in subjects like Math
and Science, measured through standardized national assessments, also show weak learning
achievements for KPK and Balochistan.
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 7 of 36
Table 3.2: Learning achievements in Maths and Science for Grade-IV students
Province vs. Nation Mathematics Science
Rest of Pakistan 399.57 472.05
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 370.65 438.91
Difference Statistically Significant
3.2 Identification and mapping of schools
The Education Management Information System (EMIS) data for elementary and secondary education
of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was used in the identification of the primary schools in the tehsils of
Mansehra and Balakot. The basic criterion in the selection of the primary schools of the district was
the enrolments numbering more than 20 for girls and 30 for boys in the target grades (IV and V).
District Mansehra carries a mix of summer and winter zone schools, i.e. winter zone school holidays
are scheduled in winter season instead of the summer. Winter zone schools were not considered
because six months of schooling had already transpired in comparison to one month for the summer
zone schools. Hence the search within Mansehra zeroed in on Tehsils and Union Councils (UCs)
housing summer zone schools. Discussion with ADO Mansehra helped identify Tehsil Balakot as the
focal area, including 5 UCs with summer zone schools, i.e.:
1. Balakot
2. Garhi Habibullah
3. Talhatta
4. Karnol
5. Garlat
These UCs are co-located and have decent enough road network to support van access. The locations
of these schools were then mapped on cartographic software based on the clusters of rural and semi-
urban primary schools. Physical visits to the site and with the help of additional data provided by the
National Commission for Human Development (NCHD), a leading agency working on education in
the area, the list of potential schools was improved and several schools were either omitted or
included based on actual enrolment and ease of accessibility.
3.3 Scoping survey
A scoping survey of 48 schools in the district was carried out for collecting detailed information from
the schools. This scoping survey was designed to identify and collect information on the public
schools in the target area and to help in selection of the treatment and control schools.
Scoping survey was necessitated because of the gaps identified in available data, including EMIS. For
example, the data logged in EMIS was at least a year old and had numerous omissions in terms of
missing schools and incorrect entries. In addition some finer details only became apparent, once the
scoping survey was done. The scoping survey helped put a lot of corrective measures in the project
planning early on.
3.3.1 Survey questionnaire
A scoping survey questionnaire was designed to gather vital statistics of the schools identified for
scoping. The following variables were included in the scoping survey:
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 8 of 36
1. School name
2. Village name
3. Exact address
4. Accessibility status
5. Male / female students in grade IV
6. Male / female students in grade V
7. Status of classrooms as single or
multi-grade
8. Number of Math teachers
9. Details of qualification and
experience of Math teachers
10. Type of school building
11. Total number of classrooms in
school
12. Availability of electricity during
school hours (8am – 7pm)
13. Distance of school from main road
14. Total number of teachers in school
15. Total male and female students of
the school
16. Division of classes into sections
17. Last three year scores of grade IV
and V
The scoping survey contained questions designed for observation as well as eliciting specific
information about the schools. The questionnaire was divided into two parts:
a) Part I was filled by the school representative, preferably head teacher, which focused on
gathering information on the enrolment, class structures and sizes, and teaching staff, while
b) Part II of the survey contain questions related to interviewer observations on the physical
conditions and facilities that were recorded upon visits to the schools (appendices 5.1 and 5.2)
3.3.2 School survey and physical visits
Prior to the scoping survey, concerted efforts were made to ensure the attendance of representatives
from all the schools in the selected UCs, however only 65 heads of schools promised to arrive for the
survey. The data collection team trained on the questionnaire carried out the scoping survey in the
premises of the Assistant District Officer in Balakot where a total of 48 head teachers were present at
that time representing 48 schools out of the total 180 schools in the target UCs. Physical visits to 24 of
these schools for Part II of the survey resulted in previously unidentified schools which were listed
and scoped out to finalise the list of available schools.
The representatives of the schools were required to bring their enrolment sheets as well as results of
their respective classes for the past three years. Due to various factors, majority of the teachers could
not bring the required documents and were later contacted to ensure completeness of the information.
The data collected through the scoping survey was then digitized and processed to prepare the dataset
for final selection.
3.4 Sampling Design
The sampling design is based on the non-probability purposive sampling method. In accordance with
the project document, 10 treatment and 11 control classes/schools were selected based on pre-defined
criteria. The process of selection and criteria are presented in the following sections.
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 9 of 36
3.5 School selection and treatment-control pairing
Enrolment and accessibility were the primary criteria for eligibility of a school. 22 of the 48 schools
were removed from consideration due to low (actual) enrolment and inaccessibility. The remaining 26
schools were then segregated into the respective grades (IV and V) for both girls and boys primary
schools. In all, 9 schools for girls and 15 schools for boys were identified as potential candidates and
prepared for statistical analysis for pairing.
Class enrolment, teacher qualifications, years of experience in teaching, and the past grades in Maths
for the students of these schools were then analysed to determine the factors that would allow pairing
of similar classes between the treatment and control groups. It was imperative that the target and
control groups be similar in characteristics to establish the difference brought about in the learning
achievements of students in the target group compared to the control group. Past grades in Maths,
being a key decision criterion for pairing, could not be used definitively because it was based on non-
standardized tests. Therefore, results from the pre-assessment (covered in section 3.6) were analysed
in a subsequent iteration, to finally lock the control-treatment pairs of schools. Of the 26 schools, 21
classes from 13 schools were finalized for the intervention out of which three pairs of treatment-
control groups were identified for grade IV and three pairs for grade V. Table 3.3 presents the
tentative list of target and control groups, clearly matching those schools that have been paired.
Table 3.3: Tentative list of target and control groups
Grade Pair # Treatment Control
Class ID School Name Students Class ID School Name Students
4
1 451A GPS Jagir 33 455A GPS Talhatta 48
2 459A GPS Ghari Habib Ullah 42 459B GPS Ghari Habib Ullah 35
3 470A GGPS Hassari 20 466A GGPS Bagal Char 40
NP 408A GPS Shoal Najaf Khan 32
NP 423A GGPS Ghari Habibullah 30
NP
405A GPS Sugdhar 25
NP
421A GGPS Balakot 7
NP
441A GPS Banphora 26
Total 157 Total 181
5
4 551A GPS Jagir 30 541A GPS Banphora 37
5 559B GPS Ghari Habib Ullah 30 559A GPS Ghari Habib Ullah 35
6 570A GGPS Hassari 25 521A GGPS Balakot 11
NP 523A GGPS Ghari Habibullah 32
NP 555A GPS Talhatta 32
NP
511A GPS Zameeri 25
NP
571A GGPS Narrah 50
Total 154 Total 153
Note: NP = No Pairs
The final pairing of the treatment and control groups is being carried out with additional information
being collected on the schools in the five selected UCs.
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 10 of 36
3.6 Pre-assessment
In order to provide a baseline for assessing the impact of the intervention, a standardized pre-
assessment was designed and conducted in all the target and control groups. The pre-assessment test
was prepared with the help of the National Education Assessment System (NEAS) of the Ministry of
Education and Trainings, and was based on the assessment framework as defined in the national
curricula (2006) of Mathematics for grades IV and V. An elaborate Item testing activity was carried
out by running the pilot test over 687 students, from grade V and grade VI (for finalizing grade IV
and grade V assessment tools respectively). This pool of students was selected from within the
Balakot-Mansehra target area, staying clear of the designated control and treatment schools. The pre-
assessment was finalized on the basis of the responses to these questions filtering out the best fit
questions.
Next the pre-assessment of the treatment and control groups was carried out in two phases, one for
each grade, by a team of trained project staff. The students were given detailed briefings on the
questionnaire and procedures for answering the questions. For almost all of the children, the
standardized test was their first encounter with such testing methods and necessitated introduction to
the tool. After a half-hour tutorial, the students were given three hours to fill out their respective pre-
assessments. Each questionnaire was tagged with school ID and students were required to fill out their
names and roll numbers for identification.
In all, assessments of 496 students were carried out from an expected 576 students (i.e. total
enrolment in grade IV and V in both treatment and control groups). Out of the 576 students, 240
belonged to grade IV and 256 in grade V. While the pre-assessments were originally slated to be
conducted before the commencement of the intervention, the actual pre-assessment took place two
weeks in to the project launch. The effects of this delay have not been statistically analysed and
accounted for in the presentation of the findings in this report.
The results of the pre-assessment were graded on the basis of correct responses out of total questions
(60 and 58 for grades IV and V respectively) and their scores calculated as a percentage of correct
responses. The findings presented in this report are based on the average scores of the students.
3.7 Satisfaction survey
A pre-intervention student satisfaction survey was designed to be conducted alongside the pre-
assessment to serve as a benchmark for a post-intervention satisfaction study to be conducted at the
conclusion of the project. Based on published research, key questions were identified for the
satisfaction survey and were classified in the following four categories:
1. Quality of instructions
2. Quality of material, text book and teaching aids
3. Duration of class and length of instructions
4. Opportunities for questions and answers, collective and individual counseling
After review of multiple student satisfaction surveys, direct and indirect discussions and feedback
from the teachers and team members, 18 questions were devised to ensure appropriate coverage of the
four categories. A question specific Likert rating scale ranging from yes-no answers to four-point
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 11 of 36
“Very Satisfied” to “Very Dissatisfied” scales were used in the survey (see Appendix 5.3 –
Satisfaction Survey).
With the majority of the students facing difficulties in reading comprehension, the project staff
conducted the satisfaction surveys by guiding the students through each question and asking them to
mark their responses on paper.
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 12 of 36
4. Findings and analysis
4.1 Baseline of Mathematics scores
The results of the standardized pre-assessment conducted for grade IV and V students are presented in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The results are presented at class level and distributed across treatment and control
groups. On average grade IV students managed to score 22.89 out of 100 overall, while grade V
students scored 39.51 out of 100.
Grade IV students in the treatment group managed to obtain an overall average score of 24.87 out of
100 with a standard deviation of 12.57 (Table 4.1), while those in the control group scored an overall
average of 21.12 out of 100 with a standard deviation of 19.97.
The overall average score of grade V students in the treatment group was 39.88 out of 100 with a
standard deviation of 20.01 (Table 4.2) while those in the control group managed an average score of
39.14 out of 100 with a standard deviation of 17.86.
Table 4.1: Distribution of average scores (%) and standard deviations of grade IV students
Pair
Treatment Control
CID School Name and Class Average Scores
Standard Deviation
CID School Name and Class Average Scores
Standard Deviation
1 451A GPS Jagir 6.50 4.97 455A GPS Talhatta 9.71 7.15
2 459A GPS Ghari Habibullah - A 31.31 9.16 459B GPS Ghari Habibullah - B 24.47 7.17
3 470A GGPS Hassari 22.60 6.95 466A GGPS Bagal Char 19.81 5.35
408A GPS Shoal Najaf Khan 36.67 6.96
423A GGPS Ghari Habibullah 21.88 7.90
405A GPS Sugdhar 10.60 8.08
421A GGPS Balakot 83.33 4.44
441A GPS Banphora 14.09 8.28
Overall 24.87 12.57 Overall 21.12 19.97
Table 4.2: Distribution of average scores (%) and standard deviations of grade V students
Pair
Treatment Control
CID School Name and Class Average Scores
Standard Deviation
CID School Name and Class Average Scores
Standard Deviation
1 551A GPS Jagir 30.44 11.30 541A GPS Banphora 34.77 6.15
2 559B GPS Ghari Habibullah - B 22.17 5.60 559A GPS Ghari Habibullah - A 33.07 14.40
3 570A GGPS Hassari 26.23 10.12 521A GGPS Balakot 73.04 4.84
523A GGPS Ghari Habibullah 70.69 6.20
555A GPS Talhatta 42.27 9.97
511A GPS Zameeri 21.59 10.22
571A GGPS Narrah 47.39 12.88
Overall 39.88 20.01 Overall 39.14 17.86
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 13 of 36
4.2 Baseline of student satisfaction
The responses received from the students on the satisfaction survey are presented below in their
respective categories. On average about 16% of the students chose not to respond to the questions,
while around 2.6% made mistakes (incorrect selection) while recording their responses. The
percentages detailed in the analysis below does not account for these mistakes.
4.2.1 Quality of Instructions
Seven of the questions posed in the satisfaction survey were based on the quality of instruction in the
class rooms. The overall satisfaction levels for quality of instructions are mostly positive with more
than 70% of the students responding positively to these questions (Table 4.3). 13.7% of the students
do not always understand what is being taught in the classes.
Table 4.3: Distribution of responses to questions 2, 3 and 9
Q# Question Yes Sometimes No No Response
2 Do you understand what you are taught in math class? 73.42 13.70 1.64 9.61
3 Do you enjoy math class? 78.32 4.29 2.66 12.47
9 Do you enjoy math exercises and quiz? 72.19 5.73 1.64 17.79
A little over half of the students believe that they receive class and home works, and maths tests on a
regular basis. On average, 14% of the students believe that the class and home activities happen
sometimes or even rarely. Quizzes and tests in maths account for the larger shares of activities that do
not happen regularly (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4: Distribution of responses to questions 6, 7, and 8
Q# Question Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never No
Response
6 Do you get math classwork for solving exercise questions? 57.46 13.50 11.04 2.25 15.75
7 Do you get math homework? 58.69 11.25 13.09 1.43 15.54
8 Do you get math test or quiz? 43.97 17.18 19.63 0.61 18.61
4.2.2 Quality of material, text book and teaching aids
Around 66% of the children are able to comprehend the examples and exercises presented in the text
book for mathematics. 13% of the students do not always understand the examples given in the text
books while 11% have trouble understanding the exercises (Table 4.5).
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 14 of 36
Table 4.5: Distribution of responses to questions 4, 5 and 12
Q# Question Yes Sometimes No No
Response
4 Do you understand the examples of the math text book? 66.26 12.68 3.68 14.72
5 Do you understand the exercises of the math text book? 65.85 11.25 2.86 16.56
12 Do you enjoy using teaching material other than math text book? 73.21 6.34 1.64 15.95
66% of the students identified “black boards” as the most used teaching material used in their classes.
The use of flash cards (6.54%), computers (6.75%) or even blocks (2.25%) is limited to a very small
set of students.
Table 4.6: Distribution of responses to question 10
Q# Question Black board
Flash cards
Computer Blocks No
Response
10 Which of the following teaching material do you use for learning math?
66.46 6.54 6.75 2.25 18.00
45% of the students reported that the use of teaching material other than their textbook was happening
regularly. 25% of the students believe it to happen sometimes while 9.41% students reported rare uses
of any material other than their textbooks (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7: Distribution of responses to question 11
Q# Question Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never No Response
11 How often do you use teaching material other than the textbook?
45.60 25.56 9.41 0.61 18.81
4.2.3 Duration of class and length of instructions
For 66% of the students, there is enough time spent in class on learning, asking questions and doing
exercises. Almost 10% of the students do not always get enough time while another 3.9% students
never have enough time to spend on activities in class.
Table 4.8: Distribution of responses to questions 13, 14 and 15
Q# Question Yes Sometimes No No
Response
13 Do you get enough time for learning math lessons in class? 65.44 9.20 3.89 18.20
14 Do you get enough time for asking question answers in class? 66.67 8.79 3.68 17.38
15 Do you get enough time for math exercises in class? 65.44 10.02 4.09 17.59
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 15 of 36
4.2.4 Opportunities for questions and answers, collective and individual
counselling
46% of the students believe that they rarely face any difficulties in solving math problems, while
18.4% of the students face difficulties on a regular basis. 14.72% of the students rarely get individual
counselling while 18.61% of the students are only sometimes able to solicit feedback on their class
and homework activities.
Table 4.9: Distribution of responses to questions 16, 17 and 18
Q# Question Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never No Response
16 How often do you face difficulties in solving math problems?
18.40 13.70 45.81 5.32 16.77
17 How often are you individually able to get teacher counselling on math?
56.03 10.43 14.72 1.23 17.59
18 How often are you able to get feedback on the math classwork and homework?
56.44 18.61 7.98 1.23 15.75
Student satisfactions were conducted for each class and the findings shown above have highlighted
the tendency for bias based on several influencing factors, i.e. cheating, copying, teacher
interventions, etc. In order to prepare a more effective baseline for student satisfaction, further in
depth qualitative surveys will be conducted with a purposively selected group of students. These
surveys will be conducted in the coming months in controlled environments to ensure a more
comprehensive student satisfaction baseline.
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 16 of 36
5. Appendices
5.1 Scoping survey questionnaire – Part I
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 17 of 36
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 18 of 36
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 19 of 36
5.2 Scoping survey questionnaire – Part II
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 20 of 36
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 21 of 36
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 22 of 36
5.3 Satisfaction survey questionnaire
Q # Question Rating scale
1 Do you have regular math classes? Yes No
2 Do you understand what you are taught in math class?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
3 Do you enjoy math class? Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
4 Do you understand the examples of the math text book?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
5 Do you understand the exercises of the math text book?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
6 Do you get math classwork for solving exercise questions?
Yes-Regularly Yes-Sometimes Yes-Rarely No-Never
7 Do you get math homework? Yes-Regularly Yes-Sometimes Yes-Rarely No-Never
8 Do you get math test or quiz? Yes-Regularly Yes-Sometimes Yes-Rarely No-Never
9 Do you enjoy math exercises and quiz?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
10 Which of the following teaching material do you use for learning math?
Black board Flash cards Computer Blocks
11 How often do you use teaching material other than the text book?
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
12 Do you enjoy using teaching material other than math text book?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
13 Do you get enough time for learning math lessons in class?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
14 Do you get enough time for asking question answers in class?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
15 Do you get enough time for math exercises in class?
Yes-Very much Yes-Somewhat No
16 How often do you face difficulties in solving math problems?
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
18 How often are you individually able to get teacher counselling on math?
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
19 How often are you able to get feedback on the math classwork and homework?
Regularly Sometimes Rarely Never
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 23 of 36
5.4 Additional analysis
In the following sections, additional analysis is presented relating to student scores. Several variables
on which information is available were compared to student scores as an attempt to highlight other
factors that may influence student results and learning achievements. The reader should note that the
analysis presented is not conclusive of any relationship between student scores and related factors
since the research design does not support drawing such conclusions. However, this analysis does
present the opportunity to explore various factors through future research.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the analysis presented in these sections is not tied to the treatment
control pairs, but is rather presented as a broader comparison between students of treatment and
control schools.
Comparison of scores by Union Council
Table 5.1: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by union councils
Union Councils
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Balakot 22 19.30 36.67 31 24.41 34.19 53 21.99 35.22
Gari Habibullah 72 63.16 26.37 42 33.07 25.83 114 47.30 26.17
Garlat 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Karnol 20 17.54 6.50 0 0.00 0.00 20 8.30 6.50
Talhatta 0 0.00 0.00 54 42.52 9.94 54 22.41 9.94
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.2: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by union councils
Union Councils
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Balakot 0 0.00 0.00 35 28.46 46.80 35 14.11 46.80
Gari Habibullah 70 56.00 42.39 28 22.76 33.07 98 39.52 39.73
Garlat 0 0.00 0.00 37 30.08 47.39 37 14.92 47.39
Karnol 26 20.80 30.44 0 0.00 0.00 26 10.48 30.44
Talhatta 29 23.20 42.27 23 18.70 21.59 52 20.97 33.12
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 24 of 36
Scores disaggregated by sex
Table 5.3: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by sex of the students
Sex
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Female 56 49.12 19.94 52 40.94 22.60 108 44.81 21.22
Male 58 50.88 29.63 75 59.06 20.09 133 55.19 24.25
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.4: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by sex of the students
Sex
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg. Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Female 60 48.00 49.97 68 55.28 44.04 128 51.61 46.82
Male 65 52.00 30.56 55 44.72 33.07 120 48.39 31.71
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Student scores in comparison to teacher qualification
Table 5.5: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by teacher qualification
Teacher Qualification
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Matric 22 19.30 36.67 14 11.02 10.60 36 14.94 26.53
FA 53 46.49 21.95 31 24.41 34.19 84 34.85 26.47
BA 23 20.18 21.88 9 7.09 19.81 32 13.28 21.30
BSc 0 0.00 0.00 40 31.50 9.71 40 16.60 9.71
B.Ed 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
M.Ed 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Unknown 16 14.04 22.60 33 25.98 27.47 49 20.33 25.88
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 25 of 36
Table 5.6: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by teacher qualification
Teacher Qualification
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Matric 28 22.40 70.69 0 0.00 0.00 28 11.29 70.69
FA 29 23.20 42.27 35 28.46 46.80 64 25.81 44.75
BA 26 20.80 30.44 0 0.00 0.00 26 10.48 30.44
BSc 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
B.Ed 0 0.00 0.00 23 18.70 21.59 23 9.27 21.59
M.Ed 0 0.00 0.00 28 22.76 33.07 28 11.29 33.07
Unknown 42 33.60 23.52 37 30.08 47.39 79 31.85 34.70
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Relationship of scores to years of teaching experience
Table 5.7: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by years of experience
Years of Experience
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Less than 10 years 0 0.00 0.00 40 31.50 9.71 40 16.60 9.71
Between 10 and 20 years 45 39.47 29.11 23 18.11 14.20 68 28.22 24.07
Between 20 and 30 years 53 46.49 21.95 31 24.41 34.19 84 34.85 26.47
More than 30 years 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Unknown 16 14.04 22.60 33 25.98 27.47 49 20.33 25.88
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.8: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by years of experience
Years of Experience
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Less than 10 years 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Between 10 and 20 years 29 23.20 42.27 23 18.70 21.59 52 20.97 33.12
Between 20 and 30 years 54 43.20 51.31 39 31.71 44.34 93 37.50 48.39
More than 30 years 0 0.00 0.00 24 19.51 34.77 24 9.68 34.77
Unknown 42 33.60 23.52 37 30.08 47.39 79 31.85 34.70
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 26 of 36
Relationship of scores to sex of the teachers
Table 5.9: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by sex of the teachers
Sex of the teachers
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Female 39 34.21 22.18 18 14.17 51.57 57 23.65 31.46
Male 75 65.79 26.27 109 85.83 16.09 184 76.35 20.24
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.10: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by sex of the teachers
Sex of the teachers
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Female 42 33.60 55.87 48 39.02 53.27 90 36.29 54.48
Male 83 66.40 31.78 75 60.98 30.09 158 63.71 30.98
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Scores with comparison to class size
Table 5.11: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by class sizes
Class Sizes
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Less than 10 students 0 0.00 0.00 18 14.17 51.57 18 7.47 51.57
Between 10 and 20 students 16 14.04 22.60 14 11.02 10.60 30 12.45 17.00
Between 20 and 30 students 65 57.02 22.15 22 17.32 14.09 87 36.10 20.11
More than 30 students 33 28.95 31.31 73 57.48 17.74 106 43.98 21.97
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.12: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by class sizes
Class Sizes
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Less than 10 students 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Between 10 and 20 students 14 11.20 26.23 11 8.94 73.04 25 10.08 46.83
Between 20 and 30 students 111 88.80 41.60 75 60.98 30.09 186 75.00 36.96
More than 30 students 0 0.00 0.00 37 30.08 47.39 37 14.92 47.39
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 27 of 36
Availability of electricity
Table 5.13: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students by availability of electricity
Availability of Electricity
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Yes 78 68.42 30.04 40 31.50 9.71 118 48.96 23.15
No 36 31.58 13.66 87 68.50 26.36 123 51.04 22.64
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.14: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students by availability of electricity
Availability of Electricity
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Yes 57 45.60 56.23 28 22.76 33.07 85 34.27 48.60
No 68 54.40 26.17 95 77.24 40.93 163 65.73 34.77
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Distance from school
Table 5.15: Average scores (%) of grade 4 students
by school distance from main road
Distance from main road
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Less than 1 KM 75 65.79 26.27 22 17.32 14.09 97 40.25 23.51
Less than 2 KM 23 20.18 21.88 23 18.11 39.06 46 19.09 30.47
Less than 5 KM 0 0.00 0.00 49 38.58 11.56 49 20.33 11.56
More than 5 KM 16 14.04 22.60 33 25.98 27.47 49 20.33 25.88
Total 114 100.00 24.87 127 100.00 21.12 241 100.00 22.89
Table 5.16: Average scores (%) of grade 5 students
by school distance from main road
Distance from main road
Treatment Control Overall
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores N
Column N %
Avg. Scores
N Column
N % Avg.
Scores
Less than 1 KM 26 20.80 30.44 52 42.28 33.85 78 31.45 32.71
Less than 2 KM 28 22.40 70.69 34 27.64 38.24 62 25.00 52.89
Less than 5 KM 29 23.20 42.27 0 0.00 0.00 29 11.69 42.27
More than 5 KM 42 33.60 23.52 37 30.08 47.39 79 31.85 34.70
Total 125 100.00 39.88 123 100.00 39.14 248 100.00 39.51
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 28 of 36
5.5 Score sheets of grade IV students
Table 5.17: Score sheet of grade IV students
Grade SID Section Roll No. Sex School UC Status Score
4 5 A 1 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 25.0
4 5 A 2 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 15.0
4 5 A 3 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 21.7
4 5 A 4 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 20.0
4 5 A 5 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 1.7
4 5 A 6 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 6.7
4 5 A 7 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 10.0
4 5 A 8 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 5.0
4 5 A 11 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 1.7
4 5 A 12 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 0.0
4 5 A 13 M GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 0.0
4 5 A 17 F GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 13.3
4 5 A 20 F GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 11.7
4 5 A 21 F GPS Sugdhar Talhatta Control 16.7
4 8 A 2 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 40.0
4 8 A 3 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 36.7
4 8 A 4 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 41.7
4 8 A 5 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 33.3
4 8 A 6 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 38.3
4 8 A 7 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 45.0
4 8 A 8 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 48.3
4 8 A 9 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 45.0
4 8 A 10 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 38.3
4 8 A 11 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 53.3
4 8 A 13 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 38.3
4 8 A 14 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 28.3
4 8 A 15 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 30.0
4 8 A 16 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 28.3
4 8 A 17 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 38.3
4 8 A 18 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 36.7
4 8 A 19 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 30.0
4 8 A 20 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 31.7
4 8 A 21 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 36.7
4 8 A 22 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 26.7
4 8 A 23 F GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 35.0
4 8 A 27 M GPS Shoal Najaf Khan Balakot Treatment 26.7
4 21 A 1 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 73.3
4 21 A 2 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 78.3
4 21 A 3 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 85.0
4 21 A 4 M GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 86.7
4 21 A 5 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 86.7
4 21 A 6 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 81.7
4 21 A 7 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 86.7
4 21 A 8 M GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 85.0
4 21 A 9 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 86.7
4 23 A 1 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 15.0
4 23 A 2 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 23.3
4 23 A 3 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 23 A 4 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 23 A 5 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 10.0
4 23 A 6 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 23.3
4 23 A 7 M GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 35.0
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 29 of 36
Table 5.17: Score sheet of grade IV students
4 23 A 8 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 18.3
4 23 A 9 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 18.3
4 23 A 10 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 16.7
4 23 A 11 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 21.7
4 23 A 12 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 8.3
4 23 A 13 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 8.3
4 23 A 14 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.0
4 23 A 15 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 23 A 16 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 11.7
4 23 A 17 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 23 A 18 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 21.7
4 23 A 19 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 23 A 20 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 15.0
4 23 A 21 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 23 A 22 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 23 A 23 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 21.7
4 41 A 1 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 26.7
4 41 A 3 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 25.0
4 41 A 4 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 1.7
4 41 A 5 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 6.7
4 41 A 6 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 15.0
4 41 A 7 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 13.3
4 41 A 8 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 18.3
4 41 A 9 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 3.3
4 41 A 10 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 18.3
4 41 A 11 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 15.0
4 41 A 13 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 25.0
4 41 A 12 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 5.0
4 41 A 14 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 1.7
4 41 A 15 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 5.0
4 41 A 17 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 23.3
4 41 A 19 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 3.3
4 41 A 20 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 6.7
4 41 A 21 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 23.3
4 41 A 22 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 20.0
4 41 A 23 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 18.3
4 41 A 24 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 15.0
4 41 A 25 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 20.0
4 51 A 1 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 8.3
4 51 A 2 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 13.3
4 51 A 3 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 13.3
4 51 A 5 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 8.3
4 51 A 7 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 3.3
4 51 A 8 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 3.3
4 51 A 9 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 0.0
4 51 A 10 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 5.0
4 51 A 11 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 8.3
4 51 A 13 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 13.3
4 51 A 14 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 6.7
4 51 A 15 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 8.3
4 51 A 16 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 18.3
4 51 A 17 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 0.0
4 51 A 18 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 1.7
4 51 A 19 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 5.0
4 51 A 20 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 6.7
4 51 A 21 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 5.0
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 30 of 36
Table 5.17: Score sheet of grade IV students
4 51 A 22 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 0.0
4 51 A 23 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 1.7
4 55 A 1 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 33.3
4 55 A 2 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 3 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 13.3
4 55 A 4 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 5 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 23.3
4 55 A 6 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 7 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 13.3
4 55 A 8 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 6.7
4 55 A 9 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 10 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 11 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 8.3
4 55 A 12 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 13 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 14 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 10.0
4 55 A 15 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 16 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 8.3
4 55 A 17 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 18 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 19 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 10.0
4 55 A 20 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 10.0
4 55 A 21 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 13.3
4 55 A 22 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 13.3
4 55 A 23 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 21.7
4 55 A 24 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 10.0
4 55 A 25 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 26 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 27 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 8.3
4 55 A 28 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 29 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 10.0
4 55 A 30 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 11.7
4 55 A 31 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 6.7
4 55 A 32 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 33 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 15.0
4 55 A 34 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 8.3
4 55 A 35 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 31.7
4 55 A 36 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 6.7
4 55 A 37 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 5.0
4 55 A 38 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 3.3
4 55 A 39 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 11.7
4 55 A 40 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Control 16.7
4 59 A 1 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 59 A 2 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 38.3
4 59 A 3 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 35.0
4 59 A 4 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 23.3
4 59 A 5 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 59 A 6 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 59 A 7 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 59 A 8 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 59 A 9 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 59 A 10 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 38.3
4 59 A 11 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 51.7
4 59 A 12 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 23.3
4 59 A 13 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 59 A 15 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 40.0
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 31 of 36
Table 5.17: Score sheet of grade IV students
4 59 A 16 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 59 A 17 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 38.3
4 59 A 18 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 48.3
4 59 A 20 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 30.0
4 59 A 22 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 18.3
4 59 A 23 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 46.7
4 59 A 25 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 59 A 26 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 33.3
4 59 A 27 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 38.3
4 59 A 28 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.0
4 59 A 30 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 59 A 31 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 43.3
4 59 A 32 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 35.0
4 59 A 34 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.0
4 59 A 35 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 40.0
4 59 A 36 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 16.7
4 59 A 41 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 18.3
4 59 A 42 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 16.7
4 59 A 49 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 15.0
4 59 B 1 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 35.0
4 59 B 4 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 38.3
4 59 B 5 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 33.3
4 59 B 6 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 8.3
4 59 B 7 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 59 B 8 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 36.7
4 59 B 10 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 28.3
4 59 B 12 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 21.7
4 59 B 13 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 31.7
4 59 B 15 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 59 B 17 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 33.3
4 59 B 18 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 20.0
4 59 B 19 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 11.7
4 59 B 20 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 15.0
4 59 B 21 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 21.7
4 59 B 22 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 33.3
4 59 B 24 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 26.7
4 59 B 25 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 23.3
4 59 B 26 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 28.3
4 59 B 27 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 59 B 28 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 16.7
4 59 B 29 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 35.0
4 59 B 31 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 31.7
4 59 B 34 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 21.7
4 59 B 35 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 59 B 36 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 59 B 37 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 35.0
4 59 B 38 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 59 B 39 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 21.7
4 59 B 41 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 31.7
4 59 B 42 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 25.0
4 59 B 45 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 31.7
4 59 B 52 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 66 A 1 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 18.3
4 66 A 3 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 15.0
4 66 A 4 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 16.7
4 66 A 5 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 20.0
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 32 of 36
Table 5.17: Score sheet of grade IV students
4 66 A 6 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 11.7
4 66 A 7 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 18.3
4 66 A 9 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 30.0
4 66 A 10 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 21.7
4 66 A 11 F GGPS Bagal Char Gari Habibullah Control 26.7
4 70 A 1 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 70 A 2 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 11.7
4 70 A 4 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 18.3
4 70 A 8 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 20.0
4 70 A 9 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 70 A 11 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 70 A 13 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 70 A 14 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 70 A 15 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 31.7
4 70 A 16 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 70 A 17 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 28.3
4 70 A 18 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 8.3
4 70 A 19 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 18.3
4 70 A 20 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 16.7
4 70 A 24 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 26.7
4 70 A 25 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 15.0
5.6 Score sheets of grade V students
Table 5.18: Score sheet of grade V students
Grade SID Section Roll No. Sex School UC Status Score
5 11 A 1 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 1.7
5 11 A 2 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 17.2
5 11 A 3 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 39.7
5 11 A 4 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 19.0
5 11 A 5 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 25.9
5 11 A 6 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 31.0
5 11 A 7 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 22.4
5 11 A 8 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 15.5
5 11 A 9 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 10.3
5 11 A 10 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 25.9
5 11 A 11 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 29.3
5 11 A 12 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 13.8
5 11 A 14 M GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 24.1
5 11 A 16 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 1.7
5 11 A 17 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 15.5
5 11 A 18 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 25.9
5 11 A 19 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 41.4
5 11 A 20 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 31.0
5 11 A 21 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 15.5
5 11 A 22 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 29.3
5 11 A 23 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 8.6
5 11 A 24 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 27.6
5 11 A 25 F GPS Zameeri Talhatta Control 24.1
5 21 A 1 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 75.9
5 21 A 4 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 75.9
5 21 A 5 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 75.9
5 21 A 7 M GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 74.1
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 33 of 36
Table 5.18: Score sheet of grade V students
5 21 A 9 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 75.9
5 21 A 11 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 70.7
5 21 A 15 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 79.3
5 21 A 16 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 69.0
5 21 A 17 M GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 72.4
5 21 A 19 M GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 60.3
5 21 A 20 F GGPS Balakot Balakot Control 74.1
5 23 A 1 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 77.6
5 23 A 2 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 75.9
5 23 A 3 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 72.4
5 23 A 4 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 69.0
5 23 A 5 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 75.9
5 23 A 6 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 72.4
5 23 A 7 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 75.9
5 23 A 8 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 67.2
5 23 A 9 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 79.3
5 23 A 11 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 67.2
5 23 A 13 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 75.9
5 23 A 14 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 70.7
5 23 A 15 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 75.9
5 23 A 16 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 67.2
5 23 A 17 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 70.7
5 23 A 18 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 70.7
5 23 A 19 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 72.4
5 23 A 20 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 69.0
5 23 A 21 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 77.6
5 23 A 22 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 51.7
5 23 A 26 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 65.5
5 23 A 27 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 56.9
5 23 A 28 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 74.1
5 23 A 29 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 70.7
5 23 A 31 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 60.3
5 23 A 30 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 75.9
5 23 A 32 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 70.7
5 23 A 33 F GGPS Ghari Habibullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 70.7
5 41 A 1 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 24.1
5 41 A 5 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 6 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 37.9
5 41 A 7 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 48.3
5 41 A 8 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 9 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 36.2
5 41 A 10 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 15.5
5 41 A 12 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 31.0
5 41 A 13 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 14 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 36.2
5 41 A 15 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 16 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 29.3
5 41 A 17 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 22 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 23 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 39.7
5 41 A 24 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 39.7
5 41 A 25 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 37.9
5 41 A 26 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 37.9
5 41 A 27 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 37.9
5 41 A 28 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 41 A 31 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 37.9
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 34 of 36
Table 5.18: Score sheet of grade V students
5 41 A 33 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 41.4
5 41 A 34 F GPS Banphora Balakot Control 27.6
5 41 A 35 M GPS Banphora Balakot Control 34.5
5 51 A 1 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 51.7
5 51 A 2 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 50.0
5 51 A 3 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 12.1
5 51 A 4 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 22.4
5 51 A 5 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 27.6
5 51 A 6 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 37.9
5 51 A 8 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 22.4
5 51 A 10 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 36.2
5 51 A 11 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 25.9
5 51 A 12 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 17.2
5 51 A 13 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 22.4
5 51 A 14 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 44.8
5 51 A 15 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 46.6
5 51 A 16 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 15.5
5 51 A 17 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 37.9
5 51 A 18 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 15.5
5 51 A 19 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 34.5
5 51 A 21 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 27.6
5 51 A 24 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 29.3
5 51 A 27 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 24.1
5 51 A 28 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 25.9
5 51 A 30 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 27.6
5 51 A 31 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 29.3
5 51 A 33 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 53.4
5 51 A 34 M GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 31.0
5 51 A 35 F GPS Jagir Karnol Treatment 22.4
5 55 A 1 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 34.5
5 55 A 2 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 34.5
5 55 A 3 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 44.8
5 55 A 4 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 34.5
5 55 A 6 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 48.3
5 55 A 7 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 41.4
5 55 A 8 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 55.2
5 55 A 9 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 50.0
5 55 A 11 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 31.0
5 55 A 12 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 60.3
5 55 A 13 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 31.0
5 55 A 14 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 53.4
5 55 A 15 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 39.7
5 55 A 16 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 48.3
5 55 A 17 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 20.7
5 55 A 18 M GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 25.9
5 55 A 19 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 48.3
5 55 A 20 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 46.6
5 55 A 21 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 36.2
5 55 A 22 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 58.6
5 55 A 23 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 55.2
5 55 A 24 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 31.0
5 55 A 25 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 39.7
5 55 A 26 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 44.8
5 55 A 27 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 34.5
5 55 A 28 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 48.3
5 55 A 29 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 41.4
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 35 of 36
Table 5.18: Score sheet of grade V students
5 55 A 30 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 34.5
5 55 A 31 F GPS Talhatta Talhatta Treatment 53.4
5 59 A 1 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 48.3
5 59 A 2 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 56.9
5 59 A 3 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 56.9
5 59 A 4 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 31.0
5 59 A 6 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 48.3
5 59 A 6 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 15.5
5 59 A 7 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 19.0
5 59 A 8 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 24.1
5 59 A 9 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 34.5
5 59 A 11 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 29.3
5 59 A 12 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 19.0
5 59 A 13 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 29.3
5 59 A 14 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 29.3
5 59 A 15 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 13.8
5 59 A 16 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 32.8
5 59 A 17 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 62.1
5 59 A 18 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 19.0
5 59 A 19 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 29.3
5 59 A 21 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 31.0
5 59 A 22 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 19.0
5 59 A 23 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 55.2
5 59 A 24 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 55.2
5 59 A 25 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 50.0
5 59 A 28 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 24.1
5 59 A 29 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 25.9
5 59 A 30 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 20.7
5 59 A 31 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 22.4
5 59 A 35 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Control 24.1
5 59 B 1 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 20.7
5 59 B 2 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 24.1
5 59 B 4 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 20.7
5 59 B 6 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.9
5 59 B 7 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 17.2
5 59 B 8 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 24.1
5 59 B 9 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 20.7
5 59 B 10 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 32.8
5 59 B 11 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 19.0
5 59 B 12 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 29.3
5 59 B 13 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 27.6
5 59 B 14 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 8.6
5 59 B 15 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 6.9
5 59 B 16 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.9
5 59 B 17 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 20.7
5 59 B 18 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.9
5 59 B 19 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 24.1
5 59 B 20 F GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 22.4
5 59 B 21 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 19.0
5 59 B 22 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 24.1
5 59 B 23 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 19.0
5 59 B 24 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 19.0
5 59 B 25 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 22.4
5 59 B 26 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 29.3
5 59 B 27 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 22.4
5 59 B 28 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 27.6
Ilm on Wheels Project Baseline Assessment Report TeleTaleem
Page 36 of 36
Table 5.18: Score sheet of grade V students
5 59 B 29 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 25.9
5 59 B 30 M GPS Ghari Habib Ullah Gari Habibullah Treatment 15.5
5 70 A 1 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 13.8
5 70 A 3 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 29.3
5 70 A 6 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 24.1
5 70 A 7 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 10.3
5 70 A 8 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 24.1
5 70 A 11 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 20.7
5 70 A 12 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 29.3
5 70 A 13 F GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 19.0
5 70 A 15 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 36.2
5 70 A 17 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 43.1
5 70 A 18 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 36.2
5 70 A 19 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 37.9
5 70 A 21 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 32.8
5 70 A 24 M GGPS Hassari Gari Habibullah Treatment 10.3
5 71 A 2 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 70.7
5 71 A 3 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 22.4
5 71 A 4 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 24.1
5 71 A 6 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 62.1
5 71 A 7 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 32.8
5 71 A 8 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 36.2
5 71 A 10 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 46.6
5 71 A 14 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 44.8
5 71 A 15 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 34.5
5 71 A 18 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 63.8
5 71 A 21 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 51.7
5 71 A 22 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 56.9
5 71 A 23 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 46.6
5 71 A 24 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 39.7
5 71 A 25 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 53.4
5 71 A 26 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 24.1
5 71 A 27 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 60.3
5 71 A 28 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 51.7
5 71 A 29 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 56.9
5 71 A 30 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 56.9
5 71 A 31 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 32.8
5 71 A 32 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 31.0
5 71 A 33 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 56.9
5 71 A 34 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 51.7
5 71 A 36 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 50.0
5 71 A 37 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 53.4
5 71 A 38 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 70.7
5 71 A 39 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 25.9
5 71 A 40 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 41.4
5 71 A 41 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 65.5
5 71 A 42 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 51.7
5 71 A 43 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 51.7
5 71 A 44 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 41.4
5 71 A 45 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 58.6
5 71 A 46 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 51.7
5 71 A 47 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 44.8
5 71 A 49 F GGPS Narrah Garlat Control 37.9