1. LD CHECK LIST FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN By Rukhshana Sholapurwala & Dr. Madhuri Kulkarni

2. Introduction Why early diagnoses Teacher’s awareness Screening check-list developed by the M.S.C.E.R.T’S Divisional office & Institute of vocational guidance & selection along with L.D. experts Usefulness of the check-list

3. Aims & Objectives To study teacher’s perception about the use of screening check-list for high risk L.D. children To analyse percentage of children studying in 3 rd standard positive on screening check-list To study the profile of high risk children as regards their clinical, psychological and educational assessments To determine the number of L.D. children detected using screening check-list.

4. Materials & Method 10 schools in different zones of Mumbai were selected All English medium schools All co ed schools 5 ICSE and 5 SSC schools

5. Names of the Schools Christ Church School Shishuvan School Beacon High School Swadhyay Bhavan School St.Gregorios School Balmohan Vidhyamandir D.P.Y.A. High School I.H. Bhatia High School Little Angle’s High School Bombay Cambridge School

6. Cont… 27 3 rd Standard class teachers participated Teachers were given the training on how to use the check-list Teachers were given a time of 7 days to fill up the data On the day of returning the data teachers were given a pre structured questionnaire Consent of the Principals, Parents was taken before the study started. Total students screened are 1101

7. CHECK LIST Sr. No. StatementNeverSometimesFrequently 1.Makes mistakes in reading like omits/substitute words/adds words or skip lines 2.Can answer questions orally but has difficulty in writing answer/oral work is better than written work. 3.Writes or reads figures or letters in wrong way eg. 15 for 51, 6 for 9, b for d 4. Difficulty in differentiating letter sounds for vowels and blends e for I, ch for sh. 5.Difficulty in rhyming words and repeating them

8. Cont…. 6 Difficulty taking notes or copying from black board and books 7 Confusion with maths symbols (+,-,x) 8 Difficulty in spellings. 9 Difficulties with spatial orientation and direction eg. Confusion between left and right, east and west, up and down 10Misplaces upper and lower cases letters, eg. BeTTer, n for N

9. Profile of Screened Students as per School Sr. No.School NameTotal Screened 1Balmohan Vidyamandir80 2Beacon High54 3Christ Church182 4Dadar Parsee Youth Assembly167 5I.H.Bhatia88 6Little Angle’s182 7Shishuvan80 8St. Gregorios136 9Swadhyay Bhavan42

10. Demographical Data Age (Yrs.)MaleFemaleTotal (N=1101) 07-7.117972151 08528318846 090608013 10------01

11. Profile of Students Making Mistakes In Reading 71.3 % of students never made any mistakes in Reading 23.2% of students sometimes had difficulty in Reading Only 5.5% of students had difficulty in Reading Assessmen t No. of Students (N=1003) Percentage Never71571.3 Someti mes 23323.2 Freque ntly 5505.5

12. Profile of Students Having Difficulties In Writing Answers 74.4% of the students never had difficulty in writing answers. 18.7% of the students had difficulty sometimes 6.9% of the students had difficulty in writing answers Assessmen t No. of Students (N=1002) Percentage Never74674.4 Sometime s 18718.7 Frequentl y 6906.9

13. Profile of Students Writing or Reading Figures or Letters in Wrong Way 92.6% of the students never observed to have writing or Reading Figures in wrong way 6.0% of sudents had Sometimes Difficult 1.4% of students had difficulty in writing and readind the figures in wrong way Assessme nt No. of Students (N=1002) Percentage Never92892.6 Sometime s 6006.0 Frequentl y 1401.4

14. Profile of Students Having Difficulty In Differentiating Letter Sounds 86% of students did have any problems in this area 10.3% of students sometimes had this problem 3% of students had problems in this area Assessmen t No. of Students (N=1002) Percentage Never86986.7 Sometime s 10310.3 Frequentl y 3003.0

15. Profile of Students Having Difficulty in Rhyming and Repeating Them 87.8% of students never had any difficulties in this area 10.5% of students sometimes showed problem in this area 1.7% of students had difficulty in this area Assessme nt No. of Students (N=1004) Percentag e Never88287.8 Sometime s 10510.5 Frequentl y 1701.7

16. Profile of Students Having Difficulty in Taking Notes or Copying From Black Board 80.4% problem in this area of students never had 14.2% of students sometimes showed problem in this area 5.4% of students had problems in this area Assessme nt No. of Students (N=999) Percentag e Never80380.4 Sometime s 14214.2 Frequentl y 5405.4

17. Profile of Students Having Confusion With Mathematics Symbols 90.7% of students had no difficulty in this area 7.7% of students sometimes showed difficulty in this area 1.6% of students had difficulty in this area Assessme nt No. of Students (N=1003) Percentag e Never91090.7 Sometime s 07707.7 Frequentl y 1601.6

18. Profile of Students Having Difficulty In Spellings 66.3% of students had no problems in this area 25.2% of students sometimes showed difficulty in this area 8.5% area students had difficulty of in this area Assessme nt No. of Students (N=1003) Percentag e Never66566.3 Sometime s 25325.2 Frequentl y 8508.5

19. Profile of students Having Difficulties With Spatial Orientation And Direction 87.4% of students had no difficulty in this area 11.6% of students showed problems in this area 1.0% of students had problems in this area Assessme nt No. of Students (N=1001) Percentag e Never87587.4 Sometime s 11611.6 Frequentl y 1001.0

20. Profile of Students Misplacing Upper And Lower Cases Letters 90.7% of students had no problems in this area 6.7% of students sometimes showed problems in this area 2.6% of students had problems in this area Assessme nt No. of Students (N=1004) Percentag e Never91190.7 Sometime s 6706.7 Frequentl y 2602.6

21. SUMMARY Sr. No. Statements Sometime % Frequent % 1. Difficulty in differentiating letter sounds for vowels &blends eg. e for I, ch for sh 34.935.2 2. Difficulty in rhyming words & repeating them. 24.318.9 3. Difficulty taking notes or copying from the black board & books. 19.116.2 4. Difficulty with spatial orientation & direction eg. Confusion between left & right, east & west, up & down. 3.310.8

22. Cont….. 5.Misplaces upper & lower cases letters eg. BeTTer, n for N, 3.310.8 6.Confusion with maths symbols (+, -, x) while solving word problems & mathemetical computation 11.85.4 7.Difficulty in spellings6.62.7

23. Cont….. From total students (1011) assessed 39 fell into Frequent category and 152 fell in sometimes category. 3% students in frequent category and 15% in sometime category. From 39 students 32 have been further assessed and from that 29 have been assessed as having L.D.

24. Teacher’s Evaluation 27 all Std. III class teachers were interviewed after they had filled up the Check list. They were given a Pre Structured questionnaire Their evaluation shows as follows

25. TEACHER’S QUESTIONNAIRE StatementsYESNO How long did you take to fill this questionnaire for one child________ minutes How was your experience when you were filling the check list? Was it difficult to fill this check list How much time you think it needed to observe the child to be able to comment on the statements in the check list Did you have to especially plan activities or work sheets to fill the check list According to you can the check list be filled by observing child’s day to day activities

26. Cont… Do you think the check list should be regularly administered for all children in the school Did the check list help you in understanding your student better Have you undergone any training in Learning Disability earlier than this study Were you aware of children having Learning Disability prior to this study How many students do you have in each class room Is the number appropriate to know each child individually

27. Cont….. What action will you take once you know that the child falls into a high risk category Do you have any suggestions to modify the check list Was the check list useful in identifying students with Learning Disability

28. Profile of Time to Fill Questionnaire 11.1% of teachers required 1-2 or 3-4 minutes to fill the questionnaire 48.2% of teachers required 5-7 minutes 29.6% of teachers required more than 7 minutes Duration in Minutes No. of Teachers (N=27) Percentag e 1-20311.1 3-40311.1 5-71348.2 >70829.6

29. Profile of Experience in Filling The Check list 72.0% of teachers did not feel difficult to fill the Check list 28.0% of total teachers found it difficult to fill the Check list Asses sment No. of Teachers (N=25) Perce ntage YES0728.0 NO1872.0

30. Profile of Time Required To Observe The Child and To Comment on Statement in the Check list 38.5% of teachers felt that 2-3 or 3-4 months were needed to observe the child and to comment 19.2% of teachers felt that 6 months are needed to observe and comment Duration in months No. of Teachers (N=26) Percentag e 1-20103.8 2-31038.5 3-41038.5 60519.2

31. Profile of Check list N=27 Questionnaire 1) Did you have to especially plan activities or worksheets 9 Teachers said yes that is 33.3% 18 Teachers said No that is 66.7%

32. Cont…. 2) According to you can the check list be filled by observing child’s day-to-day activities or worksheet 24 Teachers said Yes…88.9% 03 Teachers said No…..11.i%

33. Cont….. 3) Do you think this check list should be regularly administered 22 Teachers said Yes….81.5% 05 Teachers said No……18.5%

34. Profile of Understanding Students Better 55.6% of Teachers felt that Check list has Helped them to understand their students Better 7.4% of Teachers felt that it was not sufficient for understanding the students better 37.0% felt that somewhat it helped to understand Assessme nt No. of Teachers (N=27) Percentag e Yes1555.6 No0207.4 Somewhat1037.0

35. Profile of Awareness Among Teachers Regarding Children Having Learning Disability 100% Teachers were aware of children having Learning Disability 81.5% of Teachers informed the Head about children having Learning Disability 66.7% of Teachers had informed the parents or referred them for further assessment

36. Profile of Number of Students In Each Class 53.8% of teachers have 41-50 students in each class 23.1% of teachers have 30-40 students in each class No. of Students No. of Teachers (N=26) Percenta ge 20-300207.7 30-400623.1 41-501453.8 >500415.4

37. Profile of Number of Children Appropriate To Know Each Child Individually 52.0% of teachers felt that total no. of children in each class were not appropriate to know each child individually 61.5% of teachers feel that 20-30 children in each class would be the ideal no. of children in each class for assessment

38. Profile of Action Taken When The Child Falls Into A High Risk Category 85.2% of the teachers informed the head when they know that child is falling into high risk category 55.6% of teachers also informed the parents/guardian when child falls into a high risk category ActionNo. of Teachers (N=27) Percentag e Informed the Head 2385.2 Inform parents/g uardians 1555.6 Any Other0207.4

39. Profile of Suggestions To Modify The Check list 88.5% of teachers feel there is no need to modify the check list 11.5% of teachers feel there is a need to modify the check list Assessment No. of Teachers (N=26) Percentage YES0311.5 NO2388.5

40. Profile of Identifying The Students With Learning Disability 61.5% of teachers agree that check list was useful in identifying students with learning disability 3.9% of teachers do not know that the check list was useful or not Assessme nt No. of Teachers (N=26) Percentag e Agree1661.5 Strongly Agree 0934.6 Disagree---- Do Not Know 0103.9

41. SUMMARY Teachers require more time to fill the check list. Before giving the check list training of the teachers is very much essential. Teachers felt that the check list can be filled by observing student’s daily work. Teachers felt that the class room strength should be less. 20-30 students per class.

42. Conclusion L.D. Check list seems to be Teacher Friendly and Easy to use. It is useful in screening high risk children with L.D. from std. III.

43. THANKYOU