3.1 Demographic Information
Many of the respondents (55.82%) was fall in the age range of 16-20 years old followed by 19.9 % age range of 10-16 years, 16.5% age range of 21-25 years, 7.77% age range of 26-30 years. In addition, majority of the respondents, 107 (51.94%) were attended their education at Zema bet followed by 95(46. 12%) Kene bet, 3(1.46%), Nibab Bet and other 1(0.49%) is found to be Mesthafit bet. Furthermore, 98(47.57%) respondents found to be at Debre Tabor, 37(17.96%) were drown from Woreta, 34(16.5%) were from Mekaneyesus, followed by 23(11.16%) from Gayint and 14(6.8%) were from Addis Zemen. Besides, majority of the respondents 154(74.76%) was stayed from year 1-5. Others 41(19.98%), 8(3. 88%), 3(1.46%) were staying 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 years respectively in the church schools. Finally, 163(71. 13%) were non-disabled whereas 43(28.87%) respondents were students with disabilities. These inferred that respondents were drawn from different age groups, educational level, and administrative towns.
The distribution of the study groups by disability condition falls between 21.42% and 42.86%. That is, 5(35.71%) were blind, 3(21.42%) physical disabled and the remaining 6(42.86%) were non- disabled students. Being disabled help the church scholars to provide valid and reliable data onto the educational condition of students with disabilities in the church schools. The figure also showed that most interviewed church scholars have more than 5 years of teaching experiences. This long experience helps the respondent to provide real, genuine and sufficient information onto church schools. In addition, these respondents were selected from the five administrative towns and church schools. The respondents were also selected from different levels of the church school.
Many of the respondents 8(53.3%) was blind, and the remaining 7(46.7%) was physical disabled. Other types of disabled students were not included in the study. This entails that many students, especially students with visual and physical impaired have been participating in the different levels of the church schools (66.67%, 26.67% and 6.67% Zema, Kene and Metshift bet respectively).
3.2 Educational Conditions in Indigenous Education
3 .2.1 Educational Abilities
Table 1: Educational Abilities of Students with Disabilities in the Church Education
|
Items
|
Agree
|
Disagree
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
1
|
The educational abilities of students with disabilities in all levels of the church education is the same as that of students without disabilities.
|
145
|
70.39
|
61
|
29.61
|
2
|
Students with disabilities have better academic abilities in lower levels of church education than the higher levels (house of pottery and house of books).
|
58
|
28.16
|
148
|
71.84
|
3
|
Students with disabilities have scored lower in all academic areas due to inconvenient teaching-learning methodology.
|
41
|
19.9
|
165
|
80.1
|
4
|
The educational ability of students with disabilities are different based on their disability type.
|
198
|
96.11
|
8
|
3.89
|
5
|
The Educational ability of students with disabilities are better in theoretical related areas than those program that required practical performance( house of pottery and books)
|
158
|
76.7
|
48
|
23.3
|
6
|
Students with disabilities have better abilities in both theoretical and practical subject areas
|
37
|
18
|
169
|
82
|
7
|
Disability/ Impairment does not have an impact on the educational abilities of students’ with disabilities
|
150
|
72.8
|
56
|
27.2
|
8
|
Students with disabilities have completed their education latter in all levels of the church education than when compared to students without disabilities.
|
171
|
83
|
35
|
17
|
9
|
Students with disabilities have completed all levels of the church education as the same time as students without disabilities because of having low abilities
|
50
|
24.27
|
156
|
75.73
|
As showed in table 1, majority of the respondents 145(70.39)%) replied that the educational ability of students with disabilities is the same as that of their non-disabled peers and few of them (29.61%) stated that these groups of students did not have the same abilities in all levels of the church education. Conversely, many of the respondents, 148(71. 84%) disagreed with the issue that students with disabilities have lower abilities in the higher levels of the church education and vice versa. In addition to this, most of the respondents (80.1%) also disagreed with the statement ‘lower score of students come as a result of inconvenient teaching –learning methodology’. Furthermore, most respondents 158(76.7%) agreed that students with disabilities have better abilities on those theoretical related educational programs than on those programs that require practical performances (like the way of standing’ or ‘moving’ especially in aqwaqwam for monthly and annual festivals accompanied by sistra, prayer sticks and drums executed by the choir when singing).
With regard to the impact of disability on the educational ability of students with disabilities, majority of respondents150 (72.8%) reported that disability does not have an impact on their educational abilities and performances. Similarly, 171(83%) of respondents pointed out that students with different disability groups were not finished their education with the same period as that of students without disability in the different levels of the church education due to lack of support provided.
Chi-square(X2) Score
I
|
Items
|
HC
|
A
|
DS
|
X2 Value
|
Sig.
|
1
|
Educational abilities of students with disabilities in all levels of the church education is the same as that of students without disabilities
|
Disability
|
27
|
16
|
1.509
|
.220
|
N. Disability
|
119
|
44
|
2
|
Students with disabilities have better academic abilities in lower levels of church education than the higher levels( house of pottery and house of books)
|
Disability
|
14
|
29
|
.521
|
.471
|
N. Disability
|
44
|
119
|
3
|
Students with disabilities have scored lower in all academic areas due to inconvenient teaching-learning methodology.
|
Disability
|
9
|
34
|
.036
|
.850
|
N. Disability
|
32
|
131
|
44
|
The educational ability of students with disabilities are different based on their disability type.
|
Disability
|
40
|
3
|
1.393
|
.238
|
N. Disability
|
160
|
3
|
5
|
The Educational ability of students with disabilities are better in theoretical subject areas than on those subjects that required practical performance
|
Disability
|
32
|
11
|
.158
|
.691
|
N. Disability
|
126
|
37
|
6
|
Students with disabilities have better abilities in both theoretical and practical subject areas
|
Disability
|
8
|
35
|
.015
|
.902
|
N. Disability
|
27
|
136
|
7
|
Disability/ Impairment does not have an impact on students’ with disabilities educational abilities
|
Disability
|
29
|
14
|
.793
|
.373
|
N. Disability
|
121
|
42
|
8
|
Students with disabilities have completed their education latter in all levels of the church education than students without disabilities due to having low ability
|
Disability
|
35
|
8
|
.100
|
.751
|
N. Disability
|
13
|
27
|
9
|
Students with disabilities have completed all levels of the church education as the same time as students without disabilities because of having low abilities
|
Disability
|
13
|
30
|
1.050
|
.305
|
N. Disability
|
37
|
126
|
Note that HC refers to health condition, A refers to agree, DS refers to disagree, X2 refers to Chi-square and sig. refers to significant value, at Alpha level 0.05,df=1
The general X2-test in the table 3 is used to compare the academic performance of students with disabilities with that of students without disabilities in the different levels of church schools. The researchers developed 9 items that used to assess differences in academic performances of students with disabilities in comparison with students without disabilities in the church schools. Accordingly, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups of learners in their educational performance in all of the items, X2 (1.509, .521, .036, 1.393, .158, .015, .793, .100, and 1.050 from item 1-9 respectively), df =1, p =.220, .471, .850, .238, .691, .902, .373, .751 and .305 >0.05 from items 1-9 respectively. Thus, the result indicates there is no ability difference between students with disabilities and students without disabilities in the different levels of the church schools.
4.2.2 The Implementation of Teaching Methods
Table 2: the implementation of teaching-learning methods for students with Disabilities
II
|
Items
|
Agree
|
Disagree
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
1
|
In church education, teachers usually practice active methods of teaching
|
162
|
78.65
|
44
|
21.65
|
2
|
In church education, teachers always used only lecture method of teaching.
|
49
|
23.79
|
157
|
76.21
|
3
|
In all levels of the church education, teachers used only one type of method of teaching
|
55
|
26.7
|
151
|
73.30
|
4
|
The method of teaching used in the church education is depends on rote memory
|
86
|
41.75
|
120
|
58.25
|
5
|
Church scholars practiced a varieties of methods of teaching for students with disabilities
|
88
|
42.72
|
118
|
57.28
|
6
|
The practiced methods of teaching are appropriate for students with disabilities
|
156
|
75.73
|
50
|
24.27
|
7
|
The practiced method of teaching varies from one level to others levels of the church education( Nibab bet, Zema bet, Kene bet and Meshaft bet)
|
174
|
84.47
|
32
|
15.53
|
8
|
The Methods of teaching employed by church scholars various from disabilities to disabilities( visual from hearing)
|
99
|
48.06
|
107
|
51.94
|
9
|
Practice -centered method of teaching is not conducive for students with disabilities
|
159
|
77.18
|
47
|
22.82
|
The result from Table 2 revealed that majority of the respondents, 162(78.65%) reported that church scholars have been practicing active learning methods in all levels of the church schools. On the contrary, most respondents (76.21%) disagreed with the issue of the implementation of lecture methods of teaching slowly. That is, teachers used other methods of teaching like independent work, active listening, peer tutoring, group discussion, brain storming, creative work etc. The above table also showed that teachers did not use only one type of method of teaching (73.3%). Furthermore, a slightly large number of respondents 120(58.25%) forwarded that the methods of teaching employed on the different levels of the church education do not only depend on rote memory. It requires also understanding, creativity and practical works. Regarding the various methods of teaching used for students with disabilities, respondents 118 (57.28%) confirms that teachers did not use different types of methods of teaching peculiarly for students with disabilities in the church education. In line with this, most respondents (75.73%) agreed that the practiced methods of teaching were appropriate for students with disabilities. The majority of respondents (84.47%) also forwarded that the practiced methods of teaching were varying from one level to other level of the church schools.
As the table above depicted, majority of the respondents (77.18%) remarked that the practice centered method of teaching like aqwaqwam and using sistra, prayer sticks and drums executed by the choir are not conducive for students with visually and physically impaired. In the same vein, the data onto the table also showed that some of the respondents (48.06%) reported that the methods of teaching employed by church scholars were vary from disabilities to disabilities. However, a considerable number of respondents was not agreed with this issue (51.94%). They learn the curriculum by their own pace and approach. In addition, different grade leveled students attended their education to gather in one fixed learning center.
3.2.3 Assessment Techniques
Table 3: Assessment techniques employed in the church education
III
|
Items
|
Agree
|
Disagree
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
1
|
Church scholars usually assess students understanding level continuously
|
202
|
98.06
|
4
|
1.94
|
2
|
Church scholars assess students’ understanding at the end of each level/program only.
|
199
|
96.68
|
7
|
3.24
|
3
|
After the end of each assessment, church scholars provide feedback immediately
|
183
|
88.83
|
23
|
11.7
|
4
|
Church scholars used special assessment techniques in order to know the understanding levels of students with disabilities
|
31
|
15.05
|
175
|
84.95
|
5
|
in addition to their teachers, students ability is assessed by external church scholars
|
21
|
11.11
|
185
|
88.89
|
6
|
Students’ with disabilities ability is assessed by their peers.
|
193
|
93.7
|
13
|
6.3
|
7
|
Students with disabilities are assessed by the same assessment criteria like that of their’ normal’ peers
|
172
|
83.49
|
34
|
16.51
|
8
|
There is standardized fixed criteria that used to assess students’ abilities in all levels of the church education
|
148
|
71.84
|
58
|
28.16
|
9
|
Church scholars use similar assessment techniques for both students with and without disabilities
|
166
|
80.56
|
40
|
19.42
|
As shown from the above table, most respondents (98.06%) reported that church scholars assess their students’ understanding level continuously. In the same vein, the data onto the same table revealed that majority of respondents (96.68%) agreed that teachers also assess students’ understanding level at the end of each program. This entails that church scholars assess students’ performance both at each lesson continuously and at the end of each program/level. The table above also depicted that 88.83% of respondents responded that church schools have been providing feedback immediately.
However, 84.95% of the respondents answered that church scholars did not use special assessment techniques in order to know the understanding levels of students with disabilities in the different levels of church education. In addition, most respondents (88.89 %) assured that students’ ability had not been assessed by external church scholars. The result from the same table also showed that the majority of the respondents (93.7%) replied that students’ ability is assessed by their peers. In the same way, 83.49% of respondents remarked that church scholars used the same type of assessment criteria for both students with and without disabilities to evaluate students’ performance. Furthermore, majority of respondents (71.84%) revealed that there is standardized fixed criteria that used to assess students’ abilities in all levels of the church education. Finally, as most respondents replied, church scholars used similar assessment techniques for both students with and without disabilities (80.56%).
3.2.4 Support services
Table 4: Support services provided for students with disabilities in church education
IV
|
Items
|
Agree
|
Disagree
|
f
|
%
|
f
|
%
|
1
|
Students with disabilities have got special shelter services from church schools
|
70
|
66.02
|
136
|
33.98
|
2
|
Students with disabilities have got food services from the church schools
|
82
|
38.91
|
124
|
60.19
|
3
|
Students with disabilities have got academic support services from the church
|
108
|
52.43
|
98
|
47.57
|
4
|
Students with disabilities have got disability specific educational materials
|
24
|
11.66
|
182
|
88.34
|
5
|
Students with disabilities have got clothing support services
|
7
|
3.32
|
199
|
96.68
|
6
|
Students with disabilities have got educational support services from their peers
|
191
|
92.72
|
15
|
7.28
|
7
|
Students with disabilities have got special support services from society
|
27
|
13.1
|
179
|
86.9
|
8
|
Students with disabilities have got special educational support from church scholars
|
89
|
43.2
|
117
|
56.8
|
In light of shelter support services from church schools, 136(66.02%) of the respondent responded disagree. Meaning, students with disabilities have not obtaining shelter support services from the church school. Furthermore, 124(60.19%) of the respondents disagreed with the provision of food supports by the church. Instead, students have been obtaining this support from the community through begging with the help of their junior students. However, more than half 108(52.43%) of the respondents remarked that students with disabilities have got academics support from the church. The table above also showing that the majority of the respondents (88.34%) have confirmed that students with disabilities have not been obtaining disability specific educational materials from the school.
Regarding clothing support, 199(96. 68%) and 7(3.32%) of the participants have replied disagree and agree respectively. This entails that students with disabilities did not obtain clothing supports from the church and church schools. 191(92.72%) of the participants also responded that students with disabilities have got educational supports from their peers. Concerning special support services from society, 179(86.9%) of the respondents replied disagree. That is, students with disabilities have not been obtaining special support services from society. In addition, slightly more than half of the respondents (56.8%) remarked that students with disabilities could not get special educational supports from church scholars.
3 .3 Interview, FGD and Responses from opened ended questionnaire results
Box 1: Interview, FGD and responses from open ended questionnaire
1. Results related to academic Ability and performance
- Students with and without disabilities have similar educational performance ( case 9)
- Blind students have by far better performance than other groups of studentsin memory and understanding (case 4)
- The educational performance of Blind students are greater than when compared to ‘ normal’ students( case 11)
- Students with disabilities have similar abilities and learn equally if they get support services (case 6)
- Though students with disabilities have similar abilities, they faced problems in using and playing church music with sistra, drums, prayer sticks and choirs(case 7)
- Students with disabilities do not have problems in mental abilities except in reading and learning Dawit for students with visual impairment and choir and Mass music for students with physical disabilities.)( all interviewed church scholars)
- Students with disabilities do not have problems of learning the Words of the God (FGD result)
- Some practical activities including Aqwaqquam(the way of standing and moving) and Mhelet(choiring while singing) require the participation of hand, leg and the different parts of the body. These kind of performances are so difficult for students with disabilities( Solomon)
- If we could not find readers, it is obvious that our educational performance is lower( FGD result)
- Students with disabilities have similar performance at night than days learning, because they obtained readers at night(case 2)
- There is no educational performance difference between students with and without disabilities( the open ended questionnaire result)
- No educational ability and performance difference existed on these groups of learners particularly in Qene( the composition of poetry)(case 2)
- Except having physical weakness, students with disabilities perform well in practical related performances( Dejen and FGD result)
- Church education requires bright mind. Disability by itself does not have an impact on students’ academic performance Case 8 and FGD result)
- Students with visual impairment have better memory as compared to others(case 8)
2. The implementation of teaching-learning methods
- Mostly church scholars used oral method of teaching in all levels of church education(FGD result)
- Senior students teach junior learners (peer tutoring is the most frequently used methods of teaching (FGD result and case 1). Senior students academically support junior students who are usually known as “Kotres”
- The methods of teaching employed for the different levels of education are different. For instance, Kene learning requires creativity whereas, Zema needs oral methods of learning(Solomon)
- Reading is difficult for blind students to learn Nibab and Dawit, because no braille language teachers found in the church schools(Yared)
- Church scholars have been used the same type of methods of teaching for all groups of learners in all levels of church schools(Case 8 and case 14)
- In all levels of church education, teachers did not use special methods of teaching for students with disabilities(open ended question response)
- Church scholars used oral, independent reading and learning, critical thinking, group discussion, peer tutoring, micro teaching, creative work, group reading and loud talking, and brain storming methods of teaching.(case 11)
- Practice –centered methods of teaching is not conducive for students with visual and physical impairment(case 6)
3. Assessment techniques
- Asking question is the most frequently used assessment techniques in the church education(FGD response)
- In church education, learning is assessed to check whether learners know the issues, not for obtaining the certificate (FGD response)
- In addition to teachers, students with disabilities also assessed by their peers(Case 2)
- We assessed memory, oral, symbols knowledge, creative and practical skills(Eshetu)
- We give more emphasis on assessing the knowledge of students with disabilities than others(case 6)
- Students have not been getting an opportunity to evaluate their performances by external teachers. They evaluated by another schools where the final exams are taken, for instance, Church music (zema)at Bethlehem; for zemmare and mawasitat Zuramb; for mahelet and aqwaqwamin at Gondar; for qedasse at Wollo and Tigray( FGD , Case 11, Fentahun and Eshetu)
4. Support services provided
- No support services have been providing for students with disabilities by the church, government and non-governmental organizations( open ended questionnaire, all interviewed participants and FGD result)
- Students with disabilities have got only educational supports from their peers( Lema, Mersha and Genetu)
- We have obtained a pieces of food services from the community by begging with the support of junior ‘normal’ peers (interviewed students with disabilities)
- We obtained blanket and health related support from the community(Yared and FGD result)
|