AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY

SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT, ZAMBIA

BY

MUKUNGA MICHAEL

A dissertation submitted to the University of Zambia in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Education in Applied Linguistics.

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

LUSAKA

2023
 COPY RIGHT DECLARATION

All rights reserved. No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopy, recovery or otherwise without
prior written permission from the author or the University of Zambia.

i
 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, Michael Lindumbo Mukunga, do hereby declare that this piece of work is my own, and that all
the work of other persons has been duly acknowledged, and that this work has not been
previously presented at this University and indeed at any other Universities for similar purposes.

Author’s Signature: .........................................

Date: ..................................................................

ii
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This dissertation by Michael Lindumbo Mukunga is approved as fulfilling part of the

requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Education in Applied Linguistics.

Signed...............................................................Date..............................................................

Signed..............................................................Date...............................................................

Signed..............................................................Date................................................................

iii
 ABSTRACT

This study evaluated the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in improving
learners’ reading performance in Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school in Mazabuka district,
Zambia. The research’s objectives were to; assess the teachers’ understanding of the Catch-Up
programme, describe the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial
teaching/learning, evaluate the efficacy of Catch-Up remedial teaching in improving learners’
reading performance, and establish the challenges teachers were facing in implementing remedial
teaching at Mazabuka primary school.

This research was a single case study. Qualitative methods of data collection were used. The
study engaged 29 participants who were purposively selected. Moreover, Mazabuka primary
school was purposively selected because it is one of the schools that implements the Catch-Up
remedial teaching programme in Zambia. The data collected through focus group discussions,
interviews, and lesson observation was categorised and emerging themes were analysed by the
researcher.

The findings revealed that the number of learners who advanced to story level, the highest level
in literacy remediation of the Catch-Up programme at Mazabuka primary school increased from
129 (baseline) to 199 (endline). It was also revealed that most of the teachers with appropriate
training in Catch-Up had a general understanding of what remedial teaching was all about.
Furthermore, most of the teachers and learners emphasised that remedial lessons were
intellectually enriching experiences to them. Additionally, it was revealed that remedial teachers
faced certain challenges in implementing remedial teaching. Some of the challenges mentioned
included lack of trained human resource and timetabling of remedial lessons.

The study among others recommends the training for both in-service and student teachers in
remedial teaching. The study also recommends the motivation and counselling of learners on the
significance of remedial lessons. These recommendations can help mitigate some of the
challenges faced in implementing Catch-Up such as; lack of trained human resource, and
negative attitude towards the programme.

Keywords: Remedial teaching, Catch-Up remedial teaching programme, Efficacy, Chitonga,

Literacy, Mazabuka primary school.
iv
 DEDICATION

I wish to dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Ms Hilda Kalimbwe, and my immediate elder
sister, Ms Patience Mukunga. If it was not for their endless support and love, this would not have
been possible.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Professor P.C. Manchishi my supervisor, for reading through my work and
giving me feedback on time. He relentlessly guided me until I finished the programme.

I would like to acknowledge Professor D.S. Mwanza and Mr B. B. Kalunga for their assistance
and encouragement. Thank you very much, you were very influential in my academic
endeavours.

To all the staff on the Master of Education in Applied Linguistics programme, I say thank you,
for you played a critical role in shaping me into the scholar I am today.

I would like to extend my regards to Mr Benson Mkandawire, and all the staff on the Literacy
and Languages programme, thank you very much for being part of my academic journey.

To my family: both the Mukungas and Kalimbwes. I thank you for your encouragement,
patience, help and criticism.

My friends: Samson Mulumbwa, Mwiba Edwin, Morris Chapusha, Rosemary Shawa and
Mudenda Nchangani deserve special mention, for being there for me in both good and bad times.
I also wish to acknowledge Chester Mwanza. We started this journey together, with nothing but
hope, thank you for the encouragement and support.

To my late loved ones: Simon Kalimbwe, Maria Mwechenu, Constance Mukunga, and Mildred
Mukunga, you still remain dear to me.

Finally, I want to acknowledge everyone that has helped me either directly or indirectly during
my studies. Thank you very much.

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: Catch-Up lesson plan……………………………………………………...54

Table 5.2: Mazabuka primary school Catch-Up Baseline data-2021……………...…59

Table 5.3: Mazabuka primary school Catch-Up Midline data-2021…………………59

Table 5.4: Mazabuka primary school Catch-Up Endline data-2021……….......…….60

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: TaRL reading assessment tools 12

Figure 2.2: Catch-Up literacy assessment tool 13

Figure 2.3: Catch-Up literacy assessment tool (Chitonga) 14

Figure 3.4: Catch-Up pilot baseline literacy results 34

Figure 5.5: Zone share: Total learners assessed at midline 61

Figure 5.6: Mazabuka data analysis: Learners who can read at least a simple paragraph 62

Figure 5.7: Year-over-Year learning outcomes for pilot and scale years 63

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

DEBs District Education Board Secretary

DRCC District Resource Centre Coordinator

EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment

HSS Humanities and Social Sciences

J-PAL Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab

LEGO foundation leg godt foundation

MESVTEE Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MoE Ministry of Education

PLP Primary Literacy Programme

RTI Research Triangle Institute

TaRL Teaching at the Right Level

UNICEF The United Nations International Children’s Fund

UNZA The University of Zambia

USAID U.S Agency for International Development

VVOB Flemish Association for Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance

ZICs Zonal Inservice Coordinators

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COPY RIGHT DECLARATION ................................................................................................. i

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION .................................................................................................... ii

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL .............................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv

DEDICATION............................................................................................................................... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. x

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Statement of the problem ................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Purpose of the study ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Research questions .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Significance of the study ................................................................................................................. 5
1.8 Delimitation of the study................................................................................................................. 6
1.9 Limitations of the study .................................................................................................................. 6
1.10 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................. 6
1.11 Operational definition of terms ..................................................................................................... 8
1.12 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 10

THE CATCH-UP PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 10

x
 2.2 Assessment and grouping of learners into levels .......................................................................... 10
2.3 Catch-Up remedial lesson practices .............................................................................................. 15
2.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 29

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............................................................................................. 29

3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching ....................................................................... 29
3.3 Teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning ................................... 31
3.4 Efficacy of remedial teaching ....................................................................................................... 33
3.5 Challenges associated with remedial teaching .............................................................................. 37
3.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................... 40

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 40
4.2 Research Paradigm........................................................................................................................ 40
4.3 Research Design............................................................................................................................ 40
4.4 Target Population .......................................................................................................................... 40
4.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample size ......................................................................................... 41
4.6 Research Instruments .................................................................................................................... 41
4.7 Data collection procedure ............................................................................................................. 42
4.8 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 42
4.9 Ethical Consideration .................................................................................................................... 43
4.10 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 44

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 44

5.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 44
5.2 What are the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching? ........................................................ 44
5.3 What are the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning? ............. 48
5.4 Lesson observation........................................................................................................................ 51
5.6 How effective is remedial teaching (Catch-Up)? .......................................................................... 56
5.7 Findings from the DRCC and VVOB ........................................................................................... 60

xi
 5.8 What are the challenges teachers are facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka
primary school? ................................................................................................................................... 64
5.9 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................................... 70

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 70

6.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 70
6.2 Teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching ............................................................................. 70
6.3 The teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning ............................. 71
6.4 Efficacy of remedial teaching in improving learners’ literacy performance in Chitonga at
Mazabuka primary school ................................................................................................................... 73
6.5 The challenges teachers were facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka primary
school .................................................................................................................................................. 75
6.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 76
CHAPTER SEVEN..................................................................................................................... 77

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................... 77

7.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 77
7.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 77
7.2.1 Assess the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching .......................................................... 77
7.2.2 Describe the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning ..... 77
7.2.3 Evaluate the efficacy of remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading performance .. 78
7.2.4 Establish the challenges teachers were facing in remedial teaching at Mazabuka primary
school 78
7.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 79
7.4 Suggestions for future research ............................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 81

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 87

APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................................... 87
UNZA DATA COLLECTION PERMISSION LETTER ................................................................... 87
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................... 88
CONSENT FORM .............................................................................................................................. 88
APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................................... 89
INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH THE EDUCATION MANAGER AT VVOB ..................................... 89
APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................................... 91

xii
 INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH THE DRCC ......................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX E ......................................................................................................................................... 93
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE WITH TEACHERS .......................................................... 93
APPENDIX F.......................................................................................................................................... 94
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE WITH LEARNERS .......................................................... 94
APPENDIX G ......................................................................................................................................... 95
INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH HEAD TEACHERS/SENIOR TEACHERS ....................................... 95
APPENDIX H ......................................................................................................................................... 96
LESSON OBSERVATION CHECKLIST ......................................................................................... 96

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview
This chapter presents the background of the study, including the statement of the problem,
research objectives and the questions. It also contains the purpose of the study, the significance
of the study, delimitation, limitations, the theoretical framework, and operational definition of
terms.

1.2 Background
According to Gottlieb and William (1987) the history of remedial teaching can be traced back as
far as the nineteenth century. In the early 1900s, issues having to do with the planning of
remedial work for learners with reading challenges and the first remedial reading textbooks in
the United States were published. Additionally, research-based reading instruction and initiatives
such as the No Child left behind act of 2001 started to draw attention (McCormick and Zutell
2014). These events are arguably among some of the notable trends that contributed to the
advancement of remedial teaching.

Mainly because there have been different approaches to remedial teaching over the years,
definitions of the term have themselves varied. Wu (2012) describes remedial teaching as a
pedagogic practice that involves the formulation of techniques aimed at helping students facing
challenges in understanding academic content. Schwartz (2012: 6) defines remedial teaching as
“specific educational interventions aimed at addressing learning needs of a targeted group of
children who are lagging behind academically.” In other words, the above-mentioned practice
involves the assisted development of a learner’s abilities by an educator. In the context of
language teaching, this assistance could be in reading, writing or speaking.

In line with the above, Schwartz (2012: 25), suggested that in the delivery of remedial teaching,
“a teacher is supposed to teach the lessons again and provide additional teaching on parts of
lessons that students have yet to understand, put the slower learners at the front of the class, work
directly with students not learning well in a small group, let weaker students work in a mixed
group with other children who understand, and organise a remedial class.”

1
Additionally, according to Morgan and Shield (1998), as cited in Musongole (2019), other
strategies that can be employed during remedial teaching include the employment of diverse
learning activities, designing meaningful learning solutions, summarising main points,
enhancement of learning interests and motivation, encouraging pupils’ active participation in
class activities, focusing on the learning process, and showing concern for the performance of
individual pupils. This inventory of features shows that remedial teaching is eclectic in nature,
and the combination of different techniques and methods allows for inventiveness and diversity
in lesson delivery. Furthermore, it can be argued that this approach is learner-centred, and this is
crucial because focusing on the various learning needs of the student is among the key
ingredients in the teaching and learning process (Munsaka 2011).

Apart from aiding in the improvement of learners’ performance, it can be argued that one of the
major roles of remedial teaching is to promote inclusive learning, which Salvia, Ysseldyke and
Bolt (2010: 420) defined as “Education of people with and without disabilities in the same
classes or school environments.” This is so because, according to Anderson and O’Neil (2006) as
cited in Jones (2009: 37) “there are other ways of orienting services towards disadvantaged
groups. Education can target girls and other excluded groups through gender-specific or
multilingual schools, or remedial education programmes can be provided in areas where there are
likely to be significant numbers of students lagging behind.” Similarly, Nkosha, Masaiti and Al
(2016) recommended that in order to improve the results of disadvantaged children and girls in
rural areas, stakeholders should provide feedback and remedial educational opportunities to
them. This means that, when learners are not excluded from the learning process, they may find
it easier to participate in various classroom activities. This may not only boost their confidence;
it may also help them improve in their academics.

Countries such as Vietnam, Benin, Cameroon, Guyana, Kenya and Rwanda have fashioned
remedial teaching programmes targeted at benefiting out of school children and youths. For
instance, in Cameroon, the main goal of their remedial teaching programme was to address high
repetition and advance internal competence by promoting remediation and pedagogical support
for students facing challenges (Schwartz 2012).

Currently, Zambia is running a literacy programme titled the Primary Literacy Programme
(PLP). This programme is focused on five key competence skills in literacy instruction, which

2
are, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The method of
literacy instruction under this programme is one that sees learners being introduced to phonics
(demonstrating the relationship between the sounds and letters of the target language) in early
Grades using the seven official Zambian local languages of education, namely; Icibemba, Tonga,
Lozi, Lunda, Luvale, Cinyanja and Kikaonde (Chibamba, Mkandawire, and Tambulukani 2018).

A number of studies have been conducted to determine whether or not the PLP has had major
impact on the literacy situation in Zambia. For instance, Phiri (2015) did a study targeted at
grade four learners in Lusaka district, Zambia. This study was concerned with determining the
challenges and preventive measures that can be put in place to curb the reading difficulties faced
by grade four learners. Phiri (2015) informed that the literacy skills of the pupils at the schools
involved in the study were low. In order to combat these and similar challenges affecting the
education sector in Zambia, the 2013 Zambia education curriculum framework, among others,
recommended that “institutions of learning should put in place measures to promote Equity and
Equality in their programmes. These may include...providing appropriate support systems such
as bursary schemes, provision of school meals and remedial activities for slow learners”
(Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training, and Early Education 2013: 18). In this
case, equity and equality may refer to both the fair and balanced administration of learning
instructions in order to avoid biases and exclusion of certain learners, particularly disadvantaged
ones.

Furthermore, Murru (2018) informed on a contemporary remedial teaching programme focused

on the improvement of literacy and numeracy in Zambia. The aforementioned remedial teaching
programme (Catch-Up remedial teaching programme) was launched as a pilot in 2016 and ran up
to 2017. This initiative employs the Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) methodology, and
involves the assessment of both numeracy and literacy skills of learners. Depending on their
performance, the pupils are then placed according to their level instead of grade. Some of the key
players in the implementation of this programme at pilot level included the Flemish Association
for Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance (VVOB) Coordinators, District
Resource Centre Coordinators (DRCC), Zonal Inservice Coordinators (ZICs) and senior
teachers. These offered support to the teachers, worked with pupils, demonstrated exercises and

3
gave comments and guidance to the teachers (Innovations for Poverty Action 2017). The training
of remedial teachers was conducted as follows:

A group of master trainers was created, using Ministry staff at

provincial, district, and zone level. This core team was trained
directly by staff from Pratham. This team was complemented by one
NGO member of staff for each district and the NGO senior manager.
This group was responsible for training senior teachers, and then
training teachers. Both the training of the senior teachers and the
training of the teachers took five days. (Innovations for Poverty
Action 2017: 9)

The Catch-Up programme is now in full effect, and has support from various organisations such
as the Ministry of Education (MoE), VVOB, Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) Africa, Abdul
Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) Pratham, The United Nations International Children’s
Fund (UNICEF), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Leg Godt
(LEGO) Foundation, Co-Impact, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the
University of Cape Town.

1.3 Statement of the problem

According to the 2015 Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) conducted by the Research
Triangle Institute (RTI) International, the performance of pupils in Chitonga, the regional official
language used in teaching and learning initial literacy in the Southern Province of Zambia was
low (Research Triangle Institute International 2015). However, the Zambia education curriculum
framework 2013 recommends the delivery of remedial activities to slow learners to help develop
their cognitive abilities (Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early
Education 2013). Furthermore, the Ministry of Education with support from various partners
initiated a remedial teaching intervention titled the Catch-Up. This programme can be said to be
among the approaches that stakeholders have put in place aimed at integrating remedial teaching
in Zambian primary schools (Murru 2018). Therefore, the question one would ask is, how
effective is this intervention at Mazabuka primary school in improving learners’ reading
performance in Chitonga? This research was a single case study. Qualitative methods of data

4
collection were used. The data collected through focus group discussions, interviews, lesson
observation and document analysis was categorised and emerging themes were analysed by the
researcher. This study’s intention to solely focus on Mazabuka primary school was driven by the
fact that the school is among the early adopters of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in
Mazabuka district.

1.4 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching
programme in improving learners’ reading performance in Chitonga at Mazabuka primary
school.

1.5 Objectives
The objectives of this study were to:

1. assess the teachers’ understanding of the Catch-Up programme.

2. describe the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning.
3. evaluate the efficacy of Catch-Up remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading
performance.
4. establish the challenges teachers were facing in implementing remedial teaching at
Mazabuka primary school.

1.6 Research questions

1. What are the teachers’ understanding of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme?
2. What are the teachers and learners' experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning?
3. How effective is the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in improving learners’
reading performance?
4. What are the challenges faced by teachers when implementing Catch-Up remedial
teaching?

1.7 Significance of the study

This study was aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in
improving learners’ reading performance in Chitonga. The findings in this study may be used by
teachers, the Ministry of Education, teacher educators etc, in the implementation of remedial

5
teaching. The study may also add to the body of knowledge about the issues having to do with
remedial teaching in reading.

1.8 Delimitation of the study

This study was conducted in Southern Province. It was limited to grades 3, 4 and 5 primary
school pupils at Mazabuka primary school in Mazabuka district. The aforementioned school and
grades were selected because of their involvement in the Catch-Up remedial teaching
programme.

1.9 Limitations of the study

Because this study was limited to one school, the findings may not be generalised.

1.10 Theoretical framework

The Evaluation theory was the theoretical framework which was adopted to guide this study.

According to Trochim (1998: 248) “Evaluation is a profession that uses formal methodologies to
provide useful empirical evidence about public entities (such as programmes, products,
performance) in decision- making contexts that are inherently political and involve multiple
often-conflicting stakeholders, where resources are seldom sufficient, and where time pressures
are salient.” Therefore, in this study, the Evaluation theory was used to help evaluate how the
Catch-Up remedial teaching programme aids in improving the reading performance of learners
of Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school.

The Evaluation theory has a number of approaches. However, this study adopted the case study
approach. According to Stufflebeam and Coryn (2014) a case study evaluation is mainly
characterised with a detailed, noninterventionist investigation of a case, entailing that the
evaluator carefully investigates a particular phenomenon in its natural setting without interfering.
This makes it possible for the researcher to evaluate and have a better understanding of a case
(Stufflebeam and Coryn 2014). Therefore, making it the appropriate approach to help guide the
evaluation of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in improving the reading performance
of learners.

In most cases, qualitative techniques of data collection are encouraged under the case study
approach. This is because emphasis is placed on the ethnographic nature of a programme, that is,

6
research where the investigator studies a particular case in its natural setting (Creswell and
Creswell 2018). Some of the methods that can be employed in data collection in ethnographic
research include observations, listening, and interviews. These strategies may help shed light on
some doubts, matters of interest, and confusions associated with a case (Stufflebeam and Coryn
2014). This can be relevant in understanding the participants, procedures and the objectives of
the Catch-Up programme.

Furthermore, Stake (1994) stresses on the importance of single case studies as they may help
answer the question of what exactly can evaluators learn from a certain phenomenon. Stake
(1994: 236) argued “that epistemological question is the driving question: What can be learned
from the single case? I will emphasize designing the study to optimize the understanding of the
case rather than generalization beyond.” In other words, rather than disseminating
generalisations, Stake (1994) endorses the idea of publishing specific information that the
audience can consume about a specific subject under evaluation. Therefore, providing a detailed
report to the audience about a given programme.

However, evaluators are also encouraged to focus on involving key players in a programme or
particular field to ensure that the effects of nonprobability sampling are obviated (Stufflebeam
and Coryn 2014). In line with this study, the investigator saw it fit to focus on some of the key
players in the implementation of the Catch-Up programme such as the Flemish Association for
Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance (VVOB) Coordinators, District Resource
Centre Coordinators (DRCC), Zonal Inservice Coordinators (ZICs), senior teachers, and the
pupils meant to take part in Catch-Up. This was done to ensure that the participants were ideal
representatives of the Catch-Up programme. In turn, making it possible for the investigator to
record information as completely as possible, and as pointed out by Stufflebeam and Coryn
(2014) to ascertain that the effects of nonprobability sampling were avoided.

When it comes to the issues of duration, Stake (1994, 1995) contends that a study may not
necessarily need to be bound to time. Stake (1988) maintained that factors such as participants,
setting and sponsorship of a programme, may result in some studies taking longer than others to
be concluded. However, once evaluators believe that they have collected enough data, they are
expected to develop a comprehensive report based on the study’s findings. Generally, evaluators

7
may present findings mainly to aid the audience comprehend a programme and come up with
their own conclusions (Stufflebeam and Coryn 2014).

All in all, in order to evaluate the efficacy of the Catch-Up programme, some of the primary data
was collected through interviews and focus group discussions. Throughout the data collection
procedure, the investigator had to observe, listen, and interview the participants. Some of the
research instruments that were used in this study included focus group discussion guides,
interview guides, and lesson observation checklists, as suggested by Stufflebeam and Coryn
(2014). A detailed breakdown of these and other methods used in this report will be presented in
chapter four.

1.11 Operational definition of terms

Catch-Up: This will refer to the Catch-Up remedial teaching

programme.

Chitonga: This is a chosen regional official language used in

teaching and learning initial literacy in Mazabuka
district, Southern Province.

Efficacy: In this study, Efficacy will refer to remedial

teaching’s ability to aid in improving the reading
performance of learners of Chitonga at Mazabuka
primary school.

Evaluating: This will refer to the assessment of remedial teaching

in improving the reading performance of learners of
Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school.

Improving: This will refer to the intervention’s ability to give

intellectual benefits to grade 3, 4 and 5 pupils of
Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school taking part in
Catch-Up.

8
Learners: These are grade 3, 4 and 5 pupils of Chitonga at
Mazabuka primary school taking part in Catch-Up.

Literacy: This will refer to a learner’s ability to read and write.

Performance: This will refer to the action or process by Catch-Up

learners in executing a task or function in Chitonga.

Primary school: School education of grades 1-7.

Remedial teaching: This will refer to various methods and techniques that
are used by teachers in order to help learners improve
their performance in Chitonga.

Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL): This will refer to a method of teaching Catch-Up
learners at Mazabuka primary school according to
their level, instead of grade.

1.12 Summary
In conclusion, this chapter brought forth the background of the study, including the statement of
the problem and the research objectives. It also contained the purpose of the study and the
significance of the study. Additionally, this chapter presented the delimitation, limitations, the
theoretical framework and the operational definition of terms. The following chapter will present
brief details of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

THE CATCH-UP PROGRAMME

2.1 Overview
This chapter presents brief details of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme. That is, what
the programme is all about and what is aims to achieve. This chapter will also explain on the
grouping of learners into levels, Catch-Up remedial lesson practices, the Teaching at the Right
Level (TaRL) approach, and TaRL reading assessment tools.

2.2 Assessment and grouping of learners into levels

As elucidated earlier, the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme applies the Teaching at the
Right Level methodology, and involves the assessment of both numeracy and literacy skills of
the participants (Pupils). In this case, the right level entails that, depending on the learners’
performance after being assessed, the learners are then placed according to their capabilities
instead of grades (Innovations for Poverty Action 2017).

The Teaching at the Right Level (2021) document contained information on some of the
activities remedial pupils were supposed to be subjected to in order to determine their level. The
document indicated that the Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) methodology is an intricate
approach focused on the improvement of literacy, as it has multiple literacy levels that learners
have to pass in order for them to progress. The reading assessment activities usually comprise of
letters, words, a paragraph, and a short story. Additionally, it is recommended that the
assessment tools should be modified for each novel context, and the stories and paragraphs
should be contextually suitable for the learners. Examples of reading assessment activities and an
assessment tool derived from Teaching at the Right Level (2021) have been presented below.

Letters/Syllables

With letters/syllables, instructors are advised to make use of relevant units in the target language.
This implies that teachers should select a set of letters/syllables that are usually used and that
learners are aware of in a language. The use of letters/ syllables which may be unfamiliar to the
learners or complicated at this level of reading assessment is not encouraged.

10
Words

At this stage, the instructors are encouraged to come up with simple words (learners should be
able to voice and comprehend), with commonly-used sounds, regularly used by 5- to 7-year-old
children in speech.

Paragraph

It is recommended that short paragraphs that consist of fairly familiar words based on grade 1
level text (derived from grade 1 books), appropriate for the learner’s contexts should be used in
assessing pupils. Additionally, the paragraphs should be made up of four sentences (four to five
words in each line). These sentences most be coherent and should be written on a different line.
Complex words such as compound words are discouraged. It is recommended that the instructor
should only add one difficult word, where necessary). The words should all be fairly familiar to
Grade 1 children, with a maximum of one difficult word.

Story

The assessment tool should comprise of seven to ten sentences, with a total of at least 60 words.
It’s also recommended that the story should be about humans as characters, and not animals, to
ensure that it is not too childish for older learners. Additionally, it is advised that words to be
used in the stories should be derived from grade 2 textbooks, and are usually used by grade 2
learners. The learners should be acquainted with the context of the story. The story should not be
complicated; therefore, it needs to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. In certain TaRL
curricula, two to three questions are incorporated in the assessment tool to evaluate learners’
understanding. It is recommended that questions be retrieved from multiple sections of the story.

11
Figure 2.1: TaRL Reading assessment tools

Source: Teaching at the Right Level (2021: 1)

Similarly, under the Catch-Up intervention, the assessment process of learners in literacy
instruction can be broken down into five levels, these are: story level, simple paragraph level,
word level, letter level and beginner level. It is expected that under:

• Story level: The learner can read the story, even if slowly, and makes three or fewer

mistakes.

• Simple paragraph level: The learner can (1) read the paragraph without breaking

sentences into separate words and by making only three or fewer than three mistakes, but

(2) the same learner makes more than three mistakes while reading a story.

• Word level: The learner can read a minimum of four out of five words correctly but

makes more than 3 mistakes when reading the simple paragraph.

12
 • Letter level: The learner can read a minimum of four out of five letters correctly but

cannot read a minimum of four out of five words correctly.

• Beginner level: The learner cannot read four letters or sounds.

(Innovations for Poverty Action 2017: 13)

Additionally, it must be mentioned that the Catch-Up literacy assessment is conducted in local
languages. This is aimed at evaluating what the pupils know, therefore, allowing the instructor to
know where to start from. An example of the Catch-Up literacy assessment tool can be seen
below.

Figure 2.2: Catch-Up literacy assessment tool

Source: Innovations for Poverty Action (2017: 13)

13
The following is a Chitonga equivalent of this assessment tool developed by the author of this
study.

Figure 2.3: Catch-Up literacy assessment tool (Chitonga)

It can be argued that the above gives an insight into how elaborate the assessment and grouping
of learners into levels is under the Catch-Up programme. For instance, the different assessment
samples, be it, letters, words, simple paragraph or story may enable the instructor to determine
whether or not learners are aware of certain letter sounds, how to read a simple paragraph, and
how to read a story in their local language without making a lot of mistakes. In turn, the teacher
may know the difference between what a child may achieve independently and what he or she
can achieve under guidance. This is what is expected from effective remedial teaching when
being employed.

14
2.3 Catch-Up remedial lesson practices

After learners have been assessed and grouped according to their levels by their instructors, they
are expected to attend remedial classes. As mentioned earlier, the Catch-Up remedial lessons are
mainly targeted at grades 3, 4 and 5 learners grouped by level, and the key instructors in this
process are the teachers. The Catch-Up remedial lessons are meant to take place after school
hours for an hour, when pupils have already attended their normal classes. For instance, if 15
learners, five from all three grades (3, 4 and 5) were to be placed in the beginner level after being
assessed, the pupils are expected to receive the same instructions, from the same instructor, using
the same materials or teaching aids, and at the same time regardless of their grades. However,
even after being subjected to an hour of remedial lessons, the learners still maintain their
respective grades and will only return for remedial classes when it is time for Catch-Up. The
Teaching at the Right Level (2021), suggests the following as some of the classroom activities
that should be employed when teaching using the TaRL approach:

1. Informal chat
Level: all
Activity format: whole group
Materials: none
About:
By chatting, and promoting similar oral activities such as storytelling before a lesson, interaction
between the teacher and the pupil is encouraged, resulting in a relaxed atmosphere. This is
beneficial because it does not only help the pupils to express themselves, it also enables them to
rehearse their oral language skills. All in all, it is believed that this tactic makes it easier for
pupils to speak more than teachers during a lesson and actively participate.
Steps:
1. The teacher should begin by greeting the class. This should be followed by talks about
something relevant to the pupils. At this stage, the teacher should be precise, using proper
intonation, pronunciation, and full sentences. Informal chats reinforce learners’ listening
and language comprehension skills, and demonstrates the accurate way of speaking to a
group of people to the learners.

15
 2. The teacher should request the learners to reflect on the story and the manner in which it
was told. Guiding questions could include:
a. What did you think of the story?
b. How did I tell the story? What kind of voice did I use?
c. Who wants to tell a story like me?
3. The teacher can ask the children to share similar stories, encouraging as many children as
possible to participate (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

2. Picture reading
Level: all
Activity format: whole group
Materials:
i. A picture of a scene familiar to the children.
About:
Teachers can use pictures to start classroom discussions. They must emphasise on creative
thinking, and the use of complete sentences when discussing the picture. Additionally, to
encourage learners’ participation in the conversation, teachers are encouraged to use pictures of
familiar illustrations or scenes. It should be mentioned that, in order to draw the pupils in class,
the recommended time for this activity is at the beginning of remedial classes.
Steps:
1. Firstly, the teacher should hold up a picture and ask the children to describe what they
see.
2. The teacher should then pass the picture to the learners, so they can get a closer look.
3. Once a few pupils have made some comments about what they see, the teacher should
ask the class to use the picture to create a full spoken sentence.
4. Engagement is key to the successful implementation of this exercise. Therefore, the
teacher is encouraged to ensure that all the pupils participate. Pupils can also be asked to
generate a story using the picture. For instance, asking the learners to come up with a
word to describe the picture, particularly for pupils at the beginner and letter levels. Once
they are contented with this, the teacher needs to encourage them to use full sentences
(Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

16
 3. Paragraph reading
Level: adapted for all
Activity format: whole Group
Materials:
i. A simple paragraph written on the board or a piece of chart paper.
ii. Booklet with paragraphs for each child (in some contexts, instructors create their
own booklets for the class, writing them in notebooks).
Note: It is important that stories are created with the learners’ context in mind. Learners should
be introduced to reading through simple, engaging texts centring on topics that are familiar and
interesting to them.
About:
Paragraph reading is a remedial activity done every day at each level, as such, it is expected that
the whole group of learners practice reading a simple paragraph together. It is recommended that
pupils should have the chance to rehearse reading simple texts and following along as the text is
being read. This aids in strengthening the learners’ listening skills, to become acquainted with
the process of reading text, and models proper reading behaviour (i.e., fluency, intonation and
pronunciation).
Steps:
1. The teacher should present a simple paragraph to the learners, either on the board or wall.
2. Each pupil must be provided with their own booklet with the same paragraph.
3. The instructor should draw the learners’ attention by asking them to listen carefully as the
paragraph is being read. The teacher should instruct them not to repeat after him/her, but
to simply listen and follow along on the board. The teacher should read clearly, at a
steady pace, while placing his/her finger under the words as they read. This makes it
easier for the learners to follow along.
4. In order to help the learners understand the importance of reading aloud, the teacher
should ask them: “How did I read?” This should be accompanied by a brief discussion
that can help them reflect on intonation, timing, punctuation and vocal projection
(depending on the class level).
5. The teacher should engage some of the learners by requesting them to read the paragraph
for the class, in a similar manner.

17
 6. The teacher should boost discussions about reading styles, and allow as many learners as
possible the chance to read for the class.
7. finally, the teacher should encourage the learners to follow along in their own booklets. It
is believed that at the beginner, letter, and word level, pupils start to comprehend the
process of reading, and develop a fondness for daily reading (Teaching at the Right Level
2021).

4. Mind map
Level: adapted for all
Activity format: whole group, small group,
and individual
Materials:
i. Chalk
ii. Writing surface (floor or board)
About:
Activities that require brainstorming and mapping out of thoughts before forming words,
paragraphs, or stories can aid learners to develop the ability to plan and organise words and
sentences while having fun in their local languages. All levels conducting remedial lessons can
take part in the mind map exercise. It is recommended that this activity should be done as a
whole group, to make the learners familiar. Thereafter, it can be done in small groups, and
individually.

Steps:
1. The teacher must ask the learners to brainstorm a few words. In situations where the there
are certain learners that need assistance, the teacher can guide them by asking about their
favourite things.
2. As the learners utter their words out loud, the teacher should write them on the board.
The teacher must take note of all of their utterances, and in order to encourage full
participation, allow them to express themselves freely. In situations where learners fail to
comprehend a topic (for example: school, textbook, pen, teacher), the teacher should
instruct them to think outside the box and come up with a totally different word.

18
 3. Once the teacher has a variety of words written on the board, he/she can ask the learners
to select one, then circle the word the pupils pick and erase the others.
4. The teacher must ask the learners to find connecting words (for example, if the circled
word is tree, children might say: green, fruit, garden, etc), then draw lines and write the
connecting words around the chosen word.
5. After a variety of words have been written, the teacher should ask the learners to come up
with sentences using the circled word and one connecting word. At this stage, pupils can
utter the sentences without writing them. The teacher must encourage as many learners as
possible to participate.
6. At this stage, the teacher must put the learners into smaller groups and ask them to repeat
the exercise. Once they have written their own mind maps, the teacher must instruct them
to write sentences in groups. If the pupils have understood the activity, they can create
their own sentences individually and link them up to form a short paragraph or story.
7. Mind map exercises can be varied for learners at the beginner and letter levels, by
beginning with letters and connecting them to vowels to form phonemes. For story-level
pupils, the activity can be extended by asking the pupils to brainstorm ideas, phrases, or
sentences rather than words (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

5. Phonetic/Syllabic chart
Level: beginner and letter
Activity format: whole group, small group,
and individual
Materials:
i. A large phoneme chart (sometimes called a syllabic chart; in some places, TaRL
instructors use chart paper to create their own chart based on a smaller printed copy they
receive at training).
ii. Small copies of the phoneme chart for each child.
About:
The phonetic chart aids learners to develop the ability to relate the sounds they hear with specific
written letters and amalgamation of letters. Teachers implement this strategy when instructing
beginner and letter level learners, that need to rehearse the recognition of sounds, pairing the

19
sounds to letters, and merging sounds to form words. Learners are supposed to read the chart for
a few minutes every day. In order to promote continuous practice, learners are expected to have
their own miniature form of the chart, which they can carry and use at home. This practice,
especially in a low-pressure setting (environment) may help learners build on their phonetic
awareness (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).
Steps:
1. The teacher must commence the lesson by making use of the learners’ prior knowledge.
For instance, he/she can link the chart to something the learners already know, like their
favourite word. The teacher should encourage the learners to pay attention, and to take
note of the sounds in the word. Therefore, if a pupil gives an answer such as ‘Nsima’ the
teacher must ask the class to reflect on the sounds: /n/ /s/ /m/ and /a/. Then, identify these
sounds on the chart. This helps pupils to relate words they are aware of, to the less
familiar symbols on the chart.
2. The teacher should ask the learners to carefully listen and watch as he/she reads the
phonemes on the chart.
3. The teacher must request the learners to utter the sounds as he/she points, and needs to
enquire if pupils are able to recognise the phonemes on their own chart. The teacher
should start the exercise by going from left to right. Ensuring that his/her finger is placed
under each sound which is being read. Then, the instructor must vary the order, reading
the words at random. This technique is necessary because asking the learners to identify
phonemes out of order makes sure that they’re actually remembering which written
phonemes represent which sound, rather than remembering a sequence of sounds.
4. It is expected that after demonstrating this a few times, the teacher’s next approach is to
encourage the pupils to volunteer to read the chart for the class in a similar manner.
5. At this stage, the learners can begin to find their classmates’ names, their favourite foods,
and to see how the words they know relate to the written symbols on the chart. They can
also rehearse reading the chart in their small groups or individually.
6. The focus of a lesson, i.e., parts of the chart the pupils will learn about on a particular
day, can be decided by the teacher.

20
 6 Copy writing
Level: beginner and letter

Activity format: individual

Materials:

i. Chalk
ii. Writing surfaces (board or floor)
iii. Pens or Pencils
iv. Notebooks

About:

At initial stages, the learners require extensive rehearsals in handling the chalk, pens, pencils etc,
and writing letters. By copying out printed sentences and checking their peer’s work, learners
begin to identify appropriately/correct formed letters and words, as well as proper spacing and
punctuation of sentences (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

Steps:

1. There are a number of activities that can help learners to practice their writing. Pupils at
the beginner and letter levels require extensive rehearsals in holding the chalk or pen and
writing letters.
2. The teacher can write a paragraph on the board and begin by reading it in a whole group
setting.
3. The teacher needs to instruct the learners to copy the paragraph into their own notebooks.
4. The teacher must ask the pupils to switch notebooks with a classmate and check their
classmates’ work for errors.

7 Kambeba game (Basket game)

Level: beginner and letter

Activity format: whole group

Materials:

21
 i. A basket
ii. Bag, or other containers
iii. Phonetics chart
iv. Chalk

About:

In order to strengthen learners' letter and phoneme awareness at the beginner and letter levels, the
use of a fun basket game known as the Kambeba game in some Zambian classrooms is
encouraged.

Steps:

1. At this stage, the pupils sit or stand in a circle.

2. The instructor is expected to present the learners with a basket (or any other container) of
letters/phonemes/syllables and explain the game: “We’re going to sing a song and pass
the basket around. Whoever is holding the basket when the song stops should pick a card
at random, read it to the class, and show the letter to their classmates.”
3. The teacher can commence the activity by singing the song and passing the basket
around.
4. Abruptly, the teacher needs to halt the singing. The pupil holding the basket will have to
pick a card at random and read it out to the class. Additionally, the teacher must ask the
learner to come up with a word containing the phoneme/word.
5. The teacher must ensure that the learners fully understand the concept of the game before
making any advances. The instructor needs to start by asking the pupils to read the card.
When the learners understand the game and feel confident, the teacher can expand the
game by incorporating word creation activities: the teacher can ask the pupils to use the
chosen card to either say or write out a word with the aid of the phonetics chart. The
game can also be expanded to writing exercises in small groups (Teaching at the Right
Level 2021).

8. Word-Building games

Level: beginner and letter, word

22
Activity format: whole group and small group

Materials:

i. Chalk
ii. Writing surface (board or floor)

About:

This exercise may be useful in aiding learners to identify specific sounds within familiar words.
This ability is a cardinal foundational skill for reading (phonological awareness).

Steps:

1. The teacher must split the class into two groups.

2. This will be followed by asking the first group of learners to come up with a word. The
teacher needs to write the word they have thought of on the board.
3. The teacher should ask the second group of learners to come up with a word that begins
with the ending letter or sound of the first word mentioned by the first group. The teacher
needs to write this on the board beneath the first word.
4. The process above should be repeated, until there is a list of words on the board. This
exercise can be done with the ending or beginning sounds of the word. It can be done as a
whole group or in small groups.

Note: It should be mentioned that there are various games/activities that can be said to be useful
in word and sentence-building. Therefore, in order to aid pupils, identify and use vowel sounds,
teachers may present a comparable rhyming game, asking learners to think of words that rhyme.
Beginner and letter level learners can use homemade flash cards to create their own words in
small groups. Word and paragraph level pupils are encouraged to come up with their own
sentences using given words (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

9. Title games

Levels: story

Activity format: whole group

23
Materials:

i. Chalk
ii. Writing surface (board or floor)

About:

Learners at this stage, that are able to read fluently, may shift their focus on reinforcing their
comprehension skills. In these TaRL exercises, pupils rehearse drawing conclusions and making
inferences.

Steps:

1. At this level, the teacher writes a story’s title on a writing surface, however, it should not
be the whole story. The instructor should ensure that the story’s title presented to the
learners is one they have not read already.
2. The teacher should then read the title clearly, and then instruct the pupils to do the same.
3. The instructor should ask the class what they think the story might be about. The teacher
should also inspire the pupils to be creative and to base their suppositions on the title
presented to them.
4. This exercise can be expanded. The teacher may present the whole story and could have
the class debate if their suppositions were close to the story under discussion. On the
other hand, the teacher can ask the learners to think of their own stories using the title,
this can be done as a whole group, in small groups, or individually.

10. Story writing activities

Levels: word, paragraph, story

Activity format: whole group, small group, individual

Materials:

i. Chalk,
ii. Writing surface (floor or other surfaces)
iii. Notebooks

24
 iv. Pens or Pencils

About:

It is expected that at the word, paragraph and story levels, learners would have developed the
ability to write their own stories. The pupils can start by writing short sentences or paragraphs,
and advance to essays. Learners rehearse writing stories as a whole group, alternately write
sentences in small groups, or rehearse independently. Furthermore, paragraph and story levels,
are supposed to be characterised with frequent rehearsals of writing by the pupils. Teachers may
present a topic or title or ask the learners to come up with their own topics. Pupils frequently
read and talk about their stories, with the aim of figuring out if the story is sensible, and if the
sentences are grammatically accurate. Teachers offer one-on-one care to pupils when conducting
individual writing exercise, aiding them with grammar, punctuation, and spellings, and boosting
their creativity. The exercise under discussion is called “Go Ahead” by Pratham. It assists in
generating excitement about story writing, and demonstrates to the learners that their own
creativity and imagination are cardinal ingredients to the learning process.

Steps:

1. The teacher must split the learners into groups and instruct them to elect a group leader.
2. The teacher should ask the leader to come up with a sentence and write it on a writing
surface to start the story.
3. The teacher needs to repeat the significate points for story-writing before the pupils start
writing, these include:
a. In order for the story to be sensible, ensure that the sentences are all connected.
b. To present a satisfying end to the story, the last few sentences must be clear.
c. Ensure that the entire story is narrated in the same tense (i.e., if the pupil decides
to write the first sentence in past tense, the whole story should be in past tense).
4. When the head of the group has come up with a sentence, the teacher must request the
other group members to alternately write sentences. The instructor should ensure that all
the pupils participate, until all groups come up with an entire story.
5. After all the groups have written their story, the teacher should instruct the leaders to read
their group’s story to the whole class.

25
 6. At this stage, the teacher can offer the learners a chance to talk about the story in their
groups: Is the story reasonable? Has it been written in a cohesive manner? Is it going to
have a conclusion? Can one make extra additions to the story?
7. During the exercise, the teacher needs to inspire the pupils to make use of their
imaginations and to freely express themselves (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

11. Reading comprehension activities

Levels: paragraph and story

Activity format: whole group, small group, individual

Materials/Aids:

i. A story
ii. Chalk
iii. Writing surface (floor or board)
iv. Notebooks
v. Pens or Pencils

About:

During the paragraph and story levels, the teacher’s objectives are to reinforce the pupils’
reading comprehension. Discussion is among the significant features of Teaching at the Right
Level comprehension exercises. Learners are urged to actively interact with scripts by
discussing, and frequently thinking of questions about the script for their peers to respond to. The
pupils are expected to learn by listening to the instructor and their fellows when talking about
stories and by sharing their opinions with the rest of the class. Furthermore, the learners will
have to assist each other to deal with complex exercises about the stories. This activity is
expected to occur in small groups. Group work can help learners that may be finding it hard to
respond to questions on their own, therefore, these pupils are given the chance to participate with
the aid of their peers. Individual exercises reinforce the pupils’ abilities, ensuring that they
comprehend the concepts. During individual exercises, the teacher goes around the classroom to
praise learners’ accomplishments and identify the pupils in need of assistance.

26
Steps:

1. Once the whole group reads a story collectively, the teacher should commence by
instructing the learners to carefully listen as he/she reads. The teacher should deliver the
lesson in an audible voice, using appropriate intonation and pronunciation. At this stage,
it is recommended to place a finger under the words when reading.
2. The instructor should ask some pupils to read the story to the entire class, the teacher
should encourage the learners to remember to read clearly, with appropriate intonation
and pronunciation.
3. Once the pupils have read the story collectively, they can split into small groups. There
are a number of small group exercises about the story under discussion that pupils can do:
a. Mind mapping the story – the teacher should assist the pupils to remember truths
and actions in the story.
b. The pupils should appropriately summarise the story using their own thoughts.
c. Question competition – individual groups should think of a question based on the
story which the other groups have to respond to. The teacher must instruct the
pupils to think of questions about truths in the story; questions that demand one to
infer the meaning of complex words, for instance, identifying synonyms or
antonyms for certain words, etc.
4. In order to give learners individual exercises, the teacher should instruct them to respond
to a number of comprehension and inference queries about the story.

From the above, TaRL has been described as an approach that encompasses multiple activities,
such as picture reading, paragraph reading etc, all targeted at helping learners. It was also found
that TaRL classes are meant to be responsive, focused on foundational skills, child-centred,
multifaceted, lively, relatable and confidence building (Teaching at the Right Level 2021). This
entails that these lessons:

a. Enable the instructors to determine the progress learners are making from the
feedback collected when learners are assessed.
b. Target cardinal skills in literacy development such as phonemic awareness.
c. Focused on actively engaging learners.

27
 d. Promote the integration of whole group, small group and individual activities in
the classroom.

It is anticipated that, after receiving successful remedial instruction from an expert, in this case a
teacher, learners are expected to advance to another level in the programme. With this in mind, it
can be argued that the lesson activities during Catch-Up lessons are focused at helping learners
develop their literacy skills (Teaching at the Right Level 2021).

2.5 Summary
This chapter presented brief details of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme. It presented
what the programme is all about and some of the objectives it aims to achieve. This chapter also
explained on the grouping of learners into levels, Catch-Up remedial lesson practices, the
Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) approach, and TaRL reading assessment tools. The next
chapter will present related literature.

28
 CHAPTER THREE

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

3.1 Overview
This chapter reviews related literature. It is guided by the themes from this research’s questions.

3.2 Teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching

Banerjee, Banerji, Berry, Duflo, Kannan, Mukherji, Shotland and Walton (2016) conducted a
study in Uttar Pradesh, India. The study presented evidence from randomized evaluations of
“teaching at the right level” in India. In the study, it was revealed that some of the teachers
involved in the implementation of TaRL understood the significance of the intervention but
argued that it was not their core duty to incorporate the intervention in their teaching. In the
document, Banerjee et al (2016: 27) informed that “from our conversations with teachers, it
seemed that while they found the method effective and materials interesting, they did not think
that adopting them was a part of their "core" responsibility.” This entails that the teachers
acknowledged the effectiveness of the Teaching at the Right level initiative, but they did not
consider it as a fundamental practice in their delivery of classroom lessons.

Padakannaya (2008) conducted a study in Davangere (Kamataka State, India). The study
employed a pre-and post-test design with a quasi-experimental design. The research was
concerned with studying a remedial teaching programme focused on helping children with
learning disabilities. In the paper it was argued that, in most cases, the teachers were usually
ignorant of the implications of learners’ inadequate exposure to remedial instruction. Therefore,
in certain situations, even the individuals that are expected to deliver remedial teaching may not
have sufficient knowledge on the matter.

Additionally, Townsend (2007) conducted a study in South Africa focused on informing on a

need for a remedial qualification within inclusive education. The study employed qualitative, and
to a certain extent, quantitative methods of data collection. In the study, it was revealed that
certain teachers lacked sufficient knowledge on various issues pertaining to the effective delivery
of remedial teaching. This affected the way they handled students who faced challenges in

29
English due to dyslexia. Therefore, the study concluded that South African high school remedial
teachers had limited knowledge on the preparations necessary for secondary school remediation.

Chikwature and Oyedele (2016) conducted a study in Mutare, Zimbabwe concerned with the
effectiveness of remedial teaching. The study used the survey method of data collection. Some of
the findings on the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching revealed that most teachers
were inclined to remediate learners who scored at or below 50%. These instructors mostly
employed remedial strategies such as, the individualised programme, peer support group and the
reward scheme. In other words, the teachers assumed that it was critical to remediate learners
that performed lower than 50% because they were the ones with serious learning difficulties.
Chikwature and Oyedele (2016) concluded that the initiative of remediating learners who scored
at or below 50% was effective, as learners who were treated in this manner were able to Catch-
Up with their peers. However, the teachers were also supposed to attend to learners that scored
above 50% in order to help them maintain and improve their performance.

However, Ndebele (2014) conducted a study on a remedial teaching programme in primary

schools in Zimbabwe which adopted the descriptive survey approach. The study was concerned
with investigating the teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of an English remedial teaching
programme in primary schools in Zimbabwe. In the document, it was highlighted that because
some Zimbabwean primary school teachers were unaware of how to effectively deliver remedial
lessons, the treatment proved to be difficult to prescribe at primary school level. Therefore,
Ndebele’s (2014) study concluded that the teachers’ lack of sufficient knowledge with regards to
remediation negatively affected the effectiveness of the English remedial teaching programme in
primary schools in Zimbabwe.

A contemporary study that may help highlight the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching
in Zambia is Musongole’s (2019) study carried out in Kasempa district of Zambia. The study
investigated factors affecting the effectiveness of remedial work policy in selected secondary
schools in Kasempa district. The study adopted a descriptive case study design, and quantitative
methods in the collection and analysis of data. Musongole (2019) found that not all teachers that
took part in the research understood remedial policy, and this led to the unsuccessful
implementation of the intervention. Additionally, the study also revealed that most of the
teachers that were aware of the remedial policy were not appropriately prepared to effectively

30
implement it. Therefore, the study concluded that the teachers’ lack of adequate understanding of
remediation negatively affected the frequency of remedial lessons and the recognition of pupils
in need of remedial teaching by instructors. However, the study was focused on the factors
affecting the effectiveness of remedial work policy in selected secondary schools in Kasempa
district. Therefore, the findings could not reflect the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching
programme at Mazabuka primary school.

Moreover, while most of the research presented above provided an insight into teachers’ lack of
familiarity with remedial teaching. It should be mentioned that socio-cultural variances such as
school systems, school curricula, teaching methods and demographic distributions between
different countries, need to be taken into account by researchers when conducting research
because they may have an influence on the findings (Wyse and Goswami 2013). Therefore, the
propositions above may not be transferable to this research’s findings.

3.3 Teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning

Paribhasha and Deshpande (2010) conducted a qualitative study concerned with investigating
teachers’ perception of primary education and mothers’ aspirations for their children in Bihar
and Uttarakhand, India. In the study, some of the teachers stationed at schools that adopted the
Teaching at the Right Level methodology in Bihar argued that the programme’s materials were
good in terms of language and content. The teachers further argued that language is simple and
the content is relevant. However, teaching with TaRL materials required patience and time.
Therefore, the teachers did not use the prescribed materials regularly as they also had to
complete the syllabus.

Abu Armana (2011) conducted a study that investigated the impact of a remedial programme on
English writing skills of the Seventh-Grade low achievers at UNRWA schools in Rafa, Gaza.
The study implemented an experimental approach concerned with remedial teaching in Rafa,
Gaza. Abu Armana (2011) highlighted that the majority of schools in Gaza offered after school
and summer-school remedial lessons. These lessons were commended for aiding in the
improvement of the learners’ learning deficits. In the study, it was observed that the intervention
managed to help seventh grade low achievers in Rafa to enhance their capabilities in tackling

31
exercises such as writing in an accurate manner. Furthermore, it was also stated that remedial
teaching helped in building on pupils’ self-confidence.

Sheu, Hsu and Wang (2007) conducted a single case study in Kameoka, Japan. The study was
concerned with investigating the effects of English remedial courses in a Technical University in
Kameoka. In the study, it was highlighted that after students at Kyoto University of Advanced
Science were subjected to remedial teaching in English, there was an improvement in the
participants’ basic skills in English, and this resulted in them developing high positive attitudes
towards the remedial teaching programme. Sheu, Hsu and Wang (2007) further added that the
learners’ motivation and confidence were enhanced.

Townsend (2007) contended that certain teachers in South African schools argued that the
timetabling of remedial classes were not ideal and crushed with other school programmes. This
indicates how certain instructors face difficulties in the scheduling of remedial lessons in
schools. Additionally, Musongole (2019) presented that, certain teachers believe that teaching
extra lessons in remedial sessions was like adding more loads to one’s work schedule.

Similarly, Ndebele (2014) revealed that because remedial learners were engaged in remedial
lessons while their peers took part in other activities such as sports after normal classes. This,
according to the teachers, negatively affected their attitude towards the intervention. It was
assumed that remedial lessons interfered with co-curricular activities which were scheduled to
take place at the same time as remedial lessons, and this resulted in the intervention not being
popular amongst learners.

Smith and Wallace (2011) carried out research in England. The purpose of this study was to
answer the question: What is Remedial Education? In the study, it was concluded that most of
the learners in England’s high schools who were sent to remedial lessons argued that it was an
embarrassing experience. This may not be unusual because certain individuals believe that
remedial lessons are meant to be attended by learners who are slow or less intelligent than others.
Therefore, it is generally viewed as an undermining experience. This makes it difficult to
encourage learners to take part in remedial lessons.

However, Chitsa’s (2017) findings contradict the conclusions presented by Smith and Wallace
(2011). Chitsa’s (2017) study was aimed at investigating the effectiveness of remedial education

32
in the teaching and learning situation in Bulawayo metropolitan secondary schools. In the study,
the investigator pointed out that remedial education at the schools that participated provided
pupils with sufficient time with their teachers to enquire and to express themselves with limited
pressure or any humiliation, which they may have experienced during normal English lessons.

Holmlund and Silva (2009), carried out a study in London, United Kingdom. This study was
aimed at examining the xl club programme; an educational intervention targeted at
underachieving pupils’ noncognitive skills, with the aim of improving attendance and cognitive
outcomes. The study employed the difference in difference and double-difference approach in
data collection. In the study, it was concluded that the intervention resulted in some positive spill
over effects on nontreated pupils’ test scores in schools that participated in the initiative.
Implying that treated learners or remedial learners positively contributed/influenced the learning
of other pupils (nontreated) during regular classes by sharing the knowledge they gained during
remedial lessons. However, Holmlund and Silva’s (2009) study focused on examining the xl club
programme. Therefore, there was still limited empirical research in the efficacy of the Catch-Up
remedial teaching programme in improving the reading performance of learners of Chitonga at
Mazabuka primary school, hence this study.

3.4 Efficacy of remedial teaching

The Teaching at the Right Level methodology has been confirmed to be effective in numerous
literature. For instance, improvement in learning outcomes during the pilot of the Catch-Up was
noted when the baseline literacy results for Chipata, Katete, Monze and Pemba district were
evaluated. It was found that a notable percentage of learners moved at least one level during the
pilot. The figure below houses information on percentages of learners in each group at baseline
who improved at least one literacy level during the pilot study.

33
Figure 3.4: Catch-Up pilot baseline literacy results

Source: Innovations for Poverty Action (2017: 35)

However, the study above presented data collected from Chipata, Katete, Monze and Pemba.
This study on the other hand, sought to evaluate the efficacy of the Catch-Up programme at
Mazabuka primary school, Mazabuka district Zambia.

Similarly, Banerjee, Cole, Duflo and Linden (2007) conducted a study that was aimed at
evaluating two remedial programmes, namely the Balsakhi Programme and Computer-Assisted
Learning in Mumbai, India. The Balsakhi Programme employs Pratham’s “Teaching at the Right
Level” methodology and is focused on helping children with challenges in basic literacy and
numeracy skills in Mumbai. Some of the key skills targeted included reading and spelling out
words. In the study Banerjee et al (2007) found that the intervention resulted in learners
improving in their literacy performance. This is so because the study recorded increased average
test scores of all learners in treatment schools by 0.28 standard deviation. This was as a result of
improvements experienced by pupils at the bottom of the test-score distribution. This suggested
that the Balsakhi Programme was effective.

Additionally, Banerjee, Banerji, Duflo, and Khemani (2010) conducted a randomized controlled
trial in rural Jaunpur district of Uttar Pradesh from 2005-2006 called ‘Learning-to-Read.’ This
trial was also aimed at helping children develop their literacy skills. In the study, it was revealed
that after treatment, children who could read nothing at baseline had a 60 percent chance of
progressing to letters at endline. For children who could read letters at baseline, the classes
resulted in a 26 percent higher likelihood of reading a story, the highest level on the test. The
success of the Learning-to-Read programme led to the rollout of the Read India programme. An

34
equally effective intervention which reached out to over 33 million children who needed
remedial education in India (Banerjee et al, 2010).

Poverty Action Lab (2011) carried out a study in Bihar and Uttarakhand, India. The study sought
to evaluate Pratham's Read India programme: a programme that encourages partnerships
between village communities and government school systems to bring about a significant
improvement in basic learning levels in India. In order to conduct the study a “randomized
control trial” was undertaken by Poverty Action Lab (2011) in rural areas of West Champaran
district in Bihar and in Dehradun and Haridwar districts in Uttarakhand. In the study, it was
revealed that there was a significant impact on learning levels in Hindi and math for the summer
camp in Bihar. However, it was also informed that the results had to be viewed in the context of
fairly slow average learning progress. This suggests that the programme was effective,
nevertheless, it was recorded that the learning development was gradual.

Furthermore, Banerjee et al (2010) tested an in-school learning camp intervention in Uttar

Pradesh in the year 2013-2014. A sample of schools was selected and randomly divided into two
camp treatment groups. These included a control group, and a materials-only intervention, with
approximately 120 schools in each group. Children from grades 3-5 were grouped according to
their ability level and taught Hindi and math for about 1.5 hours each by Pratham staff and
Pratham-trained local village volunteers. The study found that the intervention had similar
impacts as the Read India programme, as test scores for treated learners increased from 0.7 to 1.0
on average.
In line with the above, Chitsa (2017) argued that one of the motives for remediation in Indian
secondary schools were to boost the learners’ confidence, self-esteem, motivation and locus of
control (that is learners’ non cognitive skills) as a way to enhance mathematics and English
lessons presence and academic accomplishment.

There are other studies that were not necessarily concerned with the TaRL approach, but were
still focused on investigating the effects of remedial teaching. For example, Aragon (2004)
conducted a study in Midwest USA which employed an ex post facto research design. The study
was focused on the effects of a remedial teaching intervention on community college students’
academic performance in the Midwest in USA. It was revealed that the students that took part in

35
remediation had higher cumulative grade point averages (GPA) and scored better English grades
than the participants that did not take part in the intervention.

Leak and Lesik (2007) conducted a study using the regression discontinuity design. The study
was focused on the influence of remedial teaching on first-year students’ progress in English at
college. In the study, Leak and Lesik (2007) concluded that the first-year grade point averages
for students that took part in the intervention were approximately 0.392 points higher compared
to the students who did not. Indicating that the English remedial intervention helped improve the
first-year students’ GPA. Nevertheless, as earlier stated, Aragon (2004) used an ex post facto
research design while Leak and Lesik (2007) adopted the regression discontinuity design. This
study, on the other hand, used the single case study design.

Sheu, Hsu and Wang (2007) also presented evidence on the effectiveness of remedial teaching in
improving the performance of learners. As indicated earlier, this study was aimed at assessing
the effects of an English remedial lesson on low performing first-year students. In the study, it
was revealed that there were notable distinctions between learners that were subjected to
remediation as it was indicated that the first-year students in the experimental group performed
better in their final examination than those in the controlled group.

Bettinger and Long (2008) carried out a study in California which used an instrumental variables
strategy in data collection. The results suggested that students taking part in remediation were
more likely to continue in college compared to students who were not required to take remedial
lessons but had similar test scores and backgrounds. Therefore, the study concluded that students
taking part in remedial lessons were more likely to move to a higher-level learning institution
and successfully conclude their bachelor's degree. In short, the paper revealed that the remedial
programme under scrutiny were planned to address academic deficits and arm the students with
knowledge that may help them succeed in college. However, given the difference in methods
used to collect data, Bettinger and Long’s (2008) findings could not be assignable to this
research.

Additionally, Gottlieb and William (1987: 68) contended that remedial teaching is “the only
validated management approach for specific learning disabilities.” This entails that remedial
teaching may be among the most effective modes of management of learning challenges such as
dyslexia in learners. Similarly, other scholars have argued that, “the use of effective remedial

36
teaching approaches can assure that 90 % of the children with dyslexia can achieve success with
timely intervention” (Khalid and Anjum 2019: 2). In the study by Khalid and Anjum (2019),
dyslexic students were described as learners with impaired ability to learn how to read.
Furthermore, Miller (2011) argues that effective remedial teaching may result in noticeable
changes in an individual’s brain in terms of performance. Nevertheless, it may be said that there
was limited empirical research in the teaching of Chitonga that affirms or contradicts this claim
at Mazabuka primary school.

3.5 Challenges associated with remedial teaching

Findings on the Catch-Up pilot revealed that the major challenges that hindered the successful
implementation of the intervention had to do with the frequency of lessons and sufficient support
by mentors to instructors. It was informed that, during the pilot, “the main challenges were
whether lessons took place at all due to co-curricular activities and bad weather, and mentors
making visits to support teachers in class” (Innovations for Poverty Action 2017: 55). In other
words, during the pilot, it was revealed that co-curricular activities that students took part in,
such as drama and sports at school, or other factors such as bad weather led to absenteeism. On
the other hand, lack of visits by mentors to ensure that remedial lessons took place resulted in a
decline in lessons as mentors can be said to have acted as motivators for the teachers.

In other studies, the lack of materials has also been highlighted by a number of scholars as one of
the challenges faced in implementing remedial teaching. Bettinger and Long (2008) revealed that
remedial programmes in certain schools located in New York were generally demanding because
they needed to be financed, and supported with enough teaching and learning aids. Furthermore,
Gutierrez and Rodrigo (2011), revealed that lack of materials that can be useful in aiding
remedial students in Mexican secondary schools were among the common challenges presented
by the instructors. Additionally, Ndebele (2014) revealed that both primary school remedial
teachers and learners in Zimbabwe used remedial teaching materials that did not meet their
teaching and learning needs, hence negatively affecting the efficacy of the programme.

Kafata and Mbetwa (2016: 10) revealed that “teachers fail to offer remedial work to slow
learners due to the big size of the class.” The argument above can be said to give an insight into

37
how remedial teaching is usually not achievable in certain mainstream classrooms, and how it is
generally viewed as a mammoth task by some teachers.

Furthermore, research by Klinger, Cramer and Harry (2006) concluded that, in some American
urban schools, one of the prominent challenges associated with remedial teaching involved
learners stagnating and not progressing to the next stage of their remedial programme. This
revelation indicates that remedial teaching may not always result in positive outcomes.

Training programmes of teachers have been suggested as solutions to some of the challenges
faced in implementing remedial teaching. In an attempt to ensure that in-service teachers
incorporate Pratham methodology in the teaching of basic literacy, academic leaders within the
government were created to guide and supervise teachers. Pratham gave four days of training and
field practice to “Associate Block Resource Coordinators.” These were then put in groups of
three in actual schools for 15-20 days to conduct daily classes and field-tests. After the training
and field practices were concluded, the Associate Block Resource Coordinators, aided by
Pratham staff, in turn trained the teachers that were in their jurisdiction (Banerjee et al, 2010).

According to Kaputa (2012), arming teachers with skills for them to be able to treat remedial
learners can help curb teachers’ lack of adequate knowledge of the intervention. Abu Armana
(2011) recommended that remedial teachers should be able to identify the special needs of
remedial learners if they want the pupils to benefit from the intervention. This is because
teachers’ lack of remedial knowledge, especially when it comes to identifying the special needs
of their learners can affect the successful implementation of remedial teaching.

Ndebele (2014) proposed that recruitment of more trained and qualified remedial teachers may
lead to successful remediation of lower performing learners at primary and secondary schools.
This was argued to be a solution to the issue of limited specialists or experts in remedial teaching
in Zimbabwean primary and secondary schools.

Manyumwa et al (2013) suggested that there was need for government departments, school
heads, teachers and parents to work together in addressing problems affecting the effective
employment of remedial teaching programmes. This was because, in their study, it was
highlighted that primary school remedial teaching interventions lacked sufficient backing from

38
remedial tutors, teachers and parents who had negative attitude towards remedial teaching
interventions.

Additionally, there have been studies that have housed information on solutions to issues having
to do with timetabling of remedial lessons. For instance, a pre-college programme for lower
performing students in American post-secondary institutions was initiated. It was proposed that
the programme would take place in summer before the commencement of a semester. The
remedial programme would run for three weeks; this was done to tackle the challenges of poor
timetabling highlighted by most teachers involved in remedial teaching (Parker et al 2010).

Furthermore, Abu Armana (2011) presented possible solutions to remedial learners’ absenteeism,
low self-esteem, anxiety and negative attitude. Abu Armana (2011) argued that acts that can raise
the awareness of learners, and make them realise the significance of the concepts or skills they
have challenges with, are possible solutions to learners’ absenteeism, low self-esteem, anxiety
and negative attitude. Additionally, tolerance of remedial learners and consistent treatment of
challenges which are persistent was also encouraged in the support of remedial learners.

Other studies have proposed that policymakers and administrators need to revise remedial
education policies. A study by Parker et al (2010) concluded that effective innovations in
remedial education generally takes place when policymakers and administrators revise and
recognise the significance of formulating a user-friendly remedial education policy in American
post-secondary institutions.

3.6 Summary

This chapter reviewed related literature of this study. It presented findings teacher’s
understanding of remedial teaching. It also presented some literature on the teachers and
learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching. Furthermore, it highlighted the efficacy of
various remedial teaching programmes, including Catch-Up. Finally, it reviewed some
challenges associated with remedial teaching. The next chapter will present the methodology
used to collect data.

39
 CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Overview

This chapter informs on the methods that were used to collect the data for this research. Some of
the components under this chapter include the research paradigm, the research design, method of
data collection, the population, the sample of the study, research instruments, the data analysis
and ethical consideration.

4.2 Research Paradigm

This study adopted the social constructivism as a research paradigm. This paradigm “hold the
assumption that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work.
Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences, meanings directed towards certain
objects or things” (Creswell and Creswell 2018: 335). In this way, researchers are able to have an
insight of the participants’ understanding, as well as their experiences with certain happenings in
their community. Similarly, in this study, participants were expected to present their
understanding of the world in which they live and work regarding remedial teaching, hence the
adoption of the social constructivism as a research paradigm.

4.3 Research Design

This study was a single case study. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018: 337) a case study
is “a qualitative design in which the researcher explores in depth a programme, event, activity,
process, or one or more individuals.” The adoption of this design was as a result of the study’s
intention to focus on Mazabuka primary school, as it is one of the schools that implements the
Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in Zambia. Therefore, the researcher sought to conduct
an in-depth investigation of the participants’ understanding, as well as their experiences with
remedial teaching.

4.4 Target Population

The population of a study has been defined by White (2003) as cited in Mwanza (2012: 24) as
“the universe of units from which the sample is to be selected.” Therefore, this research’s

40
population was comprised of all the primary school going pupils and all the primary school
teachers in Mazabuka district, Zambia.

4.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample size

According to Etikan et al (2016: 1) the “sample is a portion of a population or universe.” This

study was focused on one school. This school was purposively selected because it implements
the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme. Additionally, this study comprised of 29
participants. These were 21 pupils from grades 3, 4 and 5, 7 from each class. 4 were teachers,
among the teachers, 3 were appropriately trained in remedial teaching, while 1 was not (did not
attend training). The teachers that received appropriate training in Catch-Up included 1 Zonal
Inservice Coordinator (ZIC), and 2 ordinary remedial teachers. 1 was the education manager at
VVOB, and 1 District Resource Centre Coordinator (DRCC) in Mazabuka. 2 were
administrators, and these included 1 head teacher and 1 senior teacher.

These participants were selected because, according to Stufflebeam and Coryn (2014: 530)
investigators “may employ such nonprobability sampling methods as purposive sampling to
obtain information from key informants, such as a policy board’s chair, a program’s director, a
program’s task leader, or a program’s internal evaluator. In many evaluations, it is essential to
obtain information from such stakeholders, and probability sampling would not be applicable.”
As elaborated earlier, the Catch-Up remedial lessons are mainly targeted at grades 3, 4 and 5
learners grouped by level, and the key players in the implementation of this programme include
the Flemish Association for Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance (VVOB)
Coordinators, District Resource Centre Coordinators (DRCC), the Zonal Inservice Coordinators
(ZICs), teachers and senior teachers. Hence, it was believed that these individuals had first-hand
information and experiences or learnt directly about the Catch-Up remedial programme.

4.6 Research Instruments

In a study, research instruments can be used to “collect information about opinions, experiences,
or beliefs” (Ahearn 2017: 58; Mkandawire, 2019). The research instruments that were used in
this study included focus group discussion guides, interview guides, lesson observation
checklists and document analysis. In order to evaluate the efficacy of the Catch-Up programme,
primary data was collected through interviews and focus group discussions while secondary data

41
was collected through document analysis. Primary and secondary data was collected from
VVOB Lusaka, the Mazabuka DRCC and Mazabuka primary school. Additionally, with the aid
of a lesson observation checklist, lesson observation was conducted to allow the investigator to
observe how the instructors delivered remedial lessons in Chitonga. This was important because
having first hand experiences during a remedial lesson made it possible for the researcher to see
if what the participants did, correlated or contradicted with what they said during interviews.
Further, lesson observation was conducted to determine if the teachers understood the theory
enough to effectively deliver a lesson in an actual classroom. Appendices C, D, E, F, G and H
contain more details of the research instruments used in this study.

4.7 Data collection procedure

Firstly, the researcher conducted an interview with the education manager at VVOB about the
Catch-Up remedial teaching programme. This was followed by an interview with the DRCC.
The researcher then sought permission from the District Education Board Secretary (DEBS).
Thereafter, the school administration at Mazabuka primary to conduct research at the school.
Afterwards, the researcher conducted a focus group discussion with the teachers within the
school. A lesson observation was then conducted. During this phase, the researcher was taking
note of the activities taking place in the classroom. The lesson observation was followed by a
focus group discussion with the learners. These were conducted by the researcher within the
school premises. At this stage, the researcher took note of the information presented by the
learners. Finally, the researcher conducted interviews with the head teacher and later the senior
teacher, these interviews were also conducted within the school premises.

4.8 Data Analysis

Karanja (2016: 11) describes data analysis as “the process of interpreting the survey data.” The
data that was collected during the research was analysed thematically. This implies that the
findings were organised into categories, then emerging themes were identified. These themes
were used during the presentation and discussion of findings.

42
4.9 Ethical Consideration

Initially, the researcher sought clearance from the University of Zambia Research Ethics
Committee (HSS). Furthermore, it must be mentioned that in this study, participants were
informed what the purpose of the study was, participation was free of coercion, participants who
did not wish to respond to a question were free to remain silent, participants were informed how
long the interview or focus group discussion would take. Names of participants were not
revealed, participants were free to withdraw from the study whenever they felt so, and were told
that data collected was securely stored and would only be used for academic purposes.
Additionally, the participants were not, in any way forced, treated unfairly, or inappropriately by
the researcher.

4.10 Summary

This chapter has described the methodology used to collect data. It was informed that this study
adopted the social constructivism as a research paradigm. It was also highlighted that this study
was a single case study. Finally, it was also explained that this study comprised of 29
participants. The next chapter presents the findings.

43
 CHAPTER FIVE

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

5.1 Overview

The previous chapter described the methodology employed in the collection of data in this
research. This chapter presents the findings on the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching,
the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning, the efficacy of
remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading performance, and the challenges teachers were
facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka primary school. The findings were
presented in line with the four research questions of this study. This data was collected
qualitatively, and some of the instruments used by the investigator to collect data included focus
group discussion guides, interview guides, lesson observation checklists and document analysis.

Sources of data included primary data collected through interviews and focus group discussions
while secondary data was collected through document analysis. Primary and secondary data was
collected from VVOB Lusaka, the Mazabuka DRCC and Mazabuka primary school. As earlier
mentioned, the data for this study was collected and presented in response to the four research
questions, which were: What are the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching? What are the
teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching? To what extent is remedial
teaching effective in improving learners’ reading performance in Chitonga? and What are the
challenges faced by teachers when implementing remedial teaching? To further confidentiality,
all the remedial teachers and learners who were interviewed were given code names i.e. R1, R2,
R3 and R4 for the teachers. While pupils were given code names such as Learner S, Learner G,
Learner Y, Learner M, Learner U, Learner T etc.

5.2 What are the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching?

In order to answer the question of teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching (Catch-Up

programme) at Mazabuka primary school, a focus group discussion with the teachers was
conducted by the researcher. Throughout the discussion, questions such as, What is the Catch-Up
programme? Are you trained in remedial teaching? What are the recommended techniques in
remedial teaching? How do you identify learners that need remedial teaching? And, what are

44
some of the remedies that you use to help your learners? Were asked by the investigator. The
findings have been presented below.

5.2.1 Teachers

5.2.1.1 What is remedial teaching (Catch-Up)?

Data collected through the focus group discussion with the teachers revealed that, from the
teachers’ perspectives, the Catch-Up remedial teaching initiative was an activity or exercise that
takes place outside normal learning hours aimed at aiding pupils grasp concepts that they may be
facing challenges comprehending, one of the teachers said the following in response to the
question, What is the Catch-Up programme?

That is the teaching we teach learners outside the classroom to help

them, more specially on the slow learners, we teach them mostly in our
spare time, we don’t respect the what, the normal period. Sometimes,
while others are writing in class, you can call that learner you want to
help in that particular time maybe you are teaching her on addition or
subtraction, while others are doing the activities, other activities in
class, you can, you can call that pupil at your table one to one so that
you can help that person cos most of the time teaching them outside the
normal period we don’t have too much time. (R1)

Another teacher said that:

The Catch-Up programme is a remedial programme that is tailored from

the start to address learners in Grade 3, 4 and 5 from the start that is the
prescribed way of delivering the programme. It started in India, yeah,
and people from Ghana saw it working, yeah, they applied it in Ghana, it
was extended to Kenya, they applied it, it worked their performance
improved, then we also adopted it. (R2)

It was also revealed that:

The other name for Catch-Up is teaching at the right level. It can be
discovered that a learner may be in grade 5 but their performance is

45
 equal to one who is still in grade 1, so this learner must be grouped
according to their performance and given activities according to their
level. So it is rightly called teaching at the right level. So if you hear
anyone talking about Catch-Up, they are talking about teaching at the
right level. (R3)

The above gave an insight into the teachers understanding of remedial teaching (Catch-Up), and
the manner in which they believed it can be delivered to learners. It was also mentioned that
remedial teaching was aimed at helping learners, especially slow learners, it occurs outside
normal learning hours, and it was stated that the teaching may also take place whenever the
chance presents itself.

5.2.1.2 What are some of the recommended techniques in remedial teaching?

When asked to mention some of the recommended techniques in remedial teaching, it was
observed that some of the instructors, especially those not fully cognisant or properly trained in
Catch-Up were not sure of what answers to give. However, it was noted that the only techniques
the teachers were familiar with were the ones recommended by the Catch-Up programme. One
of the respondents trained in Catch-Up stated the following:

Usually, it’s just the teaching at the right level, because some children
cannot move at same level with others, so you attend to the pupil
according to his or her pace, yes, so that they Catch-Up with what others
are doing, you can’t give him the same work that the first learners are
doing because you will get nothing. (R2)

5.2.1.3 How do you identify learners that need remedial teaching?

When asked about how the teachers identified the learners that needed remedial teaching, it was
revealed that the initial assessment of a specific learner helped in giving the teachers an idea on
whether the pupil required remedial teaching, and at what level he/she needs to be placed. One
teacher said that:

In Catch-Up we have what we call samples, so those samples we have

sample 4,5and 6, so when you are assessing those learners, if I’m

46
 assessing a learner in sample one in Chitonga, I’m supposed to assess
the same learner in sample one in numeracy, there we start by
identifying the numbers when she is able to identify the numbers we go to
addition, subtraction, so you will be able to know in which category or
level he or she is supposed to be, so we use samples in short. (R3)

Another teacher revealed that:

We use carefully prepared samples, yeah. When we started, our samples

were titled sample one, sample two, sample three. Currently we are
using sample four, sample five and six. So, these samples are carefully
prepared that a learner would be placed according to where they are
going to fall because the samples are segmented into three different
sections. So, to speed up to the….in literacy, we call it a simple
paragraph, so any assessor who understands Catch-Up would start by
assessing the learner starting from level three, which looks at a simple
paragraph, a learner will be subjected to read a simple paragraph. If
they fail to read the simple paragraph, and failure is defined by making
mistakes, if they make three or four mistakes in the simple paragraph
then you down grade them to level two where they start attacking words,
if they fail in words, you take them to letters, then if you find that they
are doing well in letters then you classify them under letters. (R2)

In responding to the research question number one, it emerged that, from the teachers’
perspectives, the Catch-Up remedial teaching initiative was an activity or exercise that takes
place outside normal learning hours aimed at aiding pupils grasp concepts that they may be
facing challenges comprehending. It was observed that some of the teachers, especially those not
fully cognisant or properly trained in Catch-Up were not sure of what answers to give. It was
also noted that the only techniques the teachers were familiar with were the ones recommended
by the Catch-Up programme. Finally, when asked about how the teachers identified the learners
that needed remedial teaching, it was revealed that assessment of a given learner helped in giving
the instructors an idea on whether a given pupil required remedial teaching and at what level he
or she should be placed.

47
5.3 What are the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning?

In order for the researcher to determine the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial
teaching/learning at Mazabuka primary school, focus group discussions with the teachers, then
later the pupils were conducted. Questions such as, why were you picked to attend remedial
teaching? When do remedial lessons take place? Describe your experiences during these lessons?
Is remedial teaching helpful, how? Would you say there is improvement after remedial teaching?
Provide evidence, were asked. The findings have been presented below.

5.3.1 Teachers Experiences

5.3.1.1 Describe your experiences during these lessons?

One of the teachers stated that:

Depending on the group that the learner has fallen to, for example, letter
level, the letter level child, there are specific remedies that are meant to
address that challenge. We have what we call an informal story, yes, an
instructor who enters to teach this level is expected to begin their lesson
by telling learners an informal story, also known as an informal talk. An
informal talk here, is meant to bridge the gap between the learner and
the teacher. Learners are supposed to learn that a teacher is also a
human being just like them, so a teacher will tell their life experience,
what happens to them when they were coming to school, then later on
they can get into a basket game, the basket game would include some
letters, where, a learner once they pick a letter card, they are expected to
give the sound of that card, yeah, whatever is written on that card, they
need to sound that letter. Then when you go to learners in story level,
learners in story level, we simply say those learners are struggling with
comprehension. They are able to read the text, but they can’t
comprehend what they are reading, so they are help to grasp the
comprehension skill. These learners also suffer with fluency, they can be
reading, but they say ‘baaamaaabaaboola,’ you know, something like
that, so for them pick up on fluency, and understanding, a lot of texts is

48
 given to them and a lot of activities based on the story they are reading
are given. (R2)

Another teacher highlighted that:

When we are given a class for the first time, those that are supposed to
do Catch-Up, we get the assessment samples, we assess the children to
put them in their right pace group. When we do that, we know who
belongs to which level, and then we start working on those levels. At the
end of certain periods, we do assessments again, these children who
were in the beginner level should move to the next level, to show that
they are progressing, if they are not moving, it means work is not being
done. (R3)

It was also revealed that:

Also, when we evaluate, after teaching, usually, we write the names of

the learners who are not doing fine, three quarters of the class did well
except for Chilufya, Banji this this, these still need some help, so from
there I’ll get the idea to say these children need help. (R4)

5.3.2 Learners Experiences

5.3.2.1 Describe your experiences during these lessons?

The learners were also asked to describe their experiences with Catch-Up lessons. Most of them
informed that the lessons were mainly characterised with interactions between them and the
teacher. Question and answer, demonstrations and repetitions were among the exercises that the
pupils described as common activities during remedial lessons. Some of the pupils stated that:

Learner S

The teacher writes ba be bi bo bu on the board, after, she tells us how

they are pronounced, she then asks us to say the words as a group,
thereafter, she points at one pupil to demonstrate how the sounds on the
board are pronounced, so that the other pupils know how to pronounce
ba be bi bo bu.

49
Learner H

The teacher gives us tests to see if we know how to read or write.

Learner G

The teachers give us exercises so that they know the pupils that are lugging behind and those
that are not.

Learner X

I am able to understand Chitonga, but it is hard for me to read and write in that language.

Learner M

We are just told to read, that’s all.

5.3.2.2 Why were you picked to attend remedial teaching?

When the pupils were asked why they attend Catch-Up lessons, a good number of them said, it
was because Catch-Up would assist them develop their reading, writing, spelling and vocabulary
skills. Some the pupils stated that:

Learner U

Because Some of the people know how to read, while others don’t.

Learner Y

So that we know how to read.

Learner T

We attend Catch-Up so that we know how to write.

Learner M

I don’t know, I was not told why I should be attending Catch-Up.

Learner B

So that we do not forget how to read and write.

50
Learner O

Catch-Up helps us know how to write words.

Learner N

So that we know how to write correct spellings.

5.3.2.3 Is remedial teaching helpful, how?

Furthermore, when the pupils were asked if the Catch-Up lessons helped them improve their
reading performance in Chitonga, a majority of them agreed. To a certain extent, the enthusiasm
in their response indicated the confidence they had in the Catch-Up’s ability to help them
enhance their literacy skills in Chitonga. The following are some of their answers:

Learner N

Catch-Up helped me learn how to read.

Learner T

Catch-Up helped me learn how to write, read and pronounce sounds.

Learner F

I learnt sounds and how to do multiplication in math.

Learner H

Catch-Up helped me learn how to write correct spellings.

Learner M

Catch-Up helped me improve on my reading skills.

5.4 Lesson observation

As indicated earlier, during data collection, lesson observation was also conducted. Lesson
observation was conducted to allow the investigator to observe how the instructors delivered
remedial lessons in Chitonga. This was important because having first hand experiences during a
remedial lesson made it possible for the researcher to see if what the participants did, correlated

51
or contradicted with what they said during interviews. Further, lesson observation was conducted
to determine if the teachers understood the theory enough to effectively deliver a lesson in an
actual classroom.

During the observation, the investigator noted that the teacher was trained in remedial teaching
and was fluent in Chitonga. There were 45 pupils in class, all at the Beginner/Letter level group.
The teacher had prepared a lesson plan. Additionally, document analysis of the Catch-Up
timetable at Mazabuka primary school revealed that the school endorsed a model that saw
remedial lessons taking place before curriculum time for an hour. Hence, the learners that were
observed for this study first attended remedial lessons before going for their normal classes. The
following is a description of the lesson observed by the researcher.

The teacher introduced the lesson by presenting a poster to the learners. The poster was an
illustration of various activities that were happening in a community. She stuck the poster on the
board and, in Chitonga, asked the learners to discuss what they saw. The teacher took note of all
the answers the learners were presenting. However, the focus of the lesson was on the sounds
s,t,v,w,y,z, which the teacher had not yet disclosed to the learners. After the exercise, the teacher
displayed a syllabic chart on the board and read the consonants s,t,v,w,y,z, while pointing at
them. The teacher encouraged the class to pay attention as she did this, after she instructed the
pupils to utter the sounds after her. This exercise was followed by an activity that involved
modelling of consonants and their syllables. The teacher initiated the exercise by revisiting the
sounds she took note of earlier in the lesson. The teacher modelled her own examples, then later
distributed smaller syllabic charts and let the learners point at sounds as she pointed at the big
chart.

This activity was followed by an exercise that saw the learners being encouraged to practice the
pronunciation of the sounds in groups. The lesson proceeded to the next stage which saw the
teacher displaying cards flipped upside down with syllables on them to the learners on the desks.
The teacher asked the learners to pick a card and relate the sound/syllable to the big syllabic
chart. Most of the learners did as they were told, judging from the responses, they understood
what was requested of them. As the lesson developed, a mind map activity was introduced to the
pupils. The teacher wrote some letters on the board; s, t, v, w, y, z. The teacher then asked
volunteers to walk in front of the class and come up with words with the letters in them. The

52
pupils did as they were told, and some of the combinations they came up with included; waama,
tata, and taama.

However, in certain instances, it was observed that some of the learners were not able to
understand the language of instruction (Chitonga). The researcher noticed some learners asking
their fellows to explain what their teacher was saying in a language they were familiar with. For
example, a learner once said ‘sininvenla vilivo nese’ and a peer who was able to understand
provided help to her classmate by trying to explain what the teacher was saying in a language she
could understand.

As the lesson progressed, the teacher then asked the pupils to form small groups and practice
writing words on a mind map. The learners started brainstorming, and as this happened, the
teacher went around checking on their progress. The mind map was then followed by a writing
activity based on the sound/syllables introduced. Unfortunately, the pupils’ books were not
marked as the period had come to a sudden end due to lack of time.

During lesson observation, a sample of the Beginner/Letter level literacy in Chitonga lesson plan
was collected. This was done to establish whether or not the teacher understood, effectively
planned and applied the remedial teaching techniques recommended by the Catch-Up
programme during a lesson. This was aimed at giving the investigator an idea of the teacher’s
understanding of remedial teaching (Catch-Up programme).

Document analysis revealed that the lesson was focused on improving learners listening,
speaking, reading and writing skills which are vital in real life situations. Additionally, some of
the objectives of the lesson were, to recognise long and short vowels, to recognise consonants
and their syllables, and to write words using sounds/syllables taught.

Furthermore, it was observed that some of the activities that the teacher took part in during the
Catch-Up lesson included, the introduction of the lesson, picture reading, engaging learners to
discuss what they saw, syllabic chart reading, reading of both short and long vowels to the
learners, demonstration of mind map activities to learners on the board and, conclusion of the
lesson.

53
An outline of this lesson has been presented below:

Name of school: Mazabuka Primary

Learning area: Literacy Duration: 1 hour

Lesson: 4

Level: Beginner/Letter

Teaching/Learning aid: Big Syllabic Chart, Syllabic Cards

Specific outcomes

-To recognise long and short vowels.

-To recognise consonants and their syllables (s, t, v, w, y, z).

-Write words using sounds/syllables taught.

Rationale

This lesson will focus on improving learners listening, speaking, reading and writing skills which
are vital in real life situation. Using demonstration (look and say), discussion, question and
answer methods. This is the 2nd lesson out of 3 planned for this week.

Table 5.1 Catch-Up lesson plan

Time Teacher’s activities Learners’ activities

10min Introduction (Whole class activity)

Picture reading

-Display a poster and ask learners to discuss what -Say words/sentences.

they can see.

54
15min Lesson development (Whole class activity)

Step1

Syllabic chart reading

-Display a syllabic chart on the board. -Sound after the teacher.

-Read short and long vowels while pointing at them. (Sounds and syllables)

-Model consonants and their syllables -Practice pronunciation of

s,t,v,w,y,z. letter sounds in pairs and

-Distribute smaller syllabic chart and let learners groups.

point at sounds as the teacher points at the big chart.

10min Step 2 (Whole class activity)

Flipping the card

-show cards (syllables) to the pps (pupils) and put -Do the correct sound

them upside down on the table. pronunciation.

-Ask learners to pick a card and relate the -relating sounds and

sound/syllable to the big syllabic chart. syllables.

10min Step 3 Group work

Mind map

-Demonstrate mind map activity with learners o the -Working out the mind map

board. activity in groups.

-Ask learners in small groups to practice writing

words on a mind map.

10min -Teacher to give writing activity based on the Individual work

sound/syllables introduced. -Write down words using

55
 sounds/syllables introduced.

5min Conclusion

-Ask learners to display their work. -Share their work and make

-Learners to share their work for comments and corrections where necessary.

praise.

Evaluation

5.5 Findings from VVOB

The VVOB education manager’s data on Catch-Up further revealed that:

The programme endorses the idea of locally made teaching materials.

Implying that the instructors or teachers are meant to develop their own
teaching materials. Additionally, the duration of the Catch-Up
intervention is 2 terms out of 3, and learners are supposed to be
subjected to 3 assessments, one in January, April and July.

5.6 How effective is remedial teaching (Catch-Up)?

In order to answer the question of how effective is remedial teaching (Catch-Up) in improving
learners’ reading performance in Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school? Focus group
discussions with the teachers, then later the pupils were conducted. Questions such as, would you
say remedial teaching improves performance? Any evidence from your school of improved
performance in terms of results? And, any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching? Were
asked by the researcher.

56
5.6.1 Teachers
5.6.1.1 Would you say remedial teaching improves performance?

During the focus group discussion with teachers, it emerged that most of the educators were
positive about the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme. Some of them argued
that the initiative did aid in the improvement of learners’ performance in Chitonga because they
were able to notice changes in the performance of their pupils before and after receiving
remedial teaching. One of the teachers stated that:

Before, most of the learners before receiving remedial teaching they’re

in what? You can say their performance is poor, but after, more
especially if they are given a dedicated teacher, you will see the
improvement, but sometimes there is no improvement if the teacher is not
putting in the input. So sometimes we cannot just blame the learners, we
also blame ourselves, cos most of the time because of this technology
which has come, instead of teaching, you are busy playing on your
phone. As a result, you are not what, you are not putting the input in the
learners and they will never break through. (R3)

Another teacher stated that:

So, after remedial, of course, three quarters they improve, they have to
improve. It’s just maybe 10 percent of the class that cannot break
through. But otherwise at the end of all the line, that is the, the what, the
beginning line? What do we call it, the baseline, the midline and the end
line. At the end of this, at least 75 percent of the learners should break
through. (R1)

One teacher revealed that:

It is not always 100 percent that all the learners will move. Some
learners are learners at a different pace. There are some pupils were by
from January to December, there just at the same level, but us as
teachers we are not just supposed to give up, so we just continue with

57
 them until one day they will breakthrough to the other level. Others are
fast learners; others are slow learners. (R2)

5.6.2.1 Teachers

5.6.2.1.1 Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?

When asked to share their final remarks on the efficacy of remedial teaching, most of the
teachers stated that the initiative had been helpful, especially towards ensuring that no learners
are left behind. One teacher stated that:

I think we should just continue with remedial work, because it has really
helped the learners, more especially in government schools. If you look
at that class, there are more than 60, so teacher pupil ratio in class is
not 100 percent. So when the pupils are in their pace groups, it is easier
to identify them and to help them, so I can say the Catch-Up programme
has come at the right time and should continue. (R2)

Additionally, another teacher argued that:

Also, for learning to take place effectively, children need to know how to
read and write, so if they do not know how to read it means even in these
other subjects, they will not perform well, they will only perform well if
they know how to read. That will also improve the record for you as a
teacher, because, if every time, your mark schedule is indicating that
children are below average, it means that you are not putting in your
best. So, they have to read in order for them to improve in other subjects
so as to improve your record as a teacher because you are analysed
alone. (R1)

It was also highlighted by another teacher that:

It is good because they are put in pace groups were by, they are in their
level. Because when you are teaching a normal class, fast learners will
always put up their hands and the lesson goes on. But when they are in
their pace groups, you say, what sound is this, there will be no one to

58
 answer on their behalf, and from there at least even me I should answer.
And a number of them, one can notice that things are looking promising,
to say they are moving to the next stage. (R4)

5.6.2.1.2 Any evidence from your school of improved performance in terms of results?

When asked to present evidence of improved performance in terms of results, one of the
participating teachers submitted summaries of the Catch-Up assessment from baseline to endline
at Mazabuka primary school. These can be seen below.

Table 5.2: Mazabuka primary school Catch-Up assessment summary (Baseline data-2021)

Source: Mazabuka primary school ZIC (2021)

Table 5.2 is Mazabuka primary school’s Catch-Up assessment summary at baseline. The number
of learners that were enrolled in the programme was 521. However, the total number of learners
that were assessed at this stage of the programme was 513. The number of learners assessed at
beginner level was 73, the number of learners assessed at letter level was 131, the number of
learners assessed at word level was 105, the number of learners assessed at paragraph level was
75, and the number of learners assessed at story level was 129.

Table 5.3: Mazabuka primary school Catch-Up assessment summary (Midline data-2021)

Source: Mazabuka primary school ZIC (2021)

Table 5.3 is Mazabuka primary school’s Catch-Up assessment summary at midline. The number
of learners that were enrolled in the programme was 542. Nevertheless, the total number of

59
learners that were assessed at this stage of the programme was 525. The number of learners
assessed at beginner level was 57, the number of learners assessed at letter level was 113, the
number of learners assessed at word level was 119, the number of learners assessed at paragraph
level was 80, and the number of learners assessed at story level was 156.

Table 5.4: Mazabuka primary school Catch-Up assessment summary (Endline data-2021)

Source: Mazabuka primary school ZIC (2021)

Table 5.4 is Mazabuka primary school’s Catch-Up assessment summary at endline. The number
of learners that were enrolled in the programme was 547. However, the total number of learners
that were assessed at this stage of the programme was 502. The number of learners assessed at
beginner level was 32, the number of learners assessed at letter level was 88, the number of
learners assessed at word level was 92, the number of learners assessed at paragraph level was
91, and the number of learners assessed at story level was 199.

From the illustrations above, it can be noted that the number of learners that progressed to story,
the highest level, increased from 129 (baseline) to 199 (endline).

5.7 Findings from the DRCC and VVOB

5.7.1 Findings from the DRCC

5.7.1.1 How effective is remedial teaching (Catch-Up)?

In order to collect additional data to answer the question of how effective is remedial teaching
(Catch-Up) in improving learners’ reading performance in Chitonga at Mazabuka primary
school? An interview with the DRCC and document analysis was conducted. Questions such as,
would you say remedial teaching improves performance? Any evidence from your school of
improved performance in terms of results? And, any comments on the efficacy of remedial
teaching? Were asked by the researcher.

60
The Mazabuka midline data of 2021 presented by the DRCC gives illustrations of the number of
learners tested, and an evaluation of pupils’ performance in literacy according to zones in
Mazabuka district, Zambia. Mazabuka primary school falls under Ndeke zone.

Figure 5.5: Zone share: Total learners assessed at midline

Source: DRCC (2021)

The figure above shows the different numbers of learners tested at midline according to zones in
Mazabuka district under the Catch-Up programme. Mazabuka primary school falls under Ndeke
zone.

61
Figure 5.6: Mazabuka data analysis: Learners who can read at least a simple paragraph

Source: DRCC (2021)

Figure 5.8 illustrates a comparison of the learners’ performance in literacy according to zones in
Mazabuka district, Zambia. It can be observed that there was a notable change in the
performance of learners who could read at least a simple paragraph under Ndeke zone. This is
because the data indicates that the pupils’ performance at baseline was 37%, while at midline it
rose to 44%.

5.7.1.1.2 Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?

However, it must be mentioned that, some of the participants revealed that the initiative does not
always work in certain situations. The DRCC stated that, there were instances were learners had
to be re-evaluated after it was noticed that they were not positively responding to the remedial
teaching programme, the following are the DRCC’s comments on the matter:

It has been noted in some classes that certain learners don’t seem to
respond to the intervention, so our wonder was why, why should these
learners fail to pick up even after we have exposed them to these

62
 remedial interventions. So, there are some suggestions among my
colleagues that maybe they be tried for other learning disabilities that
they may be suffering from, but otherwise, where Catch-Up has been
applied, learners are really expected to pick. That is the general picture.

5.7.2 Findings from VVOB in Lusaka

In order to collect additional data to answer the question of how effective is remedial teaching
(Catch-Up) in improving learners’ reading performance? An interview with the education
manager at VVOB Lusaka, and document analysis was conducted by the researcher.

5.7.2.1 How effective is remedial teaching (Catch-Up)?

The figure below is the Year-over-Year learning outcomes for pilot and scale years presented by
the education manager at VVOB.

Figure 5.7: Year-over-Year learning outcomes for pilot and scale years

Source: Education manager-VVOB (2021)

The Year-over-Year learning outcomes for pilot and scale years indicated that from January to
July 2020, the programme had reached 1,800 schools, and during that particular period, the
percentage of children who could read at least a simple paragraph increased from 37% (baseline)
to 48% (midline).

63
5.7.2.2 Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?

The Education manager at VVOB revealed that:

Evidence consistently shows TaRL to be among effective basic skills

development interventions, especially compared to other approaches
such as textbooks for top quintile (Kenya), school committee grants
(Indonesia), reducing class size (India) textbooks (Kenya), school
committee grants (Gambia), flipcharts (Kenya) and building/
improving libraries (India). This is because, unlike other
interventions, the TaRL methodology had been found to be highly cost
effective, and is often embedded within existing government systems.

5.8 What are the challenges teachers are facing in implementing remedial teaching at
Mazabuka primary school?

In order to answer this research question, focus group discussions with the teachers were
conducted. Questions such as, what challenges do you face when implementing remedial
teaching? And how have you tried to mitigate them? Were asked by the researcher.

5.8.1 Teachers

5.8.1.1 What challenges do you face when implementing remedial teaching?

It was noted that, the Catch-Up teachers at Mazabuka primary school lacked venues to conduct
their remedial lessons, appropriate remedial teaching materials, revealed that the numbers of
pupils in need of remedial teaching was overwhelming, lacked trained manpower, lacked
appropriate storage space for remedial teaching materials, lacked refresher courses by
supervisors, and pointed out that teachers who have been trained in remedial teaching may be
transferred to other schools, hence taking their skills and experience with them.

i. Lack of appropriate storage space for remedial teaching material

One of the teachers involved in the focus group discussion elaborated that:

Even where to store the materials like the phonic chart and the food
charts we are using. We don’t have, like at our school, we don’t have

64
 where to stole them. Meaning we have to move with them. when we leave
them in class, because the senior pupils use the class rooms in the
morning, the don’t consider those things, they say /a/, we don’t look at
letter sounds anymore. Just like what happened last week, I did most of
the charts, but today, there is only the timetable, they have all been
removed, by the seniors that use the class in the morning. (R4)

ii. Lack of trained human resource

One teacher pointed out that:

We need man power to help especially on the beginners, because you

find maybe you have Seventy beginners and you are just the two of you,
meaning you are going to share thirty-five, which is almost a full class.
So at least if you are maybe four, you share fifteen or ten, that one would
be hundred percent. (R2)

iii. Lack of venues to conduct their remedial lessons

Additionally, another teacher revealed that:

We cannot do Catch-Up under a tree because there are other pupils

passing meaning concentration will not be hundred percent. So, they
should be in an enclosed space, now rooms are not enough, so you find
that it is a challenge. (R4)

iv. Lack of refresher courses

One instructor revealed that:

It would be wise for our supervisors, and the higher authorities to be

arranging for refresher courses, because, it’s just a percentage of the
staff who were trained in this Catch-Up, three quarters of us were not
trained. The same people who were not trained are the ones that have
remained doing Catch-Up. now, we have been running up and down to
request or to inquire, to say what were you told, how were you trained,
what were you told to do, and the advance is not all that much. So we

65
 request supervisors to organise refresher courses so that even those who
were not trained can acquire something. (R1)

5.8.2 Deputy head teacher and senior teacher

5.8.2.1 What challenges do you face when implementing remedial teaching?

Interviews with the administrators at Mazabuka primary school also helped shed some light on
the challenges involved in implementing the Catch-Up programme. The major challenge stated
by the administrators was:

i. Late arrival of pupils to remedial classes

One of the major challenges is late arrival of pupils to remedial classes

was one of the challenges faced in employing Catch-Up, and this
resulted in them missing out on some key steps.

ii. The programme was time consuming

Yes, you see the Catch-Up programme was time consuming, and this
makes it difficult to effectively implement.

5.8.3 Findings from the DRCC

5.8.3.1 What challenges do you face when implementing remedial teaching?

i. Timetabling of remedial lessons

The DRCC pointed out that because Catch-Up is expected to take place outside the classroom
hours, this frustrates the teachers, hence affecting the delivery of remedial lessons. The DRCC
stated that:

Catch-Up is supposed to take place outside the learning hours, yeah, so

sometime because of poor timetabling, teachers will be required to come
back for Catch-Up. This frustrates a lot of them. The teachers get really
frustrated, they say they are tired, and cannot attend another class. Those
that do deliver remedial lessons, after a while start to demand for some

66
 extra payment. This is a serious problem, even when we remind them that
this is a Ministry of Education programme, and should take place within the
8 hours policy prescribed by the documents, still teachers find it very
difficult, especially those that do not have the heart for the child.

ii. Parents negative attitude towards the programme

Additionally, the DRCC highlighted that:

some parents tend to withdraw their children from taking part in remedial
lessons, hence hindering the pupils from benefiting from the Catch-Up
programme. The other challenge is the learners themselves.

iii. Teachers’ negative attitude towards the programme

The participant further added that poor attitude from both the teachers and the head teachers
towards the Catch-Up programme was also among the challenges faced in ensuring that the
initiative is properly implemented. The DRCC revealed that:

Among our implementers still, there is poor attitude towards the

programme. They have accepted it yes, but their acceptance was mainly due
to some moneys that was attached during their training. Immediately the
moneys finished they said no, the money that I was paid is finished so there
is nothing to be suffering for. So you find that, probably a school trained
maybe six teachers, when you get back to that school, you find that only two
or three are active, the rest have abandoned the programme. The issue of
timetabling, you have to force them to do a time a timetable.

iv. Transfers of trained remedial teachers

The DRCC also mentioned that:

The other thing that has hit us are transfers. Those that are trained in the
programme you find that they have upgraded and have moved to a
secondary school. Asking them to teach Catch-Up they feel inferior, or some
may have transferred completely to different schools.

67
5.8.3.2 How have you tried to mitigate the challenges?

It was noted that, when asked about how the participants have tried to mitigate the challenges
mentioned above, the common response was that talks with various stakeholders, aimed at
addressing some of the challenges were still taking place, and a consensus was yet to be reached.
However, some of the responses have been presented below.

i. Transfers

The DRCC highlighted that:

For teachers on transfer, we advise them to hold TGM, that is teacher

group meetings. Those that have knowledge to share with their
friends. We have also encouraged that zonal meeting. During zonal
meetings we expect the ZICs to take lead and help other schools in the
zone so that we can be on the same level.

ii. Negative Attitude towards the programme

The DRCC also mentioned that:

For bad attitude, we have talked to the headmaster to talk to their

teachers, however, one can find that even the headmaster themselves
do not like the programme. Some parents do not avail their children
to the remedial lessons, yeah, but we have tried to talk the parents
that please make your children available for these lessons by
providing them with enough food, and in fact asking them if they
attended remedial lessons, and from the parents’ point of view, this
time, it’s not a very big challenge because they have appreciated.

iii. Timetabling

It was revealed that:

One of the tasks that I have right now is to write a letter, ask our
DEBS to sign it, so that they can surrender their timetables to the
68
 district so that we monitor them, otherwise without timetabling it,
they are not going to implement the programme.

5.9 Summary

This chapter sought to assess the teachers’ understanding of the Catch-Up programme. It also
aspired to describe the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning.
Additionally, this chapter sought to evaluate the efficacy of Catch-Up remedial teaching in
improving learners’ reading performance. Finally, this chapter was aimed at establishing the
challenges teachers were facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka primary school.
Among the findings, it was revealed that the teachers involved in this research had a general
understanding of the Catch-Up programme. Furthermore, the data collected showed that there
was a noticeable difference in the performance of learners after receiving remediation. The next
chapter will present the discussion.

69
 CHAPTER SIX

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

6.1 Overview
The previous chapter presented the findings of this study. The discussion is guided by the
research objectives, which were; to assess the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching,
describe the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning, evaluate
the efficacy of remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading performance, and establish the
challenges teachers were facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka primary school.

6.2 Teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching

The findings revealed that teachers with appropriate training in Catch-Up had a general
understanding of the tenets of remedial teaching. Some of the tenets mentioned include the fact
that Catch-Up involved teaching learners according to levels instead of grades, that the remedial
lessons are supposed to take place outside normal learning hours, and that the teachers had to
facilitate remedial activities that are recommended by the Catch-Up remedial teaching
programme, including assessment and monitoring of the learners’ progress.

Furthermore, the remedial teachers at Mazabuka primary school highlighted that remedial
teaching is an important exercise with a credible track record of giving some form of intellectual
benefits to grade 3, 4 and 5 pupils of Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school taking part in Catch-
Up. In other words, the data collected in this study revealed that, from the teachers’ perspectives,
the Catch-Up programme is an effective remedial teaching intervention aimed at aiding pupils
grasp concepts that they may be facing challenges comprehending.

However, it must be mentioned that the uncertainty observed by the researcher depicted by some
teachers during interviews, highlighted that not all the respondents were fully aware of what
remediation is all about. This is so because some of the respondents portrayed limited knowledge
on issues such as how to effectively implement the Catch-Up programme. This revelation was in
line with Padakannaya (2008) who argued that, in certain situations, even the individuals that are
expected to deliver remedial teaching may not have sufficient knowledge on the matter. This was
also observed by Townsend (2007) who concluded that certain teachers lacked sufficient

70
knowledge on various issues pertaining to the effective delivery of remedial teaching. This
affected the way they handled students who faced challenges in English due to dyslexia. Hence
negatively affecting the effectiveness of the remedial teaching.

6.3 The teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning

A majority of remedial teachers and learners that took part in this study emphasised that remedial
lessons were intellectually enriching experiences to them. It was revealed that instructors
subjected the pupils to various learner centred activities targeted at enhancing their listening,
speaking, reading and writing skills which are vital in real life situations. It was also noted that
the pupils participated in activities such as whole class exercises, practicing pronunciation of
letter sounds in pairs and groups, relating sounds and syllables, working out mind map activities
in groups, and writing down words of sounds/syllables learnt. Additionally, it was revealed that
the duration of the Catch-Up intervention is 2 terms out of 3, and learners are supposed to be
subjected to 3 assessments, one in January, April and July. This suggests that by the time an
academic year elapses, learners would have been subjected to various remedies and assessments
by their teachers aimed at helping them improve their performance.

During the focus group discussion with teachers, it emerged that most of the educators were also
confident about the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme. Some of them
argued that the initiative did aid in the improvement of learners’ reading performance in
Chitonga because they were able to notice changes in the performance of their pupils, before and
after receiving remedial teaching. The teachers further added that the programme was effective
because it does not only help them identify the learners that are facing challenges, it also
prescribes some of the remedies that may be used to help curb the challenges those learners were
facing.

Furthermore, when asked to share their final remarks on the efficacy of remedial teaching, a
good number of pupils said Catch-Up assisted them in developing their literacy skills. This was
in line with the literature presented by the Innovations for Poverty Action (2017) which also
highlighted that under the Catch-Up intervention, the learners are subjected to different activities
and assessments in literacy instruction, and learners are expected to proceed to the next level
after receiving successful remediation in literacy.

71
Additionally, in order to get more insight on the teachers and learners’ experiences with remedial
teaching, the investigator observed a remedial lesson. During the observation, the researcher
noticed that a good number of the learners faced minimum challenges while learning Catch-Up
because it was taught in Chitonga, which, according to the researcher’s observation, was a
language most learners were familiar with. This was evident in the way most of them actively
participated in the lesson without facing major complications when making contributions,
working in groups and giving feedback to each other and the teacher. This contradicts the
findings in Smith and Wallace (2011) who highlighted that a good number of the learners in
England’s high schools who were sent to remedial lessons argued that it was an embarrassing
experience, hence making it difficult to encourage learners to take part in remediation.

It was also observed that in certain instances, some of the learners who had challenges in
comprehending the language of instruction (Chitonga) resorted to asking their fellows to explain
what their teacher was saying in a language they were familiar with. For example, during a
Catch-Up lesson observation, the researcher heard a learner say ‘sininvenla vilivo nonse’ to her
peer, and when translated from Chichewa to English, the pupil said ‘I can’t understand
anything,’ and this resulted in her being assisted by her classmate in a language she was able to
understand. This indicated that, similar to main stream classrooms, remedial classes may also
house diverse learners, and remedial teachers are supposed to be aware of this fact. On the other
hand, this also reaffirms the critical role that social interaction plays in the development of
cognition (Iversen & Mkandawire, 2020).

Additionally, it was revealed that Mazabuka primary school endorsed the model that saw
remedial lessons taking place before curriculum time for an hour. Entailing that, from Monday to
Friday, the learners first attended remedial lessons before going for their normal classes.
However, this contradicts with some of the information presented by the Innovations for Poverty
Action (2017), which elaborated that the Catch-Up remedial lessons are meant to take place after
school hours for an hour, when pupils have already attended their normal classes. Furthermore,
from the researcher’s observation, the model endorsed at Mazabuka primary school may not be
ideal because, as mentioned in chapter five, if a teacher fails to conclude a lesson within time, the
lesson is ended abruptly because learners were supposed to return to their normal classes.

72
6.4 Efficacy of remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading performance in Chitonga
at Mazabuka primary school

Analysis of the Mazabuka primary school baseline to endline data revealed that there was some
distinction in the number of pupils who proceeded to different stages of the Catch-Up
intervention at baseline, midline and endline. For instance, from the summary of Mazabuka
primary school’s Catch-Up assessments, it can be noted that the number of learners who
advanced to story level, the highest level in the programme, increased from 129 (baseline) to 199
(endline).

Additionally, figures 5.5 and 5.6 in chapter five gave illustrations of the number of learners
tested, and an evaluation of pupils’ performance in literacy according to zones in Mazabuka
district, Zambia. Mazabuka primary school falls under Ndeke zone, and in this zone, it was
indicated that 2039 pupils were tested. After assessments, the findings indicated that there was a
notable change in the performance of learners who could read at least a simple paragraph in the
zone under discussion. This is because the data showed that the pupils’ performance improved
from 37% (baseline) to 44% (midline). Hence, it can be argued that this data gives an insight into
the impact of the Catch-Up intervention on the development of learners, and this is evidence of
the efficacy of remedial teaching in improving the performance of pupils in Chitonga.

Furthermore, the Year-over-Year learning outcomes for pilot and scale years presented by the
education manager at VVOB, revealed that the programme’s efficacy had improved over the
years, even with the expansion of its coverage. For instance, figure 5.8 indicated that from
January to July 2020, the programme had reached 1800 schools, and during that particular
period, the percentage of learners who could read at least a simple paragraph increased from 37%
(baseline) to 48% (midline). Therefore, it can be argued that, apart from being additional proof of
the Catch-Up’s efficacy, this is also an indicator that because of its successful expansion so far,
the programme may have the potential of assisting struggling learners in other parts of the
country that are currently not implementing it. This is very important for the development of
literacy levels in Zambia.

The findings above can be said to agree with Banerjee et al (2007) who found that the Balsakhi
Programme which also employs Pratham’s “Teaching at the Right Level” methodology resulted
in learners improving in their literacy performance, hence resulting in epistemic access for the

73
learners. This is so because the study recorded increased average test scores of all learners in
treatment schools by 0.28 standard deviation.

The findings were also in line with Banerji, Duflo, and Khemani (2010) who found that after
treatment, children who could read nothing at baseline of the Learning-to-Read programme had a
60 percent chance of progressing to letters at endline. For children who could read letters at
baseline, the classes resulted in a 26 percent higher likelihood of reading a story, the highest
level on the test. Banerjee et al (2010) also found that an in-school learning camp intervention
had similar impacts as the Read India programme and the Learning-to-read programme, as test
scores for treated learners increased from 0.7 to 1.0 on average.

Innovations for Poverty Action (2017) also highlighted that the Catch-Up remedial teaching
programme has been confirmed to be effective in different countries around the world such as
India and Ghana. Additionally, a programme in Kenya which divided classrooms by ability level
also showed positive results. Abu Armana (2011) also asserted that remedial teaching managed
to aid seventh grade low achievers in Rafah to enhance their capabilities in tackling exercises
such as writing in an accurate manner. Furthermore, Aragon (2004) also revealed that the
students in Midwest USA had higher cumulative grade point averages (GPA) and scored better
English grades than the participants that did not take part in the remediation exercise. This was
also in line with the findings by Lavy and Schlosser (2005) who concluded that under-
performing pupils in Israel significantly improved their reading achievements. This was argued
to be evidence that the remedial intervention was effective in the improvement of the learners’
performance.

However, it must be mentioned that, some of the participants revealed that the initiative does not
always work in certain situations. One of the participants stated that there were instances were
learners had to be re-evaluated after it was noticed that they were not positively responding to the
remediation. This revelation was also noted by Klinger, Cramer and Harry (2006) who asserted
that one of the issues associated with remedial teaching involved learners stagnating and not
progressing to the next stage of a remedial programme. From this, it can be argued that different
learners have different learning needs. Hence, remedial teachers need to be able to figure out
how they can successfully help stagnating learners break through to literacy. For instance,
motivation has been argued to be key in the learning process. Therefore, the instructor can either

74
use extrinsic or intrinsic motivation tactics to help ignite the pupils’ interest in learning.
Additionally, as one of the participants highlighted, the teacher may also re-evaluate stagnating
learners to try and see how they can be assisted. Alternatively, the teacher may talk to parents
about their children’s performance, and try to come up with a consensus on how they may help
those particular children.

6.5 The challenges teachers were facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka
primary school

Most of the Catch-Up teachers at Mazabuka primary school revealed that the school lacked
venues to conduct their remedial lessons, appropriate remedial teaching materials, revealed that
the numbers of pupils in need of remedial teaching was overwhelming, lacked trained
manpower, lacked appropriate storage space for remedial teaching materials, lacked refresher
courses by supervisors, and pointed out that teachers who have been trained in remedial teaching
may be transferred to other schools, hence taking their skills and experience with them.

The revelations mentioned above can be said to be consistent with some of the data presented
earlier in this work. For instance, the challenge of inadequate support from supervisors was also
in line with the findings by Innovations for Poverty Action (2017) in which it was revealed that
the major challenges that may hinder the successful implementation of the Catch-Up intervention
had to do with the frequency of lessons and sufficient support by mentors to instructors. It was
informed that, during the pilot, “the main challenges were whether lessons took place at all due
to co-curricular activities and bad weather, and mentors making visits to support teachers in
class” (Innovations for Poverty Action 2017: 55). In other words, lack of support from key
stakeholders to ensure that Catch-Up takes place may lead to a decline in remedial lessons.

The argument of lack of teaching materials was also highlighted in Gutierrez and Rodrigo
(2011), in which it was stated that lack of materials that can be useful in aiding remedial students
in Mexican secondary schools were among the common challenges highlighted by the
instructors.

Additionally, it was revealed that Catch-Up is expected to take place outside the normal
classroom hours. However, because of poor timetabling, this frustrates the teachers, hence
affecting the delivery of remedial lessons. Some of the participants further added that poor

75
attitude from both the teachers and the head teachers towards the Catch-Up programme was also
among the challenges faced in ensuring that the initiative was properly implemented.
Additionally, the DRCC stated that some parents tend to withdraw their children from taking part
in remedial lessons, hence hindering the pupils from benefiting from the Catch-Up programme.
Interviews with the school administrators at Mazabuka primary school also helped shed some
light on the challenges involved in implementing the Catch-Up programme. The major
challenges stated by the administrators included, late arrival of pupils to remedial classes, which
resulted in them missing out on some key steps, and that the programme was time consuming.

Similarly, Bettinger and Long (2008) revealed that remedial programmes in certain schools
located in New York were generally demanding because they needed to be financed, lacked
adequate teaching and learning aids, and were time consuming. Mumba & Mkandawire (2019),
and Musongole (2019) also contented that, certain teachers believed that having to teach more
lessons in remedial sessions was like adding extra tasks to one’s work schedule. These are
among the common challenges that may make it difficult to frequently and successfully
implement remedial programmes.

6.7 Summary

This chapter presented the discussion of key findings. The discussion was guided by the research
objectives. The data that was presented in this chapter was analysed thematically. The findings
revealed that the reading performance of learners in Chitonga had improved, as there was a
noticeable distinction in their results after receiving Catch-Up remedial teaching. It was also
revealed that teachers with appropriate training in Catch-Up had a general understanding of what
remedial teaching was all about. Additionally, most of the teachers and learners emphasised that
remedial lessons were intellectually enriching experiences to them. Furthermore, it was revealed
that remedial teachers faced certain challenges in implementing remedial teaching. Some of the
challenges mentioned included lack of trained human resource, and timetabling of remedial
lessons. The next chapter contains the conclusion and some recommendations.

76
 CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Overview

The previous chapter presented the discussion of key findings. The findings were discussed
according to the themes developed from the research objectives. The research objectives were to;
assess the teachers’ understanding of the Catch-Up programme, describe the teachers and
learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching/learning, evaluate the efficacy of Catch-Up
remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading performance, and establish the challenges
teachers were facing in implementing remedial teaching at Mazabuka primary school. This
section presents the conclusion and the recommendations based on the study’s findings.

7.2 Conclusion

7.2.1 Assess the teachers’ understanding of remedial teaching

Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the teachers at Mazabuka primary school that
participated in this study had a basic understanding of remedial teaching. The teachers
highlighted that Catch-Up involved teaching learners according to levels instead of grades, that
the remedial lessons are supposed to take place outside normal learning hours, and that the
teachers had to facilitate remedial activities that are recommended by the Catch-Up remedial
teaching programme, including assessment and monitoring of the learners’ progress. However, it
can be argued that this comprehension was mainly observed in teachers with proper training in
Catch-Up.

7.2.2 Describe the teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial

teaching/learning

The findings on teachers and learners’ experiences regarding remedial teaching suggested that
instructors subjected the grade 3, 4 and 5 pupils of Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school taking
part in Catch-Up to various learner centred activities with the intension of developing their
cognitive abilities. As such, a majority of the participants concluded that remedial lessons were
intellectually enriching experiences to them. They further highlighted that remedial teaching was

77
a potential antidote to challenges such as low performance in literacy at Mazabuka primary
school.

7.2.3 Evaluate the efficacy of remedial teaching in improving learners’ reading

performance

It has been revealed that the number of learners at Mazabuka primary school who progressed to
story level, the highest level in the programme increased from 129 (baseline) to 199 (endline).
Additionally, Figure 5.6 illustrated a comparison of the learners’ performance in literacy
according to zones in Mazabuka district, Zambia. Mazabuka primary school falls under Ndeke
zone, and from the data, it was noted that the performance of learners in that zone had improved.
Furthermore, during the focus group discussion with teachers, it emerged that most of the
educators were also positive about the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme
because they were able to notice changes in the performance of their pupils. Moreover, most of
the pupils that participated in this study said Catch-Up assisted them in developing their literacy
skills. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme results in
grade 3, 4 and 5 learners of Chitonga at Mazabuka primary school gaining some intellectual
benefits in literacy after remediation.

7.2.4 Establish the challenges teachers were facing in remedial teaching at Mazabuka
primary school

Most of the Catch-Up teachers at Mazabuka primary disclosed that the school lacked venues to
conduct their remedial lessons, appropriate remedial teaching materials, revealed that the
numbers of pupils in need of remedial teaching was overwhelming, lacked trained manpower,
lacked appropriate storage space for remedial teaching materials, lacked refresher courses by
supervisors. Moreover, some of teachers pointed out that instructors who have been trained in
remedial teaching may be transferred to other schools, hence taking their skills and experience
with them. It can be argued that these challenges make it difficult to effectively implement the
Catch-Up programme at Mazabuka primary school. However, like any phenomenon, it was also
observed that most of the challenges presented are as a result of one’s limited knowledge and
experiences with remedial teaching, and how to appropriately deliver it. With that said, the
following are some of the recommendations.

78
 7.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings presented in this study, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. The researcher recommends refresher Courses to Remedial Teachers trained in Catch-Up.

This can help some of the teachers that were initially trained in Catch-Up enhance their
understanding of the programme.
2. The researcher recommends training programmes concerned with remedial teaching for
both in-service and student teachers. Arming teachers with skills for them to be able to
treat remedial learners can help curb teachers’ lack of adequate knowledge on
remediation.
3. The researcher recommends recruitment of more trained and qualified remedial teachers.
This maybe a solution to the issue of limited specialists in remedial teaching. This may
also lead to successful remediation of lower performing learners.
4. The researcher recommends that acts that can motivate and raise the awareness of
learners, and make them realise the significance of the concepts or skills they have
challenges with, can be a possible solution to remedial learners stagnating, absenteeism
and negative attitude towards the programme. Additionally, tolerance of remedial
learners and consistent treatment of challenges which are persistent is also encouraged.
5. The researcher recommends that all government departments concerned with the
betterment of education, school heads, teachers and parents collaborate in addressing
challenges affecting the successful employment of remedial teaching (Catch-Up). This is
because, it was revealed that the Catch-Up remedial teaching intervention and its
instructors lacked sufficient support from certain stakeholders such as parents and school
administrators. In turn, this affected its effective implementation.

79
 7.4 Suggestions for future research

This study was aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the Catch-Up remedial teaching programme in
improving the reading performance of learners. Therefore, the study recommends that, for future
studies, a comprehensive study comparing the performance of classes/learners taking part in
remedial teaching (Catch-Up) with those that are not (regular classes), should be conducted in
order to determine if there are any major distinctions between the two. This may help to shed
more light on the efficacy of remedial teaching in improving the performance of learners in
literacy.

80
 REFERENCES

Abu Armana, M. A. R. (2011). Impact of a remedial programme on English writing skills of the
Seventh-Grade low achievers at UNRWA schools in Rafa. Gaza: Islamic
University of Gaza.

Aragon, S. (2004) “Influence of a Community college Developmental Education writing course

on academic performance.” Community college review, 32 (2), 1-18.

Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E. & Linden, L. (2007) “Remedying Education: Evidence from

Two Randomized Experiments in India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol

122(3), Pp1235 -1264.

Banerjee, A., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. & Khemani, S. (2010). Pitfalls of
participatory programmes: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in
education in India. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2 (1): 1-30
Retrieved 10th December from
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/pol.2.1.1.

Banerjee, A., Banerji, R., Berry, J., Duflo, E., Kannan, H., Mukherji, S., Shotland, M. & Walton,

M. (2016). Mainstreaming an effective intervention: Evidence from randomized

evaluations of “Teaching at the Right Level” in India. NBER Working Paper
No.22746. Retrieved 18th January from https://www.nber.org/papers/w22746.

Bettinger, E. P. & Long, B. T. (2008) Addressing the Needs of Under-Prepared Students in

Higher Education. Does College Remediation Work? Columbus, O H: Ohio

Board of Regents.

Chibamba, A., Mkandawire, S., & Tambulukani, G. (2018). Primary Reading Programme versus

Primary Literacy Programme in Zambia: Exploring their Similarities and

Differences. Retrieved 28th December from http://www.researchgate.net.

81
Chikwature, W. & Oyedele, V. (2016). The Impact of Remediation in The Teaching and
Learning of Map Work in Geography Subject at ZJC Level: A Case of Marange
High School. Retrieved 9th September from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330102506.

Chitsa. B. (2017). Effectiveness of Remedial Education in the Teaching and Learning

Situation in Bulawayo Metropolitan Secondary Schools. (PhD Thesis).

Zimbabwe Open University, Harare.

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. (5th ed). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Etikan, I., Abubakar, M. & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied statics. Vol.
5, No. 1, 2016, p 1-4. doi 10.11648.

Gutierrez, E. & Rodrigo, R. (2011) “Evaluation of the Impact of a Remedial mathematic

Programme in Mexico City.” Paper submitted to Mexican University.

Gottlieb, M. I. & Williams, J. E. (Eds.). (1987). Textbook of Developmental Pediatrics. New

York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Holmlund, H. & Silva, O. (2009) “Targeting Non Cognitive skills to Improve Cognitive
Outcomes; Evidence from a Remedial Education Intervention.” Discussion
Paper Number 4476. I Z A Bonn.

Innovations for Poverty Action (2017) Catch-Up Pilot - Progress Monitoring Report (2017).
Retrieved 14th September from https://www.unicef.org/zambia/reports/catch-
pilot-progress-monitoring-report-2017.

Iversen, J. Y. & Mkandawire, S. B. (2020). Comparing Language Ideologies in Multilingual

Classrooms Across Norway and Zambia. Multilingual Margins, 7(3), 33-48
Jones, H. (2009). Equity in development: why it is important and how to achieve it. London:

Working Paper.

Kafata, F. & Mbetwa, K. S. (2016). An Investigation into the failure rate in mathematics and
82
 Science at Grade (12) Examinations and its impact to the school of Engineering:
A case study of Kitwe District of Zambia: International Journal of Scientific &
Technology Research. Vol. 5 P. 70-92, AUG 2016. ISSN 2277-8616. Retrieved
9th from http//: www.ijstr.org.

Kaputa, T. M. (2012) “A proposed model for identifying students with learning disabilities in

primary schools in Harare metropolitan province.” Ph D Thesis ZOU.

Khalid, M. & Anjum, G. (2019). Use of remedial teaching approaches for dyslexic students:
Experiences of remedial teachers working in Urban Pakistan. Cogent
Psychology, 6: 1580181 http://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1580181.

Klinger, J., Cramer, E. & Harry, B. (2006) “Challenges in the Implementation of Success for

All in Four High-Needs Urban Schools”: Elementary School Journal Vol 106,
333-349.

Lavy, V. & Schlosser, A. (2005) “Targeted Remedial Education for Under-performing

Teenagers; Costs and Benefits.” Journal of Labour Economics Vol 23 (4), 839-
874.

Leak, M. & Lesik, S. (2007). Do Remedial English Programs impact First Year success in
Colleges? An Illustration of the Regression discontinuity design.” International
Journal of Research and methods in Education, 30 91), 89-99.

Manyumwa, E., Manyumwa, C. & Mutemeri, J. (2013) “Evaluating the Implementation of the
remedial education programme in Zimbabwe urban primary schools.” MSU
journal: The Dyke Vol 7.3.

McCormick, S. & Zutell, J. (2014). Person New International edition: Instructing students Who
Have Literacy Problems. (6th ed). Essex: Pearson.

Miller, S. (2011) A Three-Tier Model of Education Intervention for students with Language
based learning Challenges. USA. Allyn and Bacon.

83
Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education. (2013). Zambia
Education Curriculum Framework 2013. Curriculum Development Centre:
Lusaka.

Mkandawire, S. B. (2012). An Evaluation of the Neganega Literacy Programme in Mazabuka

District of the Southern Province of Zambia. Unpublished Masters Dissertation.
The University of Zambia.
Mkandawire, S. B. (2019). Selected Common Methods and Tools for Data Collection in
Research. In: M. K. Banja (Ed.). Selected Readings in Education Volume 2.
(pp.143-153). Lusaka: Marvel Publishers.
Mumba, C. and Mkandawire, S. B. (2019). The Text-based Integrated Approach to
Language Teaching: Its Meaning and Classroom Application. Multidisciplinary
Journal of Language and Social Sciences Education, 2(1), 123-142.
Munsaka, E. (2011). Mastering the Psychology of Teaching and Learning. Lusaka: The
University of Zambia Press.

Murru, C. A. (2018). Learners ‘Catch-Up’ with remedial teaching in Zambia: a partnership

approach. Retrieved 10th September from
http://www.teachingattherightlevel.org.

Musongole. L. (2019). Factors Affecting the Effectiveness of Remedial Work Policy in Selected

Secondary Schools in Kasempa District. (Master’s Thesis). The University of

Zambia, Lusaka.

Mwanza, D. (2012). The language of initial literacy in a cosmopolitan environment: A case of

Cinyanja in Lusaka district (Master’s thesis). The University of Zambia,
Lusaka.

Ndebele, C. (2014) “Teacher Perceptions on the Effectiveness of an English Remedial Teaching

Programme in Primary Schools in Zimbabwe: Towards an Alternative to the
Deficit Model.” Kamla-Raj Int J Edu Sci, 6(3): 497-508.

Nkosha, D., Masaiti, G. & Al, D. (2016). Zambia Education Policy Review: Paving the Way for
SDG 4 - Education 2030. 10.13140/RG.2.2.27798.98880.

84
Padakannaya, P. (2008). A Remedial teaching programme to help children with mathematical
Disability. Asia Pacific disability rehabilitation journal. 19. Retrieved 14th
September from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/30942356.

Parker, T. L., Bustillos, L. T. & Berhringer, L. B. (2010) “Remedial and developmental

Educational policy at a crossroad.” Denver co: Education commission of

states.

Phiri, J. (2015). Nature and Prevalence of Writing Difficulties Among Learners at Fourth Grade:

A Case of Selected Primary Schools in Lusaka District of Zambia. Masters

Dissertation, The University of Zambia.

Poverty Action Lab. (2011). What helps children to learn? Evaluation of Pratham's Read India
program in Bihar & Uttarakhand. Retrieved 19th December from
https://www.povertyactionlab.org.

RTI International. (2015). National assessment survey of learning achievement at grade 2:

Results for early grade reading in Zambia. Retrieved 25th December from
http://www.shared.rti.org/content/national-assessment-survey-learning-
achievement-grade-2-results.

Paribhasha. S. & Deshpande, A. (2010). “Teachers’ Perception of Primary

Education and Mothers’ Aspirations for Their Children - A Qualitative Study in

Bihar and Uttarakhand.” J-PAL South Asia.

Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E. & Bolt, S. (2010). Assessment in special and inclusive education.
Belmont: Wadsworth.

Schwartz, A. (2012). RE to accelerate learning for all. GPE Working Paper Series on Learning
11(1): 1-65.

Sheu, C. M., Hsu, L. & Wang, P. L. (2007) “The Effects of English Remedial courses in a

Technical University-A Case study of K U A S.” Journal of studies in English

Language and Literature, 20, 25-38.

85
Smith, S.E. & Wallace, O. (2011) “What is Remedial Education?” Retrieved 28 September from
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-remedial-education.htm.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (1988). Seeking sweet water. In R. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for

research in education (pp. 253–300). Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association.

Stufflebeam, D. L. & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation Theory, Models & Applications (2nd

ed). San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass.

Teaching at the Right Level (2021). Reading Activities. Retrieved 28th September from
https://www.teachingattherightlevel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Reading-
Activities.pdf.

Townsend, S. B. (2007) “The Need for a Remedial Qualification within Inclusive Education.”

Retrieved 13th August from

https://www.nmmu.ac.za/documents/thesis/sbtownsend.

Trochim, W. M. (1998). An evaluation of Michael Scriven’s “Minimalist theory: The least

theory that practice requires.” American Journal of Evaluation, 19(2), 243–249.

UNICEF. (2016). The impact of language policy and practice on children’s learning: evidence
from eastern and southern Africa. Retrieved 14th September from http//:
www.unicef.org.

Wu, Y. (2012). Remedial learning. In: Seel, N. M (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the Science of learning.
New York: Springer.

Wyse, D. & Goswami, U. (2013). "Early Reading Development": The SAGE Handbook of Early

Childhood Literacy. Retrieved 20th September 2020 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446247518.n22.

86
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

UNZA DATA COLLECTION PERMISSION LETTER

87
 APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM
THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

CERTIFICATE OF INFORMED CONSENT

I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me in a language that I understand. I
understand the purposes and procedures described in the research project. The purposes of the study
and the procedures as well as the benefits and any risks have been explained to my satisfaction. I had
the opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions I have been asked have been answered to
my satisfaction. I consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study.

Print Name of Participant__________________

Signature of Participant ___________________

Date ___________________________

Day/month/year

If illiterate 1

I have witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to the potential participant, and the
individual has had the opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the individual has given consent
freely.

Print name of witness____________ Thumb print of participant

Signature of witness _____________

Date ___________________

1 A literate witness must sign (if possible, this person should be selected by the participant and should have no connection to the
research team). Participants who are illiterate should include their thumb print as well.

88
 APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH THE EDUCATION MANAGER AT VVOB

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND POST GRADUATE STUIES

INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH THE EDUCATION MANAGER AT VVOB

I am a post graduate student at the University of Zambia pursing a Master of Education in
Applied Linguistics. I am conducting “AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP
PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT,
ZAMBIA.” I need to get your sincere experience in order for me to write on the above topic.
You are assured that your identity will not be revealed to the public.

Section A: Catch-Up programme

1. What is the Catch-Up programme?

2. How were the schools that participated in the programme selected?

3. What learning and support were the participants given?

4. Has this programme been implemented somewhere else before?

5. What was key to the successful implementation of this initiative?

Section B: Teachers understanding of remedial teaching

6. Did the teachers welcome the Catch-Up intervention?

7. Were the teachers trained in remedial teaching?

8. How do you identify learners that needed remedial teaching?

9. Did the teachers effectively delivery remedial lesson to their learners?

10. What are some of the remedies that were used to help learners?

89
 Section B: Efficacy of remedial teaching

11. Do you feel the remedies used during the programme the helped the learners overcome
their challenges?

12. Explain the learners’ performance before and after receiving remedial teaching?

13. Would you say remedial teaching improves performance?

14. Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?

Section C: Challenges teachers are facing in implementing remedial teaching

15. What challenges do you face when implementing remedial teaching?

16. How have you tried to mitigate them?

90
 APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH THE DRCC

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND POST GRADUATE STUIES

INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH THE DRCC

I am a post graduate student at the University of Zambia pursing a Master of Education in
Applied Linguistics. I am conducting “AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP
PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT,
ZAMBIA.” I need to get your sincere experience in order for me to write on the above topic.
You are assured that your identity will not be revealed to the public.

Section A: Catch-Up programme

17. What is the Catch-Up programme?

18. How were the schools that participated in the programme selected?

19. What learning and support were the participants given?

20. Has this programme been implemented somewhere else before?

21. What was key to the successful implementation of this initiative?

Section B: Teachers understanding of remedial teaching

22. Did the teachers welcome the Catch-Up intervention?

23. Were the teachers trained in remedial teaching?

24. How do you identify learners that needed remedial teaching?

25. Did the teachers effectively delivery remedial lesson to their learners?

26. What are some of the remedies that were used to help learners?

91
 Section B: Efficacy of remedial teaching

27. Do you feel the remedies used during the programme the helped the learners overcome
their challenges?

28. Explain the learners’ performance before and after receiving remedial teaching?

29. Would you say remedial teaching improves performance?

30. Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?

Section C: Challenges teachers are facing in implementing remedial teaching

31. What challenges do you face when implementing remedial teaching?

32. How have you tried to mitigate them?

92
 APPENDIX E

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE WITH TEACHERS

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND POST GRADUATE STUIES

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE WITH TEACHERS

I am a post graduate student at the University of Zambia pursing a Master of Education in
Applied Linguistics. I am conducting “AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP
PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT,
ZAMBIA.” I need to get your sincere experiences in order for me to write on the above topic.
You are assured that your identity will not be revealed to the public.

Section A: Teachers understanding of remedial teaching

1. What is remedial teaching?
2. Are you trained in remedial teaching?
3. What are the recommended techniques in remedial teaching?
4. Do you give remedial work to your learners?
5. How do you identify learners that need remedial teaching?
6. What are some of the remedies that you use to help learners?
Section B: Efficacy of remedial teaching
7. Do you feel the remedies used during the programme the helped the learners
overcome their challenges?
8. Explain your learners’ performance before and after receiving remedial teaching?
9. Would you say remedial teaching improves performance?
10. Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?
Section C: Challenges teachers are facing in implementing remedial teaching
11. What challenges do you face when implementing remedial teaching?
12. How have you tried to mitigate them?

93
 APPENDIX F

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE WITH LEARNERS

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND POST GRADUATE STUIES

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE WITH LEARNERS

I am a post graduate student at the University of Zambia pursing a Master of Education in

Applied Linguistics. I am conducting “AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP

PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT,

ZAMBIA.” I need to get your sincere experiences in order for me to write on the above topic.

You are assured that your identity will not be revealed to the public.

1. Why were you picked to attend remedial teaching?

2. When do remedial lessons take place?
3. Describe your experiences during these lessons?
4. Is remedial teaching helpful, how?
5. Would you say there is improvement after remedial teaching? Provide evidence.

94
 APPENDIX G

INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH HEAD TEACHERS/SENIOR TEACHERS

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND POST GRADUATE STUIES

INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH HEAD TEACHERS/SENIOR TEACHERS

I am a post graduate student at the University of Zambia pursing a Master of Education in

Applied Linguistics. I am conducting “AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP

PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT,

ZAMBIA.” I need to get your sincere experiences in order for me to write on the above topic.

You are assured that your identity will not be revealed to the public.

Section A: Understanding of remedial teaching

1. What is remedial teaching?
2. How do you identify learners that need remedial teaching?
Section B: Efficacy of remedial teaching
3. Would you say remedial teaching improves performance?
4. Any evidence from your school of improved performance in terms of results?
5. Any comments on the efficacy of remedial teaching?
Section C: Challenges in implementing remedial teaching
6. What challenges do your teachers face when implementing remedial teaching?
7. How have you tried to mitigate them?

95
 APPENDIX H

LESSON OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EDUCATION

DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND POST GRADUATE STUIES

LESSON OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

I am a post graduate student at the University of Zambia pursing a Master of Education in

Applied Linguistics. I am conducting “AN EVALUATION OF THE CATCH-UP

PROGRAMME AT MAZABUKA PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAZABUKA DISTRICT,

ZAMBIA.” I need to get your sincere experiences in order for me to write on the above topic.

You are assured that your identity will not be revealed to the public.

● Organisation of remedial classes.

● Implementation of teaching at the right level methodology during a lesson.
● Attention to the slower learners.

● Teaching of lessons again and providing additional teaching on parts of lessons that
students have yet to understand.
● Teachers’ ability to work directly with students not learning well in a small group.
● Letting weaker students work in a mixed group with other children who understand.
● Employment of diverse learning activities.

● Design of meaningful learning solutions.

● Focus on the learning process.

● Encouragement of pupils’ active participation in class activities.

● Enhancement of learning interest and motivation.

● Teachers’ summary of the main points.

● Teachers’ concern for the performance of individual pupils.

96