03.11.2014 Views

Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012

Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012

Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

South African Journal of<br />

Childhood Education<br />

<strong>Volume</strong> 2 Number 2 <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong>


South African Journal of Childhood Education<br />

<strong>Volume</strong> 2 Number 2<br />

The South African Journal of Childhood Education publishes interdisciplinary,<br />

peer-reviewed research articles. It is housed in the Centre for Education Practice Research<br />

on the Soweto campus of the University of Johannesburg.<br />

Print ISSN: 2223-7674. Online ISSN: 2223-7682.<br />

Typeset, printed and published by SUN MeDIA Metro, wpo@sunmediametro.co.za,<br />

www.africansunmedia.co.za<br />

Editor: Elizabeth Henning (University of Johannesburg)<br />

Associate editors: Graham Dampier, University of Johannesburg; Hasina Ebrahim, University<br />

of the Free State; Ronel Ferreira, University of Pretoria; Chris Pascal, Centre for Early<br />

Childhood Research, Birmingham.<br />

Journal manager: Delia Arends<br />

Editorial board: Jill Bourne, University of Strathclyde; Virginia Casper, Bank Street College of<br />

Education, New York; Mike Askew, Monash University; Dennis Francis, University of the Free<br />

State; Catherine Snow, Harvard University; Joanne Hardman, University of Cape Town; Leila<br />

Kajee, University of Johannesburg; Luneta Kakoma, University of Johannesburg.<br />

Cover design: SUN MeDIA Metro<br />

Prof Alison Gopnik (University of California, Berkeley) uses the image of a lantern to describe<br />

the mind of the young child. The journal uses this image in the same way.<br />

Sponsors: The establishment of the South African Journal of Childhood Education is<br />

supported by a three-year grant from the Primary Sector Policy Support Programme (PSPSP),<br />

a partnership between the European Union (EU), the Department of Basic Education (DBE),<br />

and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), which has the ultimate goal<br />

of improving primary education in South Africa. Early Childhood Development Supplement.<br />

The annual ECD supplement, Khululeka, is sponsored by ApexHi Charitable Trust.<br />

The opinions expressed in the articles do not reflect those of the editors.


South African Journal of<br />

Childhood Education


Orders and correspondence:<br />

Delia Arends<br />

Soweto Campus, GNA 101<br />

University of Johannesburg<br />

PO Box 524<br />

Auckland Park<br />

2006<br />

South Africa<br />

Tel: 011 559-5102<br />

Subscription form is included at the back of this journal


Contents<br />

Editorial: Toward More South African<br />

Research on Learning in Childhood<br />

Elizabeth Henning &<br />

Graham Dampier<br />

Crossing the “Theory-practice Divide”:<br />

Learning to Be(come) a Teacher Sarah Gravett 1<br />

Cracking the Vocabulary Code in<br />

Mathematics in the Foundation Phase Carisma Nel 15<br />

Test items and translation: capturing<br />

early conceptual development in<br />

mathematics reliably?<br />

Graham Dampier &<br />

Daphney Mawila 35<br />

Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

Pre-school children are ready to<br />

learn mathematics Nosisi Nellie Feza 58<br />

Reading in Two Languages: Evidence<br />

from Miscue Analysis Brian Lwazi Ramadiro 74<br />

Exploring the Role of the Speech-language<br />

Therapist in City Centre Preschools Sandra du Plessis 94<br />

Early Childhood Care, Child Development<br />

and School Readiness: Evidence<br />

from Zambia<br />

Gunther Fink,<br />

Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski,<br />

Corrina Moucheraud &<br />

Beatrice Matafwali 117<br />

Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation<br />

Programme: What we Know and<br />

Zelda van der Merwe &<br />

What we Should Know Carisma Nel 137<br />

A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module<br />

“Life Skills” in the Foundation Phase at<br />

Miemsie Steyn,<br />

Higher Education Institutions in<br />

Cycil Hartell &<br />

South Africa Nicoleen Schuld 158<br />

Self-Esteem Among Children in Grade R in<br />

an Urban South African School<br />

Anita Keller &<br />

Manfred Max Bergman 177<br />

Call for papers 188<br />

Subscription to SAJCE 190<br />

i


Editorial:<br />

Toward More South African Research on Learning in Childhood<br />

In the fourth issue of this young journal there is already much evidence, based on the<br />

manuscripts we have received, that there is a need to publish more research on the<br />

education of children. The journal is filling a gap, which we recognised four years ago,<br />

when we started planning for it. However, there continues to be a dearth of articles on<br />

the psychology of learning in childhood. Perhaps there simply is not enough research<br />

capacity yet. Perhaps it is the result of the backseat that primary school education,<br />

specifically in the foundation phase, occupied in the educational reform agenda until<br />

recently. Perhaps it is too expensive to conduct studies that inquire into the way<br />

children learn, with fieldworkers required to conduct large scale research with findings<br />

that can be generalised. Perhaps we all feel that we cannot diminish any child’s time<br />

on task in school by interfering in school routine in a country where so much learning<br />

time has been lost in so many ways. Perhaps we have given up on single, qualitative<br />

case studies that do not go beyond description. Although such studies may, logistically,<br />

be easier to conduct, they do not seem to influence policy much. Whatever the reason<br />

may be, no one can argue that we know enough of the tapestry of South African<br />

children’s learning. Certainly, in this journal, preference will be given to empirical work<br />

that reports on research of child learning and development in future, with studies of<br />

any design type included.<br />

The articles<br />

This does not mean we do not welcome manuscripts about teachers and teaching,<br />

especially ones that look at the core of teacher education. Such an article is the first<br />

one in this issue. Sarah Gravett theorises the age old theory-practice ‘divide,’ arguing<br />

that the culprits responsible for this notion may well be those of us who design teacher<br />

education programmes. Her stance is that knowledge of education and ‘doing’ of<br />

education can be ‘interlaced’ in schools that are closely affiliated to teacher preparation<br />

programmes. Such collaboration, she argues, should be on-going, so that school<br />

management teams and teachers of such schools can become part of the teacher<br />

education team of a university. Carisma Nel writes about teacher preparation as well,<br />

proposing that there should be a specific place for “the vocabulary of mathematics” in<br />

the building of teacher knowledge in the pre-service years.<br />

Mathematics education is also the topic of the article by Graham Dampier and<br />

Daphney Mawila. They explain how the translation of a standardised German test was<br />

used with a sample of children who were assessed in isiZulu and Sesotho, concluding<br />

that this pilot inquiry showed that only some items were affected by the translation.<br />

The next article, by Nosisi Feza, about the need for pre-school interventions, concludes<br />

that, ideally, “quality mathematics interventions, longitudinal studies on impact of such<br />

interventions and tracking studies on schooling effects of early quality mathematics<br />

preparation” are sorely needed. Remaining within the field of learning in the early<br />

i


years, Brian Ramadiro reports on a study of grade 2 – 6 learners’ reading errors in<br />

isiXhosa and in English. He concludes that the children who were tested read better in<br />

isiXhosa than in English, but that they are not reading as well as they could be reading<br />

in what is their mother tongue.<br />

The role of speech-language therapists in an inner-city context is the topic of the<br />

article by Sandra du Plessis. Reporting on a descriptive survey study she suggests that<br />

speech-language therapists need to consider and employ innovative service delivery<br />

models that utilise the strengths of inner-city dwellers and teachers in this specific<br />

multilingual context. Günther Fink and co-authors report on evidence they gathered on<br />

the developmental impact of a community-based project to improve school readiness.<br />

They found higher primary school enrolment rates and improved physical development<br />

among children formerly attending the center compared to the matched control group<br />

after one year.<br />

In the next article in this issue Zelda van der Merwe and Carisma Nel report<br />

disconcerting findings of a study they conducted in a teacher education programme.<br />

They examined a programme at a South African university and found that the reading<br />

literacy components are included haphazardly in the programme design and that there<br />

is no evidence-based research included in the curriculum of the pre-service teachers. In<br />

another article on the topic of pre-service teacher education describes the variety of<br />

approaches to programme design for the preparation of foundation phase teachers.<br />

Steyn and co-authors found that the subject area of “life skills” is addressed differently<br />

in nine higher education institutions, with some paying more attention than others to<br />

the national school curriculum content.<br />

Anita Keller and Max Bergman describe a study of grade R children’s self-esteem,<br />

as judged by their teachers. They include issues related to measurement and ecological<br />

validity, culture-sensitivity, and suggest subsequent work on self-esteem of children in<br />

South Africa.<br />

By the time of going to print we have not yet received the outcome of the<br />

submission of the journal for accreditation in the higher education system in South<br />

Africa, where new journals are reviewed after one year. Once more we salute authors<br />

who have donated their work to the two issues of the second volume.<br />

Lastly, we include a call for manuscripts for a special issue on numeracy education,<br />

guest edited by Hamsa Venkat and Mellony Graven.<br />

Elizabeth Henning (editor) and Graham Dampier (associate editor, <strong>2012</strong>)<br />

On behalf of the editorial team<br />

<strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong>.<br />

ii


Sarah Gravett<br />

Crossing the “Theory-practice Divide”:<br />

Learning to Be(come) a Teacher<br />

Abstract<br />

A common view of theory and practice as domains is that it is difficult, if not impossible,<br />

to traverse the epistemological chasm between them. After all, theories are ways of<br />

organising our world abstractly in ideas and concepts. Practice is the world that we<br />

inhabit empirically. It is a tangible world that we can see, feel, act on, act in, and so<br />

on. So, how can one even begin to argue that these apparently disparate worlds can<br />

be unified or that they are in the first instance not separate at all? My stance on this<br />

is that we, the educators of teachers, are party to the separation. In fact, we teach<br />

students that they should ‘apply’ theory to practice. Working with our own struggle<br />

at the university where I am based, I will argue that there may be ways of opening<br />

the borders between what is, on the one hand a philosophical question, and on the<br />

other, a purely empirical question. How do we teach and how do we teach the doing<br />

of teaching? My argument explores one way we might begin to restore; to whatever<br />

extent this is possible, the unity of theory and practice in teacher education.<br />

Keywords: teacher education, teaching schools, the theory-practice divide, learningto-become<br />

a teacher<br />

Sarah Gravett, University of Johannesburg 1 . E-mail: sgravett@uj.ac.za<br />

1 Invited Keynote Address at the Teacher education conference. Hosted by the Department of Higher<br />

Education and Training (DHET), in partnership with the Council on Higher Education (CHE), the Higher<br />

Education South Africa Education Deans Forum (HESA-EDF) and the University of Pretoria (UP)<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 1-14 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Introduction<br />

A topic such as the one I have chosen is somewhat circumspect, I have to admit.<br />

Theories are ways of organising our world abstractly in terms of ideas and concepts.<br />

Practice is the observable world, a tangible world that we can see, feel, act on, act<br />

in and so on. So, how can one even begin to argue that these apparently disparate<br />

worlds can be unified?<br />

I share with you some of the experiences and challenges that I have experienced<br />

with colleagues and other role players in the establishment of a school that is directly<br />

linked to a university, “a teaching school.” It is in the very establishment of the school,<br />

with its challenges that surface and resurface, that the notion dawned on us that<br />

we, as teacher educators, may be the guilty party affecting the divide. We may be<br />

contributing to the rending of what is, I argue, ontologically a unity, or what should be<br />

a unity. I use the term in line with Heidegger’s (1962) argument that ontology addresses<br />

the question: “What is the meaning of being?” As I see it the epistemological divide<br />

is caused by the need for knowledge to categorise and compartmentalise the world<br />

into manageable units of analysis. The theory-practice divide permeating discussion<br />

of pre-service education rends what is ontologically a unity that exists as such before<br />

knowing commences to reduce this unity to knowable parts.<br />

My argument explores one way we might begin to restore, to whatever extent this<br />

is possible, the unity of theory and practice in teacher education.<br />

Expectations of teacher education<br />

In my interaction with schools and other role-players in education I am often<br />

confronted with strong views about the quality of teacher education in South Africa.<br />

The recent strong lobby in the media to (re-)open teacher colleges, and arguments<br />

made at the Teacher Development Summit in 2009, testifies to the implicit mistrust in<br />

the university education of teachers. Many delegates at this summit voiced the opinion<br />

that universities do not prepare teachers adequately for the schooling system, due to<br />

the ‘academic bias’ of their teacher education programmes. A similar view is reflected<br />

in an article published in the Mail & Guardian, with the headline ‘Why we need colleges<br />

of education’ (Rice, 2010). Rice makes the case that foundation phase teachers should<br />

not be educated at universities, where the focus is on ‘abstract theory,’ because<br />

foundation phase teachers should acquire skills rooted in ‘pragmatic practice.’<br />

The sentiment that universities do not prepare teachers adequately for the realities<br />

of classroom practice is not uniquely South African. Smagorinsky and his co-authors<br />

say university teacher educators are often viewed as “aloof within the ivory tower,<br />

espousing ideals and the principles that govern them” (Smagorinsky et al, 2003, p.<br />

1400). In contrast “school-based teachers engage in practice in the teeming world of<br />

the classroom” (ibid.).<br />

Many of the criticisms that I have been encountering are of course generalizations,<br />

based, for example, on a school principal’s experience of student-teachers who do<br />

not cope during school experience, or novice teachers who struggle to deal with the<br />

2


Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”<br />

demands of the teaching profession (by personal communication): “The students<br />

coming from universities nowadays don’t have a clue … what do you teach them at<br />

the university?”<br />

In responding, I often argue that the expectation that universities should<br />

deliver a “fully prepared” teacher is unrealistic (Gravett et al, 2011). Our task is to<br />

deliver competent beginning teachers, that is, teachers with a starting and growth<br />

competence (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1989) who have the ability to continue to develop<br />

once they enter the teaching profession. I argue that no teacher education programme<br />

can prepare teachers for the full complexity of real classrooms, where they take full<br />

responsibility for the first time.<br />

Feiman-Nemser (2001, p. 1026) makes this point concisely:<br />

“New teachers have two jobs – they have to teach and they have to learn to<br />

teach. No matter how good a preservice program may be, there are some things<br />

that can only be learned on the job. The preservice experience lays a foundation<br />

and offers practice in teaching. The first encounter with real teaching occurs<br />

when beginning teachers step into their own classroom. Then learning to teach<br />

begins in earnest.”<br />

However, it would be arrogant of us not to pay attention to the criticism of our<br />

teacher education programmes and not to engage in serious introspection. What<br />

are the reasons for the perception that we are not doing well in terms of teacher<br />

education? Are we indeed delivering competent beginning teachers? Why do recently<br />

qualified teachers say teacher education programmes are too theoretical and that we<br />

do not prepare them well for the harsh social reality of the classroom? Here I refer<br />

to findings in recent research on novice teachers entering the teaching profession<br />

(Gravett et al, 2011). How can these critiques inform our thinking about our teacher<br />

education programmes?<br />

I will address some of these questions in this paper. I will first discuss the perceived<br />

theory-practice divide as a dilemma that seems to plague teacher education. Then<br />

I will argue that Jerome Bruner’s notion of “learning to be” may provide a solution<br />

to the tangled issues of teacher education. I will also say something briefly about a<br />

phronesis-oriented approach to teacher education as one way of seeing teacher<br />

preparation, discerning different knowledge forms as already distinguished by the<br />

ancient Greeks. Lastly, I will refer to the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for<br />

Teacher Education and Development in South Africa, specifically Activity 4.5, which<br />

reads: “Strengthening the teaching practice/school experience component of teacher<br />

education programmes through the development of Teaching Schools.” Here I will<br />

tell you how we at the University of Johannesburg are grappling with implementing a<br />

programme that has been designed to incorporate a teaching school that is integral to<br />

the programme.<br />

3


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

The perceived theory-practice divide in teacher education<br />

I go then, first, to the much maligned “theory-practice divide.” It is a dominant theme<br />

in the teacher education literature. Educationists discuss the reasons for the divide<br />

and advice on how to bridge it abounds.<br />

I agree with authors, such as Korthagen et al, (2001), McIntyre (1995) and Vander<br />

Ven (2001) who doubt the validity of this position. I too question the perceived theorypractice<br />

binary in teacher education. I argue that the way in which we think about<br />

teacher education and the way in which programmes are planned and implemented<br />

may actually be creating the binary. We have a discourse of ‘studying theory from<br />

books and in lectures’ and then ‘applying’ it practically in what is termed the<br />

‘real world.’<br />

It is expedient to suggest that teacher education institutions appear to deal<br />

with the interplay between theory and practice mainly in two ways. Some follow<br />

a “translation-of-theory-to-practice” approach, implying that the coursework<br />

component of programmes supplies the theory that the students then apply,<br />

implement and “test,” e.g. through assignments, observations and experiences in<br />

schools as sites of practicum.<br />

An analysis of teacher education in various countries shows that this conventional<br />

view of teacher education prevails despite the evidence suggesting that this approach<br />

has a very limited success (Korthagen, 2011; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). Some<br />

of the “new” approaches often take the form of creative procedures and tasks to<br />

try and interest student-teachers in particular theories and linking these to their<br />

teaching practice. (I would add that these theories are often lecturers’ “pet theories”<br />

or theories emanating from their research interests.) This means that the point of<br />

departure in such programmes remains a theory-to-practice-flow.<br />

Other teacher education institutions respond to the criticism of being overlytheoretical<br />

by increasing practicum at schools. Here the belief is that the exposure to<br />

classroom practice will result in improved preparation for the practice of schooling.<br />

This could indeed be the case if students are placed with expert teachers who are<br />

willing and able to mentor students. But, as Darling-Hammond (2001) argues, students<br />

need to learn from good practicing teachers whose practice will serves as good<br />

examples to be emulated in their own practice.<br />

Finding enough of these expert teachers in the current South African educational<br />

landscape proves to be a challenge. Also, as Feiman-Nemser (2001, p 1020) reminds<br />

us “cooperating teachers often feel the need to protect student teachers from<br />

‘impractical’ ideas promoted by education professors who are out of touch with<br />

classroom realities.”<br />

Nevertheless, I would argue that both these approaches may actually be creating a<br />

chasm between what is referred to as theory (“formal knowledge”, knowledge about<br />

ideas, declarative knowledge or what the Greeks referred to as episteme) and practice<br />

(practical knowledge, knowledge of how to do the work of teaching, or procedural<br />

4


Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”<br />

knowledge) by using either a theory-to-practice articulation or by foregrounding<br />

experience in schools. Implicit in both is the distinct separation of theory and practice.<br />

“Learning to be”: the ontological becoming of a beginning<br />

teacher<br />

So how then could teacher education be conceptualised and designed to try to avoid<br />

this divide? Should we see teacher education as a continuum, with theory and practice<br />

occupying epistemological frontiers, or shall we consider them as two sides of the<br />

same coin? I prefer the latter. And I find some solace in Jerome Bruner’s (as cited in<br />

Brown & Duguid, 2000) distinction between “learning about” and “learning to be.”<br />

This has become a useful heuristic for me in thinking about the type of student-teacher<br />

development and learning that is required in teacher education.<br />

Arguably, much of what is taught at universities are facts, concepts, principles<br />

and conceptual frameworks about phenomena – thus, much of university learning is<br />

“learning about.” With his “learning to be” notion Bruner stresses that learning should<br />

also be understood in relation to the development of a social identity. “Learning to<br />

be” is about developing the disposition, demeanour and outlook (“the eye”) of a<br />

competent practitioner. I argue that we should indeed teach students conceptual<br />

knowledge of the field of education, knowledge that they can ‘declare.’ However, if we<br />

want to avoid a theory-practice disjuncture, “learning to be” should be foregrounded,<br />

while “learning about” should be embedded in “learning to be.” But how does one do<br />

that in the practice of teacher education?<br />

My interpretation of Bruner’s “learning to be” resonates with Kessels &<br />

Korthagen’s (2001) argument. They say that a phronesis, or practical wisdom approach<br />

to teacher education resolves the theory-practice binary. They do not argue that either<br />

episteme, or for that matter techne (in the terminology of ancient Greek philosophy)<br />

should disappear from the scenario. In fact, they argue for integration. A phronesis<br />

approach focuses mainly on the development of practical reasoning or perceptionbased<br />

knowledge. The focus is on “deliberation that translates into action, which will<br />

be of practical benefit to those concerned” (Spence, 2007). Kessels & Korthagen (2001,<br />

p. 27) explain that, “To choose and justify a particular course of action … the ultimate<br />

appeal of phronesis is not to principles, rules, theorems, or any conceptual knowledge.<br />

Ultimately, the appeal is to perception.” Choosing a form of behaviour appropriate for<br />

a particular situation requires above all that one must be able to perceive and discern<br />

the relevant details. We always act in, and react to, situations as we see and experience<br />

them. Therefore effective actions require effective ways of seeing.<br />

One must have an eye for the moment. Becoming someone with a disposition of<br />

good pedagogical ‘sight’ is not learned in abstraction but learned in practice, through<br />

experience. For particulars only become familiar with experience, with a long process<br />

of “perceiving and observing, assessing situations, judging, choosing courses of<br />

action, and being confronted with their consequences” (Kessels & Korthagen, 2001,<br />

p. 27). The dilemma is of course, that experience is precisely what student-teachers<br />

5


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

lack. But, the important point that Kessels & Korthagen (2001, p. 27) are making is that<br />

perception-based knowledge “cannot possibly be transferred to students (or induced,<br />

provoked, or elicited) through the use of purely conceptual knowledge.”<br />

So, the question Eisner (2002, p. 382) asks is: “If phronesis cannot be taught<br />

explicitly, how is it secured?” Or to rephrase: If “learning to be(come) a teacher cannot<br />

be taught explicitly, how is it secured?”<br />

To me a “learning to be” orientation to teacher education, drawing on the<br />

phronesis approach, does not imply less conceptual knowledge (it may require even<br />

more), nor does it mean more practical work. This would be missing the point of<br />

phronesis. As Dewey (1938, p. 25) reminds us: “the belief that all genuine education<br />

comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely<br />

or equally educative.” Also, as Henning and Gravett (2011, p. 24) argue: “It does<br />

not follow causally that if certain theoretical principles are studied, they will find an<br />

interface with practice or, inversely, if practice is experienced, that suitable theorising<br />

will be concomitant.”<br />

My interpretation of a “learning to be” orientation draws primarily on the<br />

thinking of Bruner, (1990, 1996); Marton & Trigwell, (2000); Wubbels, Korthagen and<br />

Brekelmans (1997); Kessels & Korthagen (2001) Korthagen (2011); McIntyre (1995)<br />

and Eisner (2002). In essence, this orientation implies that student-teachers mainly<br />

engage in a form of experiential learning emanating from “student concerns.” This<br />

does not imply that teacher-educators simply follow concerns or issues expressed<br />

by student-teachers. Student-teachers, particularly during their early years of study,<br />

are not in a position to identify concerns if they do not have theoretical lenses or at<br />

least declarative knowledge with which to note concerns. If you do not know you<br />

cannot see.<br />

Teacher-educators should generate the concerns by creating suitable concrete<br />

experiences for students. This can be done in coursework through using, for example,<br />

authentic classroom materials, videotapes of teaching and learning, cases and by<br />

invoking students’ own experiences as children and learners in schools. Concerns<br />

could also be created through pre-structured observation schedules in schools. The<br />

experiences that give rise to concerns are akin to what the policy on the minimum<br />

requirements for teacher education (DHET, 2011) refers to as “learning from practice.”<br />

The concrete experiences and concerns can then serve as the basis for what is known<br />

as guided reflection.<br />

In this way the reflection process can serve to make student preconceptions<br />

explicit and it affords students’ the opportunity to articulate their tacit personal,<br />

practical theories. The explicating of student-teachers’ tacit knowledge is crucial,<br />

because as Feiman-Nemser explains: “The images and beliefs that prospective<br />

teachers bring to their preservice preparation serve as filters for making sense of the<br />

knowledge and experiences they encounter. They may also function as barriers to<br />

change by limiting the ideas that teacher education students are able and willing to<br />

entertain” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p 1016).<br />

6


Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”<br />

The guided reflection process also serves to structure the experience through, for<br />

example, clarification, classification, extracting core ideas and principles inherent to<br />

the experience and making tentative generalizations through extrapolation.<br />

Once student-teachers start to become aware of the essence(s) of the situation<br />

or experience they are reflecting on, once they start to articulate their own personal<br />

practical theories related to the experience, the teacher educator guides the students<br />

to focus on some pertinent aspects of the experience. These are then examined<br />

in greater detail, and the teacher-educator simultaneously introduces applicable<br />

theoretical notions into the conversation. Next “formal” conceptual knowledge is<br />

foregrounded, for example, in the form of a lecture and applicable texts in order to<br />

further challenge, adapt, extend and deepen students’ personal theories. These could,<br />

then, feed into further observation and the practicalising or practising of insights with<br />

a view to developing deliberative and deliberate practice.<br />

In other words, what I am advocating is that theory is learned in action, not<br />

applied or transferred from another space. Personal theorising forms the basis<br />

for moving to “formal” conceptual knowledge. In essence, the approach involves<br />

“practical theorising” in the parlance of McIntyre (1995). Intuitive personal theories<br />

are gradually converted and strengthened with new epistemic knowledge and some<br />

good understanding of the techne of pedagogy.<br />

McIntyre makes the point that, “Theorising should indeed be practical. The<br />

focus must be on what will help student teachers themselves to think critically and<br />

productively about how to teach and, more generally, about how to engage in the<br />

practice of schooling. … ‘Theory’ which is not clearly directed to such practical ends is<br />

indeed a burden for student teachers, a burden which most of them cast aside as soon<br />

as possible. But theory-based ideas used to guide practice and to theorise about good<br />

practice, justify themselves through the benefits which they bring” (1995, p. 377-378).<br />

The UJ teaching school<br />

The term “teaching school” was not used when the school was initially conceptualised<br />

(in 2008-2009) and when it was founded in 2010. However, since the establishment<br />

of the school, the “Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education<br />

and Development in South Africa” has been promulgated (2011). In Activity 4.5 the<br />

Framework makes provisioning for the establishment of teaching schools. Teachingschools<br />

(TSs) are described as teaching laboratories, where students can engage in<br />

learning-from-practice. TSs may also be used as centres for research into teaching<br />

and learning. Furthermore, staff at TSs should be developed as mentors for studentteachers<br />

and should be able to teach methodology courses.<br />

The vision<br />

The School was founded in 2010 as a public school, partnered by the UJ and the<br />

Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) through a Memorandum of Agreement<br />

(MoA). The objectives for establishing the school were to:<br />

7


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

• Serve the education needs of young children in close proximity to the UJ Soweto<br />

campus (SWC).<br />

• Develop a clinical/practicum site for the education of teachers of young children,<br />

with school teachers taking on the role of teacher educators, working in tandem<br />

with UJ academic staff, and students moving seamlessly between coursework<br />

and practicum.<br />

• Enable longitudinal child development studies and research on children’s<br />

performance in the school curriculum.<br />

We envisaged that the school would serve as a site that would enable a “learning to<br />

be” orientation to teacher education. We envisaged that students would observe<br />

(perceive) and assess situations in the school, reflect on them and connect them to<br />

relevant theoretical notions presented in coursework. We envisaged the interweaving<br />

of practical (experiential) knowledge with knowledge of ideas (theory). We hoped that<br />

the concrete experience in the school would allow opportunities during coursework<br />

to systematically study, analyze and theorize practice.<br />

We have been trying to do this by coordinating coursework and practical<br />

experiences in the school. First year BEd students study a curriculum that is geared for<br />

grade R children and their practicum takes place in the grade R classes, while in their<br />

second year they focus on grade 1 learners. In their third year they study the learning<br />

and the development of grade 3 and 4 children. In their fourth year they integrate<br />

all the various dimensions of their studies and they spend the bulk of their school<br />

experience in other schools. The school, when it continues later on as a comprehensive<br />

primary school, will also be the place where Intermediate Phase BEd students will go<br />

to learn from and in practice.<br />

Grade R:<br />

1st year<br />

FP*<br />

students<br />

Grade 1-3:<br />

2nd - 4th<br />

year FP<br />

students<br />

Grade 4-7:<br />

1st - 2nd<br />

year FP<br />

students<br />

Figure 1: The Foundation Phase and the Intermediate phase curriculum in concord<br />

with learner cohorts in the school<br />

Students are involved in three ways at the school on a continuous basis: they do<br />

structured observations, they work as classroom assistants and they take up limited<br />

teaching responsibilities.<br />

8


The challenges to the vision<br />

The School as GDE-school<br />

Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”<br />

Despite a memorandum of agreement (MoA) with the Gauteng Department of<br />

Education (GDE), and support from the GDE, UJ has encountered several obstacles<br />

in pursuing the vision. In terms of current education legislation the school is a public<br />

school with no special status. Navigating the relationship with the school is a challenge.<br />

How much can we “interfere” in the school? What do we do when students report to<br />

us objectionable practices in the school? What do we do when we encounter practices<br />

that emanate from GDE policies, rules and training that we find questionable or even<br />

educationally unsound, bearing in mind that the teachers and school will be assessed<br />

on their implementation of these?<br />

The teachers and their contribution to the development of our students<br />

Teachers in a teaching school have to fulfil multiple roles. In addition to their teaching<br />

role, they also have to take up the role of school-based teacher educator, dealing<br />

not only with the complexity of working with and managing groups of students, but<br />

also collaborating with the university-based teacher educators. Ideally, such teachers<br />

should be purposefully selected to ensure that they have the potential to fulfil these<br />

multiple roles. However, as a public school, the teachers are appointed by the School<br />

Governing Body (SGB) and they do not necessarily have the profile that fits the<br />

requirements. Not only do these teachers require a more specialised knowledge of<br />

their subjects and of teaching methods, but also of how to mentor students.<br />

Feiman-Nemser & Buchman (1985, p. 64) rightly make the point that, “If<br />

classrooms are to become settings for learning to teach that go beyond adaptation<br />

and unreflective imitation, purposes of learning to teach cannot automatically be<br />

subordinated to the goal of pupil learning. Teachers also must see themselves as<br />

teacher educators willing to plan for the learning of a novice.” They also argue that<br />

becoming a teacher educator implies that the teacher must shift into another role. A<br />

teacher’s experience as teacher alone is not sufficient. Teachers must be prepared for<br />

their roles as teacher educators.<br />

This creates a dilemma. Although members of the Department of Childhood<br />

Education at UJ have been involved in doing staff development with the teachers, it is<br />

not feasible to expect the teacher-educators to offer the type of comprehensive and<br />

coherent programme that the teachers need to enable them to serve as role models<br />

for students and to fulfil their teacher educator mandate.<br />

An additional dilemma is that currently, teachers, though hard-working and<br />

committed, are generally not modelling exemplary childhood education practices<br />

to student-teachers. One could argue that discrepancies between what is taught in<br />

coursework and what students experience at school could serve to create powerful<br />

learning experiences, because it allows for exploration of experiences. However,<br />

this presupposes that the teacher-educators are familiar with specific practices in<br />

9


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

the school and that they themselves would spend time in the school regularly. How<br />

realistic is such an expectation? Also, my fear is that we may in fact be reinforcing<br />

a model of teaching that we do not want our students to necessarily emulate. As<br />

Darling-Hammond (2001) reminds us: “It is not true that you can learn how to practice<br />

by being told not to do what you’ve seen people doing.”<br />

The coursework – planning and structuring suitable tasks for students<br />

The interweaving of practical (experiential) knowledge situated in the school with<br />

knowledge of ideas (theory) in the coursework requires careful planning and familiarity<br />

with the curriculum followed in the school. It also necessitates close collaboration<br />

between school staff and university staff. These pre-requisites present challenges that<br />

are not insurmountable, but they still place an additional burden on staff at the school<br />

and university.<br />

We have also learned that student observations need to be planned and structured<br />

carefully beforehand and that students need to be prepared well for observation. The<br />

observations must not be an add-on, but integral to the coursework as the basis for<br />

guided reflection. If not, the observations have very little educational value.<br />

Assessing the value and the way forward<br />

Teacher-educators and students concur that the students’ involvement in the<br />

school does indeed play a significant role in guiding student-teachers towards<br />

be(coming) teachers.<br />

Discrepancies between coursework and student experience in the school<br />

Despite the misgivings I expressed earlier, teacher-educators report that discrepancies<br />

between coursework ideas and student experiences in the school do indeed create<br />

valuable learning opportunities if these are used to explore student perceptions and<br />

to bring in additional theoretical notions as “lenses” to explore the discrepancies.<br />

Students also often challenge the coursework ideas, based on classroom observations,<br />

which serve to deepen understanding of the complexity of working with children.<br />

Developing a pedagogical stance rooted in knowledge of child development<br />

Perhaps the greatest value currently is that the way in which the programme is<br />

structured enables the possibility that students will develop “a pedagogical stance<br />

rooted in knowledge of child development” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1018).<br />

One of the teacher educators, Lara Ragpot (2011) offers a module on cognitive<br />

development of children in the early years. She found in her doctoral research that this<br />

very challenging theoretical work was made accessible through constant interaction<br />

with the same children over 18 months. The students did not learn that much from<br />

the teachers, but learned from observing and studying the children. They were able<br />

to bring their concerns about child learning and conceptual development to the<br />

university course in a refreshing and successful way.<br />

10


Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”<br />

A question to consider is whether we should not bolster this potential strength and<br />

focus students’ observation in other courses (modules), that is, more on the children<br />

and their learning and less on what the teachers do (or not do)? This would enable<br />

student-teachers to be(come) steeped in a “developmental perspective” – a deep<br />

understanding of child development, which Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden<br />

(2005 ) view as critical teacher knowledge.<br />

Developing the “tools” for continuous development<br />

Earlier in the paper I mentioned that teacher education should deliver beginning<br />

teachers with “growth competence.” In similar vein Feiman-Menser (2001, p 45)<br />

contends that student-teachers should develop “habits and skills necessary for the<br />

ongoing study of teaching in the company of colleagues.” She argues that the study<br />

of teaching requires skills of observation, interpretation and analysis and she poses<br />

the question how well teacher education programmes address these habits and<br />

skills. I would claim that our students are learning these habits and skills through their<br />

involvement in the school, though we are probably not yet intentionally capitalizing on<br />

this as a strength.<br />

Research involvement<br />

The students also participate in research and so learn to test children individually. In a<br />

longitudinal research project we study the children, specifically in mathematics, science<br />

and language. Students learn to conduct and score the tests (some standardised).<br />

They are trained to conduct individual diagnostic interview tests and learn some of<br />

the statistics to analyse the data. They work with individual children and are likely to<br />

leave the university with skills and understanding that few novice teachers have about<br />

evaluation and assessment.<br />

Developing a teacher education model<br />

The three years of implementing the programme has been a steep learning curve.<br />

The incorporating of a teaching school challenged our preconceptions about teacher<br />

education. We are “learning to be(come)” teacher educators who are responsive to<br />

the concerns of our students and who would be able to optimize the teaching and<br />

learning opportunities that the teaching school afford us. We have also realised the<br />

necessity for continuous reflection on and practical theorising of our developing<br />

teacher education model.<br />

Students and teacher-educators concur that the school is indeed adding value to<br />

the students’ learning experiences. Both groups and the teachers at the school also<br />

concur that much needs to be done to ensure the realization of our vision.<br />

Conclusion<br />

In this paper I argued that a “learning to be” orientation could go a long way to<br />

addressing the perceived theory-practice dilemma in teacher education. I also<br />

11


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

reflected on how we have been grappling with integrating a “teaching school” in our<br />

BEd foundation phase programme.<br />

It would be a fallacy to assume that the integrating of a teaching school as such<br />

will necessarily address the theory-practice integration dilemma or strengthen teacher<br />

education. Also, integrating a teaching school into a teacher education programme<br />

implies that the teacher education goes on simultaneously in two distinct settings. I<br />

concur with Feiman-Nemser & Buchman (1985, p. 63) that it is a “fallacious assumption<br />

that making connections between these two worlds is straightforward.”<br />

Does the teaching school notion as envisaged in the “Integrated Strategic<br />

Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa” have<br />

the potential to enhance teacher education and to “strengthen the Work Integrated<br />

Learning (WIL) component of teacher education programmes” (DHET, p. 3)? Based on<br />

our experience, my answer is an unequivocal yes, as the experience in Finland with<br />

training schools also shows.<br />

However, there are numerous dilemmas and challenges that will have to be<br />

addressed. These include:<br />

• appropriate governance and management (including relationships, roles and<br />

responsibilities) models for such schools<br />

• stumbling blocks/gaps in the current education legislative and regulatory<br />

framework that would inhibit the establishment and effective functioning of TSs<br />

and<br />

• and resourcing of such schools.<br />

The Faculty of Education is currently conducting research, commissioned by the<br />

Department of Higher Education and Training, on these and other aspects related to<br />

the establishing of teaching schools in South Africa. The findings will be disseminated<br />

early in 2014.<br />

References<br />

Bruner, J.S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.<br />

Bruner, J.S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.<br />

Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, Massachusetts:<br />

Harvard Business School Press.<br />

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Thoughts on teacher preparation. Available from: www.<br />

edutopia.org/ldh-teacherpreparation. (Accessed 19 Dec 2010).<br />

Darling-Hammond, L. &; Baratz-Snowden, J. eds. (2005). A Good Teacher in Every<br />

Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve. San<br />

Francisco: John Wiley & sons. Kindle Edition.<br />

Dewey, J. (1938). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the<br />

educative process. Boston: Heath.<br />

12


Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”<br />

Eisner, E.W. (2002). From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement<br />

of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (2002), p. 375–385.<br />

Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa. (2011). National<br />

qualifications framework. Act 67 of 2008. Policy on the minimum requirements for<br />

teacher education qualifications. Government Gazette. Vol. 553. Available from:<br />

http://www.dhet.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K7sbUydW4ew%3d&tabid=36&<br />

mid=1071 (Accessed 1 October 2011).<br />

Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training (2011). Integrated<br />

Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South<br />

Africa.<br />

Education Labour Relations Council. (2009). Resource document. Teacher development<br />

summit, 29 June-2 July 2009.<br />

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice. Designing a continuum to<br />

strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), <strong>December</strong> 2001,<br />

p. 1013-1055 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 10824, Date Accessed: 9/15/<strong>2012</strong><br />

6:15:08 AM.<br />

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning. How do teachers learn to teach? In<br />

Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre D.J., & Demers, K.E. (2008).<br />

Handbook of research on teacher education. Enduring questions in changing<br />

contexts (pp. 697-705). New York: Routledge.<br />

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of Experience in Teacher<br />

Preparation. Teachers College Record <strong>Volume</strong> 87(1), 1985, pp. 53-65<br />

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 677, Date Accessed: 9/15/<strong>2012</strong> 6:36:39 AM<br />

Gravett, S., Henning, E & Eiselen, R. (2011). New teachers look back on their university<br />

education: prepared for teaching, but not for life in the classroom. Education as<br />

Change, 15 (S1), pp. 123-142.<br />

Heidegger, M (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper Perennial.<br />

Henning, E. & Gravett, S. (2011). Pedagogical Craft and its Science: Janus-faced in Preservice<br />

Teacher Education. Education as Change, 15 (2), pp. 21-33<br />

Hoy, W. H., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1989). Supervising student teachers. In A. E. Woolfolk<br />

(Ed.), Research perspectives on the graduate preparation of teachers (pp. 108–131).<br />

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.<br />

Kessels, J. & Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). The Relation between Theory and Practice:<br />

Back to the Classics. In Korthagen, F.A.J (Eds.). Linking Practice and Theory. The<br />

Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Mahwaw: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kindle<br />

edition.<br />

Korthagen, F.A.J. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice: the pedagogy<br />

of realistic teacher education. Orbis scholae, 2011, 5(2), pp. 31-50.<br />

Korthagen, A.J., Kesselss, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf B., & Wubbels T. (2001). Linking<br />

practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwaw:<br />

Lawrence Erlbaum. Kindle edition.<br />

13


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Marton, F. & Trigwell. K. 2000. Variato est mater studiorum, Higher Education Research<br />

and Development, 19(3), p. 381-395.<br />

McIntyre D. (1995). Initial teacher education as practical theorising: A response to Paul<br />

Hirst. British Journal of Educational Studies, vol XXXXIII, no 4, pp 365-383.<br />

Smagorinsky, P; Cook L.S; Johnson T.S. (2003). The Twisting Path of Concept Development<br />

in Learning to Teach. Teachers College Record, 105 (8), 2003, pp. 1399-1436<br />

http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 11552, Date Accessed: 9/8/<strong>2012</strong> 3:55:35 AM<br />

Ragpot, L. (2011). Assessing student learning by way of drama and visual art: a semiotic<br />

mix in a course on cognitive development. Education as Change, 15(sup 1), pp.<br />

63- 78.<br />

Spence, S. (2007). Phronesis and the Student Teacher. Journal of Educational Thought,<br />

41(3), 2007, pp. 311-322.<br />

Tigchelaar, A. & Korthagen F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching<br />

experiences: implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights<br />

into teacher behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (2004), p. 665-679.<br />

Rice, M. (2010). Why we need colleges of education. Mail & Guardian. Available at: http://<br />

mg.co.za/article/2010-11-05-why-we-need-new-colleges-of-education. (Accessed<br />

20 September 2011).<br />

Vander Ven, K. (2001). New perspectives on theory-to-practice: Implications for<br />

transforming teacher education and child outcomes. Clearing house on early<br />

education and parenting. Available from: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/<br />

vanderven.html. (Accessed 25 February 2011).<br />

Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M. 1997: Developing theory from practice in<br />

teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, summer 1997, pp. 75-90.<br />

14


Carisma Nel<br />

Cracking the Vocabulary Code in<br />

Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

Abstract<br />

To children going to school for the first time, the symbols and the vocabulary of<br />

mathematics can resemble a foreign language with its seemingly cryptic symbols and<br />

unknown terminology. This is a challenge to foundation phase learners’ ability to read,<br />

write, and communicate clearly. It might be that problems of vocabulary are considered<br />

to be fairly superficial within the whole issue of language and mathematics learning,<br />

but it is nevertheless critical that such problems are not ignored in the hope that they<br />

will go away. Teachers must be purposeful in constructing learning experiences that<br />

direct learners’ attention to specific words and their meaning. The aim of this article<br />

is to highlight the importance of including mathematics vocabulary code cracking as<br />

part of the pedagogical content knowledge, specifically the subdomains of knowledge<br />

of content and students, and knowledge of content and teaching, which should be<br />

addressed within foundation phase teacher preparation programmes.<br />

Keywords: mathematics, vocabulary, strategies, techniques, pedagogical content knowledge<br />

Carisma Nel, North-West University. E-mail: Carisma.Nel@nwu.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 15-34 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Introduction<br />

When we think of spies and secret agents, we might think of lots of things; nifty<br />

gadgets, foreign travel, dangerous missiles, fast cars and martinis being shaken, but<br />

not stirred. We probably wouldn’t think of mathematics or language. But we should.<br />

Cracking codes and unravelling the true meaning of secret messages involves loads of<br />

mathematics and language.<br />

A number of assessment studies in recent years have shown that the educational<br />

achievement of learners in South African schools is unacceptably poor. The Department<br />

of Education’s (since 2010, the Department of Basic Education) systemic evaluations,<br />

conducted in grade 3 (in 2001) show very low levels of literacy and numeracy among<br />

learners. Scores for the grade 3 learners averaged 68% for listening comprehension,<br />

but only 39% for reading comprehension and writing, and 30% for numeracy (RSA DoE,<br />

2003). The second cycle of systemic evaluations conducted in 2007 revealed only a<br />

limited change in learners’ achievement, namely 36% for literacy and 35% for numeracy.<br />

The Annual National Assessments conducted in 2011 indicated that grade 3 learners<br />

(across provinces in South Africa) achieved 28% for numeracy and 35% for literacy,<br />

while grade 3 learners in the North West Province achieved 21% for numeracy and 30%<br />

for literacy (RSA DoBE, 2010).<br />

The statistics mentioned above seem to indicate that our learners have not yet<br />

managed to crack the code of mathematical language. Although mathematics is<br />

visual language of symbols and numbers it is also expressed and explained through<br />

written and spoken words. For learners to excel in mathematics, they must recognise,<br />

comprehend and apply the requisite vocabulary (Aiken, 1972; Monroe & Panchyshyn,<br />

1995; Bay-Williams & Livers, 2009). Thus, vocabulary instruction is as critical in<br />

mathematics as it is in the literacy classroom. Miller (1993, p. 312) states that “without<br />

an understanding of the vocabulary that is used routinely in mathematics instruction,<br />

textbooks, and word problems, learners are handicapped in their efforts to learn<br />

mathematics.” Learners must understand math vocabulary if they are to master<br />

content and be able to apply it in future situations (Thompson & Rubenstein, 2000).<br />

Maths teachers should have a vocabulary toolbox filled with gadgets (i.e., strategies<br />

and techniques) so that they can help learners crack the vocabulary code necessary to<br />

decode the maths message.<br />

The purpose of this article is firstly, to discuss learners’ mathematics vocabulary<br />

difficulties, as well as the use of vocabulary strategies and techniques being part of preservice<br />

foundation phase teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986);<br />

or what Ball, Hill & Bass (2005) call knowledge of content and learners, and knowledge<br />

of content and teaching. Secondly, this article with review learners’ mathematical<br />

vocabulary difficulties, and lastly, provide an overview of strategies and techniques<br />

(i.e., toolbox) that can be used by teachers in order to help their foundation phase<br />

learners crack the mathematical vocabulary code.<br />

16


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

Pedagogical content knowledge:<br />

A focus on mathematics vocabulary<br />

Pre-service teacher training programmes play a significant role in the preparation of a<br />

highly qualified teaching work force, which is necessary to support the development<br />

of a complex 21 st century society (International Reading Association, 2003). In South<br />

Africa, the National Teacher Education Audit of 1996 concluded that the quality of<br />

teacher education was generally poor, inefficient and not cost-effective (Hofmeyer<br />

& Hall, 1996). According to the DoHET (2011, p. 15), the quality and the relevance of<br />

the teacher preparation programmes offered by HEIs, vary widely. In the Integrated<br />

Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa,<br />

2011–2025, (RSA DoHET, 2011, p.3), it is stated that universities have the responsibility<br />

for ensuring that the programmes being offered are of high quality and lead to<br />

meaningful development for teachers. Teacher preparation programmes often cannot<br />

meet the challenge in preparing teachers for highly complex and increasingly diverse<br />

schools and classrooms, the challenge of keeping abreast of current developments<br />

in research and practice, the complexity of the knowledge base, and the difficulty<br />

of learning many of the skills required to enact the knowledge base (Snow, Burns &<br />

Griffin, 1998; Ball & Forzani, 2009).<br />

Central to raising learner achievement in mathematics is improving the quality<br />

of mathematics teaching. Learners who receive high-quality instruction experience<br />

greater and more persistent achievement gains than their peers who receive lowerquality<br />

instruction (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997).<br />

Rivkin et al. (2005) found that learners who were taught by a highly effective teacher<br />

achieved a gain of 1.5 grade equivalents during a single academic year, whereas<br />

learners enrolled in classes taught by ineffective teachers gained only 0.5 grade<br />

equivalents in the same year. Moreover, the effects of high-quality instruction on<br />

the academic achievement of disadvantaged learners are substantial enough to<br />

counteract the host of familial and social conditions often found to impede learner<br />

achievement (Rivkin et al., 2005). Put differently, teachers are critical determinants<br />

of learner learning and educational progress and thus must be well trained to use<br />

effective teaching practices. However, “although many studies demonstrate that<br />

teachers’ mathematical knowledge helps support increased learner achievement, the<br />

actual nature and extent of that knowledge – whether it is simply basic skills at the<br />

grades they teach, or complex and professionally specific mathematical knowledge –<br />

is largely unknown” (Ball, Hill & Bass, 2005, p. 16).<br />

According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000, p. 17), “[e]<br />

ffective teaching requires knowing and understanding mathematics, learners as<br />

learners, and pedagogical strategies.” Teachers’ mathematics knowledge is essential<br />

to effective teaching and learner learning (Ball & Bass, 2001; Shulman, 1987). To teach<br />

effectively, teachers must possess the knowledge and skills to; a) effectively structure<br />

and present content to learners, (b) understand learners’ common conceptions,<br />

misconceptions, and difficulties when learning particular content, and (c) select<br />

17


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

specific teaching strategies and techniques that can be used to address learners’<br />

learning needs, which derives from Shulman’s original notion of pedagogical content<br />

knowledge (PCK) (Rowan, Schilling, Ball, & Miller, 2001; Shulman, 1987).<br />

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is that distinctive knowledge domain of<br />

teaching that differentiates the expert teacher in a subject area from the subject<br />

expert. While general pedagogical knowledge can be generically applied to all<br />

teaching subjects, much of PCK is specific to individual teaching subjects. An emerging<br />

consensus is that teachers’ knowledge of discipline-specific pedagogy is critical (cf.<br />

Darling-Hammond, 2000). Studies have shown that novice teachers often struggle<br />

to represent concepts in an understandable manner to their learners, because they<br />

have little or no PCK at their disposal (Kagan, 1992; Reynolds, 1992). In the teaching<br />

of mathematics, Ball (2000) stressed how the depth of teachers’ understanding of<br />

mathematics PCK is a major determinant of teachers’ choice of examples, explanations,<br />

exercises, items and reactions to children’s work. Pedagogical content knowledge<br />

also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or<br />

difficult” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Ball, Thames & Phelps (2008, p. 389) state that “the<br />

continuing appeal of the notion of pedagogical content knowledge is that it bridges<br />

content knowledge and the practice of teaching.” However, they also state that<br />

“the term has lacked definition and empirical foundation, limiting its usefulness.”<br />

Based on their efforts to develop a practice-based theory of content knowledge for<br />

teaching, Ball et al. (2008) divided Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge into two<br />

empirically detectable subdomains, namely knowledge of content and learners (KCS),<br />

and knowledge of content and teaching (KCT). Knowledge of content and learners is<br />

knowledge that combines knowing about learners and knowing about mathematics.<br />

Teachers must anticipate what learners are likely to think and what they will find<br />

confusing. Knowledge of content and teaching combines knowing about teaching and<br />

knowing about mathematics. This knowledge requires teachers to use knowledge of<br />

mathematics to develop or choose teaching actions or moves.<br />

Mathematics is recognised as the most difficult content area as far as reading<br />

material is considered, “with more concepts per word, per sentence, per paragraph<br />

than any other area” (Schell, 1982, p. 544). Since vocabulary represents and provides<br />

access to concepts, instruction in the vocabulary of mathematics cannot be incidental.<br />

According to Monroe (1998, p. 538), “[t]eachers need assistance in knowing how to<br />

provide meaningful vocabulary instruction in mathematics.” Given the pivotal role<br />

of vocabulary, it is surprising that typically very little class time has been focused on<br />

vocabulary instruction. Researchers including Durkin (1979), Scott & Nagy (1997), and<br />

Biemiller (2005) have documented the small present of instructional time dedicated<br />

to vocabulary teaching and the general absence of systematic, explicit vocabulary<br />

instruction. Teachers need to be able to identify learners’ mathematical vocabulary<br />

difficulties and address them systematically (Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002). This<br />

knowledge required by teachers is, therefore, part of teachers pedagogical content<br />

knowledge, and more specifically what Ball et al. (2008) have called knowledge of<br />

content and learners (e.g., identify the difficulties learners have with mathematics<br />

18


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

vocabulary) and knowledge of content and teaching (e.g., determining which tools<br />

can be used to address learners mathematics vocabulary difficulties).<br />

Mathematical vocabulary difficulties<br />

Vocabulary instruction is one of the essential elements of a learner’s academic<br />

development (Snow, 2002). Although commonly associated with language proper,<br />

vocabulary proficiency is a significant contributing factor in learning and mastering<br />

mathematical concepts. Researchers have found a relationship in mathematics<br />

between vocabulary and comprehension, identifying vocabulary understanding as a<br />

key component in understanding mathematics (Miller, 1993). In examining the role<br />

that vocabulary plays in mathematical understanding, Lindgren, Roberts & Sankey<br />

(1999, p. 16) stated that, “[m]athematics is a language. Reading a mathematics text<br />

is somewhat like reading Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina in the original Russian.” Adams<br />

(2003,p. 787) stated that weakness in learners’ mathematics ability is often due<br />

to difficulties in reading “the language of mathematics.” In other words, learning<br />

the vocabulary of mathematics is like learning a new language and learners must<br />

understand this language if they are to communicate and apply mathematics with<br />

proficiency (Monroe, 2002).<br />

Even though some of the language used to talk about mathematics may sound<br />

familiar, because aspects of the language we use to talk about mathematics are<br />

borrowed from our everyday language (e.g., table) (NCTM, 2000; Pimm, 1987),<br />

in practice the language of mathematics can be alienating and act as a barrier. The<br />

use of everyday language in mathematics is colloquial, common and familiar, and<br />

includes conversational language (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Delpit, 1998). By<br />

contrast, the register of mathematics (Halliday, 1978), which is unique to the subject,<br />

is highly formalised and includes symbols, pictures, words and numbers. Since<br />

the mathematical register is used in unique ways, it is not easily usable outside the<br />

mathematics classroom, not even in other subject classrooms (NCTM, 2000; Dahl,<br />

2004). Consequently, the mathematical register and thus mathematical language<br />

more generally, can indeed sound, feel and look much like a foreign language, unless it<br />

is made explicit to learners.<br />

A learner’s inability to successfully minimise interference can potentially<br />

undermine his or her ability to learn. The multiplicity of representations of words<br />

in everyday language and within the mathematical register can create significant<br />

linguistics interference as learners struggle to assign appropriate meanings to words in<br />

unfamiliar contexts. As a result, developing the mathematical register can be difficult<br />

for learners unless similarities and differences are made explicit (Kotsopoulos, 2007).<br />

There are three main ways in which children’s failure to understand mathematical<br />

vocabulary may manifest: children do not respond to questions in lessons, they cannot<br />

do a task they are set and/or they do poorly in assessments/tests/exams. Their lack of<br />

response may be due to:<br />

19


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Misunderstanding the spoken or written instructions. Children cannot learn the<br />

meanings of words in isolation. The use of questions is crucial in helping them to<br />

understand mathematical concepts and use mathematical terms correctly. It is<br />

important to ask questions in different ways so that children who do not understand<br />

the first time may pick up the meaning later on. Learners who have a home language<br />

(e.g., Setswana) that differs from the medium of instruction (e.g., English) will benefit<br />

from vocabulary instruction, and so will others who are not always familiar with the<br />

vocabulary and grammatical structures used in school. It is easy to use certain types<br />

of questions (e.g., recalling facts – How many days are there in a week?; applying facts<br />

– What are the factors of 42?) more often than those that require a higher level of<br />

thinking (e.g., hypothesising or predicting – Estimate the number of marbles in this<br />

jar?; designing and comparing procedures – How might we count this pile of sticks?;<br />

interpreting results – What does the graph tell us about the most common shoe size?;<br />

applying reasoning – Why is the sum of two odd numbers always even?). If teachers<br />

can use the full range of question types they will find that children begin to give more<br />

complex answers in which they explain their thinking (UK Department for Education<br />

and Employment, 2000, p. 4).<br />

According to Abedi (2009:173):<br />

There is a difference between language that is an essential part of the content<br />

of the question and language that makes the question incomprehensible to<br />

many learners [...] While it is important to understand and value the richness<br />

of language in an assessment system; it is also important to make sure that<br />

[...] learners [...] not be penalized for their lack of English proficiency in areas<br />

where the target of assessment is not language. Though we understand the<br />

views of some language modification critics in not “dumbing down” assessment<br />

questions by simplifying the language, we also recognize the distinction<br />

between necessary and unnecessary linguistic complexity.<br />

In English there are many basic words, such as pronouns, prepositions, and<br />

conjunctions that make a big difference in learner understanding of mathematics<br />

problems. For example, the words of and off cause a lot of confusion in solving<br />

percentage problems, as the percent of something is quite distinct from the percent<br />

off something. The word a can mean “any” in mathematics. For example, when asking<br />

learners to “show that a number divisible by 6 is even,” teachers aren’t asking for a<br />

specific example, but for the learners to show that all numbers divisible by 6 have to<br />

be even. When we take the area “of” a triangle, we mean what the learners think of as<br />

“inside” the triangle. Similarly, learners often ask: why doesn’t 6 divided into 12 mean<br />

the same thing as 6 divided by 12? 6 divided into 12 is 2 and 6 divided by 12 is 1/2 (or 0.5).<br />

A study by Kathryn Sullivan (1982) showed that even a brief, three-week programme<br />

centered on helping learners distinguish the mathematical usage of “small” words<br />

can improve learners’ mathematics scores. Words studied in the programme cited<br />

by Sullivan (1982) include the, is, a, are, can, on, who, find, one, ones, ten, tens, and,<br />

or, number, numeral, how, many, how many, what, write, it, each, which, do, all, same,<br />

exercises, here, there, has, and have.<br />

20


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

Mathematical text is lexically dense which means that it contains a minimum of<br />

redundant words, that is, contextual clues (NSW Department of School Education,<br />

1997). Learners’ attention needs to be drawn to dense phrases that contain multiple<br />

concepts which can pose difficulties to learners, for example, reflex angle, closest to,<br />

possible outcomes, exactly halfway, number sentence, per person, satisfies equations,<br />

best estimate, number line, equal length, regular hexagon, percentage decrease, square<br />

based pyramid, average daily saving, stem and leaf plot, four consecutive whole numbers,<br />

three quarter turn clockwise, sum of dots on opposite faces.<br />

They are confused when different words may be used to describe the same concept<br />

in mathematics (cf. Table 1) or when terms are related, but learners confuse their distinct<br />

meanings (e.g., hundred and hundredths, denominator and numerator, solve and<br />

simplify, factor and multiple) (Thompson & Rubenstein, 2000).<br />

Table 1: Words describing the same concept<br />

Addition Subtraction Multiplication Division<br />

Add Are not By (dimension) As much<br />

Altogether Change Double Cut up<br />

And Decreased by Each group Divided by<br />

Both Difference Multiplied by Each group has<br />

How many fewer Of Half<br />

(or other fractions)<br />

How much Have left Product of How many in each<br />

In all Left over Times Parts<br />

Increased by<br />

How many did triple<br />

Quotient of<br />

not have<br />

Plus How many more Separated<br />

Sum Less than Share<br />

something equally<br />

Together Remain split<br />

total<br />

subtract<br />

Take away<br />

Taller/shorter<br />

They are not familiar with the mathematical vocabulary found only in mathematical<br />

contexts. Teachers need to explain the mathematical vocabulary explicitly, for<br />

example, quotient, decimal, denominator, quadrilateral, parallelogram, etc.<br />

They may be confused about mathematical terms that have different meanings<br />

in everyday English. Teachers need to recognize and make explicit the difference<br />

between ‘mathematical’ English and ‘everyday’ English (Pierce & Fontaine, 2009; Saxe,<br />

1988). Examples of such words are mean, volume, key, face, head, tail, range, positive,<br />

product, prime, and rule. Panchyshyn and Monroe (1992) report that more than 50%<br />

of the general vocabulary terms used in elementary mathematics textbooks are not<br />

used frequently in other reading materials. As a result, learners are not exposed to the<br />

21


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

correct meanings of these words unless the teacher specifically plans for vocabulary<br />

instruction. For example, a teacher who asks, “What is the difference between 9 and<br />

4?” could get a wide range of answers from “9 is odd and 3 is even” to “5” to “one has<br />

a circle and one has a triangle.” Even within mathematics words such as scale, cube<br />

and square have more than one meaning. In some cases, the same word functions as a<br />

different part of speech, for instance square can be a noun, verb or adjective.<br />

Some mathematical phrases can cause difficulties (understanding a concept is<br />

harder when the concept is made up of the relationship between two words), for<br />

example, all numbers greater/less than X, Mary earns 5 times as much as John,, Mary is<br />

6 years older than John, two numbers, the sum of which is 1, etc.<br />

They may be confused about other words which are used in everyday English and<br />

have similar, though more precise, meanings in mathematics. Words falling into this<br />

category include, average, reflection, even, edge, etc.<br />

There are, then, practical reasons why children need to acquire appropriate<br />

vocabulary so that they can participate in the activities, lessons and tests that are part<br />

of classroom life. There is, however, an even more important reason: mathematical<br />

language is crucial to children’s conceptual development. If children don’t have<br />

the vocabulary to talk about division, or perimeters, or numerical difference, they<br />

cannot make progress in understanding these areas of mathematical knowledge (UK<br />

Department for Education and Employment, 2000).<br />

Providing teachers with a mathematical vocabulary toolbox<br />

A report from the Department for Education and Employment (UK DfEE, 1999, p. 2) in<br />

the United Kingdom stressed that “a structured approach to the teaching and learning<br />

of vocabulary is essential if children are to move on and begin using the correct<br />

mathematical terminology as soon as possible.” In order to ensure that learners master<br />

critical concepts and build a solid base for learning new words, teachers should focus<br />

on helping learners crack vocabulary’s CODE: connect, organise, deep process and<br />

exercise. Teachers should connect the words being introduced to what the learners<br />

already know, organise new words into meaningful categories and frameworks in<br />

order to discover relationships between terms, process the terms deelpy to internalise<br />

their meanings and exercise the words to gain ownership (Spaniak, 2009).<br />

It is impossible to teach every word a learner should know. Teachers should<br />

prioritise vocabulary words by conducting a brief content analysis during unit planning<br />

and then organising key vocabulary into three categories, namely essential or core,<br />

important and good to know. Each category serves as a guideline for how much<br />

emphasis and time should be spent on different words.<br />

Teachers need a repertoire of instructional techniques to teach vocabulary.<br />

Research indicates that vocabulary learning improves dramatically when learners are<br />

exposed to words multiple times and are given the opportunity to work and play with<br />

those words in a variety of ways (Marzano, 2004). In addition, different kinds of words<br />

call for different kinds of instructional techniques. Teachers should have a vocabulary<br />

22


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

toolbox which contains a variety of vocabulary tools and strategies that can be used<br />

to crack the CODE.<br />

Connecting tools<br />

During the connect phase teachers should help learners establish a connection<br />

to what they already know or what they may observe. Word walls are an ideal tool<br />

for creating a classroom culture that breeds that all important familiarity between<br />

learners and the words they encounter in their classrooms or texts (cf. Figure 1). The<br />

purpose of the mathematics word wall is to identify words and phrases that learners<br />

need to understand and use so as to make good progress in mathematics. They need<br />

to be familiar with mathematical vocabulary and mathematical terms to understand<br />

written and spoken instructions.<br />

LEFT OVER<br />

A.M<br />

Remaining<br />

one<br />

set<br />

of 4<br />

left<br />

over<br />

means the 12 hours<br />

from midnight to<br />

noon; it is called ante<br />

meridian.<br />

12 midnight 12 noon<br />

NUMBER LINE<br />

P.M<br />

Evenly spaced<br />

numbers marked in<br />

order<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />

p.m. stands for the<br />

12 hours between<br />

noon and midnight;<br />

it is called post<br />

meridian. 12 noon 12 midnight<br />

12 ÷ 3 = 4<br />

6<br />

3 groups of 5<br />

÷ 4 24 2 x 4 = 8<br />

3 x 5 = 15<br />

(divide)<br />

X<br />

(multiply)<br />

18 divided by 2 is 9<br />

5 times 4 is 20<br />

Figure 1: Word Walls (Education Quality and Accountability Office, <strong>2012</strong>).<br />

23


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

A vocabulary notebook is a tool for helping learners use context clues to develop their<br />

own perspective on the meaning of difficult words. Effective word-learners attack<br />

unknown words, break them into their meaningful parts, hypothesise meanings for<br />

the larger words and then check their meanings against the context of the text as<br />

well as their own background knowledge (Anderson & Nagy, 1992). One vocabulary<br />

instruction method that has not traditionally been associated with the foundation<br />

phase is a morphological approach; an approach that taps into the fact that a<br />

significant number of words, particularly academic words, in English are derived from<br />

Latin and Greek. Knowledge of Latin and Greek roots increases learners’ ability to<br />

understand English words (Rasinki, Padak, Newton & Newton, 2011). Research has<br />

demonstrated that many roots and affixes, including those of Latin and Greek origin,<br />

can readily be learned in the primary grades (Biemiller, 2005; Mountain, 2005). All<br />

primary-level reading instruction includes attention to phonics or word decoding<br />

(National Reading Panel, 2002; RSA DoE, 2008). Children learn to “look inside” of<br />

words for familiar letters, word families, etc. Teachers can use this foundation as a<br />

platform to help learners learn about word roots, prefixes, suffixes and base words.<br />

When it comes to teaching vocabulary, a little knowledge of root words, prefixes and<br />

suffixes goes a long way (cf. Tables 2 and 3).<br />

Table 2: Root Words, Prefixes and Suffixes<br />

Unknown word Root Prefix Suffix Guess meaning<br />

Kilometre Meter (measure) Kilo (thousand) Thousand<br />

measures<br />

Percentage Cent (hundred) Per (through) -age (belongs to) Belongs to<br />

numbers through<br />

a hundred<br />

Perimeter Meter(measure) Peri (around) To measure<br />

around<br />

Intersecting Sect (cut) Inter (between) -ing (result of an<br />

activity)<br />

Result of cutting<br />

between<br />

Table 3: Elementary Level Latin and Greek Roots and Affixes (Rasinki et al., 2011: 136).<br />

Prefixes<br />

a-, ab-, absadco-,<br />

com-, con-, coldedi-,<br />

dif-, dis-<br />

exin-,<br />

im-, ilin-,<br />

im-, ilpre-<br />

away, from<br />

to, toward, add to<br />

with, together<br />

own, off of<br />

apart, in different<br />

directions, not<br />

out<br />

in, on into (directional)<br />

not (negative)<br />

before<br />

24


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

proresubtra-,<br />

tran-, transun-<br />

forward, ahead<br />

back, again<br />

under, below<br />

across, change<br />

not (negative)<br />

Parallel Latin and Greek Prefixes<br />

Latin<br />

Greek<br />

Contra-, contro-, counter anti- against<br />

Circu-, circum- peri- around<br />

Multi- poly many<br />

Super-, sur- hyper over<br />

Sub- hypo- under, below<br />

Bases<br />

Audi- audit-<br />

Cred-, credit-<br />

Cur-, curs-, cours-<br />

Dict-<br />

Duc-, duct-<br />

Fac-, fic-, fact-, fect-<br />

Graph-, gram-<br />

Mis-, mit-<br />

Mov-, mot-, mobil-<br />

Pon-, pos-, posit-<br />

Port-<br />

Scrib-, script<br />

Terr-<br />

Vis-, vis-<br />

hear, listen<br />

believe<br />

run, go<br />

say, tell, speak<br />

lead<br />

do, make<br />

write, draw<br />

to send<br />

move<br />

put, place<br />

carry<br />

write<br />

earth<br />

see<br />

Numerical bases<br />

Uni-<br />

Bi-<br />

Tri-<br />

one<br />

two<br />

three<br />

Parallel Latin and Greek bases<br />

Latin<br />

Greek<br />

Aqua- hydro- water<br />

Ped- pod- foot, feet<br />

Terr- geo- earth<br />

Suffixes<br />

-able, ible<br />

-arium, -orium<br />

-er<br />

can, able to be done<br />

place for, container for<br />

more<br />

25


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Suffixes<br />

-est<br />

-ful<br />

-ify<br />

-less<br />

-or, -er<br />

-ose, -ous, -eous, -ious<br />

most<br />

full of<br />

to make<br />

without<br />

one who does<br />

full of<br />

The root word tree is a graphic organiser that allows learners to examine a single<br />

vocabulary word for its different word parts. When using the graphic organiser<br />

learners locate an unknown word, write it at the base of the tree, and break apart the<br />

word into recognizable chunks to help them decipher its meaning (cf. Figure 2).<br />

ROOT WORD TREE<br />

Name:<br />

Teacher / Period:<br />

FIND AT LEAST FOUR WORDS USING THE ROOT<br />

DIRECTIONS: IN THE BOX ON THE RIGHT USING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROOT WORD MAKE A GUESS OF THE<br />

DEFINITION. THEN IN THE BOX ON THE RIGHT, PLACE THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION.<br />

YOUR BEST GUESS<br />

DICTIONARY DEFINITION<br />

Figure 2: The Root Word Tree (McKnight, 2010).<br />

Teach learners how to use the Four S’s (See It, Say It, Spell It, Show It) to connect<br />

deeply with the new word. See the word: note its spelling and the way it looks when<br />

written. Say the word: saying the word out loud a few times forges a connection<br />

between your mouth and your brain. Spell the word: write the word out in your<br />

26


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

glossary, paying close attention to how it is spelled. Show the word: show your<br />

understanding with sketches and sentences you create for these words in a glossary<br />

or vocabulary journal. This tool is especially useful when the context doesn’t provide<br />

any substantial information about a word’s meaning.<br />

Engage pupils in the creation of learner-created math glossaries. Provide pupils<br />

with pages marked with alphabet letters (cf. Figure 3). Instruct learners to place these<br />

sheets in the backs of their notebooks and pull them out when they learn new math<br />

vocabulary. Ask learners to add all new vocabulary terms to the glossary as they learn<br />

them. By writing these terms and their definitions, learners reinforce their knowledge<br />

of these terms.<br />

Add<br />

To bring two or more numbers (or things) together to make a new total.<br />

Here 1 ball is added to 1 ball to make 2 balls.<br />

Calendar<br />

A table that shows the days, weeks, and months of a year.<br />

Figure 3: Glossaries<br />

November<br />

S M Tu W Th F S<br />

1 2 3 4 5<br />

6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />

13 14 15 16 17 18 19<br />

20 21 22 23 24 25 26<br />

27 28 29 30<br />

Organising tools<br />

As the number of new words learners encounter grows, the brain creates an<br />

organisational system into which these new words can be slotted. The graphic<br />

organiser, which is closely aligned with current theory about how the brain organises<br />

information, can be used in helping learners assign deeper meaning to words<br />

27


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

(Monroe & Orme, 2002). A graphic organiser represents important concepts and their<br />

relationships visually (Moore & Readence, 1984).<br />

Learners examine the lessons’ vocabulary and place words into groups based<br />

on common characteristics. For each group learners create, they devise a label that<br />

describes what all the grouped words have in common. For example, in groups<br />

learners generate a list of terms for the word “measurement” (cf. Table 4).<br />

Table 4: List-group-label<br />

Learner-Generated List<br />

weight height centimetre length<br />

thermometer tape measure scale age<br />

cup circumference radius meter<br />

area distance time kilogram<br />

width perimeter ruler temperature<br />

Categorise<br />

Units of Measure Things you Measure Tools for Measurement<br />

centimetre weight ruler<br />

meter age tape measure<br />

kilogram height cup<br />

circumference scale<br />

radius<br />

thermometer<br />

area<br />

distance<br />

length<br />

width<br />

perimeter<br />

Deep Processing tools<br />

Deep processing a word can mean visualising it, restating its definition in learners’ own<br />

words, even acting it out or explaining their emotional response to it. Researchers<br />

emphasise the importance of vocabulary, yet also point out that knowing a word<br />

well involves the combination of several different types of knowledge. Stahl (1999)<br />

suggested that knowing a word means not only knowing its literal definition but also<br />

knowing its relationship to other words, its connotations in different contexts, and<br />

its power of transformation into various other forms. Table 5 is an example of the<br />

Frayer model and Table 6 is an example of the K-N-W-S problem solving strategy that<br />

can be used for deep processing. Learners who can master these different aspects of<br />

knowing a word have strong depth of vocabulary knowledge, and learners who are<br />

familiar with many words have breadth of vocabulary knowledge.<br />

28


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

Table 5: Frayer Model of Polygon<br />

DEFINITION<br />

A mathematical shape that is a closed plane<br />

figure bounded by 3 or more line segments<br />

CHARACTERISTICS<br />

• Closed<br />

• Plane figure<br />

• More than 2 straight sides<br />

• Two-dimensional<br />

• Made of line segments<br />

• Pentagon<br />

• Hexagon<br />

• Square<br />

• Triangle<br />

• Rhombus<br />

EXAMPLES<br />

POLYGON<br />

NON-EXAMPLES<br />

• Circle<br />

• Cone<br />

• Arrow<br />

• Cylinder<br />

Table 6: K-N-W-S strategy<br />

Video Pit rents movies for R3 each per night. They also offer a video club plan. The<br />

plan costs R100 per year and allows unlimited rentals at R1 per movie per night plus<br />

two free rentals per month. How many movies must you rent in a year to make the<br />

video club worthwhile?<br />

K<br />

N<br />

W<br />

S<br />

What facts do I KNOW Which information do<br />

from the information I NOT need?<br />

in the problem?<br />

Exercising tools<br />

WHAT does the<br />

problem ask me to<br />

find?<br />

What STRATEGY/<br />

operation/tools will<br />

I use to solve the<br />

problem?<br />

To hold onto the words they learn and what these words mean, learners need to<br />

review their learning in a way that promotes high levels of retention. Teach learners<br />

how to look back on their glossaries and deepen their understanding by using the<br />

four R’s: Revisiting what they’ve recorded, Reviewing the word’s meaning, Refining<br />

their definition of the word in light of new understanding, and Revising their way of<br />

remembering the word by adding their original picture, creating a metaphor or simile,<br />

adding new examples or non-examples, providing a real-world application, etc.<br />

Writing about thinking is challenging. For this reason, it is best not to start out<br />

having learners write about unfamiliar mathematical ideas. First get them used to<br />

writing in a math class. Have learners write a “mathograph” – a paragraph in which<br />

they describe their feelings about and experiences in math (e.g., What do you<br />

remember about learning to add and to subtract? Which did you think was more fun?<br />

Why did you like that one better?). This exercise is a good tool to get to know learners<br />

29


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

early in the year, and to make comparisons later when looking for signs of progress.<br />

Once learners have become accustomed to writing about their attitudes and feelings<br />

toward mathematics in their journals, they are ready to write about simple, familiar<br />

math concepts (e.g., Explain in your own words what subtraction means). When a new<br />

concept is introduced and the class looks disengaged or confused ask the learners to<br />

write an explanation of the method of calculation or a term that was used (e.g., Write<br />

down two questions you have about the work we are doing/the lesson we are working<br />

on).<br />

Conclusion<br />

Pedagogical content knowledge is assumed to develop as teachers gain more<br />

experience in teaching, because it is directly related to the act of teaching (Borko &<br />

Putnam, 1996). However, studies of pre-service mathematics teachers’ knowledge and<br />

skills related to teaching have revealed that methods courses and field experiences are<br />

likely to contribute to the development of PCK (Van Driel, de Jong, & Verloop, 2002).<br />

In order to alleviate the difficulties that pre-service teachers face during their starting<br />

years, teacher educators have a responsibility to ensure that pre-service teachers<br />

acquire sufficient PCK during their preparation. When preparing pre-service teachers,<br />

they should be provided with instructional application experiences in which they can<br />

demonstrate their PCK. To achieve this, they need experience during work integrated<br />

learning sessions.<br />

Mathematics teachers don’t need to become reading specialists in order to help<br />

learners read mathematics texts, but they do need to recognize that learners need<br />

their help reading in mathematical contexts. Teachers should make the strategic<br />

processes necessary for understanding mathematics vocabulary explicit to learners.<br />

Teachers must help learners use strategies for acquiring vocabulary and reading word<br />

problems for meaning.<br />

References<br />

Abedi, J. (2009). Validity of assessments for English language learning learners in a<br />

national/international context. Estudios sobre Educación, 16, 167-183.<br />

Adams, T. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading<br />

Teacher, 56, 786-795.<br />

Aiken, L.R. (1972). Language factors in learning mathematics. Review of Educational<br />

Research, 42(3), 359-385.<br />

Anderson, R.C., & Nagy, W.E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator,<br />

16(14-18), 44-47.<br />

Ball, D.L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching<br />

and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241-247.<br />

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2001). Interviewing content and pedagogy in teaching and<br />

learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple<br />

30


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT:<br />

Ablex Publishing.<br />

Ball, D.L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher<br />

education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.<br />

Ball, D.L., Hill, H.C. & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows<br />

mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American<br />

Educator, 29(3), 14-46.<br />

Ball, D.L. Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what<br />

makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407.<br />

Bay-Williams, J.M., & Livers, S. (2009). Supporting math vocabulary acquisition.<br />

Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(4), 239-246.<br />

Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for<br />

choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E.L. Hiebert & M.L.<br />

Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. (pp.<br />

223-242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />

Borko, H. & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),<br />

Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.<br />

Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J.M. (1984). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive<br />

academic language learning approach. Boston: Addison-Wesley.<br />

Dahl, B. (2004). Analysing cognitive learning processes through group interviews of<br />

successful high school pupils: Development and use of a model. Educational<br />

Studies in Mathematics, 56, 129-155.<br />

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and learner achievement. A review of<br />

State policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).<br />

Delpit, L.D. (1998). Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In Perry, T. & Delpit, D.<br />

(Eds.) The real ebonics debate. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.<br />

Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension.<br />

Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 518-544.<br />

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (<strong>2012</strong>). Grade 3 maths resources. Retrieved<br />

5/12/12, from http://www.esl.amdsb.ca/pdf/Grade3EQAOMathResources.pdf<br />

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: the social interpretation of<br />

language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.<br />

Hofmeyr, J., & Hall, G. (1996). The national teacher education audit: Synthesis report.<br />

Pretoria: Department of Education.<br />

International Reading Association. (2003). Investment in teacher preparation in the<br />

United States. A position statement of the International Reading Association.<br />

Newark, Delaware: IRA.<br />

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers.<br />

Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.<br />

31


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Kotsopoulos, D. (2007). It’s like hearing a foreign language. Mathematics Teacher,<br />

101(4), 301-305.<br />

Lindgren, W., Roberts, G., & Sankey, A. (1999). Introduction to mathematical thinking.<br />

Retrieved on <strong>December</strong> 15, 2006 from http://www.tec.iup.edu/mhogue/literary_<br />

review.html.<br />

Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement:<br />

Research what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and<br />

Curriculum Development.<br />

McKnight, K.S. (2010). The teacher’s big book of graphic organizers. San Francisco, CA:<br />

John Wiley & Sons.<br />

Miller, D. (1993). Making the connection with language. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(6),<br />

311- 316.<br />

Monroe, E. (1998). Using graphic organizers to teach vocabulary: Does available<br />

research inform mathematics instruction? Education, 118(4), 538-540.<br />

Monroe, E. (2002). Developing mathematical vocabulary. Preventing School Failure,<br />

36(3), 139-142.<br />

Monroe, E., & Orme, M.P. (2002). Developing mathematical vocabulary. Preventing<br />

School Failure, 46(3), 139-142.<br />

Monroe, E. & Panchyshyn, R. (1995). Vocabulary considerations for teaching<br />

mathematics. Childhood Education, 72(2), 80-83.<br />

Moore, D.W., & Readence, J.E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic<br />

organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.<br />

Mountain, L. (2005). ROOTing out meaning: More morphemic analysis for primary<br />

pupils. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 742-749.<br />

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards<br />

for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.<br />

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment<br />

of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading<br />

instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://<br />

nationalreadingpanel.org<br />

NSW Department of School Education. (1997). Teaching literacy in mathematics in year<br />

7. Sydney: Author.<br />

Panchyshyn, R., & Monroe, E.E. (1992). Vocabulary considerations in mathematics<br />

instruction. Paper presented at the Fourteenth World Congress on Reading,<br />

Maui, Hl.<br />

Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject<br />

knowledge and pedagogic knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces.<br />

International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89-111.<br />

Pierce, M. E., & Fontaine, L. M. (2009). Designing vocabulary instruction in mathematics.<br />

Reading Teacher, 63(3), 239-243.<br />

32


Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase<br />

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms.<br />

New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.<br />

Rasinski, T.V., Padak, N., Newton, J., & Newton, E. (2011). The Latin-Greek connection.<br />

Building vocabulary through morphological study. The Reading Teacher, 65, 133-<br />

141.<br />

Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature.<br />

Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 1-35.<br />

Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic<br />

achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.<br />

Rowan, B., Schilling, S., Ball, D., & Miller, R. (2001). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical<br />

content knowledge in surveys: An exploratory study. Consortium for Policy Research<br />

in Education, Study of Instructional Improvement, Research Note S-2. Ann Arbor,<br />

MI: University of Michigan.<br />

RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). (2003). Systemic<br />

evaluation Foundation Phase mainstream national report. Pretoria: Department<br />

of Education.<br />

RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). (2008). Teaching reading<br />

in the early grades. A teacher’s handbook. Pretoria: Department of Education.<br />

RSA DoBE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education). (2010). Annual<br />

national assessments 2011. A guideline for the interpretation and use of ANA results.<br />

Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.<br />

RSA DoHET. (Republic of South Africa. Department of Higher Education and Training).<br />

(2011). The minimum requirements for teacher education qualifications. Government<br />

Gazette No. 34467. Pretoria: Department of Education<br />

Rubenstein, R. & Thompson, D. (2002). Understanding and supporting children’s’<br />

mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2),<br />

107- 112.<br />

Saxe, G. B. (1988). Linking language with mathematics achievement. In R. R. Cocking<br />

& J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics.<br />

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<br />

Schell, V. (1982) Learning partners: Reading and mathematics. The Reading Teacher,<br />

35(5), 544-548.<br />

Scott, J.A. & Nagy, W.E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs.<br />

Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184-200.<br />

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational<br />

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.<br />

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard<br />

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.<br />

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading<br />

comprehension. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.<br />

33


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Snow, C.E., Burns, S.M., Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young<br />

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.<br />

Spaniak, N. (2009). The keys to unlocking vocabulary’s c.o.d.e. Paper presented at the<br />

Secondary Reading League Day of Reading, November 7. Retrieved May 25, <strong>2012</strong><br />

from www.dayofreading.org/DOR09HO/SpaniakVocabCode.pdf<br />

Stahl, S. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.<br />

Sullivan, K. (1982). Vocabulary instruction in mathematics: Do the “little” words count?<br />

American Reading Forum Yearbook, 2, 9-11.<br />

Thompson, D.R., & Rubenstein, R.N. (2000). Learning mathematics vocabulary:<br />

Potential pitfalls and instructional strategies. The Mathematics Teacher, 93(7),<br />

568-574.<br />

UK Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The national numeracy strategy:<br />

Framework for teaching mathematics from reception to year 6. Sudbury: DfEE.<br />

UK Department of Education and Employment. (2000). The national numeracy strategy.<br />

Mathematical vocabulary. London: DfEE.<br />

Van Driel, J.H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice<br />

chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572-<br />

590.<br />

Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects<br />

on learner achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel<br />

Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.<br />

34


Graham Dampier & Daphney Mawila<br />

Test items and translation: capturing<br />

early conceptual development in<br />

mathematics reliably?<br />

Abstract<br />

Translating items of educational tests from one language to another is problematic.<br />

Arriving at accurate translations of concepts formulated in a language that is<br />

grammatically and syntactically incommensurable with a target language is a concern<br />

that probably won’t find resolution. And the very act of translation can obscure the<br />

accuracy of test items. Item Response Theory holds that only the ability of people<br />

tested and the difficulty of items should have an effect on the dataset. We report on an<br />

instance where a test was translated from German to English and then into isiZulu and<br />

Sesotho. We tested 106 pupils from similar socio economic backgrounds and schools.<br />

Our aim is to determine whether the translation had any effect on the accuracy of the<br />

instrument, which has been normed and standardised in Germany with a sample of<br />

0ver 1000 grade 1 pupils.<br />

Keywords: Item response theory, conceptual development, mathematical<br />

competence, learning and assessment.<br />

Graham Dampier, University of Johannesburg. E-mail: gadampier@uj.ac.za. Daphney<br />

Mawila, University of Johannesburg. E-mail: dmawila@uj.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 35-57 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Introduction: signs and signified in the translation of a test<br />

Translated items of educational diagnostic tests are likely to come with a host of<br />

possible problems. In any translation these may extend beyond the issues associated<br />

with trying to arrive at an approximate equation of meaning from the original to the<br />

translated text. Translation, particularly in the case of languages that exhibit little<br />

commonality, is, by force, constrained. The constraint is due not only to disparate<br />

representational systems, each with their own grammar, syntax and lexicon, but<br />

more problematically to pre-linguistic epistemological stores that are determined and<br />

defined by different geo-cultural points of reference that are captured in different<br />

languages as systems of signs (Benjamin, 1997; Jakobson, 1959; Gopnik and Meltzhoff,<br />

1997). Any given language is involved in the continued production and naming of<br />

new concepts that will in the end be expressed through its system of signs (Evans &<br />

Levinson, 2009; Levinson, 2003). Simply put, different languages tend to represent<br />

concepts and ideas that are often unique to the environment in which they exist.<br />

An often-used example comes from the Inuit language and its variants, which have<br />

many different words for ‘snow’ that describe variation within the phenomenon. Also,<br />

`Nguni languages have the same word for ‘green’ and ‘blue.’<br />

However, research on what Carey (1985, 2009) has referred to as “core cognition”<br />

suggests that children from disparate language groups share certain innate<br />

fundamental predispositions that form the cognitive basis for developing concepts,<br />

or, to be more precise, new and more complex conceptual representations. A Whorfian<br />

(Whorf, 1956) stance does not explain this type of content architecture of cognition,<br />

but does have much to say for the signs by which cognition is communicated and<br />

which develop uniquely in speech communities. In formal education, if one uses De<br />

Saussurean parlance (De Saussure, 1986) the signs of language are as important as<br />

their signifieds (Nazzi & Gopnik, 2001).<br />

The larger topic of how language feeds into education, and vice versa, is not the<br />

focus of this article. We address the way specific test items are used to assess children,<br />

by arguing that the construct validity of these items rests on consensus of the meaning<br />

of test items, across the four languages we will refer to. We describe an example of<br />

the attempt to translate a latent trait encoded in one test from German into English<br />

and then into Sesotho and isiZulu. The MARKO-D, an instrument that assesses<br />

mathematical competence and which was developed in Germany (Ricken, Fritz &<br />

Balzer, <strong>2012</strong>), is a test that scratches the surface of basic mathematical cognition. The<br />

test itself is, however, aimed at capturing learned representations. 1<br />

The test was translated into English (originally not the South African variant) and<br />

from there into isiZulu and Sesotho. Some of the formal isiZulu and Sesotho versions<br />

1 There are exceptions. Cultures, such as the Piraha and Munduruku in the Amazon, have not developed the<br />

ability to go beyond core cognition of number, due merely to a lack of need. These cultural systems do not rely<br />

on numerical representations that have developed beyond what evolution has endowed the human species<br />

with. In these languages only the first three numbers are named, while the 1-1 correspondence of objects and<br />

cardinal quantities has not been established for more than three objects. (Carey, 2009; p. 303)<br />

36


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

of the test items were virtually incomprehensible to the grade 1 pupils it sought to<br />

assess empirically, since they were represented in the formal register of the two<br />

languages that the urban children do not use (Welch, Dampier and Mawila, 2011). As a<br />

result, the validity and reliability of the test and the data it sought to gather could have<br />

been compromised, since the representational mode in which the test was delivered<br />

appeared, on face value, not to suit the linguistic context in which it was administered.<br />

The purpose of this article is two-fold. Firstly, using the MARKO-D test, we evaluate<br />

the cross-linguistic assessment of mathematical representations built on core<br />

mathematical cognition. The developers of the test explain that it was designed for<br />

pre-school children (Gerlach, Fritz & Leutner, <strong>2012</strong>) and was piloted and later validated<br />

with 3000 children in Germany. They explain that it was developed not to test core<br />

knowledge of mathematical concepts (which is believed to be innate), even though it<br />

taps into this, but that it was designed to measure mathematical concepts that have<br />

been learned socially, from the ability to count with the succession principle through<br />

to knowledge of natural number and cardinality. One of the basic assumptions of the<br />

test is that while all children are born with a set of core mathematical concepts, they<br />

develop basic mathematical skills as they learn, mostly through some instruction, be it<br />

formal or informal, which is mediated, mostly, by language as semiotic mediator.<br />

Secondly, we assess whether the double translation from German into English and<br />

then into isiZulu and Sesotho had any effect on the way in which individuals from the<br />

different language groups responded to the test. The Rasch model of measurement<br />

(Rasch, 1960; Andrich, 1988; Bond & Fox, 2007) was used to assess the effect of the<br />

double translation on the items of the test. The model indicates whether the MARKO-D<br />

is a reliable tool with which to measure mathematical competence in English, isiZulu<br />

and Sesotho in urban South African classrooms. It was used to determine whether our<br />

data violated the assumption of unidimensionality, which is a basic tenet of the Rasch<br />

model and item response theory, more generally (Wright, 1988; Wright & Stone, 1999,<br />

Anrdrich 1988; de la Torre & Patz, 2005; Andrich & Hagquist, <strong>2012</strong>; Bond & Fox, 2007;<br />

Rasch, 1960; DeMars, 2010).<br />

This article presents a preliminary analysis of the suitability of the MARKO-D as a<br />

measure of mathematical competence in what is a very distinct setting, the urban<br />

South African ‘township’ classroom. The sample size of the pilot test on which we<br />

report (n=106) is suitable for such a pilot and was followed in <strong>2012</strong> by a sample of 280.<br />

De Mars explains that (2010, p. 34), “Rasch or one-parameter logistic (1PL) models are<br />

often used with samples as small as 100 or 200 examinees,” but prevailing wisdom<br />

holds that increasing the number of examinees will improve the estimation of person<br />

ability and item difficulty. With the limitations of this sample size, we make no claim<br />

to have arrived at a conclusive evaluation of the accuracy, validity and reliability of<br />

the MARKO-D for all urban South African schools that are similar to our sample school.<br />

Instead, this analysis of the test provides a preliminary assessment of the suitability<br />

of the test and the effect of translating the test from German to English and then into<br />

isiZulu and Sesotho.<br />

37


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

The Rasch model indicates (1) whether the MARKO-D assesses mathematical<br />

competence consistently in the three different language groups, in other words, it<br />

determines to what extent the test fits with the population assessed in this study, and<br />

(2) whether the act of translating the test into three different representational systems<br />

has had any effect on the dimensionality of the data. The principle of unidimensionality<br />

maintains that only the difficulty of test items and the ability of individuals should have<br />

any bearing on the data (Wright, 1998; Wright & Stone, 1999, Anrdrich 1988; Andrich &<br />

Hagquist, <strong>2012</strong>; Bond & Fox, 2007, DeMars, 2010, de la Torre & Patz, 2005). Violation of<br />

this principle may suggest that extraneous variables are clouding the accuracy of the<br />

MARKO-D as a measure of mathematical competence.<br />

We begin with a brief discussion of what core mathematical cognition refers to,<br />

and, specifically, what Carey’s (2009) theoretical stance entails, before exploring her<br />

theory of learning, or cognitive development. As a leading cognitive developmental<br />

psychologist, her view is widely accepted (Carey, 2001; 2004 & 2009). This will be<br />

followed by a brief discussion of the origin and the validation of the MARKO-D test.<br />

Thereafter, we report on how we used the Rasch model to assess whether this<br />

instrument accesses mathematical competence consistently and accurately across<br />

the three language groups tested. We also discuss the effect that translating the<br />

assessment has had on the different language groups.<br />

Core mathematical cognition<br />

Carey (2009, p. 3) explains that her work, The Origin of Concepts, offers an account<br />

of the “human capacity for conceptual representation.” On the surface her argument<br />

appears to be rather simple, since her basic premise is that (2009, p. 3), “(s) ome<br />

concepts, such as object and number, arise in some form over evolutionary time,”<br />

while other concepts “such as kayak, fraction, and gene, spring from human cultures,<br />

and the construction process must be understood in terms of both human individuals’<br />

learning mechanisms and sociocultural processes.”<br />

The distinction between what is inherent in our species (produced over the course<br />

of our evolution) and what cultures produce in the attempt to articulate what is<br />

particular to them, is maintained throughout the exploration of what she refers to as<br />

conceptual representation and conceptual development. Carey’s argument for core<br />

cognition has been consistent for over a decade.<br />

Along with Spelke (Carey and Spelke, 1994, p. 169), she argues that, “human<br />

reasoning is guided by a collection of innate domain specific systems of knowledge”<br />

and that each system is defined by “a set of core principles that define the entities<br />

covered by the domain and support reasoning about those entities.” Learning, they<br />

argue, will entail the development and the entrenchment of these core principles<br />

(1994, p. 169). The domains of knowledge they are referring to include knowledge<br />

of language, knowledge of physical objects and knowledge of number (Chomsky,<br />

38


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

1980; Carey & Spelke, 1994) 2 . Later, Carey & Spelke (1996, p. 517) argue that in the<br />

same way we “are endowed with multiple, specialized perceptual systems, so we<br />

are endowed with multiple systems for representing and reasoning about entities of<br />

different kinds,” which includes “at least four core conceptual systems encompassing<br />

knowledge of objects, agents, number, and space.”<br />

While Carey has since distanced herself from the “core knowledge” argument<br />

forwarded by herself in collaboration with Spelke, and by other cognitive<br />

developmentalists (Carey & Spelke, 1996; Spelke, 2000; Spelke, 2003; Gelman, 1991;<br />

and Leslie, 1994 3 ), her definition of “core cognition” retains conceptual and theoretical<br />

relations to it. She (2009, p. 10-11) maintains the stance that cognitive development<br />

is organized around a core set of conceptual representations that are “evolutionarily<br />

underwritten,” and that differ from sensory and perceptual representations “in<br />

having a rich, conceptual, inferential role to play in thought.” The major difference<br />

between core cognition and core knowledge is that core cognition, notably, does not<br />

claim to be veridical, which means that core cognition exists independently of contact<br />

with particular phenomena in the world. Core cognition is embedded within the<br />

brain, it exists as the fons et origo of knowledge, and does not require experience to<br />

actively serve its basic function, which is to make sense of sensory input. Even though<br />

knowledge may change over time, it appears that core cognition remains stable<br />

and constant. 4<br />

By implication members of different language groups, for example the German,<br />

isiZulu, English and Sesotho groups, should all, at some point of maturation, have<br />

similar, if not the same, set of core mathematical concepts available to them<br />

before they embark on the process of creating new representational systems that<br />

will arise through sociocultural “semiotic mediation” (Vygotsky, 1978). Cognitive<br />

neuropsychologists have gone a long way to proving that all human beings, regardless<br />

of language and culture, and indeed many animals such as rats, the various primate<br />

species, many species of bird, and so on, are naturally endowed with the ability to<br />

analyse reality in terms of number and quantity (Carey, 2009; Dehaene, 2010; Deheane<br />

& Brannon, 2011; Feigenson, Dehaene & Spelke, 2004; Feigenson, Carey & Spelke, 2002;<br />

Le Corre & Carey, 2007). If core cognition is an evolutionary product, then every child,<br />

regardless of linguistic origin, should have the same basis from which to develop new<br />

and more sophisticated concepts, theories and systems of representation.<br />

2 Leslie (1994, p. 121) writes that: “The language faculty is probably not the only member of a class of core<br />

domains concerned with knowledge of formal systems. Formal core domains plausibly include number and<br />

music, as well as grammar.”<br />

3 Leslie (1994) prefers “core architecture.”<br />

4 Carey & Spelke (1996, p. 519) argue that, “[c]ore systems, in contrast, are elaborated but not revised: neither<br />

infants, nor children, nor adults engaged in commonsense reasoning ever give up their initial systems of<br />

knowledge.” It is foundational in humans as it is foundational in other species.<br />

39


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

‘Bootstrapping’ and the representation of positive integers<br />

“Bootstrapping is the process that underlies the creation of such new concepts<br />

and thus it is part of the answer to the question: What is the origin of concepts?”<br />

(Carey, 2004: p. 60)<br />

In this section of the article we explore the debate around the continuity of core<br />

number cognition and its role in learning. There are two trends in the literature,<br />

seeking to explain the genesis of number and other mathematical concepts.<br />

Carey (2009, p. 12) explains that The Origin of Concepts is an “extended<br />

exploration of learning mechanisms,” and she characterizes “learning processes as<br />

those that build representations of the world on the basis of computations on input<br />

that is itself representational.” The world is understood through representational<br />

input, which can be observed or experienced, that will ultimately be encoded in a<br />

conceptual system. An elemental cistern of concepts serves as the foundation for<br />

learning and development. Carey explains (2009, p. 13) that, the “proposals for the<br />

initial stock of representational primitives and for the types of learning mechanisms<br />

that underlie cognitive development are logically independent, although there are<br />

inductive relations between them.” This posits that learning is the reconciliation of<br />

new information and pre-existing (innate) cognition, which is conducted by inherent<br />

learning mechanisms and the representational systems (such as language) in which<br />

they are communicated. Language as semiotic mediator is plainly crucial.<br />

The development of a mathematical representational system is an example of this.<br />

While individuals share a core set of mathematical concepts that are the product of<br />

human evolution, each individual will create a unique mathematical representational<br />

system as he/she is exposed to further cultural constructions of mathematics.<br />

Carey writes (2009, p. 18) that the “integer list is a cultural construction with more<br />

representational power than any of the core representational systems on which it is<br />

built.” This means that integers, as products of conceptual development and cultural<br />

construction, are built from more basic forms of mathematical cognition. Similarly,<br />

the development of rational numbers “transcends the representations available<br />

at the outset of [this particular] construction process,” which, according to Carey<br />

(2009, p 19), includes the “representation of integers created by children during their<br />

preschool years.”<br />

Children with different linguistic and cultural origins will develop in line with the<br />

proclivities and limitations of the system within which they develop. Since some<br />

learning, be it formal or informal would have occurred before the children tested<br />

in this study entered school, language (as a system of signs that signify concepts)<br />

would have played a major role in their development. The ability of these children to<br />

represent positive integers and to understand cardinality is defined by the language<br />

they speak and the culture they come from. Here core cognition is not the handmaiden<br />

of learning – now language and environment kick in.<br />

Carey argues that while analog magnitude representations of number, the parallel<br />

individuation system and natural language quantifiers, are all products of human<br />

40


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

evolution (the last being a product of language evolution in particular), and qualify<br />

as examples of “core cognition,” the ability to represent natural numbers, or positive<br />

integers, is the product of socio-cultural mediation. 5 The human ability to represent<br />

positive integers is learned. It is a product of culture, not nature. She explains this,<br />

with the notion of conceptual systems (CS) that change from one system to another<br />

(2009, p. 292):<br />

We can examine the core cognition systems with numerical content and specify<br />

the ways in which integer representations transcend them. The most important<br />

task to one attempting to establish conceptual discontinuity is to characterize<br />

CS1 and CS2, demonstrating in what sense CS2 contains representations not<br />

expressible in CS1.<br />

Since the representations of natural numbers are learned, they form part of a<br />

conceptual system, in this case CS2, that is conceptually discontinuous with core<br />

cognition system that 1) analog magnitude representations of number, 2) the<br />

parallel individuation system and 3) natural language quantifies are part of, which is<br />

represented here as CS1 (see figure 1).<br />

Conceptual System 1<br />

• Analog Magnitude<br />

• Parallel individuation<br />

• Natural language<br />

• quantifiers<br />

Conceptual System 2<br />

• Cardinality principle<br />

• Integers<br />

• Natural numbers<br />

Figure 1: The conceptual representation of integers.<br />

Since the publication of Gelman & Gallistel’s The Child’s Understanding of Number (1978)<br />

cognitive psychologists have forwarded conflicting theories of how children learn to<br />

“determine the cardinality of a collection” (Rips, Bloomfield, & Asmuth, 2008, p. 626;<br />

see also Le Corre & Carey, 2007 and Le Corre, Van de Walle, Brannon, & Carey, 2006).<br />

Many cognitive psychologists have argued that two innate conceptual systems of<br />

number form the basis for determining cardinality when children are roughly between<br />

4 and 5 years old (Dehaene, 1997; Feignson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004; Starkey, Spelke<br />

& Gelman, 1990; Holloway & Ansari, 2009; and by Carey herself in various works).<br />

There is evidence that children as young as six months of age are capable of producing<br />

analog magnitude representations of number and parallel individuations of small sets.<br />

These two innate systems of numerical representation, as well as the quantifiers of<br />

5 Elsewhere she argues (2004, p. 60): “Before they acquire language, infants form several different types of<br />

representation with numerical content, at least two of which they share with other vertebrate animals.”<br />

41


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

natural language, have been cited by many, Gelman & Gallistel (1978) most notably, as<br />

forming the basis for children’s ability to represent positive integers.<br />

However, Carey and other authors (2004; 2009; Le Corre & Carey, 2007; Le Corre<br />

et al, 2006) present sceptical views of the plausibility of the argument that these<br />

three innate systems of number are capable of representing positive integers and<br />

allowing children to arrive at an understanding of cardinality. Le Corre & Carey (2007)<br />

explain that, firstly, the analog magnitude system is not capable of presenting the<br />

exact quantities of number that the representation of positive integers requires. The<br />

analogue magnitude system cannot represent numbers as discrete quantities, because<br />

it serves only to estimate quantity and to distinguish between magnitudes of differing<br />

size. 6 The analogue magnitude system “encodes number as would a number line,” and<br />

it is present in human beings as early as “the sixth month of life” (ibid, 2007, p. 397).<br />

Le Corre & Carey conclude that the analogue magnitude system is too limited to serve<br />

as a plausible basis for developing the ability to represent positive integers (2007, pp.<br />

433-434). It is not capable of dealing with the precise values of number required by the<br />

representation of positive integers.<br />

Secondly, these authors also argue that (ibid, pp. 297-298) the parallel individuation<br />

system is capable of representing “sets of individuals by creating working memory<br />

models in which each individual in a set is represented by a unique mental symbol.”<br />

They are quick to caution, however, that this “system has a hard capacity limit” (ibid,<br />

p. 298). They explain:<br />

In adults, it cannot hold any more than 4 individuals in parallel. Many experiments<br />

suggest that the infant system cannot hold any more than 3 individuals in<br />

parallel, though one group of researchers has found that it too can hold up to<br />

4. Importantly, unlike the analog magnitude system, this system contains no<br />

symbols for number. However, it is clear that it has numerical content. Criteria<br />

for numerical identity (sameness in the sense of same one) determine whether a<br />

new symbol is created in a given model. Additionally, infants can create working<br />

memory models of at least two sets of 3 or fewer individuals, and can compare<br />

these models on the basis of 1–1 correspondence to determine numerical<br />

equivalence or numerical order.<br />

Thirdly, they argue, the quantifiers of natural language are similarly limited in their<br />

capacity to represent discrete numerical quantities. Le Corre & Carey (2007, p.<br />

298) explain:<br />

A third system available to non-linguistic primates and to preverbal infants is<br />

what we will call the “set based quantificational system.” This system is the<br />

root of the meanings of all natural language quantifiers. To provide the basis for<br />

quantification, this system explicitly distinguishes the atoms, or individuals, in a<br />

domain of discourse from all the sets that can be comprised of them.<br />

6 Le Corre & Carey (2007, p. 397) write that the analogue magnitude “is characterized by two related<br />

psychophysical signatures –Weber’s law and scalar variability. Weber’s law states that discriminability of<br />

two quantities is a function of their ratio (e.g. 5 and 10 are easier to discriminate than 45 and 50). Scalar<br />

variability holds if the standard deviation of the estimate of some quantity is a linear function of its absolute<br />

value. Analogue magnitude serves to estimate various quantifiable areas of experience (2004, p. 60): “Mental<br />

analog magnitudes represent many dimensions of experience - for example, brightness, loudness, and temporal<br />

duration. In each case at the physical magnitudes get bigger, it becomes increasingly harder to discriminate<br />

between pairs of values that are separated by the same absolute difference.”<br />

42


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

The representation of natural numbers, via numeral (counting) lists, depends on the<br />

ability to 1) count in sequence and 2) the accompanying ability to associate these<br />

representations with discrete quantities that follow successively, which equates to<br />

n + 1 for any number in the count sequence. These abilities are both not innate but<br />

learnt. This requires the formation of a direct relation between, for instance, the<br />

representation “five” and the quantity of five, represented here as five lines “- - - - - ”.<br />

The ability to do this, according to Carey (2009, p. 295), far exceeds the limitations of<br />

analog magnitude representations of number, which she explains are not “powerful<br />

enough to represent the natural numbers and their key property of discrete infinity.”<br />

What is more, analog magnitude representations embedded within CS1 “provide<br />

merely approximate representations of the numbers in their domain, even one,<br />

whereas numeral list systems [which are part of the CS2] represent each natural<br />

number exactly.”<br />

She finds (2009, p. 295) that while systems of parallel individuation may contain<br />

“machinery for indexing and tracking sets of individuals,” it does not contain<br />

“symbols for cardinal values.” Indicating that the ability to represent natural number<br />

exceeds the conceptual limit of parallel individuation systems. In addition, “natural<br />

language includes no representations of exact cardinal values above three” (Carey,<br />

2009, p. 296).<br />

At this stage the question is: “How do children learn to represent positive integers,<br />

that is, are there stages in the process of gaining knowledge of cardinality?”<br />

Carey’s model of learning rests on a characterisation of learning via a process she<br />

calls “bootstrapping” – a metaphor with a specific history, which we will not explore<br />

in this article. While there is not enough space to explore this model of learning in<br />

the detail it merits, it is expedient to provide a brief explanation for this specific<br />

use of term. 7 Since Carey’s model of conceptual change requires that conceptual<br />

discontinuities exist when new representational systems are developed, the metaphor<br />

of bootstrapping maintains that learning entails “building a structure while it is not<br />

[already] grounded” (2009, p. 306). Initially, when new representational systems<br />

are developed, the learner only learns “the relations of a system of symbols to one<br />

another,” and does not associate these symbols with pre-existing concepts (2009, p.<br />

306). This process of association is described as mapping each sign onto a concept<br />

or a component of a concept. Before this mapping takes place, signs serve only as<br />

placeholders, that is, they are spectres of the concepts they will at some point serve<br />

to represent in a direct and semantically constrained relation. Once the signs and<br />

concepts of a new representational system correspond to one another, the learner<br />

has successfully learned how to associate a new system of signs with the concepts<br />

they serve to represent. A new conceptual system has hereby been developed. Once<br />

learners have grasped the notion of ‘decades’ and ‘decupling’, they cannot go back to<br />

a conceptual system (CS1) in which this understanding (CS2) does not feature.<br />

7 For evaluations of “bootstrapping” as a model of learning see Rips, Asmuth & Bloomfield (2008; 2006); Gelman<br />

& Butterworth (2005); and Butterworth (2005) - for criticism of the approach, and Carey (2004 and 2009),<br />

Henning (<strong>2012</strong>) and Henning & Dampier (<strong>2012</strong>) - for a description of the process.<br />

43


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

We can explain the notion of place holding further. In learning how to represent<br />

integers or natural numbers, children at first learn the signs of representation before<br />

they come to understand the cardinality of number. And, it appears, that process of<br />

learning occurs in stages (2009, p. 301):<br />

Besides confirming that CS1 and CS2 are stable representational systems, these<br />

data constrain [sic - contain] an account of the learning process. After having<br />

memorized the count list and the count routine [which constitute the signs<br />

of the new representational system], first the child is a no numeral knower,<br />

although by 24 months of age, many English learning children are already “one”-<br />

knowers. Being a “one”-knower is a consistent stage children remain in for six to<br />

nine months. Then they become “two”-knowers, and some also become “four”-<br />

knowers before figuring out how the numeral list represents natural number.<br />

Children stay subset-knowers for 1 to 1.5 years. When they become cardinal<br />

principle knowers, they have created a representation of some positive integers,<br />

a numerical representation [sic] that transcends core number representations.<br />

The bootstrapping process, through which the representation of positive integers is<br />

learned, requires, at first, that the learner learn the system of signs with which natural<br />

numbers will be represented. At first these signs are spectres, since they are devoid of<br />

any conceptual content and exist without stable signifieds. This changes once a direct<br />

relationship between the sign and the concept is established; at this point the signs are<br />

no longer placeholders or spectres for concepts they are meant to represent. In a sense,<br />

at this point the concepts or signifieds come-to-life within the sign, much as Vygotsky<br />

also theorized learning form and through words (Vygotsky, 1992; Henning, <strong>2012</strong>).<br />

In learning how to represent positive integers, children will go through various<br />

stages. They will begin to learn the various signifiers of the numeral list, before they<br />

understand that each sign represents a particular quantity (this encompasses the shift<br />

from “no”-knower, to “one”-knower, “two”-knower, “three”-knower, and eventually<br />

to “four”-knower, see figure 2). During the subset-knower phase, learners “know the<br />

numerical meaning of only a subset of numerals on their count list” (2009, p. 298),<br />

but do not know that, “the last word reached in a count [of a subset of the count list]<br />

represents the cardinal value of the set” (2009, p. 298). Cardinal knowers are said to<br />

understand “the numerical meaning of the activity of counting and can now reliably<br />

produce sets with the cardinal value of any numeral on their count list” (2009, p. 298).<br />

44


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

Conceptual System 1<br />

• Analog Magnitude<br />

• Parallel individuation<br />

• Natural language<br />

quantifiers<br />

Conceptual System 2<br />

• Cardinality principle<br />

• Integers<br />

• Natural numbers<br />

“one”-knower<br />

“two”-knower<br />

“three”-knower<br />

“four”-knower<br />

Cardinal principle knowers<br />

Sub-set knowers<br />

Figure 2: From “one”- knower to Cardinal principle knower .<br />

The MARKO-D test<br />

We conducted this pilot study at the beginning of a longitudinal panel research<br />

programme in which we follow the participants over four years in various areas of<br />

childhood development, one of which is mathematical competence. The MARKO-D<br />

was specifically designed to capture development of individual children and to<br />

show the way in which children develop mathematical competence. This process of<br />

development is captured in five levels that increase with complexity and difficulty. Our<br />

thesis is that every more advanced level of development is a representational system<br />

that is conceptually incommensurate with a level that has gone before. This means<br />

that more basic levels in this measure of mathematical competence cannot represent<br />

the concepts of more advanced levels, since each concept and level builds on what has<br />

come before. Ricken, Fritz-Stratmann and Balzer (2011, p. 256), the designers of the<br />

test, describe the instrument as follows (translated from German):<br />

Process-oriented diagnostics require a theoretical framework which allows for the<br />

description and interpretation of individual competence changes. For the MARKO-D<br />

test, a corresponding dimension/scale of mathematical achievement was developed<br />

on the basis of theoretical suppositions and empirical data. Five concepts [which are<br />

representational, conceptual systems in Carey’s parlance] are tested, namely numbers<br />

as counting sequence, the ordinal number line, cardinal understanding, part–part–<br />

whole, and the concept of congruent intervals. There is empirical evidence for the<br />

validity of the model, using a unidimensional Rasch model. The test, on the one hand,<br />

allows for comparison of individual data with a social norm and, on the other hand, is<br />

45


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

usable to make valid statements about individual changes and development as well as<br />

the current competence status of a child.<br />

The MARKO-D measures children’s early mathematical and arithmetical<br />

representations. While the test does not claim to access core mathematical cognition<br />

directly, it does open up empirical windows to basic conceptual representations of<br />

number, quantity, order and relationality. The test was empirically scaled, using Rasch<br />

modelling. Items that could be solved with the same conceptual knowledge were<br />

grouped together in levels that the authors refer to above. These levels of competence<br />

(broadly sequential in development) include:<br />

1. Numerals – counting words<br />

2. Ordinal number line<br />

3. Cardinal numbers and partitioning<br />

4. Conservation and class inclusion<br />

5. Relationality<br />

The test was standardized with data of 3000 children (4-8 years) from different<br />

contexts in Germany and it was normed with data form 1029 children (48 – 87 months),<br />

with 567 boys and 528 girls (M = 64.6 months; SD = 7.2) (Ricken et al: 2011, p.261).<br />

To borrow from Carey, every level of competence represents a representational<br />

system that is more expressive and more complex than the level that has gone before.<br />

Every level hereby “transcends in some qualitative way” the representational system<br />

that has gone before (Carey, 2004: p 59). Each level also represents a limit that must<br />

be transcended if new and more powerful representational systems are to develop.<br />

Administering the test in an urban South African setting<br />

The basic premise of the Rasch model of measurement is that the ability of persons<br />

tested is independent of the difficulty of items used to measure a latent trait (Wainer,<br />

Morgan & Gustafsson, 1980; Linacre, 2002). The model is used to estimate the<br />

probability that a person with an ability of β x<br />

will get an item with the difficulty of δ x<br />

correct. Like other IRT models it assumes that a single construct or latent trait is being<br />

measured (Wainer et al, 1980; Wright, 1998; Wright & Stone, 1999; Andrich, 1988;<br />

Andrich, Marias &Humphrey, 2011; Bond & Fox, 2007, Linacre, 2002). For this reason,<br />

it makes the assumption that all items measure the same trait (Wainer et al, 1980) and<br />

that individual persons are responding to items in a way that is consistent with other<br />

people (Wright & Stone, 1999) 8 . The principle of unidimensionality maintains that no<br />

other dimension or extraneous variable should have any bearing on what is tested<br />

by the items, or on the way in which persons respond to items, that is, this principle<br />

8 Wright & Stone (1999, p. 48) explain: “The Rasch model is derived from the requirement that person measures<br />

and item calibrations be separately estimable. This requires that (1) a more able person always have a greater<br />

probability of success on any item than a less able person, and (2) any person always be more likely to do better<br />

on an easier item than on a harder one.”<br />

46


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

requires that only one construct is measured in persons and by items. Bond & Fox<br />

(2007, p. 32) explain that the “focus on one attribute or dimension at a time is referred<br />

to as unidimensionality.”<br />

Unidimensionality is a general concern of item response theory (DeMars,<br />

2010). Cook, Dorans & Eignor (1988, p. 19) argue that a basic assumption of the<br />

“most commonly used item response theory (IRT) models is that the data are<br />

unidimensional, that is, statistical dependence among item scores can be explained by<br />

a single dimension.” Even when IRT models are used to measure multiple dimensions,<br />

“a common practice in educational measurement is to estimate these abilities<br />

independently of each other” (de la Torre & Patz, 2005, p. 295). The delimitations<br />

of the Rasch model require that data reflect the measurement of one latent trait<br />

according to the ability of individual persons, and the difficulty of items, on the trait<br />

(DeMars, 2010). This means that data must fit with the assumptions and expectations<br />

of the model (Linacre, 2002).<br />

It is assumed that all items measure the same construct or latent trait. A corollary<br />

of this is that all persons are expected to respond to the items in a way that is<br />

consistent with their ability on the trait and in relation to the ability of other persons.<br />

When these two requirements are satisfied the data are likely to fit the parameters of<br />

the model (Wright, 1998, Bond & Fox, 2007). Or as Andrich (1988, p. 61) writes “if there<br />

is discord between the data and the model, it is left open to question whether the<br />

model or the data are at fault. It is conceivable that when the data do not accord with<br />

the model with which they are intended to accord, that something has gone astray<br />

with the data or its collection.” In determining the fit of the data with the model, we<br />

are essentially trying to determine whether the data accord with the delimitations of<br />

the model. Write & Stone explain (1999, p. 47):<br />

A complete analysis must include an evaluation of how well the data fit this<br />

essential specification. If a person answers the hard items on a test correctly but<br />

misses several easy items, we are surprised by the resulting implausible pattern<br />

of incorrect responses. While we could examine individual records item-by-item<br />

to determine this kind of invalidity, in practice we want to put such evaluations<br />

on a systematic and manageable basis. We want to be specific but also objective<br />

in our reaction to implausible and hence invalid observations.<br />

Does it Fit?<br />

According to Wright & Stone (1999, p. 48), “(f)it analysis shows us the extent to<br />

which any data can be used to construct measures. Each data analysis must include an<br />

evaluation of how well those particular data fit the expectations which measurement<br />

requires.” One way of determine the fit of the data to the parameters of the model is<br />

to examine the fit statistics of the data. Bond & Fox (2007, 310) define fit statistics as<br />

“indices that estimate the extent to which responses show adherence to the modelled<br />

expectations.” There are two measures of fit; infit and outfit. Infit statistics indicate<br />

the extent to which persons or items fit with the Rasch model, that is, they indicate<br />

“the degree of fit of observations to the Rasch-modelled expectations” (Bond & Fox,<br />

2007, p. 310), while outfit statistics “are influenced by off-target observations,” and<br />

47


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

indicate the extent to which extreme cases and/or unexpected responses are affecting<br />

the data (Wright & Stone, 1999, p. 53).<br />

This table summarizes the infit and outfit statistics for the items used to measure<br />

the latent trait.<br />

Table 1: Summary of 54 measured items<br />

INFIT<br />

OUTFIT<br />

TOTAL SCORE<br />

COUNT<br />

MEASURE<br />

MODEL ERROR<br />

MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD<br />

MEAN 62.1 105.9 .00 .29 .99 -.1 1.04 .1<br />

S.D. 30.4 .3 1.85 .13 .09 .8 .42 1.1<br />

MAX. 30.4 106.0 3.91 1.01 1.24 1.9 3.22 3.5<br />

MIN. 5.0 105.0 -4.56 .21 .81 -2.4 .18 -2.2<br />

REAL<br />

SEPARA-<br />

RELIABIL-<br />

.32 TRUE SD 1.82<br />

5.66 ITEM<br />

RMSE<br />

TION<br />

ITY<br />

.97<br />

MODEL<br />

SEPARA-<br />

RELIABIL-<br />

.32 TRUE SD 1.82<br />

5.74 ITEM<br />

RMSE<br />

TION<br />

ITY<br />

.97<br />

S.E. OF ITEM MEAN = .25<br />

MINIMUM EXTREME SCORE: 1 ITEM<br />

Table 3 indicates the extent to which items measured the ability of individuals in the<br />

data set. Three items, 34, 35 and 30 exhibited statistically significant misfit (ZSTD <<br />

2.00). These items also had large outfit mean square values (> 1.50) which means<br />

that their suitability for measurement needs to be assessed. 9 This table suggests<br />

that these items elicited responses from persons that were affected by something<br />

other than mathematical competence. These items were not measuring the latent<br />

trait effectively. There is, to borrow from the discourse, some ‘noise’ in these items<br />

(Linacre, 2002).<br />

These items measure the degree of competence in ordering numbers on an ordinal<br />

number line. In each respective language the rater would ask, what translates into<br />

English as, “What number is one bigger than 7?” (30), “What number is two smaller<br />

than 5?” (34), and “What number is two bigger than 4?” (35).<br />

In our initial review of the English translations of the original German test,<br />

we considered these items to be linguistically incongruent with the South<br />

African linguistic context. Even the English cohort that we tested struggled<br />

with the formulation of these items. The reasons for this may be multiple, but<br />

one possible explanation lies in the fact that our English cohort consisted of<br />

learners who speak an African language at home, and are schooled in English<br />

from Grade 0 through to Grade 12. They receive no instruction in an indigenous<br />

African language while at school. However, it appears that they retain certain<br />

9 Linacre (2002) explains that values greater than 1.0 suggest the presence of unmodeled noise or other source<br />

of variance in the data. This essentially degrades measurement. On the other hand, values less than 1.0 suggest<br />

that the model predicts the data too well. A value of .99 is desirable, since Linacre (2002) argues that MNSQ<br />

values between 0.5 and 1.5 are productive for measurement.<br />

48


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

linguistic representations of quantity, number and spatial orientation from their<br />

mother tongue.<br />

By asking learners from all three linguistic groups in our sample to determine which<br />

“number is two bigger than 4,” we were essentially confusing the learners, some<br />

of whom interpreted this question as referring to size that can be measured, rather<br />

ironically, with a ruler. We effectively confused terminology, signs and concepts for<br />

them. Bear in mind that the test was administered orally in clinical interview mode. The<br />

children may have been baffled by the issue of whether the word “number,” in the<br />

formulation, refers to a digit (that can be signed), a quantity (that can be measured),<br />

or a concept (that we have of a number)? Does “two” refer to the digit, the numeral as<br />

a sign for measurement or the concept? And does “five” refer to the digit, the quantity<br />

or the concept?<br />

Table 2: Item statistics: misfit order<br />

INFIT OUTFIT PT-MEASURE EXACT MATCH<br />

ENTRY NUMBER<br />

TOTAL SCORE<br />

TOTAL COUNT<br />

MEASURE<br />

MODEL S.E.<br />

MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD CORR. EXP. OBS% EXP%<br />

34 10 106 3.13 .34 1.14 .6 3.22 3.5 A-.06 .24 90.6 90.5<br />

35 11 106 3.01 .33 1.05 .3 2.16 2.3 B .13 .25 89.6 89.6<br />

30 25 106 1.93 .24 1.24 1.9 1.59 2.4 C .05 .34 73.6 77.6<br />

31 22 106 2.11 .25 1.03 .3 1.42 1.6 D .24 .32 79.2 79.9<br />

3 82 106 -.90 .25 1.11 .8 1.41 1.8 E .20 .36 79.2 79.1<br />

32 20 105 2.20 .26 1.09 .6 1.40 1.5 F .17 .31 81.0 81.1<br />

47 5 106 3.91 .47 1.08 .3 1.39 .8 G .05 .18 95.3 95.3<br />

17 77 106 -.60 .24 1.16 1.4 1.34 1.8 H.20 .37 70.8 75.8<br />

33 13 106 2.81 .31 1.10 .5 1.33 1.0 I .13 .27 87.7 87.7<br />

7 79 106 -.72 .24 1.20 1.6 1.26 1.3 J.17 .37 71.7 77.1<br />

28 84 106 -1.02 .26 1.02 .2 1.23 1.0 K .32 .35 79.2 80.6<br />

2 78 106 -.66 .24 1.02 .2 1.20 1.1 L .31 .37 77.4 76.4<br />

10 82 106 -.90 .25 1.08 .7 1.17 .8 M .26 .36 79.2 79.1<br />

6 79 106 -.72 .24 1.14 1.1 1.17 .9 N.24 .37 71.7 77.1<br />

MEAN 62.9 105.9 -.11 .32 .99 -.1 1.04 .1 81.1 80.3<br />

S.D. 30.7 .3 1.99 .24 .09 .8 .42 1.1 8.1 8.6<br />

The misfitting nature of items 34, 35 and 30, respectively, suggests that these<br />

items, or rather the translations of the original German formulation into English,<br />

Sesotho and isiZulu, are having a negative effect on the ability of these items to<br />

measure a person’s ability to place numbers on the ordinal number line, which is a<br />

component of mathematical competence.<br />

Table 4 indicates the extent to which persons measured responded consistently<br />

with items used to determine their mathematical competence. It shows that six<br />

respondents out of 106 who were tested provided responses to items that were<br />

not anticipated or predicted. In most cases respondents with low mathematical<br />

competence answered difficult items correctly when the Rasch model expected them<br />

49


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

to answer incorrectly. Since the MARKO-D only requires correct or incorrect answers,<br />

it is reasonable to assume that these respondents guessed correctly, or provided<br />

incorrect responses to comparatively easy items.<br />

Table 3: Person statistics: misfit order<br />

ENTRY NUMBER<br />

TOTAL SCORE<br />

TOTAL COUNT<br />

MEASURE<br />

MODEL S.E.<br />

INFIT OUTFIT PT-MEASURE EXACT MATCH<br />

MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD CORR. EXP. OBS% EXP%<br />

42 13 55 -1.93 .39 1.26 1.2 6.14 3.7 A .35 .53 77.8 83.1<br />

89 29 55 .04 .35 1.49 2.6 3.20 4.0 B .34 .60 68.5 77.6<br />

73 33 55 .53 .36 1.65 2.9 2.69 3.1 C .32 .60 72.2 80.1<br />

84 30 55 .16 .35 1.46 2.4 2.66 3.2 D .38 .60 66.7 78.2<br />

106 33 55 .53 .36 1.52 2.4 2.50 2.8 E .38 .60 68.5 80.1<br />

50 21 55 -.89 .34 1.31 2.1 2.46 2.5 F .41 .57 63.0 74.7<br />

36 25 55 -.43 .34 1.16 1.1 1.81 1.8 G .50 .59 68.5 75.6<br />

MEAN 32.6 55.0 .54 .37 .99 -.1 1.04 .1 81.1 80.3<br />

S.D. 7.2 .2 .94 .02 .24 1.2 .71 1.1 6.6 3.0<br />

Andrich, Marais & Humphrey (<strong>2012</strong>, p. 417) consider “random guessing to be the<br />

function of the difficulty of an item relative to the proficiency of a person,” and not<br />

“a property of the item per se” (418). When a person with a relatively low manifest<br />

ability on the latent trait gets a difficult answer right, it is reasonable to assume that<br />

the person guessed correctly, unless the person suddenly develops an increased ability<br />

on the trait being tested. While other explanations abound, the unexpected response<br />

recorded when a person with a low ability endorses a difficult answer suggests that<br />

something has gone wrong in the measurement of the latent trait.<br />

Table 4 shows that the responses of six persons out of the 106 tested did not fit<br />

with the model’s expectations of how they should have fared. A closer look at their<br />

recorded responses suggests that five of the six persons got an item, or a number<br />

of items, right that they should have got wrong, while one person “106” got<br />

comparatively easy items wrong. A lack of concentration could have affected the<br />

answers given by this person.<br />

The question we are faced with is: “now that we know which items and persons<br />

are misfitting, what is to be done with them?” The most tempting solution would<br />

be to remove faulty items and aberrant responses from our data to get a better fit,<br />

but the problem with this is that, in the process, useful information about our items<br />

and the persons measured is ignored. It would be more useful to use the information<br />

gained from the misfitting items to produce better formulations of the items to better<br />

measure the latent trait. However, when it comes to dealing with person fit it would<br />

be a good idea to conduct an analysis of item invariance across the three different<br />

cohorts to determine whether responses to the items were influenced by something<br />

50


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

other than item difficulty and person ability. A differential item functioning (DIF)<br />

analysis and an analysis of invariance were conducted to determine whether there<br />

were significant differences to report.<br />

The differential item functioning analysis shows that the differences between the<br />

groups, which appear to be slight, may indicate that the way in which particular items<br />

were translated, scored or communicated to the learners tested could have affected<br />

responses to a limited set of specific items. This might suggest that something other<br />

than item difficulty and person ability was having an effect on the way in which learners<br />

responded to particular items. However, an analysis item polarity did not indicate a<br />

definite difference between the three groups for the test as a whole, suggesting that<br />

the principle of unidimensionality was not violated.<br />

Generally, it appears that the groups had similar responses to the items in the test.<br />

With significant differences occurring at items, 11, 42, 43 and 45. These differences<br />

ultimately called for an analysis of invariance across the three groups. The analysis<br />

indicated that there is little difference between the Sesotho and isiZulu cohorts, but<br />

that there might be a case for arguing there is variance between the English and<br />

Sesotho and the English and isiZulu responses to the items of the test.<br />

8<br />

6<br />

1 i1<br />

5 i5<br />

9 i9<br />

13 i13<br />

17 i17<br />

21 i21<br />

PERSON DIF plot<br />

ITEM<br />

25 i25<br />

29 i29<br />

36 i36<br />

40 i40<br />

44 i44<br />

48 i48<br />

52 i52<br />

DIF Measure (diff.)<br />

4<br />

2<br />

0<br />

-2<br />

-4<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

-6<br />

-8<br />

Figure 3: Comparing the performance of individuals in the three language groups<br />

51


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

8<br />

7<br />

6<br />

47<br />

5<br />

4<br />

3<br />

45<br />

46<br />

31<br />

35<br />

Measure (SeSotho)<br />

2<br />

1<br />

0<br />

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9<br />

9<br />

4<br />

12<br />

20<br />

76<br />

11<br />

22<br />

7<br />

8<br />

14<br />

52<br />

6<br />

3<br />

51<br />

17<br />

49<br />

26<br />

13<br />

-1<br />

-2<br />

-3<br />

28<br />

37<br />

39<br />

40<br />

19<br />

38 50<br />

44<br />

18<br />

55<br />

48<br />

32<br />

21<br />

25<br />

29 28<br />

-4<br />

43<br />

23<br />

2<br />

58<br />

-5<br />

-6<br />

-7<br />

-8<br />

Measure (English)<br />

Figure 4: English-Sesotho comparison<br />

Figure 3 indicates the extent to which the English and Sesotho cohorts varied in their<br />

responses to the items used to measure the latent trait.<br />

This scatter plot indicates that a notable portion of items (10 of 55) fall outside of the<br />

95 % confidence interval, which indicates that these two language groups differed in<br />

the way they responded to these particular items. Ideally all of the items should fall<br />

within the confidence intervals to negate the possibility of unmodelled noise affecting<br />

person responses to the items. When contrasted with the isiZulu-Sesotho comparison<br />

(Figure 3) it is clear that there is more variation in the English-Sesotho comparison than<br />

in the former (8 fall outside of the confidence intervals, which still suggests that an<br />

extraneous variable is affecting responses to these items, however slight it may be).<br />

The same can be said for the English-isiZulu comparison (where as many as 14 items<br />

fall outside of the confidence intervals). Notably, when we first assessed the isiZulu<br />

translation we considered it to be the most cumbersome and problematic (Welch et<br />

al, 2010).<br />

52


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

9<br />

8<br />

7<br />

6<br />

47<br />

5<br />

4<br />

Measure (SeSotho)<br />

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6<br />

41<br />

9<br />

23<br />

43<br />

42<br />

26<br />

28<br />

53<br />

6<br />

5<br />

12<br />

13<br />

15<br />

48<br />

14<br />

52<br />

54<br />

39<br />

3<br />

28 29<br />

40 21<br />

18<br />

1922<br />

48 8<br />

24<br />

37<br />

38<br />

55<br />

10<br />

51<br />

2<br />

1<br />

0<br />

-1<br />

-2<br />

-3<br />

-4<br />

2<br />

31<br />

32<br />

25<br />

46<br />

35<br />

44<br />

45<br />

-5<br />

-6<br />

-7<br />

-8<br />

-9<br />

Figure 5: isiZulu-Sesotho comparison<br />

-10<br />

Measure (IsiZulu)<br />

Conclusion<br />

More data are required to make a conclusive assessment of whether or not there<br />

are significant differences between the three linguistic groups and whether an<br />

added dimension is likely to affect the accuracy of the MARKO-D’s ability to measure<br />

mathematical competence in this South African setting. However, it was shown that<br />

the double translation did have an influence on how particular items were understood<br />

by the learners, which affected access to the construct these items were designed<br />

to assess.<br />

While it may not be empirically or scientifically sound to make a hard and fast<br />

generalization at this point, it does appear that the MARKO-D measures basic<br />

mathematical competence across various language groups, and that language<br />

does not interfere to a significant extent with its ability to capture mathematical<br />

competence in learners from three different language groups, for which the test<br />

was not initially designed. Even though the linguistic formulation of certain items<br />

can be strengthened and rendered more linguistically-culturally sensitive, as it has<br />

been in subsequent testing of the first and second cohorts, the test goes a long way<br />

to measuring mathematical competence in Sesotho, isiZulu and English learners in a<br />

shared urban South African setting.<br />

The MARKO-D was designed with language, and the role it plays in conceptual<br />

development, in mind. The levels embedded within this instrument are a synthesis<br />

53


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

of theories that try to account for the development of mathematical competence.<br />

Language plays a big part in this process of development, since the cultural<br />

construction of mathematical representations, as in the case of integers, rests and<br />

relies on language as a semiotic mediator.<br />

The pupils tested in this study are schooled either in their home language<br />

or in what is set to become the language of teaching and learning, i.e. English, yet<br />

performance across the cohorts in this test is consistent. In contrast with conventional<br />

wisdom, this suggests that the medium of instruction does not play a significant part<br />

in the development of early mathematical representations. Why then do we persist<br />

with implementing a language policy that suspends our children in a state of linguistic<br />

liminality, “betwixt and between” political ideals and global imperatives (Henning &<br />

Dampier, <strong>2012</strong>; Dampier, <strong>2012</strong>)?<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The research is conducted with funding from the National Research Foundation in a<br />

competitive rated research grant for Prof E. Henning and the authors are members of<br />

her research team. The work is also supported by the DHET/EU grant programme for<br />

research in foundation phase teacher education.<br />

We wish to thank Elbie Henning for her expert assistance in the writing of the<br />

article. Deon De Bruin and Annemarie Fritz-Stratmann provided valuable insights and<br />

suggestions to earlier iterations of this article, which would not have been finished<br />

without their critical input.<br />

References<br />

Andrich, D (1988) Rasch Models for Measurement. London: Sage Publications.<br />

Andrich, D., & Hagquist, C. (<strong>2012</strong>). Real and artificial differential item functioning.<br />

Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 37(3), 387-416. doi:<br />

10.3102/1076998611411913<br />

Andrich, D., Marias, I., &Humphrey, S. (2011) Using a theorem by Andersen and the<br />

dichotomous Rasch model to assess the presence of random guessing in multiple<br />

choice items. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 37(3), 417-442. doi:<br />

10.3102/1076998611411914<br />

Benjamin, W (trans. Rendall, S). (1997) The translator’s task. Traduction, Terminologi,<br />

Redaction 10(2), 151-165.<br />

Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007) Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in<br />

the Human Sciences (2 nd edition). London: Routledge.<br />

Butterworth, B. (2005) Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia.<br />

Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(12), 534-541.<br />

Carey, S (1985) Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />

54


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994) Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L.<br />

A. Hirschfield & S. A. Gelman (eds) (1994) Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in<br />

Cognition and Culture (pp. 169-200). Cambridge University Press: New York.<br />

Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1996) Science and core knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 63(4),<br />

515-533. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/188065<br />

Carey, S. (2001). Cognitive foundations of arithmetic: Evolution and ontogenesis.<br />

Mind and Language, 16, 37–55. Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of<br />

concepts. Daedalus, 133, 59–68.<br />

Carey, S. (2004) Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus 122(1), 59-68.<br />

Carey, S. (2009) The origin of concepts. London: Oxford University Press<br />

Chomsky, N. (1980) Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hauge:<br />

Mouton Publishers.<br />

Cook, L. L., Dorans, N. J., & Eignor, D. R. (1988) An assessment of the dimensionality of<br />

three SAT-verbal test editions. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics,<br />

13(1), 19-43. doi: 10.3102/10769986013001019<br />

Dampier, G. A. (<strong>2012</strong>) The (f)utility of additive bilingualism in South African education.<br />

Education as Change: Journal of Curriculum Research 16(1), 69-81<br />

Dehaene, S. (2010) The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Revised and<br />

expanded edition). New York: Oxford University Press<br />

Dehaene, S. & Brannon, E. (2011) Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the<br />

Foundations of Mathematical Thought. London: Academic Press.<br />

de la Torre, J., & Patz, R. J. (2005) Making the most of what we have: A practical application<br />

of multidimensional item response theory in test scoring. Journal of Educational<br />

and Behavioural Statistics, 30(3), 295-311. doi: 10.3102/10769986030003295<br />

DeMars, C. (2010) Item Response Theory. Cape Town: Oxford University Press<br />

De Saussure, F (1986) Course in General Linguistics. London: Open Court<br />

Evans N & Levinson S C 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and<br />

its importance for cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 32(5): 429-492<br />

Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (2002) Infants’ Discrimination of Number vs.<br />

Continuous Extent. Cognitive Psychology 44, 33-66.<br />

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelker, E. (2004) Core systems of number. Trends in<br />

Cognitive Science 8(7) 307-314.<br />

Gelman, R. & Gallitsel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge,<br />

MA: Harvard University Press.<br />

Gelman, R. (1991) Epigenetic foundations of knowledge structures: initial and<br />

transcendent cognitions. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.) Epigenesis of mind: Essays<br />

on biology and cognition (pp. 293-322). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />

Gelman, R., & Butterworth, B. (2005) Number and language: How are they related?<br />

Tends in Cognitive Science 9(1), 6-10.<br />

55


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Gerlach, M., Fritz, A., & Leutner, D. (<strong>2012</strong>). MARKO-T. Mathematik und Rechnen –<br />

Training zur Förderung von Konzepten im Vorschul- und frühen Grundschulalter<br />

[MARKO-T. A math and arithmetic training on concepts in pre-school and primary<br />

school age]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.<br />

Gopnik, A., & Meltzhof, (1997) Word, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA:<br />

MIT Press.<br />

Henning, E. (<strong>2012</strong>) Learning concepts, language, and literacy in hybrid linguistic codes:<br />

The multilingual maze of urban grade 1 classrooms in South Africa. Perspectives in<br />

Education 30(3), 70-79<br />

Henning, E., & Dampier, G. A. (<strong>2012</strong>) Linguistic liminality in the early years of school:<br />

Urban South African children “betwixt and between” languages of learning.<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education 2(1), 100-119<br />

Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2009) Mapping numerical magnitudes onto symbols: The<br />

numerical distance effect and individual differences in children’s mathematics<br />

achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 103, 17-29.<br />

Jackobson, R. (1959) “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In Venuit, L. (2004) The<br />

Trasnlation Studies Reader, pp 139-147. London: Routledge.<br />

Le Corre, M. & Carey, S. (2007) One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of<br />

the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition 105, 395-438.<br />

Le Corre, M., van de Walle, G., Brannon, E.M. & Carey, S. (2006). Re-visiting the<br />

competence/performance debate in the acquisition of the counting principles.<br />

Cognitive Psychology, 52, 130-169.<br />

Leslie, A. M. (1994) ToMM, ToBy, and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity.<br />

In L. Hirschfeld and S. Gelman (Eds.) Mapping the Mind: Domain specificity in<br />

cognition and culture (pp. 119-148). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press<br />

Levinson S C 2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In: S D Blum (ed.),<br />

Making sense of language: Readings in culture and communication: 95-104. Oxford:<br />

Oxford University Press<br />

Linacre, J.M. (2002) What do Infit and Outfit, Mean-square and Standardized mean?<br />

Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16 (2), 878.<br />

Nazzi, T & Gopnik, A (2001) Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: when does<br />

language become a tool for categorization? Cognition, 80, 11-20.<br />

Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.<br />

Copenhagen: Nielsen & Lydiche.<br />

Ricken, G., Fritz, A., & Balzer, L. (<strong>2012</strong>). MARKO - D - Mathematik und Rechnen - Test zur<br />

Erfassung von Konzepten im Vorschulalter [MARKO-D – math and arithmetic –<br />

test for assessing concepts at pre-school age]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.<br />

Rips, L. J., Bloomfield, A., & Asmuth, J. (2008) From numerical concepts to concepts of<br />

number. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 31, 623-642<br />

56


Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation<br />

Rips, L. J., Asmuth, J., & Bloomfield, A. (2006) Giving the boot to the bootstrap: How<br />

not to learn the natural numbers. Cognition 101(3), 51-60<br />

Spelke, E. (2000) Core Knowledge. American Psychologist, 55, 1233-1243.<br />

Spelke, E. (2003) What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D.<br />

Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.) Language in mind: Advances in the study of<br />

language and thought (pp. 277-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />

Starkey, P., Spelke, E. S., & Gelman, R. (1990) Numerical abstraction by human infants.<br />

Cognition 36, 97-127.<br />

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes.<br />

M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (eds and translators).<br />

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.<br />

Vygotsky, L. (1992) Thought and language. (edited and revised by A. Kozulin, 6 th Edition).<br />

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />

Wainer, H., Morgan, A., & Gustafsson, J. (1980) A review of estimation procedures for<br />

the Rasch model with an eye toward longish tests. Journal of Educational and<br />

Behavioural Statistics, 5(1), 35-64. doi: 10.3102/10769986005001035<br />

Welch, N., Dampier, G. A., and Mawila, D. (2011, October) Funda UJabule: Pilot Findings.<br />

In E. Henning (Chair) CEPR Research Seminar. The seminar was conducted at the<br />

University of Johannesburg, Bunting Road Campus.<br />

Whorf, B. (1956), John B. Carroll (ed.), ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected<br />

Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, MIT Press<br />

Wright, B. D. (Spring, 1988) Where do dimensions come from? Popular Measurement,<br />

1(1) 32.<br />

Wright, B.D. & Linacre, J.M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch<br />

Measurement Transactions, 8 (3), 370.<br />

Wright, B.D. & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA Press.<br />

Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1999) Measurement Essentials (2 nd Edition). Wilmington,<br />

Delaware: Wide Range, inc.<br />

57


Nosisi Nellie Feza<br />

Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

Pre-school children are ready to learn<br />

mathematics<br />

Abstract<br />

South African students’ poor mathematics performance on national and international<br />

tests can be attributed to the gap the children begin schooling with from different<br />

socio economics homes. Wright et al assert that this gap continues to grow the<br />

longer students are in school. Early childhood research highlights the significant<br />

educational gains of exposing young children to quality, structured mathematical play<br />

or activity that goes beyond what is learned within the family and community. South<br />

Africa has high levels of poverty and inequality and also has tremendous difficulties<br />

in overcoming these inequalities. Most provision of quality pre-school education is<br />

private, self-funded and not targeted to poor children resulting to different levels of<br />

mathematics readiness prior entry to primary school. This paper argues for quality<br />

mathematics interventions, longitudinal studies on impact of such interventions and<br />

tracking studies on schooling effects of early quality mathematics preparation, higher<br />

education effects, and labour market effects.<br />

Keywords: Inequity, innate abilities, play-based, early childhood, mathematics<br />

Nosisi Nellie Feza, Human Sciences Research Council, Education and Skills Department.<br />

E-mail: nfeza@hsrc.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 58-73 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


Introduction<br />

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

Herein lies a danger. If children from different socioeconomic and cultural<br />

backgrounds enter elementary school at notably different levels of readiness<br />

in school mathematics, the nations with relatively well-prepared children will<br />

be better able to meet high expectations and a rapid instructional pace in<br />

K-12 mathematics than nations with relatively less-prepared children. Thus,<br />

the accommodation of raised expectations will need to occur at the prekindergarten<br />

level as well (Starkey et al, 2004, p.117).<br />

Poor mathematics performance of South African students in national and international<br />

tests has been investigated. Research on mathematical instruction revealed poor<br />

content knowledge of teachers and lack of relevant instruction (Adler, 2001; Mji and<br />

Makgato, 2006; van der Sandt and Niewoudt, 2003). Also, studies on factors that<br />

impede mathematics conceptualisation indicated that learning mathematics in a<br />

language that is not a student first language create complex processes, (Adler, 2001)<br />

Such challenges lead to code-switching that teachers are ashamed of (Setati & Adler,<br />

2001 ) Little is known about the early exposure to mathematics stimulation. This paper<br />

supports Starkey et al (2004) in encouraging mathematics play at the pre-school level.<br />

Starkey et al (2004) highlight that the learning of mathematics depends on structured<br />

exposure to mathematical concepts in pre-school years. Likewise Bowman, Donovan &<br />

Burns (2001); and Denton & West (2002) indicated that in the United Kingdom children<br />

from low socio economic backgrounds and minority-languages demonstrated lower<br />

levels of mathematics knowledge than their more advantaged peers, who assumedly<br />

have more exposure. This difference has been proven to increase over time (Denton<br />

and West, 2002; Wright, Martland & Stafford, 2000). Hence studies were conducted on<br />

interventions that were intended to close the gap between the levels of mathematics<br />

knowledge of children from low socio economic backgrounds and children from higher<br />

socio economic background (Becker and Luther, 2002; Judge, Puckett and Bell, 2006).<br />

In the South African literature studies on mathematical exposure of young children<br />

from low socio economic pre-school has proven that interventions yield to improved<br />

numeracy skills and teacher-child interaction (Hoppenbrouwer, 2011). Hutchinson and<br />

Pournara (2011) revealed that children who were four and half year old and above from<br />

middle and upper socio economic ECD centres were able to copy extended patterns<br />

with more focus on colour than objects used at different developmental levels. Little<br />

is known about the quality of mathematics young children from 0 to 4 are exposed<br />

and the levels of understanding possessed by practitioners of young children about<br />

learning and teaching of mathematics. In this article I argue that such evidence<br />

about young children in middle and higher socio-economic ECD centres and also such<br />

interventions are one way of contributing to our understanding of early mathematics<br />

concept development and the role of pre-school education. However, there is a need<br />

for quality mathematics interventions that will bring forth the understandings of preschool<br />

practitioners of children’s learning and teaching of mathematics and a need<br />

for longitudinal studies that will assist in raising awareness to the parents, private<br />

sector and government of the importance of ECD mathematics as Biersteker and<br />

59


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Dawes (2008) and Richter et al (<strong>2012</strong>) suggested in addressing the varied quality of<br />

ECD provision.<br />

Current status of ECD provisioning<br />

South Africa is a country with high levels of poverty and inequality (Penn, 2008)<br />

and faces tremendous difficulties in overcoming these inequalities. For this reason,<br />

the Minister of Education called for a pause in participating in the TIMSS after 2003<br />

and until 2011 with the hope of addressing some of the inequalities concerning<br />

mathematics and science education.<br />

Furthermore, an integrated plan (2005-2010) for 0-4 year children that brings<br />

together department of health, social development and education was formulated.<br />

Some of the issues the plan aimed to address were “the uncoordinated service<br />

delivery, limited access to services, inequities in existing ECD provisioning, and variable<br />

quality of ECD services” (UNICEF, 2005; p.5). The national integrated plan (NIP) for<br />

ECD aimed “to create an environment where children can grow, thrive and be able<br />

to be better prepared for their future roles and responsibilities in society” (UNICEF,<br />

2005; p.7). The implementation of this goal according to the plan was guided “by<br />

principles of excellence, access, equity, diversity and accountability and communitydriven<br />

provision’ (p.11). Biesterker & Dawes (2008) evaluated ECD programmes of<br />

Brazil and Philippine with an objective to inform the up scaling of ECD in South Africa.<br />

Their summary report suggested that South Africa through legislation of free health<br />

care made a significant coverage therefore, using health system as a vehicle on<br />

parenting education and more services have potential to expand ECD services like in<br />

the other two countries. They also highlighted the disadvantage of not having clear<br />

roles that the equally responsible departments play in ECD: the Department of Social<br />

Development (DoSD), the Department of Education (DoE), the Office of the Rights<br />

of the Child (ORC) impedes realization of the NIP. Also localizing ECD delivery on<br />

municipal level was suggested however this kind of delivery requires competency, a<br />

challenge in the South African context that will need capacity building. A significant<br />

factor learnt from the United States and United Kingdom is informing parents, private<br />

sector and government about the importance of ECD.<br />

The current status of ECD in South Africa is presented by the diagnostic review<br />

that was commissioned by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation<br />

in the Presidency and the Inter- Departmental Steering Committee on ECD. The review<br />

highlighted a lot of improvement that the South African government has achieved<br />

regarding services needed by children since 1994 in terms of access to safe water,<br />

access to electricity, access to clinics, prevention of HIV AIDS transmission from mom<br />

to child, increased immunization, increased birth registrations, increased eligibility of<br />

child support Grant and increased enrolments to Grade R (Richter et al., <strong>2012</strong>). The<br />

review highlights the disconnectedness of the departments that are responsible for<br />

ECD as reasons for gaps in service because of the lack of a joint goal a concern that<br />

was previously raised by Biersteker and Dawes. According to Richter et al. (<strong>2012</strong>) the<br />

60


Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

isolated pockets of delivery results to discrepancies in services provided. The review<br />

indicate that the funding is skewed towards older children leaving children (0 - 2 years)<br />

without needed help due to the assumption that family is an appropriate provider<br />

of care in a way ignoring the socio economic gaps of the South African community<br />

Richter et al (<strong>2012</strong>). On the other hand the enrolment for 3-4 year olds depends on<br />

availability of ECD centres in their communities and availability of fees from home to<br />

pay for the service. For poor families access is denied and hindering the realization<br />

of the NIP while for some ECD centres resources are limited hampering high quality<br />

service. Therefore, the review indicates the varied quality of ECD services provided<br />

(Righter et al. (<strong>2012</strong>). Such service cannot address the inequity challenges the system<br />

has in education as research has proven the impact quality pre-school has on future<br />

learning and labour market. This opens up a role research has to play for cognitive<br />

development of the child. Research has a role to play in informing curriculum<br />

development of young children’s mathematics, in informing the professionalization of<br />

ECD practitioners on developmental needs of practitioners on how to expose young<br />

children in mathematical developmental appropriate activities with a purpose, in<br />

informing the South African community about the importance of quality mathematics<br />

exposure for young children in building human capacity.<br />

Knowledge of mathematics learning<br />

I hope that the day will come when teachers entering the classroom and those<br />

already in the classroom have as much scientific knowledge about how children<br />

learn mathematics as physicians have about the causes of illnesses (Kamii, 2011)<br />

Kamii’s NCTM statement supports the argument of this paper on calling for<br />

interventions that will highlight the practitioners’ competencies on how children<br />

learn mathematics and develop them, also how to assess children’s levels of thinking<br />

to inform practice. Research has indicated that quality pre-school mathematics<br />

predicts future success in future learning experiences regardless of socio economic<br />

background. Currently, South Africa needs confidence boost from students’<br />

mathematics performance in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science<br />

Study (TIMSS), the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational<br />

Quality (SACMEQ) and the Annual National Assessments (ANAs). Sylva et al (2004) and<br />

Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) confirmed that through quality mathematics interventions<br />

policy and curriculum development in the United Kingdom was influenced. In addition<br />

early childhood practitioners became acquainted with observing, scaffolding children’s<br />

learning, extending children’s thinking through questioning, learning through play,<br />

balanced between child-initiated and adult-initiated activity, and between individual<br />

and group work with new curricula that is “play-based” and “child centred” (Slovin &<br />

Veneciano, 2008; Brooker, 2011,p. 139).<br />

The United States research on how to develop young children’s numeracy<br />

concepts lead to interventions and curricula for early childhood mathematics (Kamii,<br />

2000; Clements, 2001; Young-Loveridge, 2004). Interventions that proved to have gains<br />

for all children encouraged scaffolding of mathematics learning, small group work<br />

61


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

for individualism, planned activities, informal mathematics experiences, developing<br />

mathematics from children’s spontaneous activity, focusing on children’s interests and<br />

play situations, connecting children’s informal knowledge to formal mathematics, and<br />

making the purpose of mathematical learning unambiguous (Clements and Sarama,<br />

2007; Starkey et al, 2004; Clements and Sarama, 2004; Ginsburg et al, 2006; Clements<br />

and Stephen, 2004; Clements et al, 2004).<br />

Pedagogical support of young children in learning mathematics<br />

In understanding how children learn and can be taught mathematics prior to<br />

entering formal education, Lee and Ginsburg (2009) discuss nine misconceptions<br />

about “learning and teaching mathematics for young children” (p.37). Those<br />

misconceptions are:<br />

• Young children are not ready for mathematics education<br />

• Mathematics is for some bright kids with mathematics<br />

• Simple numbers and shapes are enough<br />

• Language and literacy are more important than mathematics<br />

• Teachers should provide an enriched physical environment, step back, and let the<br />

children play<br />

• Mathematics should not be taught as stand-alone subject matter<br />

• Assessment in mathematics is irrelevant when it comes to young children<br />

• Children learn mathematics only by interacting with concrete objects<br />

• Computers are inappropriate in teaching and learning mathematics<br />

Some of the misconceptions Lee and Ginsburg listed originate from misinterpretation<br />

of the two ancestral theories of cognition: the Piagetian and the Vygotskian, more<br />

especially the Piagetian theory.<br />

Piagetian Perspective<br />

Jean Piaget’s theory of constructivism established that children construct knowledge<br />

through experiencing the world actively. DeVries and Sales (2011, 11) extend the<br />

meaning of construction to “creation, testing, refining of original thoughts”, impulsive<br />

ideas about how things work. According to Piaget (1964) and Piaget and Inhelder<br />

(1969) this active experimentation for young children is about physical knowledge. In<br />

constructing knowledge young children connects relations between objects mentally<br />

(DeVries and Sales, 2011). For example when children play with shapes they begin to<br />

make relations between a square and a triangle and begin to talk about “look like a<br />

box” and “look like a roof of the house” (Van Hiele, 1986). This description comes<br />

from connecting previously experienced observations to the new ones. Hence, Kamii<br />

and DeClark (1985) argue that educators need to understand the concept of autonomy<br />

62


Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

as the aim of education Piaget advocated. Kamii and DeClark see this need as of crucial<br />

importance for educators if they are to create conducive classroom environment<br />

for learning so that children will be able to have these experiences that involves<br />

their physical world. Autonomy is described by Kamii and DeClark (1985, 40) “being<br />

governed by one self”. She discusses the moral and intellectual aspects of autonomy.<br />

Moral autonomy advocates for nurturing of independent responsible decision makers<br />

without depending to gaining rewards (Kamii and DeClark, 1985). Children should be<br />

able to independently choose the right actions from wrong. Intellectual autonomy<br />

refers the connection of the relationships in the physical world that leads to children<br />

questioning things that do not connect. For example Kamii & DeClark (1985) refers to<br />

the belief in Santa Claus when a six year old girl one day asked her mom the following<br />

questions: “How come Santa Claus uses the same wrapping paper as we do?” (p.45).<br />

Her mom’s response was satisfactory for that moment but as time goes her next<br />

question was “How Come Santa Clause has the same handwriting as Daddy?” (p.45).<br />

This example indicate that the child has her own thoughts about Santa and started<br />

connecting her experiences and observations together and started figuring out that<br />

something was strange about Santa and them. First it was similar wrapping papers<br />

and now Daddy’s hand writing is the same as Santa. Then the next question will be,<br />

“Is there Santa Claus?” Has Daddy been Santa all this time? The child’s autonomous<br />

thought do not match what the child has been taught. As educators Kamii and<br />

DeClark advocates that encouraging autonomy in children’s mind will enrich their<br />

thinking capabilities however, controlling their creation, and experiences impede<br />

their development.<br />

Vygotskian Perspective<br />

The sociocultural theory of Vygotsky asserts that all children have potential for<br />

learning. Kozulin (2003) highlights three important elements of sociocultural theory.<br />

He argues that this theory addresses multiculturalism, mediation and learning<br />

potential. In describing multiculturalism Kozulin (2003) support the notion of diverse<br />

ways of knowing by bringing in the notion of psychological tools. Psychological tools<br />

in Vygotskian perspective are symbolic artifacts (Kozulin, 2003). These symbolic<br />

artifacts originate from all cultures. Each culture has its own symbolic artifacts that<br />

children internalize and use them to master or learn new ideas. One of these artifacts<br />

is literacy that children attain from home through observations, listening to adults<br />

and other children etc. This literacy when internalized by children it becomes their<br />

psychological tool that assist their psychological function of perspective, memory<br />

and attention (Kozulin, 2003). Activities that parents and the environment expose<br />

to children’s mathematical development support the development of psychological<br />

tools children need. Starkey and Klein (2007) compared the sociocultural influence of<br />

American children in their mathematical development with the Chinese and Japanese<br />

children. In their results Chinese and Japanese children enter preschool with superior<br />

mathematical performance than American children. In explaining this discrepancy<br />

Starkey and Klein (2008) discovered that the early environment children experience<br />

63


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

influences their mathematical performance prior entering preschool. In Vygotskian<br />

terms the Chinese and Japanese culture expose children to different experiences that<br />

develop their psychological tools to a superior level. Investigating these experiences<br />

Starkey and Klein (2007) assert that Asian literacy develop number sense better than<br />

English, also Asian mothers teach their children to count to high numbers (White,<br />

1987). Thus, certify the role of different symbolic artifacts children experience in their<br />

development. Donato and Maccormick (1994) describe mediation as a tool of cognitive<br />

change. In their perspective mediation takes place in many forms. Sometimes it can<br />

take the form of the textbook, manipulatives, classroom discourse, interaction with<br />

peers, direct instruction from the teacher. Mediation is intertwined within the context<br />

of sociocultural processes. Learning potential is referred to as part of the zone of<br />

proximal development (ZPD) (Chaiklin, 2003). The ZPD is described as the child’s actual<br />

performance and learning potential (Vygotsky, 1978). Kozulin (2003, 17) describes the<br />

ZPD as a level that informs educators about (1) ‘psychological functions of the child<br />

emerging at a particular moment, not fully developed (2) the assisted performance<br />

that could be used as a legitimate parameter of assessment procedure (3) how to<br />

conceptualize the difference between the level of the child’s actual performance and<br />

learning potential.<br />

Young children’s mathematical innate abilities<br />

Cognitive developmental psychologists have shown that young children have some<br />

number concept as early as six months old. For example, Hyde and Spelke (2010)<br />

found that (6-7 months) old children possess two developing systems of non-verbal<br />

numerical cognition: one that responds to small quantities as individual objects and<br />

the other that responds to large quantities as approximate numerical value. These<br />

results provide evidence of the existence of these numerical intuitions that had been<br />

proven to become active in learning to count (Condry and Spelke, 2008). Furthermore,<br />

a study of 5 to 7 year old children who received no formal schooling revealed that<br />

the students had intuitive multipliable abilities they possessed innately (McCrink,<br />

and Spelke, 2010). Also, five year old children solved arithmetic problems accurately<br />

in a pre-school investigation that was assessing the understanding of the inverse<br />

relationship between addition and subtraction (Gilmore and Spelke, 2007).<br />

In addition, young children do not only show innate numerical abilities, they<br />

also demonstrate spatial reasoning abilities. Clements et al. (1997) highlighted the<br />

importance of developing geometric knowledge and spatial sense at an early age.<br />

Freudenthall (1973) states that; “Geometry is grasping space. And since it is about<br />

the education of children, it is grasping that space in which the child lives, breathes,<br />

and moves. The space that the child must learn to know, explore, and conquer, in<br />

order to live, breath and move better in it. Are we so accustomed to this space that<br />

we cannot imagine how important it is for us and for those we are educating?” (p.<br />

403). Geometric reasoning has been proven to emerge early as Lu (2001) mentions<br />

that the crawling of young children provides them opportunities to understand space.<br />

“As children learn language and other symbol systems, they begin to combine their<br />

64


Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

core numerical and geometrical representations productively, in uniquely human<br />

ways. These combinations may give rise to the first truly abstract concepts at the<br />

foundations of mathematics” (Spelke, 2011, 287). Navigation skills demonstrated<br />

by animals are proved to be innate in humans too in understanding space (Wang<br />

& Spelke, 2002). Due to this navigation, interest in spatial reasoning develops at an<br />

early age. 1,872 preschool-1st grade children demonstrated high spatial reasoning<br />

ability (Zhong, 2009). Gersmehl, & Gersmehl (2007) in their review concluded that<br />

children’s spatial reasoning functions as early as three years (Nardini et al., 2006;<br />

Blaut et al, 2003 and Huttenlocher, et al., 1999). Blaut et al, (2003) proved that this<br />

spatial reasoning function is universal, ecological and cultural. The universality of<br />

spatial reasoning is highlighted in Pellicano, Rhodes & Peters (2006) that map-like<br />

modelling is used by nearly all cultures Blaut et al. (2003) reported that 4 year olds<br />

in Durban South Africa were able to read aerial photographs of their surroundings.<br />

Generally, underestimating young children’s ability to learn mathematics goes against<br />

their psychological development. Research has to focus on how to strengthen ways of<br />

developing these innate abilities further for future gains.<br />

Perceived mathematics ability differences<br />

Lee and Ginsburg (2009) argue that teachers believe that only certain children have<br />

ability to learn mathematics. Izard et al (2009) investigated whether children have to<br />

come from specific cultures, or groups to possess abstract numerical representations.<br />

The findings showed that new-born babies have a sense of numbers that is<br />

characterized by ratio dependence and this number sense “increase[s] in precision<br />

over the course of human development” (p. 10384).<br />

Literacy and mathematics<br />

In support Lee and Ginsburg’s (2010) claim that mathematics ability in early years<br />

predicts academic success at a later stage a meta-analysis of six longitudinal studies<br />

indicated that reading and mathematical abilities are equally important in predicting<br />

later reading and mathematics achievement (Duncan et al., 2007). In this metaanalysis,<br />

it is clear that “school entry reading skills predict subsequent reading<br />

achievement better than subsequent mathematics achievement, just as early math<br />

skills are more predictive of later math than reading achievement” (p.1437). This study<br />

further showed that knowledge of numbers and ordinality showed more strength in<br />

predicting later learning with an effect size of .34, while language and reading skills,<br />

such as vocabulary and word knowledge, indicated lesser strength in predicting later<br />

learning with an effect size of .17 (Duncan et al., 2007). Hence, the National Research<br />

Council (2009) in the US common core standards state that:<br />

Mathematics experiences in early childhood settings should concentrate on<br />

(1) number (which includes whole number, operations, and relations) and (2)<br />

geometry, spatial relations, and measurement, with more mathematics learning<br />

time devoted to number than to other topics. Mathematical process goals<br />

should be integrated in these content areas (p.3).<br />

65


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Young children’s mathematical development has been acknowledged as a critical<br />

step towards preparing them for successful gains in their learning experiences and<br />

future learning.<br />

Role of the educator in young children’s learning<br />

of mathematics<br />

Kirova and Bhargava (2002) conducted a qualitative inquiry investigating the role<br />

played by a teacher in guiding mathematical development of young children through<br />

play using everyday materials. Their findings highlighted professional growth as the<br />

critical area teachers need to attain in order to guide children’s understanding of<br />

mathematical concepts. The three areas highlighted by this study are:<br />

• The ability to recognize children’s demonstrated understanding of mathe matical<br />

concepts<br />

• The ability to use mathematical language to guide their progress from behavioural<br />

to representational understanding of mathematical concepts<br />

• The ability to assess systematically children’s understanding of mathematical<br />

concepts<br />

The first critical area relates back to the children’s innate abilities as they are what<br />

children bring to the pre-school classroom. Practitioners need to remain aware of the<br />

thinking levels children enter his/her classroom with. For example, from activity based<br />

research funded by NSF conducted by the Regents’ Centre for Early childhood at the<br />

University of Northern Iowa a three year old boy (Tyla) was playing with drums making<br />

some music. When I joined him I realized he was counting as he bit the drum and his<br />

sequence was 1, 2, 4, 6. He called each number with the bit of the drum. This could<br />

indicate that he was doing one-to-one correspondence. However, the sequence was<br />

mixed. The role of the teacher in such a case is to recognize where Tyla is with the<br />

concept of counting. What does Tyla know? Where does he fall short in the knowledge<br />

he demonstrates? In this case find out if Tyla is counting or singing by saying 1, 2, 4, 6<br />

by playing along and introducing other objects and ask him to count them even the<br />

drum sticks he is using to bit the drum then depending on his response you might<br />

establish that he knows that a number goes with a bit or an object (one-to-one<br />

correspondence). Therefore he falls short of using correct number sequence, instead<br />

of 1, 2, 3, 4 Tyla knows 1, 2, 5, 6.<br />

According to Lee and Ginsburg (2010) children learn to use the language of<br />

mathematics at the age of two by memorizing the first 10 counting words. These<br />

counting words are “essentially nonsense syllables with no underlying structure or<br />

meaning” (p. 39). Therefore, Tyla’s counting words have no meaning, but his use of a<br />

bit that matches a number word indicates his understanding of matching a counting<br />

word with a bit. Therefore, the role of his teacher would be to develop the concept<br />

of one-to-one correspondence further by developing the verbal counting sequence<br />

first. In doing so the teacher needs to find a path towards development of correct<br />

66


Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

number sequence. Clements and Sarama (2009:1) suggest learning trajectories for<br />

developing young children’s mathematics development; these learning trajectories<br />

have three parts; 1) a mathematical goal, 2) a developmental path along which children<br />

develop to reach that goal, and 3) a set of instructional activities, or tasks, matched to<br />

each of the levels of thinking in that path that help children develop higher levels of<br />

thinking. These learning trajectories then guide teacher development for teachers of<br />

young children.<br />

A mathematical goal<br />

According to Clements and Sarama (2009), a mathematical goal refers to the ‘big<br />

ideas’ of mathematics. In describing big ideas Clements and Sarama (2004) express<br />

the centrality of these ideas to mathematics; they include mathematical skills, clusters<br />

of mathematical concepts that are lucid, “consistent with children’s thinking, and<br />

generative of future learning” (Clements and Sarama, 2009, 1). For example, in Tyla’s<br />

case, mentioned previously, the big idea is meaningful counting. As it is in the story<br />

there are many skills and concepts he needs to attain towards becoming a meaningful<br />

counter, the first will be verbal counting sequence followed by many more hence<br />

the cluster of mathematical concepts that generate future learning are part of the<br />

description of big ideas.<br />

In order to achieve learning of these mathematical concepts by young children,<br />

Clements (2001: 270) asserts that “quality preschool mathematics is not elementary<br />

arithmetic pushed onto younger children; instead, it invites children to experience<br />

mathematics as they play in, describe, and think about their world”. Therefore,<br />

mathematical learning for young children is about their own world, not the adult<br />

world. Adults have to adjust themselves into thinking like children for them to be able<br />

to nurture their mathematical development.<br />

Developmental progression<br />

Nurturing of mathematics development for young children should be at the level of<br />

the children. This acknowledgement of developmental appropriate experiences guides<br />

strategies used in mediating mathematics to young children. Thus, the developmental<br />

progression has two main paths: the paths for learning and the paths for teaching.<br />

The paths of learning<br />

Thinking levels of children are vital at this point. Children are considered the starting<br />

point for the learning. Going back to Tyla’s story, a developmental path that will lead<br />

him to be able to count in a socially constructed way has to be drawn. With children’s<br />

ideas and interpretation in mind, Tyla’s developmental path has to acknowledge that<br />

he is playing with drums and using counting words at the bit he makes on the drum.<br />

Tyla requires a teacher that will recognize his interest in the drum playing and use<br />

this play purposefully. Clements and Sarama (2009: 3) place Tyla at the recite thinking<br />

67


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

level because “he counts verbally with separate counting words not necessarily in<br />

the correct order”. At this level using the drum play with Tyla associating it as he did<br />

with number words in correct sequence will be the beginning of the learning path<br />

(Clements and Sarama, 2009).<br />

The paths for teaching<br />

Extending Tyla’s play into repeated activities in different contexts will provide him with<br />

tasks that will nurture his development towards becoming a counter. These tasks are<br />

the paths for teaching that are matched at each thinking level of the child. Clements<br />

and Sarama (2009) have developed tasks for each development. It is important to note<br />

that the ages they allocated at each level are approximated depending on children’s<br />

experiences. Also as Tyla’s story indicated that a child can be in more than one level<br />

at the same time. Therefore, learning is not always linear; Siegler (2007) asserts that<br />

it varies within children and amongst children. Developing these tasks is not easy,<br />

but challenging instead. Tyla might not be able to do one-to-one correspondence on<br />

using counters for counting. Therefore, teachers need to understand this variability<br />

and carefully plan with no high expectations on the outcomes. Clements and<br />

Sarama learning trajectories give a foundation for teacher development on teaching<br />

mathematics and for research to assess how children go through the developmental<br />

progressions in order to support or refute Siegler’s view.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Early childhood mathematics research from other countries played a significant<br />

role in improving quality mathematics practices, policy formulation and curriculum<br />

development. South African research needs to be rigorous in enabling the realization<br />

of the NIP on mathematics stimulation. Literature proves the impact of pre-school<br />

quality mathematics, however in implementing such ideas South Africa needs to<br />

consider its unique challenges. As Richter et al (<strong>2012</strong>) suggested access to ECD centres<br />

has to improve; home-based stimulation needs to be part of the NIP and empowering<br />

of local government in delivering ECD services have to be considered. Therefore<br />

this paper argues for mathematics interventions that are able to equip the mother/<br />

grandmother/care giver who is taking care of kids at home as well as those who are<br />

in centres through local government. Longitudinal studies on quality mathematics<br />

interventions need to inform stakeholders about the impact in schooling experiences,<br />

college experiences and labour market. Through these tracking longitudinal studies<br />

the private sector and the responsible departments would support early childhood<br />

mathematics stimulation with empirical evidence and gain confidence in promoting<br />

and educating the community on the importance of mathematics stimulation in<br />

the ECD.<br />

68


References<br />

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Dodrecht: Kluwer<br />

Becker, B. E.; & Luther, S. S. (2002). Social-Emotional Factors Affecting Achievement<br />

Outcomes Among Disadvantage Students: Closing the Achievement Gap.<br />

Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197-214.<br />

Biersteker, L.; & Dawes, A. (2008). Scaling up early Childhood Development (ECD) (0-4<br />

Years) in South Africa . Case Studies: ECD Services in Brazil and the Philippines. A<br />

Summary Report, HSRC.<br />

Blaut, J. M., Stea, D., Spencer, C., and Blades, M. (2003). Mapping as a Cultural and<br />

Cognitive Universal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1),<br />

165- 185.<br />

Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating<br />

our pre-schoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.<br />

Brooker, L. (2011). Taking children seriously: An alternative agenda for research? Journal<br />

of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), 137-149.<br />

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s analysis of Learning<br />

and Instruction. In Vygotsky educational theory in cultural context, ed. A. Kozulin,<br />

B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller., 39-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />

Clements D. H., Battista, M.T., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S., & McMillen, S. (1997).<br />

Student’s development of length measurement concepts in a Logo-based unit on<br />

geometric paths. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 70-95.<br />

Clements, D. H. (2001). Mathematics in the Preschool. Retrieved by 30 June 2011 at<br />

www.nctm.org. Teaching Children Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers<br />

of Mathematics Inc, 270-275.<br />

Clements, D. H., & Stephen, M. (2004). Measurement in the pre-K to grade 2<br />

mathematics. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young<br />

children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education,<br />

299-317. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<br />

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (Eds.) (2004). Hypothetical learning trajectories.<br />

Mathematical Thinking and Learning [Special issue], 6(2).<br />

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a Preschool Mathematics Curriculum:<br />

Summative Research on the Building Blocks Project. Journal for Research in<br />

Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136-163.<br />

Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young children’s composition of<br />

geometric figures: A learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2),<br />

163-184.<br />

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning<br />

trajectories approach. New York: Routledge.<br />

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning trajectories in early mathematicssequences<br />

of acquisition and teaching. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy<br />

Development, 1-7. London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research<br />

69


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Network. Retrieved by 19 October 2011 from http://literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/<br />

topic.php?topld=270.<br />

Condry, K. F. & Spelke, E. S. (2008). The development of language and abstract<br />

concepts: The case of natural number. Journal of Experimental Psychology:<br />

General, 137, 22- 38.<br />

Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in<br />

kindergarten and first grade. Retrieved by 29 June 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/<br />

pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002125. National Center for Education Statistics<br />

DeVries, R. & Sales, C. (2011). Ramps & Pathways: A constructivist approach to physics<br />

with young children. Washington DC: NAEYC<br />

Donato, R. and D. Maccormick. (1994). A Sociocultural Perspective on Language<br />

Learning Strategies: The Role of Mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4),<br />

453-464.<br />

Duncan, G. J., Claessens, A., Huston, A. C., Pagani, L. S., Engel, M., Sexton, H., Dowsett,<br />

C.J., Magnuson, K., Klebanov, P., Feinstein, L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duckworth,<br />

K. (2007). School Readiness and Later Achievement, Developmental Psychology,<br />

43(6), 1428-1446.<br />

Ehrlich, S. B., Levin, S. C., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). Importance of Gesture in<br />

Children’s Spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259-1268.<br />

Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Kluwer<br />

Academic Publishers.<br />

Gersmehl, P. J., and Gersmehl, C. A. (2007). Spatial Thinking by Young Children:<br />

Neurologic Evidence for Early Development and “Educability”, Journal of<br />

Geography, 106, 186-191.<br />

Gilmore, C.K., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Children’s understanding of the relationship<br />

between addition and subtraction. Cognition, 107, 932-945.<br />

Ginsburg, H. P., Cannon, J., Eisenband, J. G., & Pappas,S. (2006). Mathematical<br />

thinking and learning. In K.McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Handbook of Early Child<br />

Development (pp. 208-229). Oxford, England:Blackwell.<br />

Hoppenbrouwer, E. M. (2011). Introducing a child-centered numeracy play-center<br />

intervention in three rural preschools in Dennilton, South Africa. Thesis submitted<br />

for fulfillment of a Master Social Education and Youth Policy Specialization Education,<br />

Youth and International Humanitarian Cooperation and Aid. University Utrecht –<br />

Faculty Social Sciences, Department Educational Science.<br />

Hutchinson, E., & Pournara, G. (2011). Preschool children’s Mathematical understanding.<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education, 1(2), 92-111.<br />

Huttenlocher, J., Newcombe, N., and Vasilyeva, M. (1999). Spatial scaling in young<br />

children. Psychological Science, 10(5), 393-398.<br />

Hyde, D. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Neural signatures of number processing in<br />

human infants: evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition.<br />

Developmental Science, 1-12.<br />

70


Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

Izard, V., Sann, C., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2009). New-born infants perceive abstract<br />

numbers. Charles R. Gallistel (Ed), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science<br />

of the United States of America, 16(25), 10382-10385.<br />

Judge, S., Pucket, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the<br />

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The Journal of the Educational Research,<br />

100(1), 52-60. doi:103200/JOER100.1.52-60.<br />

Kamii, C. & DeClark, G. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implication of Piaget’s<br />

theory. New York: Teachers College Press<br />

Kamii, C. (2000). Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers<br />

College Press.<br />

Kamii, C, (2011, April). Key note address. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics<br />

Annual meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana.<br />

Kirova, A., & Bhargava, A. (2002). Learning to Guide Preschool Children’s Mathematical<br />

Understanding: A Teacher’s Professional Growth. Early Childhood Research and<br />

Practice, 4(1), 1-20.<br />

Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In Vygotsky educational<br />

theory in cultural context, ed. A. Kozulin, A., B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller, 15-<br />

38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />

Lee, J. & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about<br />

mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australasian<br />

Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 37-45.<br />

Lu, J. (2001). The study of several of cognitive development. In Contemporary Chinese<br />

psychology, 259-264. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.<br />

McCrink, K., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Core Multiplication in Childhood. Cognition, 116,<br />

204- 216.<br />

Mji. A. & Makgato. M. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners’<br />

performance: a spotlight on mathematics and physical science. South African<br />

Journal of Education, 26(2), 253-266.<br />

National Research Council (2009). 2010 Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.<br />

Retrieved by October 19, 2011 at http://corestandards.org/<br />

Nardini, M.,burgess, n., Breckenridge, K., and Atkinson, J. (2006). Differential<br />

developmental trajectories for egocentric, environmental and intrinsic frames of<br />

reference in spatial memory. Cognition, 101, 153-172.<br />

Pellicano, E., Rhodes, G., and Peters, M. (2006). Are pre-schoolers sensitive to configural<br />

information in faces? Developmental Science, 9(3), 270-277.<br />

Penn, H. (2008). Early Childhood Education and Care in Southern Africa. A perspective<br />

report. CfBT Education Trust. Retrieved by 16 June 2011 at http://www.cfbt.com<br />

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In Piaget rediscovered: A report of the<br />

Conference on Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development, eds. R.E. Ripple &<br />

V. N. Rockcastle, 7-20. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.<br />

71


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. Paris, Denoel.<br />

Richter, L., Biersteker, L., Burns, J., Desmond, C., Feza, N., , , Martin, P., Saloojee, H.<br />

& Slemming, W. (<strong>2012</strong>). Diagnostic review of early childhood development.<br />

(Commissioned by the Presidency, March).<br />

Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2001). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in<br />

primary multilingual mathematics classroom in South Africa. Educational Studies<br />

in Mathematics, 43, 243-269.<br />

Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive Variability. Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 104-109.<br />

Siraj-Blarchford, I., Sylvia, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching<br />

Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY Report). London: DfES Research<br />

Report 356.<br />

Slovin, H., Venenciano, L., & DaSilva, M. (2008, April). How does classroom communication<br />

measure up? Getting kids to ask the important questions. Presented at the National<br />

Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.<br />

Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical<br />

knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood<br />

Research Quarterly, 19, 99-120.<br />

Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2008). Sociocultural Influences on Young Children’s Mathematical<br />

Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives on Mathematics in Early Childhood<br />

Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.<br />

Spelke, E.S., Gilmore, C. K., & McCarthy, S. (2011). Kindergarten children’s sensitivity to<br />

geometry in maps. Developmental Science, 14(4), 809-821.<br />

Spelke, E.S. (2011). Natural number and natural geometry. In E. Brannon & S. Dehaene (Eds.),<br />

Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical<br />

Thought, 287-317. Attention & Performance XXIV, Oxford University Press.<br />

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I and Taggart, B. (2004). Final<br />

Report, Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project. London: Institute<br />

of Education.<br />

UNICEF (2005). National Integrated Plan for Early Childhood Development in South Africa<br />

2005-2010. Pretoria<br />

Van der Sandt, S. & Niewoudt, H. (2003). Grade 7 teachers’ and prospective teachers’<br />

content knowledge of geometry. South African Journal of Education, 23(3),<br />

199- 205.<br />

Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education.<br />

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.<br />

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process.<br />

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.<br />

72


Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?<br />

Wang, F. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Human spatial representation: insights from animals.<br />

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 376-382.<br />

White, H. R. (1987). Longitudinal stability and dimensional structure of the problem<br />

drinking in adolescence. J Stud Alcohol, 48, 541-550 .<br />

Wright, R. J., Martland, J. & Stafford, A.K. (2000). Early Numeracy: Assessment for<br />

Teaching and Intervention. London, Chapman.<br />

Young-Loveridge, J. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number<br />

books and games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 82-98.<br />

Zhong, T. (2009). A Study of Children’s Spatial Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning<br />

Abilities. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 80-93.<br />

73


Brian Lwazi Ramadiro<br />

Reading in Two Languages: Evidence from<br />

Miscue Analysis<br />

Abstract<br />

This paper reports on the oral reading of five grade 2 to 6 isiXhosa (L1) speakers<br />

reading isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2) texts. It examines the readers’ oral reading<br />

miscues (or errors) to understand the extent to which these miscues constitute a<br />

language or a literacy problem in this group of readers. Conclusions are that (a) these<br />

readers read better in isiXhosa than in English; (b) they are not reading as well as they<br />

could be reading in isiXhosa; (c) isiXhosa reading difficulties appear to be related to<br />

poor teaching of literacy; (d) while English reading difficulties appear to be related to<br />

both poor teaching of literacy and to low levels of language proficiency in English, this<br />

is related to classroom practices but is also independent of it.<br />

Keywords: Reading, reading miscues, language, literacy, isiXhosa, English.<br />

Brian Lwazi Ramadiro, University of Fort Hare. E-mail: bramadiro@ufh.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 74-93 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


Introduction<br />

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

Language and literacy are subjects of research in many areas of education and social<br />

science research. The specific relationship between language and literacy addressed<br />

in this study is that of the relationship between oral language proficiency and reading<br />

proficiency. The study examines the semantic, syntactic and graphophonic cueing<br />

systems used during oral reading (Goodman, 2003 [1994]) by five grade 2 to grade 6<br />

Eastern Cape isiXhosa primary school readers, reading isiXhosa (First Language/L1) and<br />

English (Second Language/L2) texts. Comparing the patterns of use of these cueing<br />

systems can reveal how readers approach the task of reading (Beatty & Care, 2009,<br />

p. 226) in the Home Language (L1) and First Additional Language (L2) and suggest<br />

implications for teaching and learning. The aim of the study is to contribute to a better<br />

understanding of the complex relationship that exists between language and literacy<br />

in a highly unequal ‘linguistic market’ (Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 37-39), and to provide<br />

nuance to current debates about the need to strengthen the use of African languages<br />

as languages of teaching and learning, alongside English, in the Foundation Phase and<br />

to extend their use in this capacity to the Intermediate Phase.<br />

Although the focus of this paper is the psychological and linguistic aspects of<br />

reading, its point of departure is that the psycho-linguistic aspects of reading are<br />

shaped by and interact with larger societal factors that inform contexts, opportunities<br />

and purposes of learning. These include demographic factors (Sirin, 2005; van der<br />

Berg & Burger, 2003), sociolinguistic factors (Heugh, 2003) and factors operating at<br />

the school-level (Adams, 1990; Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Cummins, 2001). In a<br />

divided and unequal society like South Africa, these societal factors position readers<br />

in different but specific ways in relation to the acquisition and use of literacy. What<br />

people read, if indeed they read, how often, how much, where, with whom, in what<br />

language(s), and, what they ultimately ‘get’ from reading is enabled or constrained by<br />

larger societal factors.<br />

Miscue analysis<br />

Goodman, Watson & Burke (2005, p. 3) define a miscue as ‘a place [in a text] in which<br />

a reader’s observed response (OR) does not match the expected response (ER)’. In<br />

non-technical usage a miscue is an ‘error’ that is produced during oral reading. Miscues<br />

can be of several kinds and include word substitutions, insertions, omissions and<br />

reversals (Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005, p. 63-75). Over the past 45 years miscue<br />

studies have been conducted into a range of linguistic groups, such as speakers of<br />

non-standard dialects of English, second and foreign language speakers of English,<br />

alphabetic languages other than English, and non-alphabetic (written) languages (see,<br />

for example, Flurkey, Paulson & Goodman, 2008). Applications of miscue analysis<br />

include pre-service and in-service teacher training, materials development, one-to-one<br />

reading instruction, whole class reading instruction, as well as special and remedial<br />

education (see essays in Goodman, 1979; Marek & Edelsky, 1999).<br />

75


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Miscue analysis makes three basic claims: 1) reading is a linguistic process (Goodman,<br />

2003 [1994], p. 2) reading miscues are produced by the same processes that underpin<br />

correct/successful reading (Goodman, 1975), p. 3) reading is a psycholinguistic guessing<br />

game in which three language cueing systems are used to make sense of text, viz. the<br />

graphophonic, syntactic and semantic cueing systems (Goodman, 1976; Goodman &<br />

Goodman, 2004). Each of these claims is discussed below.<br />

Reading is a socio-psycholinguistic process that involves a writer, a text and a<br />

reader (for a similar conception of literacy see Rosenblatt, 2004). A ‘writer creates<br />

a text to represent meaning’ (Goodman, 2003 [1994], p. 4). Writers write for real<br />

social reasons, such as to persuade, inform, entertain or record. In order to increase<br />

the chances of their messages being understood by readers, writers encode their<br />

messages in vocabulary, language patterns, text patterns and genres fit for the<br />

purpose. Writers cannot write exhaustive texts. They expect readers to use their own<br />

knowledge of the world, language and context of the text to infer implicit meanings<br />

of a text. Readers bring their knowledge, experiences and interests about language<br />

and reading to every act of reading. In every act of reading, readers try to figure out<br />

why a writer wrote the text, to identify text patterns, wording, and assumptions the<br />

writer has made about shared knowledge. Reading is, therefore, an active sociopsycholinguistic<br />

process, whose ‘meaning is in the reader and the writer, not in the<br />

text’ (Goodman, 2003 [1994], p. 4).<br />

Goodman’s (2003 [1994]) second claim is that oral reading errors are produced<br />

by the same processes that underpin correct or successful reading. Goodman<br />

prefers the word ’miscues’ over ‘error’ for three reasons. First, ‘error’ has a negative<br />

connotation suggesting that all ‘errors’ are bad and must be eliminated from reading<br />

(Wilde, 2000.p. 2). Goodman would argue that this gives the wrong impression<br />

that ‘proficient reading’ is the same as ‘error free’ reading, and, therefore, that less<br />

proficient readers should be trained to perform error free reading. He argues, in<br />

contrast, that all readers make ‘errors’. All readers substitute, insert or omit words<br />

during oral or silent reading. A chief difference between ‘errors’ of proficient and less<br />

proficient readers is that, overall, proficient readers’ miscues are syntactically and<br />

semantically acceptable within the sentence or text, and if they are not, proficient<br />

readers correct themselves. Second, ‘errors’ are not random but have causes in the<br />

same way that correct responses do. Goodman’s specific contention is that errors,<br />

like expected responses, arise from a reader’s attempt to make sense of text. Thus,<br />

when a reader miscues, she or he is still using the same language cueing systems as<br />

when she or he makes a correct response. Third, the word ‘mis-cue’ underlines the<br />

claim that readers use ‘multiple cueing systems’ of written language to read (Wilde,<br />

2000, p. 2). Simultaneous, flexible and integrative use of graphophonic, semantic and<br />

syntactic cueing systems is necessary for successful reading to take place (Goodman &<br />

Goodman, 2004).<br />

Goodman’s third claim is that reading is a psycholinguistic ‘guessing game’ in<br />

which graphophonic, syntactic cueing systems are used to process (alphabetic)<br />

texts (Goodman, 2003 [1967]). As alphabetic languages, this claim is applicable both<br />

76


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

to English and isiXhosa texts and readers. Goodman, Watson & Burke (2005,pp. 30-<br />

36) describe the three cueing systems as follows. The graphophonic cueing system<br />

governs the relationship between orthography (letters of the alphabet, conventions<br />

of spelling, punctuation and word boundaries, and the phonological system). The<br />

syntactic system is the lexico-grammar (vocabulary and grammatical rules). This<br />

includes naturally acquired or formally taught knowledge about word classes<br />

(including noun classes in isiXhosa), tenses and number. The semantic cueing system<br />

has to do with meanings of words and phrases and how they relate to each other, and<br />

in turn how this knowledge relates to language use. Goodman (2003,p. 32) borrows<br />

from Michael Halliday the idea that grammar is about wording and rules for word and<br />

sentence combination beyond the sentence. Goodman (1996) claims that search for<br />

meaning is the only goal of reading and the semantic cueing system is the single most<br />

important system. Readers use all cueing systems during reading; the distinction is<br />

that proficient readers rely more on the semantic system whereas the less proficient<br />

readers rely more on the graphophonic cueing system (Goodman & Goodman, 2004).<br />

Criticisms of miscue analysis<br />

Miscue analysis has been the subject of criticism at the conceptual (e.g., Mosenthal,<br />

1976/77; Stanovich, 2000), empirical (e.g., Stanovich, 2004; Beatty & Care, 2009), and<br />

pedagogical levels (e.g. Adams, 1990; Wren, 2008). Criticism of miscue analysis is<br />

often framed within a distinction that is made between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’<br />

models of reading. Pushing the ‘top-down/bottom-up’ metaphor to the limit, Freeman<br />

& Freeman (2003,p. 37) go so far as to claim that there are essentially two views of<br />

reading, a word recognition view (bottom-up model) and a socio-psycholinguistic<br />

view (top-down model). According to Stanovich (2000,p. 5), top-down models like<br />

miscue analysis, ‘strongly emphasize the contribution of expectancies and contextual<br />

information. The word recognition process [is] thought to be heavily penetrated by<br />

background knowledge and higher level cognitive expectancies’. Bottom-up models,<br />

on the other hand, suggest that reading is a ‘bottom-up, part-to-whole process and<br />

should be taught as incremental skill-building. In this view, the reader moves from<br />

sounding out and identifying the meanings of words to understanding sentences, then<br />

paragraphs’ (Braunger & Lewis, 2006, p. 9). One proposal to reconcile the two models<br />

of reading is Stanovich’s (2000, pp. 21-43) Interactive-compensatory model.<br />

At least three specific common criticisms of miscue analysis are important for this<br />

paper. The first is about the place of the graphophonic cueing system in the reading<br />

process relative to the syntactic and semantic systems. Goodman & Goodman (2004,<br />

p. 630) make clarify their view of the place of graphophonics in their model of the<br />

reading process. They argue, ‘Our research demonstrates that the least proficient<br />

readers we studied in the 6 th , 8 th and 10 th grades use graphic information more than<br />

the most proficient readers.’ Stanovich (2004, p. 465) contests this claim. First, it<br />

is not that good readers are less reliant on visual information but that they expend<br />

less capacity to process visual information fully. Second, the reason they expend<br />

less capacity is not because they rely on context but because their ‘stimulus-analysis<br />

77


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

mechanisms are so powerful.’ In addition, a recent Australian study of reading miscues<br />

of a hundred children between aged 5-8 years (Beatty & Care, 2009, p. 239) found that<br />

‘average’ and ‘above average’ readers are likely to rely more on graphophonic cues<br />

than ‘below average’ readers when reading an unfamiliar text.<br />

Second, researchers have criticised Goodman’s formulation of the relative<br />

contribution of the three cueing systems to meaning-making (comprehension)<br />

(Adams, 1990). Miscue analysis predicts that proficient readers rely more on semantic<br />

cues and less on graphophonic cues to read unfamiliar texts. Adams (1990) accepts<br />

that all three cueing systems contribute to comprehension, but that the graphophonic<br />

system is fundamental, because it is print on the page that supplies the perceptual<br />

data on which comprehension is dependent (Also see NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-11; Rand<br />

Study Group, 2004).<br />

A final criticism of miscue analysis is that it could mislead users, teachers in<br />

particular, into making unsound pedagogical decisions (Mckenna & Picard, 2006).<br />

The claim is that miscue analysis underplays the role of graphophonics in the reading<br />

process. An often unstated assumption of this criticism is that all users of miscue<br />

analysis are uncritical adherents of the ‘whole language approach’ and see only<br />

a marginal role for graphophonics in the reading process. Critics argue it is just the<br />

wrong thing to encourage children to use contextual cues, illustrations, syntax or<br />

semantics to figure out words and text they don’t know.<br />

Below is an outline of how researchers who are indebted to miscue analysis (e.g.,<br />

Moustafa, 1997) or those who defend some of its assumptions (e.g. Cummins, 2003)<br />

would approach a response to these criticisms. In the first instance, they would argue<br />

that knowledge of graphophonics is essential to all beginning readers. The issue in<br />

dispute is: how do beginning readers acquire knowledge of graphophonics? Because<br />

there are multiple pathways to acquire phonemic and basic graphophonic knowledge<br />

before entering school or soon thereafter, ensuring that all children acquire this<br />

knowledge is more important than how they acquire it (Cummins, 2003). Second,<br />

some strands of the ‘whole language approach,’ exemplified by Moustafa (1997,p. 92),<br />

hold the view that graphophonics instruction in the early grades can be ‘systematic,<br />

explicit and extensive’ by working ‘from whole to parts, from whole texts, to words,<br />

to word parts’. There is no necessary connection between a ‘top-down’ reading<br />

model and marginalization of graphophonics in reading instruction. In any event, ‘it<br />

is not whether whole-word or phonics is “right” or “effective”, but when, for whom’<br />

(Alexander & Fox, 2004, p. 59). Third, reading comprehension, the very reason why<br />

phonics instruction takes place in the first place, is overwhelmingly correlated with<br />

extensive reading because readers learn to read by reading and not only by learning<br />

abstract graphophonic rules (Krashen, 2003).<br />

The current study<br />

The study examines oral language proficiency and reading proficiency. The assumption<br />

of the study is that, all things being equal, readers’ superior oral language proficiency<br />

78


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

in isiXhosa (L1) translates into superior reading in the L1. To this end, the study<br />

examines and analyses readers’ oral miscues to determine if the readers’ miscues<br />

are graphophonically, syntactically and semantically acceptable in the L1 and L2. The<br />

following questions are explored:<br />

1. Do readers’ miscues retain grammaticality in isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2)?<br />

2. Do readers’ miscues retain textual meaning (are the readers’ miscues semantically<br />

acceptable) in the L1 and L2?<br />

3. Are readers’ miscues graphophonically acceptable in the L1 and L2?<br />

4. Are readers using all three cueing systems in an effective manner?<br />

Methods<br />

Table 1: Readers’ biographical and reading data<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7<br />

Reader Age Sex Grade Text Difficulty Language<br />

of text<br />

Miscues<br />

Khanyisile 8 Male 2 Grade 2 isiXhosa 24<br />

Grade 3 isiXhosa 4<br />

Pre-primer English 2<br />

Sub-Total 30<br />

Sbusiso 9 Male 3 Grade 2 isiXhosa 14<br />

Grade 3 isiXhosa 24<br />

Pre-primer English 4<br />

Sub-Total 42<br />

Nobuntu 10 Female 4 Grade 3 isiXhosa 6<br />

Grade 4 isiXhosa 15<br />

Grade 3 English 17<br />

Grade 4 English 21<br />

Sub-Total 59<br />

Mihlali 11 Female 5 Grade 4 isiXhosa 23<br />

Grade 5 isiXhosa 25<br />

Grade 4 English 31<br />

Grade 5 English 26<br />

Sub-Total 105<br />

Sindi 13 Female 6 Grade 4 isiXhosa 26<br />

Grade 5 isiXhosa 20<br />

Grade 4 (N) English 31<br />

Grade 4 (E) English 32<br />

Grade 5 English 26<br />

Sub-Total 135<br />

79


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7<br />

Reader Age Sex Grade Text Difficulty Language<br />

of text<br />

Miscues<br />

Sisipho Adult Female Postschool<br />

Grade 2 isiXhosa 1<br />

Grade 3 isiXhosa 4<br />

Grade 4 isiXhosa 5<br />

Grade 5 isiXhosa 12<br />

Sub-Total 22<br />

Ayanda Adult Female Postschool<br />

Grade 2 isiXhosa 1<br />

Grade 3 isiXhosa 1<br />

Grade 4 isiXhosa 5<br />

Grade 5 isiXhosa 15<br />

Sub-Total 22<br />

TOTAL 415<br />

Participants<br />

There are a total of 7 participants in this study, 5 young readers and 2 adult readers<br />

(Column 1). The young readers are 3 girls and 2 boys (Column 3) in grades 2 through<br />

6 (Column 4). The group’s age ranges between 8 to 13 years (Column 2). The child<br />

readers attend the same small but relatively well-resourced farm school in the Eastern<br />

Cape. All children use mainly isiXhosa at home, in school and in the community. One<br />

child reported that one of her parents speaks and reads mainly in Afrikaans, although<br />

the child herself used mainly isiXhosa. The adult readers are two university educated<br />

females and L1 speakers of isiXhosa. The adult readers were included in the study<br />

primarily to establish an indicative benchmark upon which to base a miscue analysis,<br />

currently not available for isiXhosa texts. All names are pseudonyms.<br />

Selection<br />

Child readers were selected on recommendation by their class teachers. The brief<br />

to teachers was to identify the strongest readers in class present on the day of the<br />

reading assessment. Adult readers were identified by the researcher on the basis of<br />

availability and willingness to take part in the study and because of their competence<br />

in isiXhosa.<br />

Materials<br />

Each child reader reads 2 authentic isiXhosa and 2 English texts (Column 5 and 6),<br />

except for Sindi (grade 6) who read 3 English texts because she appeared to breeze<br />

through her initial English text. The general approach was to build readers’ confidence<br />

by asking them to begin by reading texts at or below their reading level. Miscue analysis<br />

requires (Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005, p. 46-50) that readers read 1) complete<br />

authentic/connected texts, 2) new texts, 3) texts they are likely be interested in, 4)<br />

texts of sufficient length, and 5) texts that are challenging enough so that readers’<br />

80


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

strategies for dealing with the unknown words are observable but not too difficult to<br />

result in frustration. Reading was stopped any time readers wished to stop or when<br />

they were observed to have serious difficulty with a text. Note with Khanysile (grade<br />

2) and Sbusiso (grade 3) administration of English texts began much lower than their<br />

official grade level as per the Qualitative Reading Inventory (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006).<br />

A conversation with these readers indicated that their knowledge of English was lower<br />

than their official grade level might suggest. IsiXhosa texts were selected from the<br />

school’s library collection and English texts were taken from the Qualitative Reading<br />

Inventory (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). The advantage of using graded passages from<br />

the Qualitative Reading Inventory is that they have established norms for readability/<br />

reading level, accuracy and reading rate (speed). There are currently no equivalent<br />

normative tools in isiXhosa. In order to address this, the two adult readers’ miscues,<br />

accuracy and reading rate scores have been used as an indicative benchmark against<br />

which to compare young readers’ oral reading miscues in isiXhosa. Readers are urged,<br />

therefore, to treat comparisons between reading behaviours of adult proficient<br />

readers and child readers with the necessary circumspection.<br />

Data production procedures<br />

The miscue data reported in this study forms part of a larger and multidimensional<br />

data base. The data was produced in the following order:<br />

• Step 1 - Reading Interview: Administration of a modified and translated version<br />

of Burke Reading Interview (Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005, pp. 179-182). This<br />

was used to get a sense of the readers’ conception and experiences of reading<br />

(Child readers).<br />

• Step 2 - Reading isiXhosa Texts: Oral reading and marking of isiXhosa and English<br />

text typescripts. All readings were audio recorded and some were also video<br />

recorded (Child and adult readers).<br />

• Step 3 - Retelling isiXhosa Texts: Retelling of isiXhosa texts after each reading<br />

(Child readers).<br />

• Step 4 - isiXhosa Writing: Readers write a short comparison passage in isiXhosa<br />

(Child readers).<br />

• Step 5 - English Word Lists: Oral reading of English word lists. No oral reading<br />

word lists are available for isiXhosa (Child readers).<br />

• Step 6 - Reading English Texts: Oral reading of English texts (Child readers).<br />

• Step 7 - Retelling English Texts: Retelling of English texts after each reading<br />

(Child readers).<br />

• Step 8 - English Writing: Readers write a short comparison passage in English<br />

(Child readers).<br />

81


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Findings<br />

Syntactic/grammatical acceptability<br />

Analysis of syntactic miscues seeks to establish whether readers’ miscues retain<br />

the grammar of the original text. Miscues that retain text grammar are indicative<br />

of readers’ success in integrating knowledge or intuitions about language in the<br />

process of reading. Fries’ (2008) practice of analysing ‘same grammar’ apart from<br />

‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues is followed here. ‘Same grammar’ miscues<br />

are those miscues that fully and unambiguously retain grammaticality of a text<br />

in the context of both the sentence and the text as a whole. ‘Total grammatically<br />

acceptable’ miscues include ‘same grammar’ and ‘partially grammatical’ miscues.<br />

‘Partially grammatical’ miscues are those miscues acceptable only in the context of<br />

the sentence up to and including the miscue but not acceptable in the context of the<br />

text as a whole (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005, p 136). Given isiXhosa language<br />

dominance of this group of readers, it is expected that data will show that a greater<br />

proportion of readers’ isiXhosa (L1) miscues retain ‘same grammar’ compared to the<br />

English (L2).<br />

Table 2: Same Grammar Miscues Across English and isiXhosa Texts<br />

Khanyisile<br />

Gr2<br />

Sbusiso<br />

Gr3<br />

Nobuntu<br />

Gr4<br />

Mihlali<br />

Gr5<br />

Sindi<br />

Gr6<br />

isiXhosa 13 50%) 7(18%) 13 (62%) 25 (52%) 31 (67%)<br />

English NI NI 8 (21%) 13 (23%) 17 (18%)<br />

NB: not interpretable due to low levels<br />

Table 2 shows that indeed readers’ miscues retain ‘same grammar’ better in isiXhosa<br />

than English. IsiXhosa miscues that retain ‘same grammar’ are rather low considering<br />

that this is the readers’ L1. Only 18% of Sbusiso’s miscues retain ‘same grammar’ and up<br />

to 67% of Sindi’s. The overall suggestion is that these readers are not that successful<br />

at integrating knowledge about isiXhosa language into their reading. Example 1 and 2<br />

below illustrates how readers’ isiXhosa miscues retain ‘same grammar’.<br />

Example 1<br />

Khanyisile, a grade 2 reader, reading a grade 2 isiXhosa text<br />

Original text: Athi uMona, ‘Masimshiye lo xa engnamli (...) (Mona said, ‘let’s leave<br />

her behind if she doesn’t have money’)<br />

Reader’s text: Uthi uMona, ‘Masimshiyeni lo xa engenamali’ (Mona says, ‘let’s leave<br />

her behind if she doesn’t have money’)<br />

82


Example 2<br />

Sbusiso, a grade 3 reader, reading a grade 2 isiXhosa text<br />

Original text: ‘Uthini?’ (What did she/he say?)<br />

Reader’s text: ‘Uthini? (What are you saying?)<br />

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

In Example 1 Khanyisile makes two miscues. First he substitutes /uthi/ for /athi/. A<br />

subjectival concord /a-/ + verbal form /-thi/ is replaced by a subjectival concord /u-/<br />

+ verbal form /-thi/. Second, he substitutes /masimshiye/, a plural concord +verb<br />

form, for /masimshiyeni/, a plural concord + verb form. His miscues belong to the<br />

same grammatical category as the original words and retain ‘same grammar,’ while<br />

preserving the meaning of the original text. This is not the case with Sbusiso’s miscue<br />

in Example 2. His miscue doesn’t preserve meaning of the original text. The word /<br />

uthini/ looks (i.e., it is spelled) the same in the original text and the reader’s text,<br />

but it is pronounced differently. In the original, text form is said with a rising-falling<br />

tone and it asks, ‘What did she/he say?’ And in the reader’s form, it is said with a levelrising-falling<br />

tone and it asks the question, ‘What are you saying? This miscue retains<br />

grammar, a question is substituted by a question, but the meaning of the text is<br />

altered. For comparison, examination of adult readers’ miscues shows that almost all<br />

their miscues are fully grammatically acceptable. In fact, only one miscue produced by<br />

an adult was partially ungrammatical.<br />

For English, a comparatively smaller proportion of miscues retain ‘same grammar’.<br />

None of the Foundation Phase (grade 2 and 3) readers’ English miscues retains ‘same<br />

grammar’. The highest proportion of miscues in the group that preserve ‘same<br />

grammar’ in English are Mihlali’s at 23%, much worse than the isiXhosa miscues.<br />

Consider example 3.<br />

Example 3<br />

Sindi, a grade 6 reader, reading a grade 5 English text<br />

Original text: When Martin Luther King, Jr. was a boy, many laws would not allow<br />

black people to go to the same (...)<br />

Reader’s text: When Martin Luther King, Jr. was a boy, many laws would not allow<br />

back people to go to the same (...)<br />

Example 3 is typical of the group’s ‘same grammar’ miscues. Sindi read /back/ for /<br />

black/ replacing an adjective with a noun. This miscue would be grammatically<br />

unacceptable except that the reader corrected it. However, the correction appears<br />

to have been triggered less by the reader’s awareness of a breakdown in grammar<br />

or meaning, than by awareness of a graphophonic mismatch between the text and<br />

the miscue.<br />

83


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Table 3: Total grammatically acceptable miscues<br />

Khanyisile<br />

Gr2<br />

Sbusiso<br />

Gr3<br />

Nobuntu<br />

Gr4<br />

Mihlali<br />

Gr5<br />

Sindi<br />

Gr6<br />

isiXhosa 19 (68%) 15 (39%) 17(81%) 36 (75%) 36 (75%)<br />

English 1 (50%) 2 (50%) 17(45%) 32 (56%) 32 (36%)<br />

In order to get a more complete picture of readers’ control of the grammatical cueing<br />

system, ‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues are considered (see Table 3). From<br />

a ‘total grammatically acceptable’ point of view, the group is cast in a rather positive<br />

light, with Sbusiso being the exception. Khanyisile’s isiXhosa ‘total grammatically<br />

acceptable’ miscues go up from 50% to 68%, Sbusiso’s from 18% to 39%, Nobuntu’s<br />

from 62% to 81%, Mihlali’s from 52% to 75%, and Sindi’s from 67% to 75%. Because ‘total<br />

grammatically miscues’ are arrived at by including the ‘partially grammatical’ miscues,<br />

it is likely that readers’ ability to get to the meaning of the text is impaired.<br />

Adding together ‘same grammar’ and ‘partially grammatical’ miscues has a<br />

moderate effect on ‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues in English. Khanyisile’s<br />

and Sbusiso’s ‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues increase from 0% to 50%,<br />

Nobuntu’s from 21% to 45%, Mihlali’s from 23% to 56% and Sindi’s from 18% to 36%.<br />

Accounting for ‘partially grammatical’ miscues does improve the group’s outlook.<br />

Note that Khanyisile’s and Sbusiso’s scores are not interpretable because they have<br />

produced so few miscues. There are at least two reasons behind the low number of<br />

miscues. The one is that the readers treated their English text as grammatical and<br />

semantic non-sense and for this reason focused their energies on correctly sounding<br />

out words on the page (graphophonics), and the other is that the two readers read<br />

only a short text each. For the rest of the group, English miscues that partially retain<br />

grammar tend to be those that make a minimal or superficial changes to grammar, like<br />

single word substitutions, resulting in plural forms or changes in word tense. Example<br />

4 illustrates this point.<br />

Example 4<br />

Mihlali, a grade 5 reader, reading a grade 4 English text<br />

Original text: But he never gave up.<br />

Reader’s text: But he never give up.<br />

Strictly speaking, Mihlali’s substituting the past tense verb ‘gave’ for the present tense<br />

‘give’ results in an ungrammatical sequence. Taking account of the fact that Mihlali<br />

is a novice L2 user of English, it is more accurate to regard this miscue as partially<br />

grammatical, because from the point of view of this child the two forms of the verb<br />

are probably grammatically equivalent.<br />

Overall, the readers’ miscues retain grammaticality significantly better in isiXhosa<br />

than in English. The readers’ relative grammatical strength in isiXhosa is just that,<br />

84


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

relative. In real terms, the low levels of miscues that retain grammaticality in isiXhosa<br />

suggest that beyond the problem of language per se, these children have not yet<br />

benefitted from strong enough literacy instruction to empower them to successfully<br />

integrate their own knowledge and intuitions of their (L1) home language into their<br />

reading process. It is also worrisome that the proportion of grammatically unacceptable<br />

isiXhosa miscues, in other words production of words that are grammatical non-sense,<br />

doesn’t decrease as readers move up the grades. While further research is required,<br />

this again points to the hypothesis that current instructional strategies for literacy are<br />

unsuccessful at integrating reading with even L1 language proficiency.<br />

Semantic /meaning acceptability<br />

The route to meaning is through language. A miscue that is grammatically acceptable<br />

is not necessarily semantically acceptable. Grammaticality is a necessary condition<br />

for but not a guarantee of semantic acceptability. Examples 2 and 3 make this point.<br />

Examination of the adult isiXhosa ‘same grammar’ and ‘retained meaning’ miscues<br />

provides additional evidence for this view. Table 4 shows that all the adults’ miscues<br />

are grammatically acceptable but that some of their miscues fail to retain sentence<br />

level and textual meaning. Keeping track of meaning during oral reading can be tough<br />

for adults too. It is only after ‘retained meaning’ and ‘partial meaning loss’ miscues<br />

are combined, as recommended by miscue methodology (Goodman, Watson & Burke,<br />

2005, p. 137), that all the adults’ miscues are 100% semantically acceptable.<br />

Table 4: Adult Readers: ‘Retained meaning’ and ‘Partial meaning loss’ Miscues<br />

Sisipho<br />

Ayanda<br />

Semantically Acceptable 86% 86%<br />

Partial Meaning Loss 14% 14%<br />

100% 100%<br />

Turning to the child readers, Table 5 shows, as expected, that a low proportion of<br />

grammatically acceptable miscues foreshadows a low proportion of semantically<br />

acceptable miscues. Comparison of Table 3 and 5 shows that, across readers<br />

and languages, semantically acceptable miscues are lower than grammatically<br />

acceptable miscues.<br />

Table 5: ‘Retained meaning’ and ‘Partial meaning loss’ Miscues<br />

Khanyisile<br />

Gr2<br />

Sbusiso<br />

Gr3<br />

Nobuntu<br />

Gr4<br />

Mihlali<br />

Gr5<br />

Sindi<br />

Gr6<br />

isiXhosa 16 (57%) 8 (21%) 12 (57%) 31 (65%) 33 (72%)<br />

English 13 (34%) 29 (51%) 30 (34%)<br />

Table 5 shows that isiXhosa miscues retain meaning better than English miscues,<br />

especially so for the Intermediate Phase readers. This is, however, not the case for<br />

85


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

English. Because of the relatively low proportion of grammatically and even lower<br />

number of semantically acceptable miscues, it is expected readers’ retellings will<br />

show that readers struggle to retain the meaning of both isiXhosa and especially<br />

the English texts. The overall suggestion of the data up to this point is that readers<br />

are not successful at using grammatical and semantic cues to get to the meaning of<br />

texts. In other words, these readers are arguably (able to) pay(ing) little attention<br />

to grammatical ‘well-formedness’ of what they read and even less attention to its<br />

semantic ‘sense’. Readers’ retellings, which are not discussed in this paper, do in fact<br />

confirm severe loss of meaning in isiXhosa and especially so in English.<br />

Example 5 below illustrates a ‘grammatically acceptable’ but ‘semantically<br />

unacceptable’ isiXhosa miscue. The possessive /wam/ (mine) is substituted with the /<br />

wakho/ (yours). This miscue has the effect of retaining ‘same grammar’ but changes<br />

sentence referent, its meaning, and potentially leading to a loss of meaning. This<br />

miscue was, however, corrected by the reader.<br />

Example 5<br />

Khanyisile, a grade 2 reader, reading a grade 2 isiXhsoa text<br />

Original text: ‘Uthi umama wam akanamali youkukusa kule ndewo beniza kuya<br />

kuyo” (My mom says she doesn’t have money to take you where you<br />

were going)<br />

Reader’s text: ‘Uthi umama wakho akanamali yokukusa kule ndawo beniza kuya<br />

kuyo” (Your mom says she doesn’t have money to take you where you<br />

were going.)<br />

Turning to English, Table 5 shows that only a small proportion of the readers’ English<br />

miscues ‘retain meaning’. In other words, a large proportion of the readers’ English<br />

miscues are likely to lead to a loss of meaning. Predictably, the scores look a little<br />

better when ‘retained meaning’ and ‘partial meaning loss’ scores are added together.<br />

All Khanysisile’s and Sbusiso’s miscues led to a loss of meaning, even though the<br />

readers were reading texts below their grade levels. A likely explanation is that<br />

children have little access to English in the home, community and also in school. Often<br />

it is difficult to tell apart miscues from ordinary language errors because young readers<br />

with little access to English produce both errors and miscues in their developmental<br />

path towards English L2 proficiency. Example 6 below illustrates this.<br />

Example 6:<br />

Mihlali, a grade 5, reading a grade 5 English text<br />

Original text: When Martin Luther King, Jr., was a boy, many laws would not allow<br />

black people to go to the same places as whites. Some people thought<br />

blacks were not as good as whites.<br />

86


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

Reader’s text: When Matin King, Jr., was a boy, many lows would not allo black<br />

people to go to the same places as whities. Some people thought<br />

blacks were not as good and whites.<br />

The proper noun /Martin/ read as /Matin/ probably is dialect pronunciation, rather<br />

than a miscue. Mihlali pronounced the word the same way throughout the text. /<br />

Laws/ read as /lows/ is not a straightforward case of a miscue. This word, like many<br />

words in English materials read by this group of readers in the course of this study,<br />

doesn’t seem to be in Mihlali’s oral or written vocabulary, raising the possibility that<br />

this is a genuine error rather than a miscue. /Thought/ read as /tot/ is definitely not a<br />

miscue because the voiceless dental /th/ is produced as a voiceless alveolar /t/ by many<br />

isiXhosa-dominant users of English. Finally, the case of /whites/ read as /whities/ is also<br />

unclear if it is an error or deliberate use of a derogatory colloquial, which if it is, would<br />

qualify the word as a genuine miscue. The difficult-to-classify words in Example 6 show<br />

that these troublesome miscues can present to teachers and researchers as primarily<br />

graphophonic problems – as failures to use appropriate decoding strategies, whereas,<br />

in fact, the difficulties are primarily a function of the readers’ underdeveloped<br />

knowledge of the relevant (oral and written) language and the lack of relevant<br />

background knowledge to make sense of the texts set before them.<br />

Graphophonic Miscues<br />

Table 6: Percentage of Miscues that have high graphophonics similarity with the<br />

Expected Response<br />

Language<br />

Khanyisile<br />

Gr2<br />

Sbusiso<br />

Gr3<br />

Nobuntu<br />

Gr4<br />

Mihlali<br />

Gr5<br />

Sindi<br />

Gr6<br />

Sisipho<br />

Adult<br />

Ayanda<br />

Adult<br />

isiXhosa 97% 92% 86% 100% 95% 95% 90%<br />

English 2 (100%) 4 100%) 92% 98% 96% ---- ---<br />

Table 6 shows that a high proportion of readers’ miscues have graphophonic similarity<br />

to the original text. This is the case for child readers’ isiXhosa and English miscues, and<br />

adult readers’ miscues. Similarities between the young readers and adult proficient<br />

readers’ use of the graphophonic system end here. Two things distinguish (adult)<br />

proficient readers’ use of the graphophonic cueing system from less proficient readers.<br />

First, adult proficient readers are efficient in the ways in which they use knowledge<br />

of the graphophonic cueing system to read. Their word recognition/identification<br />

skills are automatic and their reading is fluent. Secondly, adult readers are adept at<br />

integrating their knowledge of graphophonics with grammatical and semantic cues<br />

to make sense of what they read. The child readers tend to rely heavily on just one<br />

of the cueing systems and, in almost all cases, the graphophonic cueing system. The<br />

child readers are often able to decode words, or more accurately, to re-code words<br />

– that is, to sound out words without understanding them and find it hard to convert<br />

graphophonic input into language (grammar) and/or meaning (Goodman, 1996).<br />

87


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Tables 3, 5 and 6 show that over-reliance on graphophonic cues and minimal use of<br />

syntactic and semantic cues is strongly associated with 1) the least proficient reading<br />

(Khanysile and Sbusiso) and 2) the unfamiliar language of reading (English).<br />

A high proportion of the readers’ miscues are cued by graphophonics cues<br />

implying that the readers are heavily reliant on graphophonic cues (consider Table<br />

7). Closer examination of the evidence suggests that even though readers are heavily<br />

reliant on graphophonic cues, the readers don’t have a good command of isiXhosa<br />

graphophonics. The evidence comes from readers’ reading rates. The reading rate<br />

is a measure of correct words per minute (CWPM). Reading speed indicates two<br />

things: a reader’s word recognition skills and a reader’s ability to create meaning of<br />

what is read at an acceptable rate (Caldwell & Leslie, 2009, p. 97). The young readers’<br />

isiXhosa reading rates are presented in Table 7 below. Columns 2 to 6 presents reading<br />

rates of child readers and Column 7 and 8 reading rates of the adults, for purposes of<br />

comparison. The child readers reading rates are well below those of the adults and the<br />

groups’ reading rates do not improve as readers move up the grades. Having listened<br />

to the readers slow, choppy and laboured oral reading (Rasinski, 2002, p. 93), the<br />

suggestion is that part of the problem is that readers’ isiXhosa word recognition skills<br />

are poorly developed and that this undermines readers’ ability to get efficiently to the<br />

meaning of what they read.<br />

Table 7: Young Readers and Adult Readers isiXhosa Reading Rates<br />

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8<br />

Text<br />

Level<br />

Khanyisile<br />

Gr2<br />

Sbusiso<br />

Gr3<br />

Nobuntu<br />

Gr4<br />

Mihlali<br />

Gr5<br />

Sindi<br />

Gr6<br />

Sisipho<br />

Adult<br />

Ayanda<br />

Adult<br />

Grade 2 9 15 88 69<br />

Grade 3 -15 1 35 75 78<br />

Grade 4 15 12 -6 79 65<br />

Grades 5/6 12 8 67 43<br />

Discussion<br />

Do readers’ miscues retain grammaticality in isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2)?<br />

Readers’ miscues retain grammaticality of text significantly better in isiXhosa than in<br />

English. This supports the claim that it is comparatively easier for readers to invoke<br />

and use knowledge of language - of grammar in particular - to read in a familiar<br />

language (isiXhosa/L1) than an unfamiliar language (English/L2). Keeping track of<br />

‘well-formedness’ of texts during reading is a necessary but not sufficient condition to<br />

making meaning. Motivation and other cognitive abilities influence meaning making<br />

(comprehension) (Rand Study Group, 2004).<br />

Differences of the effect of miscues on the grammar of isiXhosa and English should<br />

not be overstated because, for example, between 19% and 58% of readers’ isiXhosa<br />

88


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

miscues are grammatical non-sense. Readers are not fully exploiting their superior<br />

oral language proficiency in isiXhosa to acquire discrete language skills and academic<br />

proficiency in isiXhosa (Cummins, 2003). A likely explanation is school language and<br />

literacy practices that do not encourage reading for meaning and a literacy curriculum<br />

that doesn’t teach explicit reading comprehension skills (Nel, 2011).<br />

In terms of cross-linguistic transfer, the data suggests that because readers have<br />

minimal discrete language skills and academic languag proficiency in isiXhosa (L1), very<br />

little of what they have learned in isiXhosa (L1) is usefully transferrable to English (L2)<br />

reading. In fact, likely is that readers are transferring poor reading habits from the L1<br />

to the L2, like the practice of treating text as grammatical and semantic non-sense.<br />

Useful transfer from L2 to L1 is even less likely.<br />

Do readers miscues retain textual meaning (are the readers’ miscues<br />

semantically acceptable?) in the L1 and L2<br />

Readers’ miscues retain meaning in isiXhosa better than English. This supports the<br />

suggestion that readers are ‘better’ able to use their background knowledge, word<br />

meanings and contextual knowledge to figure out what they are reading if it is a<br />

language they are familiar with.<br />

A qualification is necessary here too. IsiXhosa miscues that retain meaning are<br />

lower than isiXhosa miscues that retain grammar, suggesting that while readers<br />

are relatively more ‘successful’ at keeping track of grammaticality of isiXhosa texts,<br />

they are less successful at keeping track of meaning, or at linking grammatical sense<br />

to semantic sense. On the other hand, superficial English language knowledge, as<br />

indexed by low grammatical miscues, doesn’t mean readers are able to keep track of<br />

meaning.<br />

Due to typographical/structural and orthographic differences between isiXhosa<br />

and English and the different contexts in which each of these languages is learned<br />

and used, makes it hard for readers to transfer vocabulary, background or contextual<br />

knowledge from isiXhosa to English, or vice versa.<br />

Do readers’ miscues have high graphophonic similarity to the text in the L1<br />

and L2?<br />

Readers’ miscues have high graphophonic similarity to the text in isiXhosa and<br />

in English. The suggestion is that readers are, in fact, paying very close attention<br />

to the visual and phonic aspects of reading. Additional evidence in support of<br />

this interpretation is that readers’ word accuracy rates are generally high in both<br />

languages. The challenge is not that the readers pay no attention to graphophonics or<br />

are careless in their use of phonics, but that they read too slowly because their word<br />

reading strategies are not efficient in part because they are not reading regularly texts<br />

at their instructional or independent reading levels.<br />

89


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Are readers using all three cueing systems in an effective manner?<br />

The readers are not using the three cueing systems in an effective manner. The readers<br />

are not involved with their reading, treating it as a mechanical process in which<br />

markings on a page are translated into appropriate sound units. Readers struggle to link<br />

graphophonic, syntactic and semantic cues to create meaning during oral reading. The<br />

process of meaning making is short-circuited at all three levels of the language cueing<br />

system in both isiXhosa and English. The groups’ possibility to grow their knowledge of<br />

isiXhosa and English via extensive reading (Krashen, 2003), for instance, is frustrated<br />

by underlying poor literacy skills. For English, in addition to poor literacy skills, the<br />

underlying lack of basic conversational fluency and access to competent child and<br />

adult L1 or L2 model users of English in everyday interpersonal communication makes<br />

it difficult for children to experience English language instruction as a ‘meaning-full’<br />

activity. Pedagogical implications include 1) improving children’s word identification<br />

strategies, 2) enriching children’s language experiences (via reading and participating<br />

in authentic language activities), and 3) teaching strategies that can assist readers to<br />

develop self-monitoring strategies (Schwartz, 2002 [1997]) and behaviours to improve<br />

reading comprehension (Pretorius & Lephalala, 2011).<br />

Conclusion<br />

The overall conclusions of this paper are that, (a) readers of this sample read better<br />

in isiXhosa than in English, (b) these readers are not reading as well as they could<br />

be reading in isiXhosa. (c) IsiXhosa reading difficulties appear to be related to poor<br />

teaching of literacy, while (d) English reading difficulties are related to both poor<br />

teaching of literacy and to low levels of language proficiency in English, which in turn<br />

is related to classroom practices but also independent of it. Language curriculum and<br />

pedagogy needs take advantage of the potential of isiXhosa to build foundational<br />

literacy skills and learning dispositions in children that can be transferred to English<br />

language learning and to content area learning taught through isiXhosa or English.<br />

References<br />

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Learning and thinking about print. Massachusetts:<br />

MIT Press<br />

Alexander, P. & Fox, E. (2004). A historical perspective on reading research and practice.<br />

In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes<br />

of Reading (5 th Ed). Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association<br />

Beatty, L. & Care, E. (2009). Learning from their miscues: Differences across reading<br />

ability and text difficulty. Australian Journal of Language and literacy, Vol. 32, No.<br />

3, pp. 226-244<br />

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Massachusetts: Polity Press<br />

Braunger J. & Lewis, J.P. (2006). Building a knowledge base in reading, (2 nd Ed.) Newark,<br />

Delaware: International Reading Association<br />

90


91<br />

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

Caldwell, J.S. & Leslie, L. (2009). Intervention strategies to follow Informal Reading<br />

Inventory Assessment. Boston: Pearson<br />

Chall, J.S. Jacobs, V.A. & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall<br />

behind. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press<br />

Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and friction. In Gilbert<br />

G. Garcia (Ed.) English Language Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English<br />

Literacy. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association<br />

Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.<br />

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters<br />

Flurkey, A.D., Paulson, E.J. & Goodman, K.S. (Eds.). (2008). Scientific Realism in Studies<br />

of Reading. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates<br />

Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (2003). Teaching English learners to read: Learning or<br />

acquisition? In Gilbert G. Garcia (Ed.) English Language Learners: Reaching the Highest<br />

Level of English Literacy. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association<br />

Fries, P.H. (2008). Words, context, and meaning in reading. In Alan D. Flurkey, Eric J.<br />

Paulson and Kenneth S. Goodman (Eds.) Scientific Realism in Studies of Reading.<br />

New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates<br />

Goodman, K.S. (2003 [2004]). Reading, writing, and written texts’. In Alan D. Flurkey<br />

and Jinnguo Xu. (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected Writings of Kenneth<br />

S. Goodman. Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

Goodman, K.S. (2003 [1976]). Miscue analysis: Theory and reality in reading. In Alan<br />

D. Flurkey and Jinnguo Xu. 2003 (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected<br />

Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

Goodman, K.S. (2003 [1975]). The reading process. In Alan D. Flurkey and Jinnguo Xu.<br />

2003 (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman.<br />

Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

Goodman, K.S. (2003 [1967]). Word perception: Linguistic bases. In Alan D. Flurkey and<br />

Jinnguo Xu. 2003 (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected Writings of Kenneth<br />

S. Goodman . Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

Goodman, K.S. (1996). Ken Goodman on Reading. Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

Goodman, K. S. (Ed.) (1979). Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana,<br />

Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English Name of author and chapter title?<br />

Goodman K.S. & Goodman, Y.M. (2010). Learning to read: A comprehensive model. In<br />

Richard J. Meyer and Kathryn F. Whitmore (Eds.). Reclaiming Reading: Teachers,<br />

Students, Researchers Regaining Spaces for Thinking and Action. London: Routledge<br />

Goodman K.S. & Goodman, Y.M. (2004). To err is human: Learning about language<br />

processes. In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical Models<br />

and Processes of Reading (5 th Ed.). Newark: Delaware: International Reading<br />

Association<br />

Goodman, Y. Watson, D. & Burke, C.L. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation<br />

to instruction, (2 nd Ed.). New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Heugh, K. (2003). Language policy and democracy in South Africa: The prospects of<br />

equality within rights-based policy and planning. Doctoral Dissertation: Centre for<br />

Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University<br />

Krashen, S. (2003). Three roles for reading for minority-language children. In Gilbert<br />

G. Garcia (Ed.) English Language Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English<br />

Literacy. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association<br />

Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative Reading Inventory -4. Boston: Pearson<br />

Education Inc.<br />

Marek, A.M. & Edelsky, C. (Eds.) (1999). Reflections and connections: Essays in honour<br />

of Kenneth S. Goodman’s influence on language education. New Jersey: Hampton<br />

Press, Inc.<br />

Mashiya, N. (2011). isiZulu and English in KwaZulu-Natal rural schools: how teachers<br />

fear failure and opt for English. South African Journal of Childhood Education, Vol.<br />

1, No. 1, pp.19-31<br />

McKenna, M.C. & Picard, M.C. (2006). ‘Assessment: revisiting the role of miscue analysis<br />

in effective teaching’. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 378-380<br />

Mosenthal, P. (1976/1977). Bridge principles in an abridged reply to Goodman’. Reading<br />

Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 586-603<br />

Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics: Research discoveries and reading<br />

instruction. Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (2000). Report<br />

of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based<br />

assessment of the scientific research literature and its implications for reading<br />

instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S Government<br />

Printing Office<br />

Nel, C. (2011). Classroom Assessment of Reading Comprehension: How are pre-service<br />

Foundation Phase teachers being trained? Per Linguam, 27 (2): 40-63<br />

Pretorius, E.J. & Lephalala, M. (2011). Reading comprehension in high poverty schools:<br />

how it should be taught and how well does it work? Per Linguam 27 (2): 1-24<br />

Rand Study Group, (2004). A Research agenda for improving reading comprehension:<br />

RAND Reading Study Group. In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.).<br />

Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5 th Ed.). Newark: Delaware:<br />

International Reading Association<br />

Rasinski, T. (2002 [2000]). Speed does matter in reading. Evidence-based Reading<br />

Instruction: Putting the National Reading Panel Report into Practice. Newark:<br />

International Reading Association. pp. 91-96<br />

Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In Robert R.<br />

Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading<br />

(5 th Ed.) Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association<br />

92


Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages<br />

Schwartz, R.M. (2002 [1997]). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. Evidence-based<br />

Reading Instruction: Putting the National Reading Panel Report into Practice,<br />

Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.<br />

Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic<br />

review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453<br />

Stanovich, K.E. (2004). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual<br />

differences in the acquisition of literacy. In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau<br />

(Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5 th Ed.). Newark: Delaware:<br />

International Reading Association<br />

Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and<br />

new frontiers. New York: The Guildford Press<br />

Van der Berg, S. & Burger, R. (2003). Education and socio-economic differentials: A<br />

study of school performance in the Western Cape. Development Policy Research<br />

Unit Working Paper 03/73. University of Cape Town<br />

Wilde, S. (2000). Making miscue analysis easy: Building on students’ strengths.<br />

Portsmouth: Heinemann<br />

Wren, S. (2008). Reading and the three cueing systems. Southwest Educational<br />

Development Laboratory. Austin, Texas<br />

93


Sandra du Plessis<br />

Exploring the Role of the Speech-language<br />

Therapist in City Centre Preschools<br />

Abstract<br />

This study investigates the perception of the strengths and challenges that face city<br />

centre preschool teachers and preschool learners in the acquisition of English as<br />

medium of instruction and to use the results to explore the role of speech-language<br />

therapists in this context. A descriptive survey, incorporating a quantitative data<br />

collection method, was selected as the research design and a questionnaire was<br />

developed as a survey instrument. The findings identified the strengths as including<br />

the creative communication strategies employed by the pre-schoolers and the<br />

innovative techniques of the teachers. Perceived challenges include a cultural and<br />

linguistic mismatch between teachers and learners and communication barriers that<br />

cause emotional and behavioural problems in classrooms. The study suggests that<br />

speech-language therapists need to consider and employ service delivery models<br />

instead of traditional models with the preschool teachers.<br />

Keywords: Additional language learners, city centre preschools, English as language of<br />

learning and teaching, preschool learners, multilingual schools<br />

Sandra du Plessis, University of Limpopo (Medunsa Campus).<br />

E-mail: sandra.duplessis@ul.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 94-116 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


Introduction<br />

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

The demographics of urban South Africa have changed. An ever-increasing number<br />

of preschool learners are attending preschools where the Language of Learning<br />

and Teaching (LoLT) is not their home language (L1), but an additional language<br />

(L2) (Heugh, 2008). This change has implications for South African speech-language<br />

therapists. In the White Paper 5 (RSA, 2001), the Department of Education (DoE) called<br />

for collaboration between all professionals involved in Early Childhood Education (ECE)<br />

to address, among others, the language needs of young learners. Such collaborative<br />

services to preschool learners are in line with global trends in service delivery (Du<br />

Plessis, 1998). Although teachers are the most important link in the adjustment process<br />

of learners to the classroom (Uys, Van der Walt, Van den Berg & Botha, 2007), it is<br />

accepted that educational support professionals, such as speech-language therapists,<br />

need to be included as team members to support learners. Speech-language therapists<br />

have to serve this population and make a meaningful contribution to support the<br />

learners’ language acquisition and education.<br />

Preschool teachers already have a demanding task in preparing pre-schoolers<br />

for formal schooling and face numerous challenges when teaching learners not yet<br />

proficient in the LoLT. The purpose of this article is to explain the challenges in city<br />

centre preschools through the lens of the preschool teacher in order to provide<br />

guidelines to speech-language therapists in the exploration of their role in the<br />

changed context.<br />

Historical perspective on languages in education in<br />

South Africa<br />

Although South Africa is a young democracy, it has already accomplished the<br />

formulation of a language policy that enshrines in its constitution the equality of all the<br />

South African languages (Cunningham, 2001; Bosman, 2000; Steyn, 2000; RSA, 1996).<br />

Different official languages, however, are used in different contexts (Probyn, 2008;<br />

Achugar, Schleppegrell & Oteìza, 2007; LANGTAG, 1996), and language in education is<br />

one such context.<br />

In South Africa, the government and, in some communities, the parents/caregivers<br />

and learners have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards English (Obondo,<br />

2007; De Klerk, 2002a). It is the most frequently used official language in education<br />

and is regarded by some as the key to higher education (Cele, 2001). Arguably, English<br />

poses the biggest threat to L1 education because of its popularity among parents/<br />

caregivers and learners (Kamwangamalu, 2008; Probyn, 2008). Although many are of<br />

the opinion that English should be accepted as the dominant language in education in<br />

the interest of equality and democracy, ethical and pedagogical questions arise when<br />

so many learners have limited proficiency in English (Probyn, 2008; Soudien, 2007).<br />

In South Africa, English enjoyed prominence during the struggle against apartheid,<br />

both politically and ideologically (Kamwangamalu, 2008). English was the working<br />

language of the African National Congress (ANC) since its inception in 1912 up to the<br />

95


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

present (Holmarsdottir, 2009). This trend towards English as the preferred language<br />

of communication in South Africa is continuing because of its international and<br />

commercial benefits. The perception also exists that English is the only means to<br />

success because the world of opportunity is essentially English speaking (Probyn,<br />

2008). According to Obondo (2007), the desire for English by some Black/African<br />

students is further fuelled by a deep-seated resistance to L1 education. The L1 is<br />

stigmatised as inferior and associated with inferior apartheid education and limited<br />

employment opportunities, as documented by history (Obondo, 2007).<br />

During Apartheid Black/African education was separated from White education<br />

and regulated from 1953 onwards by the Department of Bantu Affairs. Compulsory<br />

L1 instruction was introduced to Black/African learners from Grade One and it was<br />

stipulated that both Afrikaans and English be taught as subjects. In the senior primary<br />

and secondary school years, only Afrikaans and English instruction were allowed<br />

in Black/African schools. In 1974, the then province of Transvaal further stipulated<br />

that social studies and mathematics be taught in Afrikaans (Lemmer, 1995). Black/<br />

African learners had to master difficult subject content in languages other than their<br />

L1. This policy sparked off the Soweto uprising in 1976, resulting in the disruption of<br />

education for a whole generation of Black/African learners (Kamwangamalu, 2008;<br />

Probyn, 2008). When the government finally reversed this decision under tremendous<br />

pressure from the Black/African community, parents/caregivers, for the first time, had<br />

the freedom to choose the LoLT for their children from the Fourth Grade. In 1991, the<br />

De Klerk government took a step closer to democracy and allowed White government<br />

schools to enroll learners of all races, leaving the decision on the LoLT to the parent<br />

body of each school (Peirce & Ridge, 1997). Black/African parents/caregivers were no<br />

longer alienated from decision-making in education (Van Wyk, 2010).<br />

Parents/caregivers were overwhelmingly in favour of sudden transfer to English<br />

after the fourth year at school (Heugh, 2008). This language model is used in most<br />

other sub-Saharan African countries, although there is no evidence that this model<br />

leads to successful learning outcomes (Heugh, 2008; Obondo, 2007). This choice<br />

to switch to English in grade 4 disregards globally accepted theories that the home<br />

language and not the first additional language should be the logical choice as LoLT<br />

(Probyn, 2008; Uys et al., 2007). According to the Language in Education Policy (LiEP),<br />

South African schools may still choose any of the official languages as the LoLT, but<br />

an African language is rarely chosen. In addition, there is no stipulation in policy that<br />

requires a transfer from the home language to English as Language of Teaching and<br />

Learning (ELoLT) is required at any level (Holmarsdottir, 2009).<br />

A study by De Klerk (2002a) illustrates why English strongly appeals to Black<br />

parents/caregivers. De Klerk (2002a) investigated the reason why 194 Xhosa-speaking<br />

learners were sent to English schools in the Grahamstown area from their preschool<br />

years. The reasons why parents/caregivers in the research project decided to send<br />

their children to English schools are summarised in Table 1.<br />

96


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

Table 1: Reasons for placement decision<br />

Reason for placement in Englishmedium<br />

school<br />

Need for better education in more stable<br />

environment<br />

English is the international language<br />

Need to give learners a better chance in life<br />

English will open the door to more job opportunities<br />

English is vital for educational success in general<br />

Prestige of English<br />

Social advantages of English<br />

Want learners to be able to mix with English L1<br />

speakers<br />

Closer geographical proximity to an English school<br />

Expected outcomes<br />

More meaningful education free from problems in<br />

Black/African schools<br />

Learners prepared for modern world with cultural<br />

awareness, tolerance, communication with other<br />

groups<br />

Learners able to be financially better off than<br />

parents/caregivers<br />

Equip learners with competitive edge and ability to<br />

speak the language of the workplace<br />

Learners able to understand other subjects and pass<br />

future exams in English<br />

Higher status of learners able to speak English<br />

Learners will become assertive and confident<br />

Learners must not be embarrassed when speaking<br />

English<br />

Learners must assimilate into English- speaking<br />

Western culture<br />

Source: De Klerk (2002a).<br />

According to Table 1, the parents/caregivers wanted their children to master English.<br />

The parents/caregivers based their decision on the overwhelming approval by family<br />

members (42%) and teachers (24%), as opposed to only 8% of the parents/caregivers<br />

who reported that people tried to persuade them against enrolling the learners in<br />

English schools. Not only access to English, but also more resources, healthier learnerteacher<br />

ratios, as well as better learning opportunities at these schools formed part<br />

of the parents’/caregivers’ motivation for selecting English schools for their children<br />

(Probyn, 2008; De Klerk, 2002a).<br />

The South African history cannot be undone, but it is clear that the country’s<br />

language policies complicated the provision of education in the past. Currently, the<br />

core ideological aims of democracy, racial tolerance, human rights, and peaceful<br />

conflict resolution enshrined in the South African constitution are guiding educational<br />

reform, and emerging educational policies aim to rectify the wrongs of the past and<br />

focus on the needs of society (Le Grange, 2002; Cele, 2001; Gumbo, 2001; RSA, 1996).<br />

The urban school context<br />

In 1991, a few years before the end of the Apartheid era, the former White<br />

governmental schools in South Africa started to accept learners from all races. The<br />

South African Schools Act (Act no 37 of 1997) formalised the process of desegregation<br />

97


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

of schools, after which learners were no longer admitted to schools according to racial<br />

classifications (Van Wyk, 2010; Vandeyar, 2010). The desegregation of schools and the<br />

freedom of movement after apartheid resulted in a demographic shift of Black/African<br />

learners to urban (“White”) schools. Many parents/caregivers chose to place their<br />

children in English schools, some on the basis of the belief that time on task will aid<br />

their children to reach high levels of proficiency in English (Hornberger & Vaish, 2009;<br />

Probyn, 2008). However, 80% of Black/African learners remained in rural or township<br />

schools (Probyn, 2008).<br />

With the migration of Black/African learners to formerly White schools many<br />

teachers in urban English schools in South Africa were caught off guard by the diverse<br />

language situation in their classrooms (Barkhuizen, 1993). The rapid political and<br />

demographic changes of the following few years forced these teachers to adapt to<br />

new situations, which often impacted on their identities, beliefs and value systems<br />

(Vandeyar, 2010; Peirce & Ridge, 1997). Two decades ago it already became apparent<br />

that the sudden and abrupt transition from the learners’ L1 to English was a major<br />

problem that all teachers needed to address, as many learners were not yet proficient<br />

in English when enrolled in English schools.<br />

Vandeyar (2010) has found that two thirds of participant teachers studied have<br />

attempted to assimilate learners from diverse cultural groups into the hegemonic<br />

culture of the mostly “White” urban schooling in South Africa. In other words, they<br />

are teaching from a particular cultural lens without any attempt to create a sense<br />

of belonging for the Black/African learners. These teachers have responded to the<br />

desegregation of schools with assimilation and pseudo colour blindness, the latter<br />

indicating that teachers suppress negative images held of learners by professing<br />

not to see colour (Vandeyar, 2010). The cultural background of every learner in a<br />

diverse classroom needs to be incorporated into lessons (Vandeyar, 2010; Driscoll &<br />

Nagel, 2002). 1<br />

Role-players in language acquisition in the city centre<br />

preschool context<br />

Currently many Black/African learners, who are not proficient in English, are being<br />

placed in city centre English preschools. The parents/caregivers of these learners often<br />

rely on teachers to play a leading role in teaching their children English in preparation<br />

for primary school (Uys et al., 2007). It is generally accepted that, during the preschool<br />

years, parents/caregivers and teachers are the main role-players in the learners’<br />

education, because of the amount of time that learners spend in either the home or<br />

school environment. The White Paper 5 (RSA, 2001) states that the responsibility for<br />

the care and upbringing of young children belongs to parents or families (caregivers),<br />

1 An interesting report from the Minister of Education of Eritrea, where the indigenous languages are the LoLT,<br />

indicated that the most important achievement of this education policy was the unshakable confidence and<br />

self-esteem observed in their learners (Mohammed, in Obondo, 2007).<br />

98


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

which directly implicates their involvement as primary role-players in the support of<br />

their children’s language acquisition.<br />

Preschool teachers are viewed as the second major role-players in the support of<br />

preschool learners’ acquisition of the home language, or the LoLT. As learners spend<br />

many of their waking hours with teachers, their experiences under the guidance of the<br />

teachers will have an impact on the learners’ social, emotional, cognitive and language<br />

development (NAEYC, 1996).<br />

Preschool teachers have special knowledge, acquired through training, of<br />

education in early childhood. They are also knowledgeable about preschool learners<br />

through continuous observation and can assess learners in natural situations (Du<br />

Plessis, 1998). The question arises whether these abilities are sufficient to teach in the<br />

current South African situation where schools have become multilingual, and where<br />

preschool teachers face the predicament of teaching in English, while they know that<br />

all learners will not fully comprehend the content of their teaching.<br />

More and more demands at all levels are made of South African preschool<br />

teachers (Cunningham, 2001). Preschool teachers are expected to have sophisticated<br />

knowledge of subject matter and a wide repertoire of teaching strategies. Moreover,<br />

they need to be familiar with theories of learning and cognition, knowledge of<br />

pedagogy and curriculum, and competence with technology and assessment. The<br />

South African context requires preschool teachers to understand multiple languages,<br />

as well as socio-cultural and developmental backgrounds (Viljoen & Molefe, 2001). It<br />

is clear that multilingual classrooms may present a challenge to teachers as it adds to<br />

existing demands.<br />

Although ASHA (ASHA, 1998; ASHA, 1983) issued a position statement in 1983,<br />

clarifying the association’s viewpoint on speech-language therapists’ role when<br />

serving multilingual clients in the USA, the South African Speech-Language and<br />

Hearing Association (SASLHA) only published guidelines regulating local speechlanguage<br />

therapists’ intervention with learners acquiring an L2 20 years later (SASLHA,<br />

2003). These guidelines clearly indicated that speech-language therapists need to get<br />

involved in the acquisition of a second language.<br />

Speech-language therapists have the training and knowledge to assist preschool<br />

learners in acquiring language-learning skills in the LoLT. Since home language and<br />

second language development, assessment, and intervention are acknowledged<br />

professional functions of speech-language therapists, it is widely accepted that they<br />

are the ideal educational support professionals to intervene in the process of language<br />

acquisition (Ehren & Whitmire, 2005). Apart from understanding the nature of language<br />

and the interaction between a child and his or her environment, a comprehensive<br />

knowledge of language development in young children and intervention strategies to<br />

facilitate the process of language acquisition provide speech-language therapists with<br />

the expertise to offer focused language stimulation (Jordaan, 1993). Speech-language<br />

therapists can make a contribution as one of the team members to support language<br />

learning, even without being proficient in the learner’s L1, because they are familiar<br />

99


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

with language acquisition methodologies and knowledge of language acquisition.<br />

In addition, speech-language therapists’ involvement with preschool learners<br />

may stimulate important collaboration between the professions of the speechlanguage<br />

therapist and the preschool teacher (Ehren & Whitmire, 2005; Du Plessis &<br />

Naudé, 2003).<br />

The linguistic needs of the pre-schooler in urban South Africa - to acquire full<br />

proficiency in L1, as well as the LoLT - need to be addressed by all role-players. The<br />

first language has to be promoted, maintained and developed in order to ensure<br />

that the acquisition of the first additional language is an additive rather than a<br />

subtractive process (Du Plessis & Louw, 2008). Such proficiency would enable<br />

the learners to increase their communication skills and cognitive flexibility in a<br />

multilingual environment. L1 acquisition usually proceeds smoothly for most learners<br />

in the preschool years (Jordaan, 1993), but all learners do not always acquire the LoLT<br />

effortlessly. Role-players may need to intervene in ways that stimulate and support<br />

language development, always taking into account the specific and unique needs of<br />

the preschool learner and the South African educational system.<br />

If teachers are familiar with the unique characteristics and needs of learners,<br />

they may construct a classroom context accommodating these needs (Cele, 2001).<br />

Preschool teachers may create a learning environment that provides conditions for<br />

support and creates a challenge to their learners – a positive learning environment for<br />

education and learner motivation.<br />

To respond effectively to the language acquisition challenges of learners not yet<br />

proficient in the LoLT (English), as well as their personal challenges in facilitating the<br />

acquisition of this language, a group of preschool teachers in a specific city centre<br />

multilingual context requested advice and support from speech-language therapists.<br />

The research reported here was initiated in response to this request.<br />

Method<br />

The purpose of this study was threefold:<br />

• To determine the perceptions and opinions of preschool teachers regarding<br />

the strengths of, and challenges to, preschool learners acquiring English as an<br />

additional language.<br />

• To determine the strengths of, and challenges to, preschool teachers regarding<br />

their role in facilitating communication development in preschool learners that<br />

are in the process of acquiring English.<br />

• To explore the support role of speech-language therapists in facilitating the<br />

acquisition of English.<br />

A descriptive survey research design, implementing the quantitative research method,<br />

was selected for the purpose of this study. Permission to conduct the research<br />

was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities<br />

100


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

at the University of Pretoria. In addition, approval was obtained from the Gauteng<br />

department of education (GDE) and informed consent from the principals and<br />

teachers at the participating schools. The ethical considerations of protection from<br />

harm, informed consent, right to privacy and honesty with professional colleagues<br />

were emphasised and adhered to.<br />

Context<br />

All preschools had to fall in a specified geographical area in a selected city centre. The<br />

specific city centre underwent a radical change in population composition, because<br />

of the political changes in South Africa since 1994. The former exclusively White<br />

population in the city centre changed to a racially desegregated population when<br />

many people from the Black/African communities moved into this area.<br />

Participants<br />

All preschool teachers at the nine identified preschools in the context gave consent<br />

to participate in the study. Participants were selected because of their accessibility<br />

and willingness to participate in the research, irrespective of training and experience.<br />

Questionnaires were sent to 36 teachers and 32 returned the questionnaires yielding a<br />

response rate of 88%.<br />

Material<br />

A self-designed questionnaire was compiled as survey instrument. The questionnaire<br />

enabled the author to gain insight into the first-hand experiences of preschool<br />

teachers who were in their current teaching position involved with preschool learners<br />

acquiring the LoLT, which was English. The strength of such a survey instrument was<br />

that it yielded information on the existing situation and the participants’ feelings and<br />

perceptions. The questionnaire was judged and found to be appropriate by an expert<br />

lecturer in the discipline of Speech-Language Pathology, specialising in childhood<br />

language development. In addition, a pre-test was conducted for face validity and to<br />

finalise the content. Four preschool teachers from four different preschools in the city<br />

centre were randomly selected to form a trial group of pre-test participants. The data<br />

analysis was also confirmed as correct by an independent rater.<br />

The questionnaire was divided into ten sections, namely demographic<br />

information, exposure of the teachers to multilingual classes, general observations<br />

of the teachers regarding the learners, information on the learners’ vocabulary<br />

development, information on the learners’ syntactic abilities, information on the<br />

learners’ pragmatic skills, strategies to support the learner, teachers’ general<br />

beliefs on language development, teachers’ need for training and an open question.<br />

Participants were asked to respond according to the Lickert type scale. The number<br />

of response categories was respectively two, three and four and was alternated in<br />

the questionnaire to prevent bias (Delport & De Vos, 2002). Open-ended questions<br />

were included to allow participants to comment freely and to afford the author<br />

101


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

the opportunity to collect information that might have been omitted from the<br />

questionnaire. The majority of the questions were close-ended, which shortened the<br />

duration for completion.<br />

Data collection<br />

The questionnaires and informed consent forms were delivered to the principal of each<br />

preschool with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the research and providing<br />

guidelines for the completion of the questionnaire. Participants had two weeks to<br />

complete the questionnaire. The researcher collected the completed questionnaires<br />

after two weeks.<br />

Data analysis<br />

Since the nature of the research was exploratory, descriptive and contextual,<br />

descriptive statistics (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005) were used to describe the data and<br />

illustrate trends within the research context. Statistical computations, such as<br />

frequency distributions, were employed to provide an indication of the perceptions of<br />

the teachers.<br />

Results and discussion<br />

Description of preschool teachers<br />

The results demonstrated in Table 2 emphasise that the selected characteristics of<br />

teachers did indeed add to the complexity of the teaching situation in the research<br />

context. The analysis of these characteristics provided an indication of some of the<br />

personal challenges encountered by preschool teachers.<br />

According to Table 2, most of the teachers (84%) were Afrikaans speaking, but they<br />

were teaching mostly in English, which is not their L1, with only 10% of the teachers<br />

having English as the home language. When considering that all participating<br />

preschools had English as their LoLT, it is clear that the majority of the teachers were<br />

not teaching in their home language. Afrikaans is the language of the majority of the<br />

White population in the province where the research was conducted (Census in Brief,<br />

2001), which may explain why the majority of the teachers had Afrikaans as their L1.<br />

From some of the teachers’ responses to the open question it became evident<br />

that all may not be fully proficient in English. As numerous authors, including Nel &<br />

Müller (2010), Cele (2001), Cunningham (2001), Barkhuizen (1993) and Macdonald<br />

(1991), have voiced their concerns about the English proficiency of South African<br />

teachers, a question arises about the English skills of the teachers in this study. If some<br />

teachers were indeed not fully proficient in English, the teaching situation could be<br />

complicated, as limited English language skills may inhibit conversational exchanges in<br />

the classroom. Exposure to a less than ideal model of English may influence learners’<br />

acquisition of English negatively (De Klerk, 2002b).<br />

102


Table 2: Profile of teachers (N=32)<br />

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

Characteristics Description Number of<br />

teachers<br />

Home language<br />

Afrikaans<br />

27<br />

English<br />

3<br />

Sesotho<br />

1<br />

isiZulu<br />

1<br />

Percentage of<br />

teachers<br />

84%<br />

10%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

Additional<br />

languages spoken*<br />

English<br />

Afrikaans<br />

Sesotho<br />

German<br />

isiZulu<br />

isiXhosa<br />

Sepedi<br />

Siswati<br />

Xitsonga<br />

Dutch<br />

Sign language<br />

Not provided<br />

Afrikaans<br />

English<br />

Afrikaans and English<br />

Not provided<br />

1 year<br />

2 years<br />

3 years<br />

4 years<br />

5 years<br />

6 years<br />

7 years<br />

10 years<br />

17 years<br />

21 years<br />

28<br />

5<br />

3<br />

2<br />

1<br />

1<br />

1<br />

1<br />

1<br />

1<br />

1<br />

1<br />

26<br />

3<br />

2<br />

1<br />

5<br />

3<br />

4<br />

6<br />

3<br />

3<br />

3<br />

2<br />

1<br />

1<br />

87%<br />

15%<br />

10%<br />

6%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

81%<br />

10%<br />

6%<br />

3%<br />

15%<br />

10%<br />

12%<br />

18%<br />

10%<br />

10%<br />

10%<br />

6%<br />

3%<br />

3%<br />

Language<br />

preference<br />

Teaching<br />

experience with<br />

multilingual classes<br />

*Some teacher participants listed more than one additional language.Adapted from Du<br />

Plessis and Louw (2008)<br />

The fact that the overwhelming majority of teachers were White indicated<br />

that teachers kept their positions in the city centre, while the population in this<br />

area became racially desegregated. This may also be the result of previous limited<br />

opportunities in higher education for Black/African learners resulting in a shortage<br />

of Black/African preschool teachers. In contrast to the increasing learner diversity,<br />

there is a lack of diversity among the teaching staff. While Black/African learners have<br />

migrated to city centre schools, the profile of the teachers has remained relatively<br />

unchanged, resulting in a linguistic and cultural mismatch between the teachers and<br />

a large number of the learners (Vandeyar & Killen, 2006). These teachers have to be<br />

cautious not to allow learners to view themselves through their “White” cultural lens,<br />

but rather create a sense of belonging to the Black/African learners.<br />

103


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Description of preschool learners<br />

Table 3: Language data for 760 pre-schoolers as recorded by 32 teachers<br />

Home language Number of learners Percentage of<br />

learners<br />

Unknown to teacher 281 36,9%<br />

Afrikaans 198 26%<br />

Sesotho 76 10%<br />

English 72 9,5%<br />

Setswana 50 6,6%<br />

isiXhosa 20 2,6%<br />

Sepedi 19 2,5%<br />

isiZulu 17 2,2%<br />

Other specified African languages 9 1,2%<br />

Tshivenda 4 0,5%<br />

Other unspecified African languages 3 0,4%<br />

French 3 0,4%<br />

Seswati 2 0,3%<br />

Xitsonga 2 0,3%<br />

isiNdebele 2 0,3%<br />

Portuguese 2 0,3%<br />

Total 760 100%<br />

Reprinted: Du Plessis and Naudé (2003).<br />

Table 3 provides details of the L1 of the preschool learners in the nine preschools in the<br />

specific city centre. In all of the 32 participating classes, most of the learners (90,5%)<br />

were L2 learners in preschools with English as the LoLT. The preschool teachers in the<br />

study had to cope with English L1 and ELoLT learners in the same classroom and had<br />

to teach learners of whom all were not yet proficient in the LoLT. This trend is typical<br />

in the South African educational context, as has also been pointed out by Dawber and<br />

Jordaan (1999) and Barkhuizen (1993) and implies that a situation thus exists where<br />

preschool teachers have to teach on different language levels to individual learners in<br />

the same classroom.<br />

An alarming fact revealed in Table 3 is that the L1 of a large number of preschool<br />

learners (36,9%) was unknown to the teachers. It should be acknowledged that the<br />

identification of the principal L1 may have been hampered by some learners speaking<br />

more than one language at home, while multiple languages were represented in the<br />

classrooms (Sadiki, 2002). The fact that the teachers could not recognise the L1 of<br />

such a large number of learners may indicate that the teachers could also not identify<br />

104


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

the cultural background of the learners, as language is considered to be the bearer<br />

of culture (Smit, 1993). The importance of being aware of the cultural background<br />

of learners is emphasised in the literature (Vandeyar, 2010) and is recognised as<br />

part of cultural competence. If the teachers were unaware of the L1 and cultures<br />

of the learners, they might not have been able to create a sense of belonging for<br />

their learners, which would result in a classroom atmosphere representative of the<br />

hegemonic culture of the school (Vandeyar, 2010).<br />

The results show that all eleven official languages were represented in the research<br />

context. This is in contrast with the situation in the rural areas where dominant official<br />

languages can often be identified (Census in Brief, 2001) and L1 education could more<br />

readily be implemented. The use of English as LoLT to accommodate learners with<br />

diverse L1s may indeed offer a practical solution in this city centre context.<br />

Preschool learners’ coping strategies<br />

According to the results the majority of teachers (84%) indicated that code-switching<br />

and code-mixing were often used as coping strategies by the learners. In all the<br />

preschools in the research context, 50% or more of the learners in any class found<br />

it difficult to express themselves only in English and reverted to their L1 to facilitate<br />

comprehension. Probyn (2008) observed that code-switching often occurred in<br />

South African classrooms where many learners are from multilingual backgrounds. It<br />

appeared that learners drew on their language resources by code-switching, using it<br />

as a communication strategy (SASHLA, 2003). It is argued that multilingual learners<br />

may be using their L1 to assist understanding and communicating in the context within<br />

which the language is used. The code-switching by multilingual learners was not a<br />

case of confusing languages, but typical of L2 acquisition. Although many teachers<br />

may regard code-switching as undesirable, the literature reflects the view that codeswitching<br />

is normal, useful and widely used in the discourse of multilingual speakers<br />

(Probyn, 2008). Teachers should accept code-switching as typical behaviour and may<br />

use it as a resource in teaching.<br />

The results also indicate that the teachers observed that the majority of the<br />

learners used gestures when communicating in English. The use of gestures as strategy<br />

to facilitate comprehension is a common phenomenon during the non-verbal phase<br />

of L2 acquisition (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, 2000), as the learner often listens and<br />

focuses on understanding the L2. It is a phase of active observation and rehearsal or<br />

sound experimentation, usually done quietly. Gestures should be viewed as normal<br />

behaviour and not as a cause for concern during the initial phases of the acquisition<br />

of an L2.<br />

The fact that the preschool learners showed typical patterns of L2 acquisition and<br />

employed creative communication strategies may therefore be regarded as strengths.<br />

105


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Socio-emotional behaviour observed<br />

According to the results a large percentage of the teachers often observed negative<br />

social or emotional behaviour (such as withdrawal 60%, frustration 60%, discipline<br />

problems 45%, and not volunteering to answer 67%) that could be associated with<br />

poor L2 skills. These teachers perceived language proficiency as influencing school<br />

performance and social behaviour significantly.<br />

Research has highlighted that learners not yet fully proficient in the LoLT are<br />

at risk of developing social problems in the classroom. Crutchley, Botting & Conti-<br />

Ramsden (1997) reported that, although monolingual and multilingual learners arrived<br />

at schools with no emotional and behavioural differences, over time L2 learners<br />

developed and exhibited more emotional and behavioural problems than L1 learners.<br />

The same perceived negative kinds of behaviour as found in the current research were<br />

reported by Viljoen & Molefe (2001), who observed frustration and discipline problems<br />

in South African L2 learners. Fujiki, Brinton, Isaacson & Summers (2001) found that L2<br />

learners displayed more withdrawal and aggressive behaviours than other learners. Viljoen<br />

& Molefe (2001) observed that many of these negative behaviours were not present on the<br />

playground where learners interacted in their L1 with peers from their own culture. These<br />

findings were supported by Probyn (2008), which verifies that communication barriers in<br />

the classroom, caused by poor L2 proficiency, contributed to a large extent to learners’<br />

emotional and behavioural problems. Behavioural problems in these learners therefore<br />

may need to be understood against the background of emotional uncertainty as a result of<br />

language and cultural differences between the home and school.<br />

Strategies employed by teachers<br />

The teachers were requested to indicate which strategies they employed to facilitate<br />

comprehension and participation for preschool learners. An open question was<br />

included in this section of the questionnaire to allow teachers to include techniques<br />

not listed, thus preventing bias from limited possibilities. The results are presented<br />

in Table 4.<br />

Table 4 indicates that, apart from planning their lessons, teachers had to plan<br />

techniques to convey meaning. By employing their creative skills, learners were<br />

provided with opportunities to learn and participate in programme activities. Most<br />

of the strategies were verbal, but non-verbal strategies, such as gestures and bodily<br />

movements as cues to facilitate comprehension, were also employed to support<br />

communication. The fact that the preschool teachers used innovative techniques<br />

and developed their own strategies to facilitate comprehension may be regarded<br />

as strengths.<br />

106


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

Table 4: Strategies employed by teachers in relation to their teaching with multilingual<br />

classes (N=32)<br />

Strategies<br />

Teaching experience with multilingual classes<br />

1-5 Years<br />

(N=21)<br />

6-10 Years<br />

(N=8)<br />

10+ Years<br />

(N=2)<br />

Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never Often Seldom<br />

Simplify/rephrase 19 2 0 7 1 0 2 0<br />

Repeat<br />

instructions<br />

21 0 0 7 1 0 2 0<br />

Accentuate<br />

keywords<br />

21 0 0 7 1 0 2 0<br />

Repeat new<br />

vocabulary<br />

20 1 0 7 1 0 2 0<br />

Additional visuals 20 1 0 6 2 0 2 0<br />

Speak slower 16 4 1 7 0 1 2 0<br />

Repeat learners’<br />

utterances<br />

Expand learners’<br />

utterances<br />

6 7 8 5 1 2 1 0<br />

8 6 7 7 1 0 1 0<br />

Use gestures 14 4 3 7 0 1 2 0<br />

Mime 15 5 1 7 0 1 2 0<br />

Involve parents/<br />

caregivers<br />

4 6 11 4 3 1 1 1<br />

Adapt lesson plan 3 3 15 7 0 1 1 1<br />

*Intentional<br />

misrepresentation<br />

*Stories, songs,<br />

rhymes<br />

*Translate to<br />

learners’ L1<br />

0 1 0<br />

21 7 2<br />

2 0 0<br />

*Dramatizing 0 0 2<br />

*Learners as<br />

translators<br />

*Assistants as<br />

translators<br />

*Individual<br />

sessions<br />

0 2 0<br />

2 2 1<br />

2 0 0<br />

*Responses to open question<br />

An interesting trend revealed in Table 4 is that overall only a small number of<br />

the teachers repeated and expanded the learners’ utterances. Whereas the majority<br />

107


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

of teachers, with more than six years’ experience with multilingual classes, used<br />

these two verbal strategies often, the teacher participants with less than six years’<br />

experience did not employ these strategies as a rule. The teachers with less multilingual<br />

experience may be unaware of the value of such strategies. This possibility questions<br />

their effective use of verbal strategies, as there is strong indication in the literature<br />

(Owens, 2008) that imitation, repetition, and expansion of words and phrases are<br />

central to the language-learning process and facilitate general language growth.<br />

Adult responses facilitate linguistic development by maintaining or adding to the<br />

semantic content of what the learner says, while also highlighting structural aspects<br />

of language.<br />

The preschool teachers in the research context may benefit from information<br />

on naturalistic language facilitation techniques to make instructional input<br />

comprehensible to learners with diverse levels of English proficiency.<br />

Upon further analysis of the results the same pattern emerged with the strategy<br />

of adapting lesson plans. The majority of teachers with less than six years’ multilingual<br />

experience never adapted lesson plans, as opposed to the teachers with more<br />

multilingual experience who often adapted lesson plans. It appears that the latter<br />

group of teachers may be more flexible in their approach, viewing learner-directed<br />

activities as educational opportunities even in an organised framework. Adaptability is<br />

also advocated by Manolson (1992) who pointed out that adults need to be responsive<br />

partners and allow learners to lead in language-acquisition activities.<br />

Table 4 indicates that nine teachers employed some form of code-switching<br />

(two translate to learners’ L1 themselves; two use peer tutors; five use assistants<br />

as translators). Only a small number of the teachers were using code-switching<br />

as a resource. The use of code-switching and peer-tutoring has been reported<br />

in the literature and holds great potential as technique and strategy to facilitate<br />

comprehension in ELoLT learners (Probyn, 2008; Viljoen & Molefe, 2001). Codeswitching<br />

in the classroom may lead to better understanding and communication with<br />

L2 learners and prevent communication breakdown between teachers and learners.<br />

It does pose a challenge to the teachers in the research context where all 11 official<br />

languages were represented. However, it is argued that teachers need to be guided to<br />

explore and appreciate the functions of these strategies, drawing on sources already<br />

available to them.<br />

Support needs of preschool teachers<br />

To establish the support required, the teachers’ perception of their own support needs<br />

was explored. According to the results the teachers were willing to accept support<br />

regarding L2 learners in their classrooms. It is interesting to note that the majority of<br />

the teachers (88%) preferred workshops to formal training, which may be an indication<br />

of the amount of time and money the teachers were prepared to spend on acquiring<br />

the appropriate knowledge and skills. It may also indicate their preference for the<br />

interactive manner of teaching and learning often prevailing at workshops (Du Plessis<br />

& Louw, 2008).<br />

108


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

The responses of teachers indicated their willingness to share responsibilities<br />

regarding the support of L2 learners with other knowledgeable professionals. In the<br />

results two components of teamwork, namely consultation (advice on how to handle<br />

the multilingual learner) and collaboration (assistance by speech-language therapists<br />

in planning language lessons and evaluating the language needs of multilingual<br />

learners) were indicated as perceived support needs. Based on these results the role<br />

of the speech-language therapist as team member of the education support team is<br />

discussed forthwith.<br />

The role of the speech-language therapist<br />

The teachers’ perceptions provided valuable information on the challenges to<br />

preschool learners not yet proficient in the LoLT, with strong pointers for the provision<br />

of a responsive learning environment. As the learners’ challenges and strengths did<br />

not fall into neat categories, interdisciplinary partnerships may have to be established<br />

to bring together different perspectives and expertise for intervention. This presents<br />

a challenge to all teachers and educational support professionals. The onus is to form<br />

partnerships and to share knowledge and skills related to the learners’ strengths and<br />

challenges, working collaboratively to enhance the learning process.<br />

Preschool teachers may feel challenged when attempting to meet all these<br />

expectations. The greatest challenges emerging from the research results appear<br />

to be first, the need for knowledge, and second, the need for support. However,<br />

challenges provide opportunities, one of which is to form partnerships in problem<br />

solving. In such partnerships speech-language therapists would have to be sensitive<br />

to the unique needs of preschool teachers and strive to provide teachers with the<br />

information and support they need.<br />

The teachers’ need for support clearly indicated that the principle role of the<br />

speech-language therapists needs to be indirect, providing mainly consultative,<br />

but also collaborative support. Such collaboration may, however, depend largely<br />

on the competencies of the preschool teachers and the speech-language therapists<br />

in clarifying and redefining their roles to form a team that provides services to the<br />

multilingual learners.<br />

The proposed service delivery model to support the acquisition of the LoLT has<br />

three components, namely consultation, collaboration, and collaborative intervention.<br />

The first consultative role for both the speech-language therapists and the<br />

preschool teachers is professional education or skills development. The preschool<br />

teachers may need instruction in the nature of language and communication, whereas<br />

the speech-language therapists may need information on the nature of the curriculum<br />

and its associated language demands. It may be necessary for the preschool teachers<br />

to familiarise the speech-language therapists with the learning areas of the curriculum,<br />

enabling them to understand their role within the curriculum and develop appropriate<br />

skills and knowledge to work within the curriculum (Struthers & Lewis, 2004). It<br />

implies that both professionals need to become on-going learners themselves, sharing<br />

109


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

knowledge and information, while drawing on the strength of the other in order<br />

to gain competencies and provide services responsive to the unique needs of the<br />

preschool learner.<br />

The second consultative role identified from the research results involves the<br />

designing of learning programmes and the planning of structured language support<br />

in classroom activities. The teachers recognise the importance of language to the<br />

learners’ academic success and socialisation, but they need support to address the<br />

learners’ linguistic needs. In consultation, the preschool teachers and the speechlanguage<br />

therapists need to plan a language-focused curriculum, using the natural<br />

contexts of the classroom as point of departure and the classroom format and<br />

curriculum as sources of programme content (Giangreco, as cited by Prelock, 2000).<br />

The speech-language therapists and the preschool teachers may create a plan of<br />

action for addressing the learners’ particular language needs, based on what could<br />

practically be implemented in the classroom. Such a collaborative approach allows for<br />

the synthesising and generalisation of communication skills across contexts and also<br />

supports accessibility to the curriculum. The preschool teachers need to play a leading<br />

role in any modifications to the curriculum to facilitate comprehension, ensuring<br />

that the conceptual requirements of the learning area are met. The speech-language<br />

therapists in collaborative curriculum design need to analyse the curriculum to identify<br />

important concepts and associated language components (Lazar, 1994), and suggest<br />

modifications to the important LoLT input of the preschool teachers.<br />

The first collaborative role of the speech-language therapists, identified from<br />

the results, is to assume primary responsibility in the team for coordinating the<br />

communication assessment of preschool learners (Ehren, Montgomery, Rudebusch<br />

& Whitmire, 2009). The preschool teachers may take secondary responsibility for<br />

the communication assessment, thereby establishing an integrated view of the<br />

learners’ language abilities (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). In such interdisciplinary appraisals<br />

of the learners’ language proficiency, the speech-language therapists need to assume<br />

responsibility for collecting, analysing and synthesising the language assessment<br />

information, as well as presenting the results to the team (ASHA, 1991). Owing to<br />

the preschool teachers’ involvement and support in assessing the learners their<br />

confidence, skills and knowledge about communication assessment will increase,<br />

while the speech-language therapists will acquire knowledge about the nature of the<br />

language demands of the curriculum and the multilingual preschool learners’ ability to<br />

handle these demands.<br />

The second collaborative role in lesson planning or intervention planning, which a<br />

critical procedure in successful communication intervention (Wilcox & Shannon, 1996),<br />

It is suggested that the preschool teachers need to assume primary responsibility for<br />

planning the curriculum goals and the speech-language therapists for planning the<br />

communication goals. In this manner their mutual perspectives on desired outcomes<br />

may be combined in intervention planning (Ehren, et al., 2009).<br />

Collaborative intervention is the third role of the speech-language therapists<br />

and the preschool teachers, identified from the research results. The role of the<br />

110


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

speech-language therapists in collaborative intervention needs to be a direct<br />

role, which implies direct contact with the preschool learners, as well as shared<br />

responsibilities with the preschool teachers for direct instruction of the preschool<br />

learners (Ehren, et al., 2009). A service delivery model needs to be negotiated<br />

between the speech-language therapists and the preschool teachers, and the level of<br />

role release between these professionals needs to be determined.<br />

It is suggested that the proposed service delivery model may be an effective<br />

approach to providing a supportive intervention to preschool learners who are not<br />

fully proficient in English. The first benefit to the learners may be the integration of<br />

education and support services so that, through the sharing of information among<br />

the preschool teachers and the speech-language therapists, learners with linguistic<br />

barriers to learning may be accommodated in inclusive classrooms (Lewis, 2004).<br />

Second, through joint curriculum planning and intervention, the learners may benefit<br />

in all the learning areas (Lewis, 2004). Third, the multilingual learners may benefit from<br />

integrated language instruction as opportunities to expand their language skills may be<br />

utilised across the curriculum, providing increased opportunities for LoLT stimulation<br />

and acquisition (Lewis, 2004). The fourth benefit to the multilingual learners may be<br />

that LoLT skills could be facilitated outside the therapeutic situation and generalised<br />

to natural communication settings, such as the classroom and home setting (Hadley,<br />

Simmerman, Long & Luna, 2000)<br />

In conclusion, it is suggested that the speech-language therapists have a<br />

consultative and collaborative role to play in the acquisition of the LoLT. However,<br />

the role of the speech-language therapists needs to be primarily an indirect role that<br />

extends to resource sharing and support of the preschool teachers. In the proposed<br />

service delivery model to facilitate the acquisition of LoLT in the research context, the<br />

preschool teacher and the speech-language therapist need to support the educational<br />

context for instruction together.<br />

Limitations<br />

A limitation of the research is that the question evaluation by participants during<br />

the pre-test did not reveal all the limitations of the questionnaire. The rating scales<br />

selected by the pre-test participants in two sections may not have been appropriate<br />

for the type of question asked. One could argue that a pre-test with a larger and<br />

more representative sample of pre-test participants potentially could provide more<br />

opportunities to identify difficulties in the questionnaire. Another limitation is that the<br />

research involved a single context and the results could not be generalised.<br />

Conclusion<br />

Up to now role-players and decision-makers in multilingual education in South<br />

Africa were not sensitive to the needs of the teachers, which resulted in policy and<br />

planning to be a top-down political process (Obondo, 2008). Some teachers believe<br />

that the multidimensional nature of multilingualism may have been oversimplified,<br />

111


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

underestimated and obscured by ideological rhetoric (Lemmer, 1995). In addition,<br />

people at grass-roots level, such as teachers, applied linguists, researchers, educational<br />

support professionals, had little involvement in language policy decisions (Obondo,<br />

2008). What is further needed is that decision-makers should understand that speechlanguage<br />

therapists can help learners to succeed in their education (Ehren & Whitmire<br />

2005). The results of the current study added to the growing awareness that education<br />

needs to be based on a holistic approach to challenges, and that interdisciplinary<br />

partnerships need to be established to bring together diverse perspectives and<br />

expertise for collaborative decision-making.<br />

Speech-language therapists in South Africa are increasingly being called on to<br />

provide services to learners with a L1 different from the LoLT – a call for service that<br />

is legitimate. To accelerate the acquisition of the LoLT in preschool learners, speechlanguage<br />

therapists need to move beyond the traditional models of service delivery,<br />

and expand and release their professional roles across disciplinary lines, as has been<br />

recommended in the literature for the past two decades and practised elsewhere<br />

in the world. While South Africa is in the process of building an inclusive education<br />

system, speech-language therapists are urged to work in collaboration with preschool<br />

teachers as a team to provide preschool learners with a solid foundation in L1 and<br />

the LoLT for lifelong learning and development. Speech-language therapists need to<br />

expand their role into the preschool classroom and engage in a mutual process of<br />

sharing their knowledge and skills with others, and learning from others.<br />

“Challenging SLPs [speech-language pathologists] to ‘Make it so’, requires that<br />

they take responsibility for their own destiny and not wait for others to make<br />

the necessary changes” (Ehren & Ehren, 2001, p. 237).<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The author wishes to express her gratitude to Emeritus Prof Brenda Louw, previously<br />

from the University of Pretoria, for earlier contributions to the research.<br />

References<br />

Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M. & Oteìza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language<br />

analysis: A functional linguistic approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching:<br />

Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8-24.<br />

ASHA, (1983). Social dialects. ASHA, 25(9), 23-24.<br />

ASHA, (1998). Provision of English-as-a-second-language instruction by speechlanguage<br />

pathologists in school settings. ASHA, Spring 1998, suppl 18,24-27.<br />

ASHA, (1991). A model for collaborative service delivery for students with languagelearning<br />

disorders in the public school. ASHA, 33 (suppl. 5), .44-50.<br />

Barkhuizen, G.P. (1993). Introducing language across the curriculum into the English<br />

multilingual setting. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 27(4), 269-277.<br />

112


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

Bosman, N. (2000). South Africa’s culture of non-learning - a by-product of non-mother<br />

tongue education? SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 34(3), 221-228.<br />

Cele, N. (2001). Oppressing the oppressed through language liberation: repositioning<br />

English for meaningful education. Perspectives in Education, 19(1), 181-193.<br />

Cencus in Brief, 2001. http://www.css.gov.za/censuspr/population.htm. Accessed on 6<br />

November 2011.<br />

Coufal, K.L. (1993). Collaborative consultation for speech-language pathologists. Topics<br />

in Language Disorders, November, 1-14.<br />

Crutchley, A., Botting, N. & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1997). Bilingualism and specific language<br />

impairment in children attending language units. European Journal of Disorders of<br />

Communication, 32, 267-276.<br />

Cunningham, D. (2001). Languages, technology and teaching: challenges and solutions<br />

for the 21 st century. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 35(4), 201-222.<br />

Dawber, A. & Jordaan, H. (1999). Second Language Learners in the Class-room. Southdale,<br />

MN: Aneene Dawber & Heila Jordaan.<br />

De Klerk, V. (2002a). Language issues in our schools: whose voice counts? Part 1: the<br />

parents speak. Perspectives in Education, 20(1), 1-14.<br />

De Klerk, V. (2002b). Part 2: The teachers speak. Perspectives in Education, 20(1), 15-27.<br />

Delport, C.S.L. & De Vos, A.S. (2002). Professional research and professional practice.<br />

In De Vos, A.S. (Ed.). Research at Grass Roots. For the Social Sciences and Human<br />

Service Professionals. (2 nd ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik.<br />

Dougherty, M. (2009). Psychological consultation and collaboration in school and<br />

community settings. (5 th ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.<br />

Driscoll, A. & Nagel, N.G. (2002). Early Childhood Education. Birth – 8. Boston, MA: Allyn<br />

and Bacon.<br />

Du Plessis, S. (2005). Multilingual preschool learners: A collaborative approach to<br />

communication intervention. Unpublished DPhil dissertation. Pretoria: University<br />

of Pretoria.<br />

Du Plessis, S. (1998). Spanfunksionering in ‘n preprimêre program vir<br />

kommunikasiegestremde kleuters. Unpublished M.Communication Pathology<br />

Dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.<br />

Du Plessis, S. & Louw, B. (2008). Challenges to preschool teachers in learners’<br />

acquisition of English as Language of Learning and Teaching. South African Journal<br />

of Education, 28(1), 53-75.<br />

Du Plessis, S & Naudé, E. (2003). The needs of teachers in preschool centres with regard<br />

to multilingual learners. South African Journal of Education, 23(2), 122-129.<br />

Ehren, B. J. & Ehren, T.C. (2001). New or expanded literacy roles for speech-language<br />

pathologists: Making it happen in the schools. Seminars in Speech and Language,<br />

22(3), 233-241.<br />

113


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Ehren, T.C. & Whitmire, K.A. (2005). Leadership opportunities in the context of<br />

responsiveness to intervention activities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2),<br />

168- 179.<br />

Ehren, B.J., Montgomery, J., Rudebusch, J. & Whitmire, K. 2009. Responsiveness to<br />

intervention: New roles for speech-language pathologists. American Speech-<br />

Language-Hearing Association. http://www.asha.org/members/slp/schools/profconsult/NewRolesSLP.htm.<br />

Accessed on 5 September 2011.<br />

Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Isaacson, T. & Summers, C. (2001). Social behaviors of children<br />

with language impairment on the playground: a pilot study. Language, Speech and<br />

Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 101-113.<br />

Gumbo, M.T. (2001). Multicultural education and its politics. South African Journal of<br />

Education, 21(2), 233-241.<br />

Hadley,P.A., Simmerman,A., Long,M. & Luna,M. 2000. Facilitating language<br />

development for inner-city children. Experimental evaluation of a collaborative<br />

classroom-based intervention. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools,<br />

31: 280-295.<br />

Heugh, K. (2008). Language policy and education in Southern Africa. Encyclopaedia of<br />

Language and Education. www.springerlink.com/content/p62640m146m43525/.<br />

Accessed on 23 August 2011.<br />

Holmarsdottir, H.B. (2009). Cultural identity and implementing a new Language-in-<br />

Education Policy in South African schools. Globalisation, Comparative Education<br />

and Policy Research. www.springerlink.com/content/v545n4rp30465726/.<br />

Accessed on 23 August 2011.<br />

Hornberger, N. & Vaish, V. (2009). Multilingual language policy and school linguistic<br />

practice: Globalization and English language teaching in India, Singapore and<br />

South Africa. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Interventional Education,<br />

39(3), 305-320.<br />

Jordaan, H. (1993). Language intervention to facilitate the acquisition of English as<br />

a second language by pre-school children. Unpublished MA Speech-Language<br />

Pathology Dissertation. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.<br />

Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2008). Second and foreign language learning in South Africa.<br />

Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. www.springerlink.com.content/<br />

k552u42273w6234w/. Accessed on 23 August 2011.<br />

Laing,S.P. & Kamhi,A.2003. Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally<br />

and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in<br />

Schools, 34: 44-55.<br />

LANGTAG. (1996). Towards a National Language Plan for South Africa. Final Report of<br />

the Language Plan Task Group, presented to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science<br />

and Technology.<br />

Lazar, C.1994. A review and appraisal of current information on speech/language<br />

alternative service delivery models in schools. Communiphon, 308: 8-11.<br />

114


du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist<br />

Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical Research. Planning and Design (8th ed.).<br />

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.<br />

Le Grange, L. (2002). Educational research, democracy and praxis. South African Journal<br />

of Education, 22(1), 36-39.<br />

Lemmer, E.M. (1995). Selected linguistic realities in South African schools: problems<br />

and prospects. Educare, 24(2), 82-96.<br />

Lewis, F.2004. Curriculum integration and curriculum innovation – challenges to the<br />

school speech-language therapist of today. Communiphon, 337: 36-37.<br />

Macdonald, C. (1991). Eager to Talk and Learn and Think. Bilingual Primary Education in<br />

South Africa. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.<br />

Manolson, A. (1992). It Takes Two to Talk. Toronto: The Hanen Centre.<br />

Morsink, C.V. (1991). Framework and rationale for interactive teaming in Morsink,<br />

C.V., Thomas, C.C. and Correa, V.I. (Eds). Interactive Teaming. Consultation and<br />

Collaboration in Special Programs. New York: Merrill.<br />

NAEYC. (1996). Position statement: Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity -<br />

recommendations for effective childhood education. Young Children, 51(2), 9-12.<br />

Nel, N. & Müller, H. (2010). The impact of teachers’ limited English proficiency on<br />

English second language learners in South African schools. South African Journal<br />

of Education, 30, 635-650.<br />

Obondo, M.A. (2007). Tension between English and mother tongue teaching in postcolonial<br />

Africa. International Handbook of English Language Teaching. www.<br />

springerlink.com/content/h5056123k8785341/ . Accessed on 23 August 2011.<br />

Obondo, M.A. (2008). Bilingual education in Africa: An overview. Encyclopaedia of<br />

Language and Education. www.springerlink.com/content/n3pmx151v4872866/.<br />

Accessed on 23 August 2011.<br />

Owens, R.E.(Jr). (2008). Language Development. An Introduction. (7th ed). Boston, MA:<br />

Pearson Education.<br />

Palikara, O., Lindsay, G., Cullen, M.A. & Dockrell, J. (2007). Working together: The<br />

practice of educational psychologists and speech and language therapists with<br />

children with specific speech and language difficulties. Educational and Child<br />

Psychology, 24(4), 77-88.<br />

Peirce, B.N. & Ridge, S.G.M. (1997). Multilingualism in Southern Africa. Annual Review of<br />

Applied Linguistics, 17, 170-190.<br />

Prelock,P.A.2000. Multiple perspectives for determining the roles of speech-language<br />

pathologists in inclusionary classrooms. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in<br />

Schools, 31: 213-218.<br />

Probyn, M. (2008). Policy, practice and power: Language ecologies in South African<br />

classrooms. Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. www.springerlink.com/<br />

content/nn25k23450705554/. Accessed on 23 August 2011.<br />

115


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. & Brice, A. (2000). Acquiring English as a second language. The<br />

ASHA Leader, 5(12), 4-7.<br />

RSA (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: Act No 108, 1996. Cape Town:<br />

Government Printer.<br />

RSA (2001). Education White Paper 5 on Early Childhood Education. Pretoria:<br />

Department of Education.<br />

Sadiki, M. (2002). Mother tongue, other tongue and “another tongue”. Paper<br />

presented at the 14 th International English Academy Conference: Mother Tongue,<br />

Other Tongue? Law, Learning and Literature. Pretoria. April 2002.<br />

SASLHA, (2003). Working with bilingual populations in speech-language pathology.<br />

SASLHA, March 2003, Ethics and Standards Committee.<br />

Smit, B. (1993). Language planning for a future South African educational system:<br />

the German language scenario – pedagogical issues. SAALT Journal for Language<br />

Teaching, 27(2), 155-166.<br />

Soudien, C. (2007). The “A” factor: Coming to terms with the question of legacy in<br />

South African education. International Journal of Educational Development. 27(2),<br />

182-193.<br />

Steyn, J.C. (2000). Quality education and equality in education: a dilemma for<br />

democratic South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 20(1), 46-49.<br />

Vandeyar, S. (2010) .Responses to South African teachers to the challenge of school<br />

integration. South African Journal of Education, 30, 343-359.<br />

Van Wyk, B. (2010). Learner diversity and learning: A perspective from South Africa.<br />

International conference on learner diversity 2010. www.sciencedirect.com. Accessed<br />

on 24 August 2011.<br />

Viljoen, C.F. & Molefe, R.M.L. (2001). Language related problems of limited English<br />

proficiency learners in Grade 1. South African Journal of Education, 21(2), 121-127.<br />

Wilcox,M.J. and Shannon,M.S.1996. Early Intervention practices in speech-language<br />

pathology. In McWilliams,R. (Ed). Rethinking Pull-Out Services in Early Intervention.<br />

A Professional Resource. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.<br />

Uys, M., Van der Walt, J., Van den Berg, R. & Botha, S. (2007). English medium of<br />

instruction: A situational analysis. South African Journal of Education, 27(1), 69-82.<br />

116


Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski, Günther Fink, Corrina Moucheraud<br />

& Beatrice Matafwali<br />

Early Childhood Education, Child<br />

Development and School Readiness:<br />

Evidence from Zambia<br />

Abstract<br />

While early childhood education has received increasing attention in the developing<br />

world in recent years, relatively little evidence is available from sub-Saharan Africa<br />

on its effects on child development and subsequent school enrolment. We use<br />

a prospective case-control design to evaluate the developmental impact of a<br />

community-based early childhood center in an urban area in Zambia. Comparing 40<br />

children attending the center to 40 children not attending the center from the same<br />

community, we find that center attendance was associated with significantly better<br />

performance in an assessment of task orientation, and was also weakly associated<br />

with increased letter familiarity. We also observed higher performance among center<br />

students on tests of receptive language and pencil-related fine motor skills. These<br />

associations were, however, smaller and not statistically significant. We conducted a<br />

follow-up one year after the initial assessment, when children were seven years old<br />

and should have been in first grade. At follow-up, 27% of non-attendees were not yet<br />

enrolled in primary school, compared to just 11% of center students, suggesting that<br />

participation in early education encourages a timely transition into first grade.<br />

Keywords: Early childhood care, school readiness, assessment tools<br />

Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski, Harvard Graduate School of education. E-mail: sls418@<br />

mail.harvard.edu. Günther Fink, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard<br />

School of Public Health. E-mail: gfink@hsph.harvard.edu. Corrina Moucheraud,<br />

Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health. E-mail:<br />

cmoucher@hsph.harvard.edu. Beatrice Matafwali, University of Zambia. E-mail:<br />

BMatafwali2000@yahoo.com<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 117-136 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Introduction<br />

In the developed world, an extensive body of longitudinal research demonstrates the<br />

importance of children’s early developmental experiences for educational and broader<br />

life outcomes (Abbott-Shim, Lambert, & McCarty, 2003; Barnett, 1996; Barnett &<br />

Masse, 2007; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Gorey, 2001; Ludwig & Miller, 2007;<br />

Puma et al., 2005; Reynolds, 2000; Schweinhart et al., 2005). To date, relatively little<br />

evidence is available on the developmental effects of early childhood education (ECE)<br />

programs on children in sub-Saharan Africa. Though the evidence supporting early<br />

childhood education in developed countries is strong, it cannot be assumed that this<br />

evidence translates directly to the context of sub-Saharan African countries. However,<br />

several recent studies conducted in Kenya, Zanzibar and Uganda (Malmberg,<br />

Mwaura, & Sylva, 2011; Mwaura, Sylva, & Malmberg, 2008); Botswana (Taiwo & Tyolo,<br />

2002);South Africa (Liddell & Rae, 2001); and Guinea and Cape Verde (Jaramillo &<br />

Tietjen, 2001) support the argument that ECE is just as important in preparing African<br />

children for later academic success as it is for those living in the developed world.<br />

Despite this emerging evidence, government investment in early childhood<br />

education remains low in the region. With the international focus on the basic primary<br />

schooling targets set out in the Millennium Development Goals 1 , the resources<br />

available to ECE are generally limited, and have in some cases even been reallocated<br />

towards primary schooling. In Kenya, for example, pressures to enrol more children<br />

in overcrowded primary schools led to the closing of some preschool programs that<br />

had been located in those schools (Nganga, 2009). Some have suggested that in<br />

Zambia, attempts to expand ECE “may be premature and potentially damaging to an<br />

already tenuous education system” (Thomas & Thomas, 2009, p.6). In addition, the<br />

inter-sectoral nature of ECE programs—generally involving, at a minimum, ministries<br />

of health and education—provides an additional challenge to implementation (Pence<br />

et al., 2004).<br />

The lack of government support for early childhood education means that<br />

these programs are likely to be costly to parents or, if affordable, of low quality. As<br />

a consequence, ECE net enrolment rates are in the single digits for many countries<br />

in the region, including Burkina Faso, Senegal, Eritrea, and Ethiopia (UNESCO, 2011).<br />

Quality is undeniably critical in ECE, both in attracting parents to enrol their children<br />

and in producing positive developmental outcomes. Rao and colleagues (2010)<br />

found that disadvantaged children in India who attended higher-quality preschool<br />

programs experienced greater developmental growth than those attending poorquality<br />

programs. However, the India study as well as recent evidence from Cambodia<br />

suggest that any early childhood education experience is beneficial to children (Rao,<br />

2010; Rao et al., <strong>2012</strong>). Therefore, we argue that Zambia and similar countries should<br />

1 Millennium Development Goal 2a asks countries to “…ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and<br />

girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.” (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/<br />

education.shtml)<br />

118


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

begin building ECE systems, even if these programs cannot initially meet international<br />

definitions of high quality.<br />

Zambia is in many respects representative of a larger group of countries in the<br />

region—struggling to balance pressing demands to improve health and education<br />

in a context of limited resources. Despite significant progress made in recent years,<br />

the Republic of Zambia remains among the poorest countries in the world. Zambia’s<br />

current population is estimated at 13 million people, and average per capita annual<br />

income was estimated at US $1,400 in 2010 (World Bank, <strong>2012</strong>). With an under-5<br />

mortality rate of 111 per 1000 and an HIV prevalence rate of over 13.5% among<br />

individuals aged 15-49, life expectancy at birth remains below 50 years (Unicef, <strong>2012</strong>;<br />

World Bank, <strong>2012</strong>).<br />

High fertility rates and a rapidly growing youth population continue to pose<br />

major challenges for governmental education planners and practitioners. Aided by<br />

the removal of attendance and examination fees in 2002, school enrolment at lower<br />

grades is now near-universal and gross enrolment ratios frequently exceed 100% at the<br />

basic school level (Kemp, Elbers, & Gunning, 2008). However, many students enter<br />

primary school at age 8 or later, and dropout rates remain high, with less than 50%<br />

of students progressing to secondary schooling (Macro International, 2007). With<br />

severely constrained overall educational resources, the Zambian public ECE sector has<br />

remained largely underdeveloped: it lacks a national curriculum and policy framework,<br />

and suffers from a shortage of qualified teachers. There is also low coordination<br />

among key stakeholders to facilitate holistic implementation of early childhood<br />

programs (Matafwali, 2007). Overall, Zambian children’s exposure to early childhood<br />

programs appears limited. Only 17% of new first-graders reported any early childhood<br />

care and education experience in 2010 (UNESCO, 2010), while the projection for the<br />

year 2015 stands at 30% (Republic of Zambia Ministry of Education, 2010).<br />

This paper generates a first assessment of the degree to which ECE can lead to<br />

better educational outcomes in the Zambian context. The specific program we<br />

examine is the Amundame center, located in Zambia’s Central Province. Started in 2004<br />

with initial support from the Maureen Mwanawasa Community Initiative, Amundame<br />

(a name derived from the local language Lenje, literally interpreted as “Take Care of<br />

Me”) is among the most well-known early childhood centers in Zambia. The center is<br />

operated as a community-based initiative for children of women working as vendors in<br />

the market of Kapiri Mposhi, a small urban center. The center’s curriculum focuses on<br />

pre-literacy and early numeracy skills, and includes a school feeding component.<br />

The main hypothesis we investigate in this paper is that early childhood education<br />

and care provided by the center will lead to improved cognitive and physical<br />

development, and consequently result in improved readiness for primary school. We<br />

further hypothesize that improved school readiness will lead to earlier enrolment in<br />

primary school, and improve children’s long term educational outcomes.<br />

119


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Methods<br />

Ethical review<br />

The study was approved by the University of Zambia Humanities and Social Sciences<br />

Research Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board at the Harvard School<br />

of Public Health.<br />

Study setting<br />

This center was selected for study based on the recommendations of Zambian<br />

academics and local nongovernmental organization representatives, some of whom<br />

had observed the center’s operations extensively. According to a recent study, the<br />

center met or exceeded the minimum standards expected of a quality ECE program<br />

in four categories: curriculum, trained teachers, nutrition, and availability of teaching<br />

and learning materials (Matafwali & Munsaka, 2011). The center is located in Kapiri<br />

Mposhi, a medium-sized urban center in Zambia’s Central Province, approximately one<br />

hundred miles north of the country’s capital, Lusaka (see Figure 1). The Amundame<br />

center is situated within the town’s market and accommodates children aged three to<br />

six, with a capacity of approximately forty children of each of these age groups (birth<br />

cohorts).The children are divided into two groups by age.<br />

The center’s mission is to prevent children from spending key developmental years<br />

unattended in the market and to expose these children to early learning, thereby<br />

improving their school readiness. The center is open year-round, five days per week.<br />

The three classrooms contain a variety of toys, books, and learning tools. Some of<br />

these objects are handmade from local materials, while others have been purchased<br />

by UNICEF and other donors. The walls are covered with letters, numbers, maps, and<br />

art created by the staff. The center has a walled-in outdoor play area used for games,<br />

free play time, and meals. Initially, the school feeding program served children two<br />

hot meals per day (breakfast and lunch). Financial constraints have reduced the scope<br />

of this program; now at minimum one hot meal is served during the day, typically<br />

consisting of nshima (a thick maize porridge) with vegetables.<br />

There is no mandatory standard curriculum framework for early childhood in<br />

Zambia. Therefore, most of the community-based ECE centers do not have any<br />

curriculum guidelines in place and this constrains the quality of services provided.<br />

However, the Amundame center follows the curriculum guideline from the Zambia<br />

Pre-school Association, a board that coordinates privately-owned and communitybased<br />

pre-schools in Zambia. The curriculum covers a broad range of skill areas<br />

such as language and literacy development, social studies, health, pre-mathematics,<br />

science, expressive arts, physical education, and art and design. The curriculum is<br />

mainly teacher-directed in areas such as literacy development and pre-math skills,<br />

whereas learning in science, expressive arts and design are learner-directed through<br />

exploration and creativity.<br />

120


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

Literacy development at the Amundame center mainly focuses on alphabetic<br />

knowledge with particular emphasis on letters and letter-sound relationships. Children<br />

are exposed to various activities aimed at enhancing early literacy skills, including<br />

print awareness. The projected outcome at preschool level is that children should<br />

demonstrate understanding and knowledge that letters make up words, that letters<br />

relate to sounds in spoken words and that words make up sentences. The teaching<br />

places emphasis on the phonic structures. Other distinct features of the program<br />

include the learner-centered approach in which children are paired in small groups to<br />

work on activities. Language development is enhanced through nursery rhymes and<br />

story-telling. Children are also encouraged to name common items at home and within<br />

the immediate environment. Regarding pre-mathematics skills, the areas of curricular<br />

focus include sorting and classifying objects, building with blocks, and comparing<br />

objects according to size, shape and colour. The teaching materials that are used to<br />

stimulate math skills are locally-made containers of different shapes and sizes, sand,<br />

stones, tires, and sticks, in addition to store-bought materials.<br />

Zambia<br />

Figure 1: Study Location: Zambia and Kapiri M’poshi<br />

Kapiri Mposhi<br />

In addition to a small number of paid staff, volunteers from the community (including<br />

parents and guardians of enrolled children) work at the center. The volunteers<br />

complete a basic training program run by the center’s director and support the<br />

program in a number of ways, including preparing meals and cleaning. The volunteers<br />

do not have classroom responsibilities. Some have argued that relying on volunteers<br />

makes for unstable and uneven ECE programs, and places a low value on the important<br />

contribution of early child care workers (Young, 1996). However, this model makes<br />

the program affordable in a low-resource setting; at Amundame, parents pay only<br />

a minimal contribution towards teacher remuneration and the supply of materials<br />

such as toilet tissue and soap for hygiene purposes. Additionally, it should be noted<br />

that Amundame volunteers generally assist only a few days a month, working their<br />

121


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

schedule around other work and family commitments. Family participation may indeed<br />

be one of the mechanisms responsible for the results shown in the next section;<br />

research with low-income pre-schoolers in the United States suggests that parental<br />

volunteerism in children’s schools is associated with better behavioural and academic<br />

outcomes (Marcon, 1999).<br />

Design and participant recruitment<br />

The study used a prospective case-control design. Given our objective—to measure<br />

the impact of the center on school readiness and on primary school enrolment—we<br />

focused on the oldest Amundame age group, who were born in 2004. Official school<br />

start age in Zambia is 7; with the school year starting in January, this implies that<br />

all children born in 2004 should have entered school by January <strong>2012</strong> 2 . Given local<br />

popularity of the center and its limited capacity, enrolment is restricted to 160 children<br />

in total. Local community leaders decide which children are admitted to the center.<br />

The center allows only one child per family to attend, and tries to prioritize poor or<br />

otherwise vulnerable children. Using the center’s administrative records, 40 children<br />

born in 2004 and attending the center for at least one year were identified, and, upon<br />

their assent and their parents’ consent, enrolled in the study. In order to obtain a<br />

maximally comparable control group, we recruited an additional 40 children born in<br />

2004 who never attended the center. Since center attendance is restricted to children<br />

of mothers working on the local market, we restricted recruitment to the market area<br />

in order to minimize the socioeconomic differences between children in the treatment<br />

and control groups. In practice this means that the control group children may<br />

have applied to the center and not been selected, or they may never have applied.<br />

According to their parents, several control group children had attended other ECE<br />

programs. However, given the generally low family incomes and the dearth of formal<br />

centers in the area, it is unlikely that such programs were of comparable quality to the<br />

Amundame center.<br />

The small number of eligible treatment group children limits the statistical power<br />

for the study. In order to achieve power 0.8, a minimum effect size of 0.63 standard<br />

deviations was required to achieve significance at the α = 0.05 level.<br />

Measures and testing procedure<br />

When research staff identified an eligible child, parents or guardians were given a<br />

brief explanation of the research study, given an opportunity to ask questions, and<br />

invited to participate in the study. If parents expressed willingness to participate, an<br />

interview was scheduled at the child’s home. During the interview visit, parents and<br />

children were provided with further information on the scope and content of the<br />

study, and, upon their consent, were formally enrolled in the study. All assessments<br />

2 Early enrollment in school is common in Zambia, with about 25% of children starting school at age six or earlier<br />

(Fink et al., <strong>2012</strong>).<br />

122


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

were conducted in Bemba, the primary language in this region, by trained University<br />

of Zambia graduate students. The full battery of child development assessments<br />

lasted 60-75 minutes on average, and was followed by a parent survey collecting<br />

information on early childhood health and schooling experiences as well as household<br />

characteristics. Children were assessed using a combination of internationally- and<br />

locally-developed child development tests compiled for the Zambia Early Childhood<br />

Development Project as discussed in further detail in Fink et al. (<strong>2012</strong>).<br />

Since the primary objective of the center is to improve school preparedness, we<br />

focus in this paper on four developmental measures related to school readiness:<br />

the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), letter naming, a fine motor<br />

assessment focused on pencil skills, and task orientation.<br />

The PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) is an assessment of receptive language and is<br />

frequently used as a measure of school readiness (Bracken & Fischel, 2007; Brown,<br />

Scott-Little, Amwake, & Wynn, 2007; Geoffroy et al., 2010; Jeon et al.; Patrianakos-<br />

Hoobler, Msall, Marks, Dezheng, & Schreiber, 2009; Romano, Babchishin, Pagani, &<br />

Kohen). As described in Author el al (<strong>2012</strong>), the PPVT-R was adapted to the Zambian<br />

context by dropping culturally unsuitable items, and was translated into the local<br />

language. As a critical pre-literacy skill, letter naming is often used as an indicator of<br />

school readiness (Hanson et al., 2011; Prior, Bavin, & Ong, 2011). In this task, children<br />

were shown a sheet with 24 upper- and lower-case characters, and asked to name the<br />

letters aloud. Pencil skills are less commonly tested as a school readiness measure in<br />

developed countries, where children often use crayons and other writing implements<br />

from an early age. But in the Zambian context, many children are not introduced to<br />

writing implements until first grade--so early exposure to writing tools may be of<br />

major advantage and thus increase school readiness. As part of this pencil skill task<br />

set, children were asked to copy a set of numbers, letters, and shapes, and assessors<br />

evaluated the accuracy of these reproductions as well as the child’s grip on the<br />

pencil. The last school readiness characteristic analysed is task orientation. The task<br />

orientation scale used is based on the adapted Leiter-R Assessor Report (Smith-<br />

Donald, Raver, & al., 2007).This assessment measures a child’s sustained attention<br />

and emotional response to frustration and boredom during the assessment. At the<br />

end of the child assessment, interviewers are asked to report on a series of specific<br />

behaviours capturing the child’s ability to focus, sit still and express emotions. For<br />

example, one item asks the assessor whether the child “pays attention to instructions<br />

and demonstration.” The four response options for each item are specific; for the item<br />

just described, one possible response is “child’s attention frequently drifts and requires<br />

frequent prompts.” Such early self-regulation skills have been linked to children’s<br />

academic performance in the primary grades (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006)<br />

A short follow-up survey was conducted one year later, in July 2011. As part of the<br />

follow-up, we collected information on the child’s primary school enrolment status.<br />

This dichotomous variable indicates whether children were enrolled in grade 1 or<br />

above at follow-up. We also collected data on children’s height, weight and mid-upper<br />

arm circumference. These anthropometric measures have been used extensively in the<br />

123


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

health literature as proxies for child nutrition and health, and have been shown to be<br />

strongly associated with later life school and labour market outcomes (Currie, 2009;<br />

Grantham-McGregor et al., 2007; Grantham-McGregor, 2002; Hoddinott, Maluccio,<br />

Behrman, Flores, & Martorell, 2008; Maluccio et al., 2006).<br />

In addition to the outcome and predictor variables discussed above, we used a<br />

number of control variables in our models to attempt to correct for any imbalances<br />

between the treatment and control groups. We include the child’s age in months,<br />

to adjust for the 12-month age span of children in our sample. We include a variable<br />

indicating whether the child attended any other ECE program, which will allow us<br />

to separate the associations with Amundame attendance from the associations<br />

with attendance of other programs, which would presumably be of lower quality.<br />

Socioeconomic status is a critical component of models predicting developmental<br />

and educational outcomes in developing countries, but it can be difficult to measure<br />

in settings where the majority of parents are engaged in subsistence farming or in the<br />

informal labour market. We therefore follow the approach suggested by Filmer and<br />

Pritchett (2001), and divide households into five wealth quintiles based on a principal<br />

component analysis of households’ asset holdings. In addition, we include the number<br />

of siblings in the household, as larger families face additional financial pressures. As<br />

an attempt to measure another dimension of socioeconomic development, we also<br />

control for the average educational attainment of adults in the household, in years.<br />

We also control for orphanhood, which likely influences children’s early development<br />

and educational experiences, in addition to the emotional effects of losing one or<br />

both parents. Evidence from teachers in Zambia’s Copperbelt Province suggests that<br />

orphanhood results in greater financial and caregiving pressures on children, and is a<br />

cause of dropout (Robson & Sylvester, 2007). With an HIV prevalence rate of over 15%<br />

among adults, and life expectancy at birth continues to be below 50 years (UNESCO,<br />

2010; World Bank, <strong>2012</strong>) orphanhood is unfortunately very common in the area.<br />

Analytic approach<br />

In order to estimate the impact of center attendance on developmental and schooling<br />

outcomes, we fit the following empirical model:<br />

y i<br />

= α + ß Amundame i<br />

+ X i<br />

γ + ε i<br />

,<br />

where y is the outcome of interest for child i, Amundame is an indicator for whether<br />

the child ever attended the center, and X is a vector of control variables as described<br />

in the previous section.<br />

As described above, we use four measures of child development: the Peabody<br />

Picture Vocabulary Test, a letter naming task, pencil skills and task orientation. All<br />

scores for these tasks were transformed into z-scores, using standard deviations<br />

obtained from the nationally-representative Zambia Early Childhood Development<br />

Project cohort (Fink et al., <strong>2012</strong>). The resulting standardized z-scores were used<br />

for this empirical analysis. Using z-scores allows us to compare the magnitude of<br />

124


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

the estimated effects of the various assessments, which are on different scales. In<br />

addition, we analyse the relationship between center attendance and weight, height,<br />

and mid-upper arm circumference. We use linear regression models to estimate the<br />

center’s impact on the anthropometric and child development outcomes, and logistic<br />

maximum likelihood models for enrolment outcomes (to adjust for the binary nature<br />

of this dependent variable).<br />

Results<br />

Characteristics of the sample<br />

Table 1 compares basic socio-demographic characteristics of children in the treatment<br />

and control groups. On average, children at the center were more likely to be orphans.<br />

The center is, however, less likely to be serving children of the poorest families than<br />

would be expected if spaces were allocated at random across the socioeconomic<br />

quintiles. Center children are more likely to live in slightly more educated households,<br />

and also wealthier households: on average, 20% of households in the control group<br />

were in the lowest wealth quintile, while the same was true only for 2.5% of households<br />

in the treatment group. Table 1 also illustrates the average length of exposure to the<br />

center; while children could in theory attended up to five years, the mean duration of<br />

center attendance was just under two years.<br />

Table 1: Description of the sample<br />

Variable<br />

Treated<br />

(n=40)<br />

Control<br />

(n=40)<br />

p-value<br />

Female child 52.5% 41.0% 0.313<br />

Mean household size 6.3 6.5 0.729<br />

Single or double orphan 17.9% 8.1% 0.210<br />

Adult education in household (years) 8.1 7.0 0.060<br />

Wealth Quintiles<br />

1 (poorest) 2.5% 20%<br />

2 15% 12.5%<br />

3 40% 25%<br />

4 20% 20%<br />

5 (richest) 22.5% 22.5%<br />

Years of Amundame attendance<br />

4 or more 10%<br />

3 10%<br />

2 27.5%<br />

1 52.5%<br />

0 0%<br />

125


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Table 2 summarizes all outcome variables analysed. The first section of the table<br />

presents the developmental assessment scores collected at baseline in 2010 (prior to<br />

school enrolment). The second part of the table displays primary school enrolment<br />

statistics from the 2011 follow-up, and the third section shows anthropometric data<br />

collected during that round. Out of the 80 children originally enrolled in the study, we<br />

successfully re-assessed 70 (87.5%) in 2011. Ten control-group children could not be<br />

located, generally because they had moved outside of the study area. Following the<br />

WHO guidelines (WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group, 2006), we exclude<br />

anthropometric measures beyond 6 standard deviations from the reference medians,<br />

which results in slightly smaller sample sizes for the anthropometric outcomes.<br />

Table 2: Average outcomes<br />

Outcome N Mean SD<br />

School readiness-preschool development<br />

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 80 21.78 4.13<br />

Letter naming 80 3.75 4.87<br />

Pencil skills 80 2.48 1.57<br />

Task orientation 80 3.07 0.74<br />

School enrolment<br />

Enrolled in primary school (%) 70 87.14%<br />

Anthropometric outcomes<br />

Height (cm) 69 116.38 5.09<br />

Weight (kg) 65 21.54 3.01<br />

Mid-upper-arm circumference (cm) 69 16.68 1.39<br />

With respect to the school readiness tests at baseline, children answered on average<br />

21.7 out of 30 questions correctly on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and<br />

identified 3.8 letters of the 24 tested. The average child correctly performed 2.5 out<br />

of the 4 pencil-based tasks, and got a mean item score of 3.1 on the four-point scale of<br />

the task orientation assessment. By the time of follow-up, 87 percent of children were<br />

enrolled in primary school. Since the official schooling age in Zambia is 7, and only half<br />

of study children were 7 at the time of the interview in mid-2011, these rates support<br />

other evidence that many Zambian children enrol earlier than required by law (Fink et<br />

al., <strong>2012</strong>).<br />

As shown in the bottom section of Table 2, the average height of children in our<br />

sample was 116 centimetres, and average weight was 21.5 kilograms. According to<br />

the internationally standardized reference table (World Health Organization, 2007),<br />

the median height in this age range (85 months) is 121 centimetres for girls, and 122<br />

centimetres for boys. Children in this sample are therefore on average approximately<br />

one standard deviation below the international age-specific reference median with<br />

respect to height. The gap is slightly smaller for weight: the median reference weight<br />

is 22.6 kilograms for girls and 23.1 kilograms for boys, which means that children in<br />

126


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

the sample are on average about 0.5 standard deviations below the international<br />

reference median.<br />

Table 3 shows correlations among the outcome measures analysed. The average<br />

correlation across measures is about 0.3. The highest bivariate correlations are<br />

observed for weight, height and mid-upper arm circumference, while the correlations<br />

between the school readiness measures are comparatively low.<br />

Table 3: Correlation of outcome measures<br />

PPV<br />

Letter naming<br />

Pencil skills<br />

Task orientation<br />

In primary school<br />

Height in cm<br />

Weight in kgs<br />

Mid-upper arm<br />

circumference<br />

PPV 1.000<br />

Letter naming 0.241 1.000<br />

Pencil skills 0.345 0.310 1.000<br />

Task orientation 0.184 0.393 0.135 1.000<br />

In primary school 0.233 0.187 0.205 0.236 1.000<br />

Height in cm 0.334 0.024 0.260 0.206 0.125 1.000<br />

Weight in kgs 0.447 0.089 0.334 0.218 0.024 0.538 1.000<br />

Mid-upper arm<br />

circumference<br />

0.312 0.119 0.312 0.200 0.005 0.395 0.665 1.000<br />

ECE and school-readiness-related developmental outcomes<br />

As discussed above, our study design limits our statistical power, and in order to<br />

observe statistically significant relationships, the associations would have to be quite<br />

large (0.63 standard deviations to achieve power 0.8). Therefore, we present our<br />

findings as exploratory and suggestive of potential effects, which may be confirmed in<br />

the future by larger national studies.<br />

On average, the differences between the treatment and control groups appear<br />

consistent across developmental outcome measures, with treated children scoring 0.3<br />

to 0.7 standard deviations higher than children in the control group across the four<br />

tasks (see Table 4). The relationship is strongest for task orientation, for which center<br />

attendance is associated with a higher score of 0.657 standard deviations (p=0.01) on<br />

average in the model incorporating control variables. We also observe an association<br />

between center attendance and letter naming which approaches significance (0.481<br />

standard deviations, p=0.06). The effect sizes of PPVT, letter naming, and pencil skills<br />

are moderated by the addition of control variables (compare Models 1 and 2, 3 and 4,<br />

and 5 and 6), suggesting, unsurprisingly, that at least some portion of the differences<br />

are due to family background characteristics which differ across the two groups rather<br />

than center attendance.<br />

127


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Table 4: Center attendance and pre-school development<br />

Outcome PPVT Letter naming Pencil skills Task<br />

orientation<br />

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)<br />

Treated 0.569 0.337 0.564 0.481 0.381 0.290 0.616 0.657<br />

(0.216) (0.261) (0.216) (0.255) (0.221) (0.239) (0.214) (0.257)<br />

p-value 0.010 0.200 0.011 0.064 0.089 0.229 0.005 0.012<br />

Controls No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes<br />

Observations 80 75 80 75 80 75 80 75<br />

R-squared 0.082 0.139 0.081 0.235 0.037 0.309 0.096 0.193<br />

Notes:<br />

All estimates are based on linear regression models. Child development assessment<br />

outcome measures were taken at baseline, and normalized to z-scores. Columns (1),<br />

(3) and (5) show unconditional group mean comparisons. Columns (2), (4), (6) and (8)<br />

include controls for sex of child, age in months at time of baseline survey, household<br />

wealth quintile, maximum level of parental education in the household, presence<br />

of siblings, and whether the child attended any ECP. Numbers in parentheses are<br />

standard errors.<br />

ECE and physical development<br />

Given that Amundame chooses to invest some of its limited resources in a school<br />

feeding program, an important question is whether center attendance affected<br />

children’s physical development. These results are displayed in Table 5. Overall, center<br />

attendance displayed strong positive associations with children’s weight and on<br />

their mid-upper arm circumference. On average, treated children weighed close to 2<br />

kilograms more than children in the control group at follow-up, and had an additional<br />

1 centimetre of mid-upper arm circumference, which corresponds to 0.75 standard<br />

deviations in these two outcomes. As above, however, we must note the baseline<br />

imbalances in socioeconomic status between the treatment and control groups, which<br />

may be responsible for this observed difference at follow-up. Although these models<br />

controlled for many socioeconomic status variables, as described above, there is<br />

always the possibility that other determinants, outside the set of control variables, are<br />

driving the observed difference at follow-up.<br />

No statistically significant relationship was identified between center attendance<br />

and height. Given that most children in the sample started attending the center only<br />

at age four or later, these results support findings elsewhere that children’s height<br />

trajectories may already be established earlier in life (Howe et al., 2010), and hence<br />

respond only weakly to feeding programs in this age range (Grantham-McGregor,<br />

2002). This finding appears consistent with the broader child development and<br />

nutrition literature, which generally views height as more of a “stock variable”<br />

128


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

reflecting cumulative caloric intake rather than measuring short-term nutritional<br />

inputs (Deolalikar, 1996; Sahn & Alderman, 1997).<br />

Table 5: Center attendance and physical development<br />

Outcome Height (centimetres) Weight (kilograms) Mid-upper arm<br />

circumference<br />

(centimetres)<br />

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)<br />

Treated 1.033 -0.188 1.876 1.818 0.804 0.993<br />

(1.229) (1.443) (0.716) (0.920) (0.322) (0.383)<br />

p-value 0.404 0.897 0.0110 0.0535 0.0151 0.0121<br />

Constant 115.9 95.94 20.65 20.11 16.27 13.18<br />

(0.875) (17.63) (0.502) (11.14) (0.230) (4.676)<br />

Controls No Yes No Yes No Yes<br />

Observations 69 65 65 61 69 65<br />

R-squared 0.010 0.040 0.098 0.119 0.085 0.258<br />

Notes: All estimates are based on linear regression models. Outcome anthropometric variables<br />

were measured at follow-up. Columns (1), (3) and (5) show unconditional group mean<br />

comparisons. Columns (2), (4), and (6) include controls for sex of child, age in months<br />

at time of follow-up survey, household wealth quintile, maximum level of parental<br />

education in the household, presence of siblings, and whether the child attended any<br />

early child care or education program. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.<br />

Primary school enrolment<br />

As described in section above, more than 80% of children were enrolled in primary<br />

school when visited for the follow-up assessment in July 2011. A basic group mean<br />

comparison suggests large enrolment differences between children in our sample who<br />

attended the center and those who did not. On average, only 11 percent of treated<br />

children were not in school, while the same was true for 27 percent in the control<br />

group. The regression models shown in Table 6, which displays odds ratios for on-time<br />

primary school enrolment, further highlight these differences, although attrition from<br />

the control group at follow-up further limits the statistical power of these models.<br />

Despite the lack of statistical significance, we do observe a large association in the<br />

expected direction, even in the controlled model. An estimated odds ratio of 1.98<br />

indicates that, conditional on all observed variables, Amundame children are almost<br />

twice as likely to be enrolled in primary school as children in the control group.<br />

129


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Table 6: School enrolment outcomes<br />

Outcome<br />

Enrolled in primary school<br />

(1) (2)<br />

Treated 2.880 1.980<br />

(1.894) (1.657)<br />

p-value 0.108 0.414<br />

Controls No Yes<br />

Observations 70 66<br />

Notes:<br />

Table displays odds ratios from a logistic regression. School enrolment was measured<br />

at follow-up. Column (1) shows the results from an unconditional group mean<br />

comparison. Column (2) includes controls for sex of child, age in months at time of<br />

follow-up survey, household wealth quintile, maximum level of parental education<br />

in the household, presence of siblings, and whether the child attended any early<br />

childhood care or education program. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.<br />

Discussion<br />

The results from this research study suggest that attendance of early childhood<br />

education is associated with better physical and cognitive development and greater<br />

likelihood of on-time transition to primary school. The results presented in this paper<br />

suggest that the school readiness effects of center attendance are largest for letter<br />

naming and task orientation. Given that most non-attendees in this area are not<br />

exposed to the types of learning materials and structured activities that are offered<br />

at the Amundame center, these results appear plausible. While the center does not<br />

have highly-trained teachers, its curricular focus on letters and early literacy skills, early<br />

numeracy concepts and group play help prepare children for primary school.<br />

Our study also suggests that center attendance makes children more likely to<br />

enrol in first grade on time. This effect would be expected, given the influence of the<br />

professional staff on families’ educational decisions, the habit of attending school<br />

regularly, and the demonstrated value of school attendance. Given that attendance<br />

seems to have improved task orientation, we believe that the benefits of school<br />

attendance would be visible to parents. Beginning primary school on time is the first<br />

step in children’s educational careers, and starting late can be a risk factor for dropout,<br />

as late starters will be above-age for their grade. Social and economic pressures to<br />

leave school increase with age, as alternatives to school, including paid work and<br />

marriage, become more compelling (Kingdon & Theopold, 2006). While evidence on<br />

this issue in Zambia is limited, a number of studies in other countries have found that<br />

increasing age or age-for-grade is a risk factor for dropout (Buchmann, 2000; Ersado,<br />

2005; Fawcett, Hartwell, & Israel, 2010; Hunt, 2008; Lewin, 2009; Lloyd & Mensch,<br />

2000; Schafer, 2006).<br />

In addition to its small sample size, the study has several important limitations.<br />

First, the children in the treatment group had, on average, short (less than 2 years)<br />

130


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

exposure to the Amundame Center. If we anticipate a dose-response relationship<br />

between early childhood programs and their effects, brief attendance may<br />

considerably dilute observable outcomes and we would have underestimated the true<br />

effect here. While we are not aware of any evidence from Zambia or neighbouring<br />

countries on this issue, studies in the U.S. have found dose effects for specific<br />

preschool programs: children with greater exposure to programs experienced<br />

greater growth on outcome measures (Justice, Mashburn, Pence, & Wiggins, 2008).<br />

Second, as for any observational study, children attending the center may differ from<br />

control group children on unobservable characteristics. Although we strove to ensure<br />

comparability of the treatment and control groups by recruiting children born in the<br />

same year and living in the same area, the group comparison presented in Table 1<br />

shows that children attending the center are on average more likely to be orphans and<br />

live with better-off households. While we control for socioeconomic and demographic<br />

characteristics in our empirical models, there might be other omitted confounders<br />

potentially biasing our results, so that the results presented cannot directly be given<br />

causal interpretation. It is worth pointing out, however, that in the context studied<br />

the direction of unobservable biases is not obvious given that the selection of children<br />

through community leaders generally focuses on identifying and supporting the most<br />

vulnerable children. Further research (and ideally also randomized control trials) will<br />

be needed to more precisely estimate the causal impact of early childhood centers like<br />

the one examined in this paper.<br />

Last, the results presented in this paper are based on one specific center only,<br />

and raise the question regarding the degree to which similar results can be achieved<br />

elsewhere in the country. While the Amundame center is undoubtedly perceived as<br />

one of the better programs in the country, the center’s reliance on the community<br />

in terms of financing, management and staff recruitment suggests that establishing<br />

similar programs in other regions should be feasible.<br />

Overall, the findings of this study appear promising for early childhood programs<br />

Zambia as well as in sub-Saharan African countries. The Amundame model seems<br />

to be effective in supporting children’s development, and it is a home-grown and<br />

community-based ECE initiative, which, after some initial support by a national<br />

foundation, has become financially independent and self-supporting. With limited<br />

governmental and private resources to support early childhood education and care,<br />

the Amundame model may offer a viable solution to meet the needs of vulnerable<br />

children for safety, health, and early academic enrichment in Zambia as well as in other<br />

countries in the region.<br />

131


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

References<br />

Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R., & McCarty, F. (2003). A comparison of school readiness<br />

outcomes for children randomly assigned to a Head Start program and program’s<br />

waiting list. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 191-214.<br />

Akresh, R. (2009). Flexibility of household structure: Child fostering decisions in Burkina<br />

Faso. Journal of Human Resources, 44(4), 976-997.<br />

Barnett, W. S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of the HighScope<br />

Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.<br />

Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the<br />

Abecedarian program and its policy implications. Economics of Education Review,<br />

26, 113-125.<br />

Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. (2007). Relationships between Social Skills, Behavioral<br />

Problems, and School Readiness for Head Start Children. NHSA Dialog, 10(2),<br />

109- 126.<br />

Brown, G., Scott-Little, C., Amwake, L., & Wynn, L. (2007). A Review of Methods and<br />

Instruments Used in State and Local School Readiness Evaluations. <strong>Issue</strong>s & Answers.<br />

REL 2007-No. 004: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.<br />

Buchmann, C. (2000). Family Structure, Parental Perceptions, and Child Labor in Kenya:<br />

What Factors Determine Who Is Enrolled in School? Social Forces, 78(4), 1349-1378.<br />

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-Analysis of the Effects<br />

of Early Education Interventions on Cognitive and Social Development. Teachers<br />

College Record, 112(3), 579-620.<br />

Currie, J. (2009). Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise? Socioeconomic Status, Poor Health in<br />

Childhood, and Human Capital Development. Journal of Economic Literature,<br />

47(1), 87-122.<br />

Deolalikar, A. B. (1996). Child nutritional status and child growth in Kenya: socioeconomic<br />

determinants. Journal of International Development, 8(3), 375-393.<br />

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: American<br />

Guidance Service.<br />

Ersado, L. (2005). Child Labor and Schooling Decisions in Urban and Rural Areas:<br />

Comparative Evidence from Nepal, Peru, and Zimbabwe. World Development,<br />

33(3), 455-480.<br />

Fawcett, C., Hartwell, A., & Israel, R. (2010). Out-of-school youth in developing countries:<br />

What the data do (and do not) tell us. Washington, D.C.: USAID.<br />

Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (2001). Estimating Wealth Effects without Expenditure<br />

Data - or Tears: An Application to Educational Enrollments in States of India.<br />

Demography, 38(1), 115-132.<br />

Fink, G., Matafwali, B., Moucheraud, C., & Zuilkowski, S. S. (<strong>2012</strong>). The Zambian Early<br />

Childhood Development Project: 2010 Assessment Final Report. Cambridge, MA:<br />

Harvard University.”<br />

132


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

Geoffroy, M.-C., Cote, S. M., Giguere, C.-E., Dionne, G., Zelazo, P. D., Tremblay, R. E., et<br />

al. (2010). Closing the Gap in Academic Readiness and Achievement: The Role of<br />

Early Childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1359-1367.<br />

Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: A meta-analytic affirmation of the shortand<br />

long-term benefits of educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarterly,<br />

16(1), 9-30.<br />

Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B., et<br />

al. (2007). Developmental Potential in the First 5 years for Children in Developing<br />

Countries. Lancet, 369, 60-70.<br />

Grantham-McGregor, S. M. (2002). Linear growth retardation and cognition. Lancet<br />

Infectious Diseases, 359(:542).<br />

Hanson, M. J., Miller, A. D., Diamond, K., Odom, S., Lieber, J., Butera, G., et al. (2011).<br />

Neighbourhood Community Risk Influences on Preschool Children’s Development<br />

and School Readiness. Infants and Young Children, 24(1), 87-100.<br />

Hoddinott, J., Maluccio, J., Behrman, J., Flores, R., & Martorell, R. (2008). Effect of<br />

a nutrition intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in<br />

Guatemalan adults. Lancet, 371(9610), 411-416.<br />

Howe, L. D., Tilling, K., Galobardes, B., Smith, G. D., Gunnell, D., & Lawlor, D. A. (2010).<br />

Socioeconomic differences in childhood growth trajectories: at what age do<br />

height inequalities emerge? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,<br />

10(1136).<br />

Hunt, F. (2008). Dropping out from school: A cross country review of literature. Brighton,<br />

UK: University of Sussex.<br />

Jaramillo, A., & Tietjen, K. (2001). Early Childhood Development in Africa: Can we do more<br />

for less? Washington, D.C.: World Bank.<br />

Jeon, H.-J., Langill, C. C., Peterson, C. A., Luze, G. J., Carta, J. J., & Atwater, J. B.<br />

Children’s Individual Experiences in Early Care and Education: Relations with<br />

Overall Classroom Quality and Children’s School Readiness. Early Education and<br />

Development, 21(6), 912-939.<br />

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental Evaluation<br />

of a Preschool Language Curriculum: Influence on Children’s Expressive Language<br />

Skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(4), 983-1001.<br />

Kemp, A. d., Elbers, C., & Gunning, J. W. (2008). Primary Education in Zambia. IOB<br />

Impact Evaluation Report, 312.<br />

Kingdon, G., & Theopold, N. (2006). Do returns to education matter to schooling<br />

participation? Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.<br />

Ksoll, C. (2011). Selecting Good Caretakers: The Impact of Family Networks in Tanzania<br />

on Orphans’ Education Mimeo.<br />

Lewin, K. M. (2009). Access to Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, Problems and<br />

Possibilities. Comparative Education, 45(2), 151-174.<br />

133


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Liddell, C., & Rae, G. (2001). Predicting early grade retention: a longitudinal investigation<br />

of primary school progress in a sample of rural South African children. British<br />

Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 413-428.<br />

Lloyd, C. B., & Mensch, B. S. (2000). The effects of primary school quality on school<br />

dropout among Kenyan boys and girls. Comparative Education Review, 44(2), 113.<br />

Ludwig, J., & Miller, D. L. (2007). Does Head Start improve children’s life chances?<br />

Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Quarterly Journal of Economics,<br />

122, 159-208.<br />

Macro International. (2007). Zambia: DHS, 2007 - Final Report (English). Calverton, MD.<br />

Malmberg, L. E., Mwaura, P. A. M., & Sylva, K. (2011). Effects of a preschool intervention<br />

on cognitive development among East-African preschool children: a flexibly timecoded<br />

growth model. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 124-133.<br />

Maluccio, J. A., Hoddinott, J. F., Behrman, J. R., Martorell, R., Quisumbing, A. R., &<br />

Stein, A. D. (2006). The Impact of Nutrition during Early Childhood on Education<br />

among Guatemalan Adults. University of Pennsylvania Population Studies Center<br />

Working Paper, 06-04.<br />

Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and<br />

public school inner-city. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 395.<br />

Matafwali, B. (2007). ECCD Evaluation Report. In Unicef (Eds.),<br />

Matafwali, B., & Munsaka, E. (2011). Programmes in Zambia: A case of four selected<br />

districts. Journal of Early Childhood Development, 5, 109-131.<br />

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten<br />

learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school.<br />

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 471-490.<br />

Mwaura, P. A. M., Sylva, K., & Malmberg, L. E. (2008). Evaluating the Madrasa preschool<br />

programme in East Africa: a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of<br />

Early Years Education, 16(3), 237-255.<br />

Nganga, L. W. (2009). Early childhood education programs in Kenya: challenges and<br />

solutions. Early Years: Journal of International Research & Development, 29(3),<br />

227- 236.<br />

Patrianakos-Hoobler, A. I., Msall, M. E., Marks, J. D., Dezheng, H., & Schreiber, M.<br />

D. (2009). Risk Factors Affecting School Readiness in Premature Infants With<br />

Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Pediatrics, 124(1), 258-267.<br />

Pence, A. R., Amponsah, M., Chalamanda, F., Habtom, A., Kameka, G., & Nankunda,<br />

H. (2004). ECD Policy Development and Implementation in Africa. International<br />

Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood<br />

Studies, 5(3), 13-29.<br />

Prior, M., Bavin, E., & Ong, B. (2011). Predictors of School Readiness in Five- to Six-Year-<br />

Old Children from an Australian Longitudinal Community Sample. Educational<br />

Psychology, 31(1), 3-16.<br />

134


Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness<br />

Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Lopez, M., Zill, N., et al. (2005). Head Start impact<br />

study: First year findings. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human<br />

Services, Administration for Children and Families.<br />

Rao, N. (2010). Preschool Quality and the Development of Children From Economically<br />

Disadvantaged Families in India. Part of a special issue: Accountability and Quality<br />

in Early Childhood Education: Perspectives From Asia, 21(2), 167-185.<br />

Rao, N., Sun, J., Pearson, V., Pearson, E., Liu, H., Constas, M. A., et al. (<strong>2012</strong>). Is Something<br />

Better than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia.<br />

Child Development, 83(3), 864-876.<br />

Republic of Zambia Ministry of Education. (2010). Education Sector National<br />

Implementation Framework III. Lusaka: Ministry of Education.<br />

Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers.<br />

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.<br />

Robson, S., & Sylvester, K. B. (2007). Orphaned and Vulnerable Children in Zambia:<br />

The Impact of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic on Basic Education for Children at Risk.<br />

Educational Research, 49(3), 259-272.<br />

Romano, E., Babchishin, L., Pagani, L. S., & Kohen, D. School Readiness and Later<br />

Achievement: Replication and Extension Using a Nationwide Canadian Survey.<br />

Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 995-1007.<br />

Sahn, D. E., & Alderman, H. (1997). On the determinants of nutrition in Mozambique:<br />

The importance of age-specific effects. World Development, 25(4).<br />

Schafer, M. J. (2006). Household Change and Rural School Enrollment in Malawi and<br />

Kenya. The Sociological Quarterly, 47(4), 665-691.<br />

Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005).<br />

Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI:<br />

HighScope Press.<br />

Smith-Donald, C., Raver, C., & al., e. (2007). Preliminary construct and concurrent<br />

validity of the Preschool Self-regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based<br />

research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 173-187.<br />

Taiwo, A. A., & Tyolo, J. B. (2002). The effect of preschool education on academic<br />

performance in primary school: A case study of grade one pupils in Botswana.<br />

International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 169-180.<br />

Thomas, C. M., & Thomas, M. A. M. (2009). Early Childhood Care and Education in<br />

Zambia: An Integral Part of Educational Provision? Current <strong>Issue</strong>s in Comparative<br />

Education, 11, 6-14.<br />

UNESCO. (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized.<br />

Paris: UNESCO.<br />

UNESCO. (2011). Education for All Global Monitoring Report: The Hidden Crisis: Armed<br />

Conflict and Education. Paris: UNESCO.<br />

Unicef. (<strong>2012</strong>). Unicef Country Statistics (Publication. Retrieved March <strong>2012</strong>: http://<br />

www.unicef.org/infobycountry/brazil_statistics.html<br />

135


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. (2006). WHO Child Growth<br />

Standards: Length/height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-forheight<br />

and body mass index-for-age: Methods and development. Geneva: World<br />

Health Organization.<br />

World Bank. (<strong>2012</strong>). World Development Indicators Online database.<br />

World Health Organization. (2007). WHO Reference 2007 (Publication., from World<br />

Health Organization: http://www.who.int/growthref/en/<br />

Young, M. E. (1996). Early Child Development: Investing in the Future. Washington, D.C.:<br />

World Bank.<br />

136


Zelda van der Merwe & Carisma Nel<br />

Reading Literacy within a Teacher<br />

Preparation Programme: What we Know<br />

and What we Should Know<br />

Abstract<br />

Various South African and international studies indicate that the preparation of<br />

teachers to teach reading is inconsistent across universities worldwide. Teacher<br />

preparation programmes lack rigorous research-based findings as the grounding for<br />

their programme design. Recommendations of some studies point to the fact that<br />

evidence-based research should be incorporated to address this inconsistency. There<br />

is a need for a comprehensive curriculum to guide pre-service teachers toward a<br />

coherent knowledge base for the effective teaching of reading, as many teachers do<br />

not have an understanding of what to teach. The study on which we report analysed<br />

a teacher preparation programme with the aim of identifying which reading literacy<br />

components (that are embedded in knowledge of language structure) are included in<br />

the programme. The results show that the reading literacy components are included<br />

haphazardly within the teacher preparation programme and there is no evidencebased<br />

research included in the curriculum of the pre-service teachers.<br />

Keywords: Teacher preparation, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,<br />

comprehension, reading literacy component<br />

Zelda van der Merwe, Northwest University. E-mail: zelda.vandermerwe@nwu.ac.za.<br />

Carisma Nel, Northwest University. E-mail: carisma.nel@nwu.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 137-157 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

Introduction<br />

The teaching of reading is an especially critical element of elementary education.<br />

In the 21st century, it is not enough to be able simply to read and write, even young<br />

children must master new and changing literacy’s that come with advances in science,<br />

technology and culture. The dramatically transformed array of media in schools,<br />

the workplace, and other walks of life demands unprecedented levels of reading<br />

proficiency (Smith, Milulecky, Kibby, Dreher & Dole, 2000). If students are to read at a<br />

higher level, the teaching of reading must change accordingly.<br />

“In 2001 and 2004, the Department of Education (DoE) conducted two national<br />

systemic evaluations to establish literacy and numeracy levels in primary schools.<br />

These surveys showed shockingly low levels of reading ability across the country. Large<br />

numbers of our children simply do not read” (DoE, 2008a, p. 4). This was confirmed<br />

by the results of the 2011 Annual National Assessments conducted by the department<br />

of basic education (DoBE). 19 470 Grade 3 learners in 827 schools countrywide were<br />

tested, these tests revealed that South Africa’s children scored a mere 35 per cent<br />

average in the literacy test (DoBE, 2010, p. 18).<br />

According to the International Reading Association (IRA) (2003a, pp. 1-2), “teachers<br />

should be well prepared to implement research-based programs and practices, and<br />

they must have the knowledge and skills to use professional judgement when those<br />

programs and practices are not working for particular children.” According to Moats<br />

(1999), a chasm exists between classroom instructional practices and the research<br />

knowledge-base on reading development. Part of the responsibility for this divide falls<br />

on teacher preparation programmes, many of which, for a variety of reasons, have<br />

failed to prepare their teacher candidates adequately to teach reading. Pandor (2008,<br />

p. 45) notes that “we recognise, however, that teachers still struggle to translate the<br />

curriculum into good classroom practice. Teachers need support to implement the<br />

curriculum.” The South African department of education (2009) appointed a panel<br />

of experts to investigate the nature of the challenges and problems experienced in<br />

the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). One factor, which<br />

became apparent, was that “certainty and specificity about what to teach and how to<br />

teach it will help to restore confidence and stability in the system” (DoE, 2009, p. 61).<br />

From this it might be possible to deduce that teachers do not know what to teach or<br />

even how to teach it. The new Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS)<br />

(DoBE, 2011) explicitly states that teachers should focus on the five components<br />

of reading. However, pre-service teacher preparation programmes should not be<br />

preparing teachers to teach the current curriculum, but should be focussing on<br />

preparing teachers to teach children to read. In order to do this, teacher preparation<br />

programmes need to provide pre-service foundation phase teachers with a rigorous<br />

language discipline knowledge base.<br />

The key to ensuring that all children reach their potential in learning to read, rests<br />

with formal training and experiences that teachers receive in assessing individual<br />

differences and in the delivery of direct and informed instruction. Lyon (2002, p. 7)<br />

138


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

suggests that teacher preparation is the key to teaching children to read. The quality of<br />

the teacher is consistently found to be an important predictor of student achievement<br />

(Goldhaber, 2002; Rockoff, 2004).<br />

In 1997, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was convened by United States (US)<br />

governmental agencies and Congress to “assess the status of research-based<br />

knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children<br />

to read” (NRP, 2000, p.1). This panel concluded that research findings support the<br />

inclusion of five components in the teaching of reading: 1) explicit, 2) systematic<br />

teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics, 3) guided oral reading to improve<br />

fluency, 4) direct and indirect vocabulary building, and 5) exposure to a variety<br />

of reading comprehension strategies. Although the National Reading Panel was<br />

criticised for its choice of methodology, the aim of the report was to provide an<br />

unbiased and careful review of the research findings so that schools and teachers<br />

would be able to depend on trustworthy and accurate information on how to improve<br />

reading achievement. The NRP did not differentiate between learning English as<br />

home language versus as an additional language. The results indicated that the five<br />

components are necessary to teach children to read. In 2006, the National Council<br />

on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) used these five categories to evaluate a random sample<br />

of American teacher preparation programmes at the undergraduate and graduate<br />

levels. The NCTQ’s findings are evident from the title of the report on this study: What<br />

Education Schools Aren’t Teaching about Reading and What Elementary Teachers<br />

Aren’t Learning (Walsh, Glaser & Wilcox, 2006). The NCTQ found that of the 72 schools<br />

of education it surveyed, only 15% were educating pre-service teachers about the five<br />

essential components of reading instruction as defined by the NRP and supported<br />

by the DoE in their publications of Teaching Reading in the Early Grades: A Teachers<br />

handbook, and The National Reading Strategy.<br />

Teaching reading is a job for an expert. Contrary to the popular belief that learning<br />

to read is natural and easy, learning to read is a complex linguistic achievement.<br />

For many children, it requires effort and incremental skill development. Moreover,<br />

teaching reading requires considerable knowledge and skill, acquired over several<br />

years through focused study and supervised practice (Moats, 1999, p. 11). According<br />

to Moats (1999, p. 6), comprehensive redesign of teacher preparation programmes<br />

is possible, but it must begin with a definition of the knowledge and skills necessary<br />

for effective practice and demonstration of how these are best learned. New teachers<br />

require much more extensive, demanding and content driven training if discoveries<br />

from the reading sciences are to inform classroom practice (Moats, 1999; Walsh et<br />

al., 2006).<br />

Reading Literacy in Teacher Preparation Programmes<br />

Snow, Burns & Griffin (1998, p. 279) note that pre-service teacher education is<br />

intended to develop teacher expertise for teaching reading and preventing reading<br />

difficulties, but it encounters many obstacles. Teacher preparation programmes often<br />

139


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

cannot meet the challenge in preparing teachers for highly complex and increasingly<br />

diverse learning contexts; the challenge of keeping abreast of current developments<br />

in research and practice; the complexity of the knowledge base; the difficulty of<br />

learning many of the skills required to enact the knowledge base; as well as work with<br />

children who experience learning difficulties.<br />

According to the IRA (2003b, p. 1), there is a growing consensus in the United<br />

States that putting a quality teacher in every classroom is the key to addressing the<br />

challenges of literacy learning in schools. They found that effective teaching makes a<br />

difference in student learning. Teachers – not instructional methods or the materials<br />

– are crucial to promoting student learning. The IRA (2003b, p. 1) mentions that<br />

researchers agree that effective teachers of reading are knowledgeable, strategic,<br />

adaptive, responsive and reflective.<br />

In South Africa, the National Teacher Education Audit of 1996 concluded that<br />

the quality of teacher education was generally poor, inefficient and not very costeffective<br />

(Hofmeyer & Hall, 1996, p. 41). Similarly, a review of eight Higher Education<br />

Institutions (HEIs) offering foundation phase teacher training programmes indicated<br />

wide variation in the programme goals espoused, and the design of the programmes<br />

focusing on literacy teaching (Zimmerman, Howie & Long, 2008, p. 45). According to<br />

the DoBE and the department of higher education and training (DHET) (2011, p. 15),<br />

the quality and the relevance of the teacher preparation programmes offered by HEIs,<br />

vary widely. In the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and<br />

Development in South Africa, 2011–2025, (DoBE & DHET, 2011, p. 3), it is stated that<br />

universities have the responsibility for ensuring that the programmes being offered<br />

are of high quality and lead to meaningful development for teachers.<br />

While the content within teacher preparation programmes seems to be<br />

questionable, teachers still need to fulfil their task of teaching our children to read.<br />

Teachers need to have sufficient knowledge of all the elements that pertain to this<br />

task. According to the DoE (2008b, p. 12), teachers responsible for teaching foundation<br />

phase learners must have knowledge of the five components of reading, namely;<br />

phonemic awareness, word recognition, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.<br />

In 1997, the US governmental agencies and Congress convened the NRP to assess<br />

the status of research-based knowledge as well as the effectiveness of various<br />

approaches to teaching children to read (NRP, 2000). Like the South African DoE,<br />

this panel found that research findings support the inclusion of the five components<br />

in the teaching of reading. Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and<br />

reading comprehension should all form an integral part of foundation phase teacher<br />

preparation programmes.<br />

Knowledge required for teaching reading<br />

According to Moats (2009a, p. 387), teachers feel unprepared for addressing the<br />

instructional needs of learners with language, reading and writing problems. Moats<br />

(2009a, p. 387) argues that teachers often have a minimal understanding of how<br />

140


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

students learn to read and write, or why many students experience difficulty with the<br />

most fundamental task of schooling. Lyon & Weiser’s (2009) research reveals that<br />

teachers lack basic understanding of many concepts that relate directly to teaching<br />

beginning and struggling readers. Moats (2009a, p. 387) explains that teachers are<br />

unaware of or misinformed about the elements of language that they are expected<br />

to teach. This can be alleviated if new teachers are given extensive, demanding and<br />

content-driven training (Moats, 1999, p.13).<br />

According to Moats, Carreker, Davis, Meisel, Spear-Swerling & Wilson (2010, p.<br />

1), teaching reading requires specialised knowledge about language, how children<br />

learn and acquire literacy skills and a variety of instructional strategies. To ensure<br />

that teachers are trained to teach reading, changes are needed in pre-service teacher<br />

preparation and professional development. Policymakers wanting to improve reading<br />

instruction may want to consider:<br />

• Maintaining the goal that all children will read at grade level by supporting<br />

research-based reading instruction; and<br />

• Aligning teacher preparation and professional development with effective<br />

reading principles (Moats, 2001, p. 1).<br />

Moats (2009a, p. 389) argues that progress to true professionalism in reading<br />

instruction rests heavily on deep knowledge of content and the skills necessary<br />

to teach students who struggle to learn. Teaching reading requires considerable<br />

knowledge and skill that are acquired over several years through focused study and<br />

supervised practice (Moats, 1999, p. 11). This accumulation of expertise is imperative,<br />

as teachers need to instruct most students directly, systematically and explicitly to<br />

decipher words in print. The demands on teachers include that of assessing children,<br />

as well as tailoring lessons to individual needs. Therefore, teachers need to have the<br />

capacity to interpret errors, give corrective feedback, and select examples to illustrate<br />

concepts, as well as explain new ideas in several ways (Moats, 1999, p. 11).<br />

Moats (1999:14) established a core curriculum for reading teacher preparation and<br />

in-service professional development and its goal is to bring continuity, consistency<br />

and comprehensiveness to pre-service teacher education. This particular curriculum is<br />

divided into four areas:<br />

• Understanding knowledge of reading psychology and development.<br />

• Understanding knowledge of language structure, which is the content of<br />

instruction.<br />

• Applying best practices in all aspects of reading instruction.<br />

• Using validated, reliable, and efficient assessments to inform classroom teaching.<br />

Since as Moats (1999, p. 14) states that knowledge of language structure is the content<br />

of instruction, other components, such as assessment and literature, are not ignored<br />

and form part of a core curriculum for reading teacher preparation and in-service<br />

141


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

professional development. This study focused on investigating the inclusion of<br />

specialised knowledge related to the five essential components of reading instruction,<br />

which seems to be essential in teacher preparation programmes that focus on<br />

preparing foundation phase teachers.<br />

Knowledge required for teaching phonemic awareness<br />

The IRA (1998:3) defines phonemic awareness as “an understanding about the<br />

smallest units of sound that make up the speech stream: phonemes 1 ”. In other words,<br />

phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify and manipulate the individual<br />

sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. Armbruster et al. (2001, p. 1) emphasise the<br />

fact that children who have phonemic awareness skills are most likely to have an<br />

easier time learning to read and spell than other children who have few or none of<br />

these skills. The NRP (2000) conducted studies which have identified that phonemic<br />

awareness and letter knowledge are predictors of how well children will learn to read<br />

and this indicates the importance of teaching phonemic awareness to children.<br />

Moats et al. (2010, p. 20) state that phonological awareness, print concepts and<br />

knowledge of letter sounds are foundational to literacy. Teachers who understand<br />

how to teach these skills effectively can prevent problems associated with reading.<br />

It is imperative that pre-service teachers must learn phonology in order to teach<br />

phonemic awareness.<br />

Moats et al. (2010, pp. 19-20) stipulate that the phonology 2 as a component of<br />

reading should be covered as follows:<br />

1. Know the progression of the development of phonological skills.<br />

2. Identify the differences among phonological manipulations.<br />

3. Understand the principles of phonological skill instruction (brief, multisensory,<br />

conceptual and auditory-verbal).<br />

4. Understand the reciprocal relationships among phonological processing, reading,<br />

spelling and vocabulary.<br />

Phonological awareness instruction aims to support children’s ability to blend and<br />

segment phonemes that are associated with graphemes. Phonological awareness<br />

instruction also involves more than the manipulation of sub-word units, accurate<br />

identification of, and the discrimination of, confusable phonemes and words is<br />

important for reading and spelling, because if a student confuses rich with ridge,<br />

the teacher can provide explicit feedback regarding the voiceless /ch/ and voiced<br />

/j/ - consonants that are otherwise indistinguishable in manner of articulation<br />

(Moats, 2009b, p. 385). Teachers who enact phonemic awareness instruction should<br />

understand that letters and sounds are separate entities. Teachers should also<br />

1 Phonemes are the smallest parts of sound in a spoken word (Armbruster et al., 2001, p. 1).<br />

2 Phonology refers to the speech sound system within language structure (Wren, 2000, p. 27).<br />

142


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

understand the difference between a phoneme and a grapheme, and should be able to<br />

differentiate between the two during instruction (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005, p. 74).<br />

In order for pre-service teachers to acquire knowledge about the process<br />

developing phonological skills they need to have knowledge of activities that promote<br />

this development. Snow et al. (2005, p. 75) state that reading teachers should have<br />

a working knowledge of the phonological system, which includes the ability to<br />

articulate, identify, count and manipulate phonemes. Moats et al. (2010, p. 19) state<br />

that the awareness of speech sounds in reading, spelling and vocabulary would<br />

help develop pre-service teachers’ knowledge about the reciprocal relationships in<br />

phonological processing. Thus, if teachers can teach children to manipulate phonemes<br />

by using letters and focus on only one or two types of phoneme manipulation, as<br />

opposed to several types, they are equipping students to become phonemically<br />

aware (Armbruster et al., 2001, p. 5-6). If teachers have knowledge of phonological<br />

manipulations they will be able to instruct, teach and help students acquire phonemic<br />

awareness effectively. The activities used to teach phonemic awareness include:<br />

phoneme isolation, phoneme identity, phoneme categorisation, phoneme blending,<br />

phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme addition and phoneme<br />

substitution (Moats et al., 2010, p. 19; Armbruster et al., 2001, pp. 4-5).<br />

Knowledge required for teaching phonics<br />

According to Smartt & Reschly (2007, p. 4), phonics involves the understanding<br />

that there are single speech sounds (phonemes) represented by each letter or<br />

letter combination, as well as the ability to form correspondences between letters<br />

and sounds, and to recognize spelling patterns. Villaume & Brabham (2003, p. 479)<br />

state that phonics has a predefined role in that it helps children to learn and use the<br />

alphabetic principle 3 , while will help them recognise familiar words as well as decode<br />

new words. Furthermore, Villaume & Brabham (2003, p. 479) reiterate that students<br />

who understand this principle know that the sounds of spoken words are mapped<br />

onto written words in systematic ways. As students develop understanding of this<br />

principle, they become adept at using letter-sound correspondences to figure out<br />

unrecognised words.<br />

However, the ability to read unfamiliar words (decoding) is aided by applying<br />

knowledge of phonics (Moats et al., 2010, pp. 21-22). Moats & Foorman (2003) state<br />

that phonics instruction in English requires that the teacher lead students through<br />

multilayered, complex and variable spelling correspondences at the sound, syllable<br />

and morpheme 4 (orthography 5 and etymology 6 ) level. Because the reason for this<br />

3 Alphabetic principle refers to the understanding that there are systematic and predictable relationships<br />

between written letters and spoken sounds (Armbruster et al., 2001: 11).<br />

4 A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of speech, therefore a single word may contain more than one<br />

morpheme (for example: the word smallest has two morphemes namely “small” and “est” and each part has<br />

meaning. Thus, morphology refers to the meaning of word parts (Wren, 2000: 31).<br />

5 Orthography refers to the aspect of language concerned with letters and their sequences in words (Snow et al.,<br />

2005:18).<br />

6 Etymology refers to the origins and relations among words (Snow et al., 2005:18).<br />

143


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

is that reading and spelling requires the student to analyse words by syllable and/<br />

or morpheme. The recognition of prefixes, suffixes, roots, and parts of compounds,<br />

and the recognition of the morphological structure of words to which inflections<br />

have been added, facilitates word recognition, access to word meaning and recall for<br />

spelling (Moats, 2009b, p. 385).<br />

According to Moats (2009b, p. 385), phonics and spelling instruction requires the<br />

teacher to know and explain a multi-layered orthographic system. English orthography<br />

represents sounds, syllable patterns, and meaningful word parts (morphemes),<br />

as well as the language from which a word originated. Phonic decoding, if properly<br />

taught, includes much more than a letter-sound correspondence for each letter of<br />

the alphabet.<br />

Moreover, teachers who enact phonics instruction must be able to appreciate<br />

and explain the morphemic structure of words. Therefore, Cunningham, Zibulski &<br />

Callahan (2009, p. 491) suggest that teachers must have knowledge of the grapheme<br />

and phoneme conventions, as well as have knowledge of the basic information about<br />

morphemes and morphological processes and how they connect to spelling (Snow et<br />

al., 2005, p. 81). Furthermore, spelling and reading build and rely on the same mental<br />

representation of a word and knowledge of the spelling of a word aids reading fluency<br />

(Snow et al., 2005, p. 86).<br />

Knowledge required for teaching fluency<br />

According to Moats et al. (2010, p. 24), fluency is “the ability to read a text accurately<br />

and quickly.” Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard & Linan-Thompson (2011, p. 287) define fluency<br />

as a characteristic of reading that occurs when readers’ cognitive and linguistic systems<br />

are developed so that they can read with accuracy to allow for the understanding of<br />

texts and reflecting its prosodic features.<br />

According to Snow et al. (2005, p. 109-110), fluency depends on a readers’<br />

knowledge about the topic, vocabulary, as well as the readers control over cognitive<br />

and other processes applied in reading. These processes are integrated within<br />

language structure. Phonology, morphology, orthography, semantics, syntax and<br />

pragmatics are the aspects of language that tie into fluency. The development of<br />

fluency rests within the integration of the instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics,<br />

vocabulary and reading comprehension.<br />

Teachers need to have knowledge of the above-mentioned in order to place<br />

students in appropriate groups and assign appropriate texts for reading instruction<br />

so that fluency can develop among readers as it is a predictor of reading competence<br />

(Moats et al., 2010, p. 24).<br />

Knowledge required for teaching vocabulary<br />

Armbruster et al. (2001, p. 29) define vocabulary as the words we must know to<br />

communicate effectively. Smartt & Reschly (2007, p. 4) state that vocabulary is a<br />

144


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

function of the ability to recognise and understand individual words in reading and to<br />

use them correctly.<br />

The NRP (2000, p. 4-15) states that vocabulary occupies an important position in<br />

learning to read. As a learner begins to read, reading vocabulary encountered in texts<br />

is mapped onto the oral vocabulary the learner possesses. The reader is taught to<br />

translate unfamiliar words in print into speech, with the expectation that the speech<br />

forms will be easier to comprehend.<br />

Moats (2009b, p. 385) states that phonology also plays a role in vocabulary<br />

acquisition as knowledge of phonology will enable a teacher to be sure that students<br />

pronounce words accurately, and may break them into syllables or morphemes.<br />

Moats & Foorman (2003, p. 24) state that the instruction of vocabulary requires an<br />

understanding of semantic 7 organisation and the relationships among word structure<br />

(morphology), grammatical rule and meaning (etymology and orthography). The<br />

knowledge of words is multifaceted, as it ranges from the partial recognition of a<br />

meaning of a word to deep knowledge, as well as the ability to use the word effectively<br />

in speech and writing (Moats et al., 2010, p. 27). Moats et al. (2010, p. 28) state that the<br />

explicit, systematic teaching of word meanings and indirect methods of instruction,<br />

such as those involving inferring meanings of words from sentence context or<br />

from word parts (for example, root words and affixes), is essential for vocabulary<br />

instruction. Thus, teachers need to know how to develop students’ vocabulary<br />

knowledge, as well as understand the importance of wide exposure to words both<br />

orally and through reading.<br />

Knowledge required for teaching comprehension<br />

The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) defines comprehension as the process<br />

of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction<br />

and involvement with written language. Duke & Carlisle (2011, p. 199) define<br />

comprehension as the act of constructing meaning with oral or written texts, and<br />

state that meaning does not reside in the oral or written text, the reader creates and<br />

adjusts a mental representation of the meaning of the text. This, however, is done<br />

using various interacting entities, such as the text, its author, the reader and the<br />

content. Duke & Carlisle (2011, p. 200) note that in reading these factors work together<br />

to build meaning as the reader accesses the meaning of words in the text, processes<br />

the syntax of the sentences, relates the sentences to one another to build coherence<br />

and then relates the larger pieces of text to build a holistic coherence.<br />

Due to the complex nature of comprehension, Moats & Foorman (2003, p. 24) state<br />

that comprehension instruction requires the teacher to know and explicate linguistic<br />

concepts, such as text organisation, genre, inter- and intra-sentential references,<br />

7 Semantics refers to the understanding of meaning of individual words and sentences and the meaning relations<br />

between them (Wren, 2000:27).<br />

145


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

figurative and idiomatic language (pragmatics 8 ) and sentence structure (syntax) 9 .<br />

Furthermore, Moats et al. (2010, p. 30) state that reading comprehension also depends<br />

on factors, such as background knowledge and knowledge of text structure (syntax).<br />

Evidence-based research points to the fact that aspects within language structure<br />

should form the bedrock of reading literacy training so that pre-service teachers can<br />

be equipped to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and reading<br />

comprehension. Table 2.1 below illustrates how the aspects of language structure form<br />

the disciplinary knowledge base which should be incorporated into literacy modules<br />

so that pre-service teachers can teach the reading literacy components.<br />

Table 2.1: The disciplinary knowledge base required to teach the reading literacy components<br />

Aspect of language structure<br />

Phonology<br />

Phonology<br />

Morphology<br />

Etymology<br />

Orthography<br />

Morphology<br />

Etymology<br />

Orthography<br />

Semantics<br />

Syntax<br />

Pragmatics<br />

Fluency is tied to all of the aspects of<br />

language structure and the integration of<br />

the instruction of phonology, morphology,<br />

etymology, orthography, semantics, syntax<br />

and pragmatics will develop fluency.<br />

Reading literacy component<br />

Phonemic awareness<br />

Phonics<br />

Vocabulary<br />

Reading comprehension<br />

Fluency<br />

While delivering instruction in all the necessary instructional components, the<br />

interdependence of these components should be recognised, as students, who gain<br />

phonological skills, are more likely to improve in vocabulary, and as students, who<br />

use phonic word attack skills proficiently, are more likely to improve their spelling and<br />

writing (Moats, 2009b, p. 386). Teachers who realise these interdependencies may be<br />

more likely to tie instructional components to one another.<br />

A review of national and international literature indicates that teachers need<br />

specific knowledge and skills to teach reading. One consistent finding from the<br />

literature consulted is that phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and<br />

reading comprehension are components which form the foundation of reading<br />

8 Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which focuses on the use of language in social contexts (Snow et al., 2005:18).<br />

9 Syntax refers to the understanding of how words can be combined to form sentences (text structure)<br />

(Wren, 2000:52).<br />

146


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

instruction. Teachers need to have sufficient knowledge and skills to be able to<br />

teach these components. The knowledge and skills needed by teachers to teach<br />

the reading literacy components is manifested within the knowledge of language<br />

structure, as indicated by evidence-based research. Teachers need to have knowledge<br />

of phonology, morphology, etymology, orthography, pragmatics, semantics and<br />

syntax as these aspects form the disciplinary knowledge base (as illustrated in Table<br />

2.1) for teaching the reading literacy components. This disciplinary knowledge base<br />

is also supported by Snow et al. (2005, p. 111) who state that if teachers possess<br />

this disciplinary knowledge base, they will be able to instruct phonemic awareness,<br />

phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension.<br />

Research Methodology<br />

Research design<br />

A qualitative research design was chosen for this study as the methodology allowed for<br />

data to be collected answering the research question, namely; “What reading literacy<br />

components should be addressed within a B Ed Foundation Phase programme?” A<br />

case study was used for this research. This descriptive and interpretive study took<br />

place within a bounded context. It focused on one teacher preparation programme.<br />

Yin (2003, p. 1) supports this when he states that “case studies are the preferred<br />

strategy when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has<br />

little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon<br />

within some real life context.” This approach was best described by Stake (1994, p.<br />

242) who wrote, “qualitative case study is characterized by the main researcher<br />

spending substantial time on site, personally in contact with activities and operations<br />

of the case, reflecting, revising meanings of what is going on.”<br />

Participants<br />

According to Creswell (2007, p. 74) purposeful sampling shows different perspectives<br />

on the problem. For this reason, it is imperative that persons partaking in the study<br />

are knowledgeable about the topic and can be a source where information can be<br />

obtained. This particular study focused on a foundation phase teacher preparation<br />

programme, namely the Baccalaureus Educationist (B Ed) (Foundation Phase) degree.<br />

It is offered over four years and trains students to teach from grade R to grade 3. The<br />

participants included in the study were the literacy lecturers (English, Afrikaans and<br />

Setswana) who work in the foundation phase subject group of this programme (n = 5).<br />

Data collection methods<br />

According to Nieuwenhuis (2007, p. 75), “[a] key strength of the case study method<br />

is the use of multiple sources and techniques in the data gathering process.” It is up<br />

to the researcher to choose evidence as well as determine the techniques that will<br />

be used to collect the data. The data collection methods chosen for this research<br />

147


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

provide rich data specifically focused on the research questions. Data collection<br />

methods included individual interviews, direct observation and the collection and<br />

examination of documents (e.g., study guides, reading compendiums, assignments,<br />

and examination papers).<br />

Interviews<br />

The research procedure utilised in this study was that of interviews with people who<br />

work in the foundation phase subject group within a teacher preparation programme.<br />

In this study interviews were used to generate perspectives and experiences on<br />

reading literacy components and how it is taught within a teacher preparation<br />

programme. According to Seidman (1993, p. 3) the purpose of interviewing is not to<br />

get answers to questions, nor to test hypotheses, and not to evaluate, but at the root<br />

of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the experience of other people<br />

and the meaning they make of their experiences. Merriam informs us that interviews<br />

are necessary when behaviour cannot be observed (Merriam, 2009, p. 88). Qualitative<br />

studies usually employ unstructured or semi-structured interviews. Unstructured<br />

interviews are usually conducted without utilizing any of the researcher’s prior<br />

information, experience or opinions in a particular area (Greef, 2011, pp. 347-348).<br />

However, in this study, semi-structured interviews were utilized. They were organized<br />

around areas of particular interest, while allowing considerable flexibility in scope<br />

and depth.<br />

Observations<br />

According to Given (2008, p. 573), observation is one of the oldest and most<br />

fundamental data collection methods, as it involves collecting impressions of the<br />

world using all of one’s senses. It should be done in a systematic and purposeful way<br />

to learn about a phenomenon of interest. An observation schedule was compiled<br />

to guide the observation process. Given (2008, p. 576) characterises an observation<br />

schedule as a form prepared prior to data collection that delineates the behaviour<br />

and situational features to be observed and recorded during observation. The<br />

categories incorporated on the observation schedule were derived from the purpose<br />

of the research and from what is known about the reading literacy components within<br />

teacher preparation programmes.<br />

Documents<br />

According to Glesne (1999, p. 58), “[d]ocuments corroborate your observations and<br />

interviews and thus make your findings more trustworthy. Beyond corroboration,<br />

they may raise questions about your hunches and thereby shape new directions for<br />

observations and interviews.” The following documents (i.e., syllabi, textbook(s),<br />

reading compendiums, course outline, course hand-outs, examination papers and<br />

assignments) were analysed in this study. Nieuwenhuis (2007, p. 82) makes us aware<br />

that when one uses documents as a data collection technique you will focus on written<br />

communications that shed light on a particular phenomenon you are investigating.<br />

148


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

Methods of analysis<br />

Data analysis is multifaceted. Analysis includes organizing data, generating categories<br />

and themes, coding data, and interpretation. Data analysis is the process by which<br />

a researcher draws out “meaning” from the collected data. Drawing out meaning<br />

involves summarising; interpreting, comparing and categorising what the participants<br />

in the study have said (Merriam, 2001). Wellington & Szczerbinski (2007, p. 101) state<br />

that qualitative data analysis can be messy and complicated, as it involves taking in the<br />

data, digesting it, taking it apart and then putting it back together. Creswell’s (2008,<br />

p. 244-245) steps to analysing qualitative data were followed in this study. These<br />

steps included:<br />

1. The researcher collecting the data.<br />

2. The data is prepared for analysis, which involved transcriptions and field notes.<br />

3. The researcher reads through the data to obtain a general sense of the materials<br />

and coding is done afterwards.<br />

4. Whilst coding the data the researcher should remember to code the rest for<br />

themes to be used in the research as well as code for the description to be used<br />

in the research.<br />

Whilst following Creswell’s steps to data analysis, a method of content analysis was<br />

used to arrive at the categories emanating from the data in light of the research<br />

questions. According to Grbich (2007, p. 112), content analysis is a systematic coding<br />

and categorising approach that can be used to explore large amounts of textual<br />

information in order to ascertain the trends and patterns of words used, their<br />

frequency, their relationships and the structures and discourses of communication.<br />

Given (2008, p. 120) defines content analysis as the intellectual process of categorizing<br />

qualitative textual data into clusters of similar entities, or conceptual categories, to<br />

identify consistent patterns and relationships between variables or themes.<br />

Results<br />

The results are presented according to the aspect focussed on in the research<br />

question, namely “What reading literacy components should be addressed within a B<br />

Ed foundation phase programme?”<br />

The foundation phase students are required to take four literacy modules (LITH<br />

113, 223, 313 and 423 for the English students) in the B Ed programme; one module<br />

149


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

each year. The module outcomes and an outline of the content of LITH 113 indicate a<br />

focus on listening 10 , speaking 11 and language structure and use 12 .<br />

“Demonstrate facilitation skills of methods, procedures and techniques relating<br />

to the teaching of Listening, Speaking, as well as Language Structure and<br />

Use; and<br />

Demonstrate problem solving skills by means of planning and presenting lessons<br />

during the teaching of Listening, Speaking, as well as Language Structure<br />

and Use”<br />

The language structure and use of the study unit does not address aspects, such as<br />

phonology, morphology, syntax or semantics, but focuses on sounds and words and<br />

the teaching of spelling. It is clear that the focus of the module is on the National<br />

Curriculum Statement (NCS) as opposed to an in depth knowledge of language<br />

structure and language development as suggested by the literature. The module<br />

outcomes of LITH 223 focus on thinking and reasoning 13 , as well as the development<br />

of written communication 14 . In the third year of study, the LITH 313 module addresses<br />

perceptual development and reading readiness. LITH 423 focuses on reading and<br />

viewing 15 , which is another outcome of the learning area “languages”, within the<br />

NCS. It is evident that the modules focus on the specific requirements of the NCS.<br />

This is an example of teaching to a curriculum, which can have negative implications<br />

for effective teacher preparation. If a new curriculum is implemented, as in <strong>2012</strong><br />

(Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement), the teacher would be prepared for the<br />

previous curriculum and not how to effectively teach children to read.<br />

The literacy home language modules are presented in Afrikaans, English and<br />

Setswana from the first year through to the fourth year. The study guides indicate that<br />

the Afrikaans content is merely translated into English and Setswana and not revised<br />

for English and Setswana mother tongue. The uniqueness of language structure is not<br />

taken into consideration.<br />

In the LITH 113 module, only three study unit outcomes refer to some of the reading<br />

literacy components. In study unit 4, the students are required to compare assessment<br />

standards from grades 0-3 by referring to the use of sounds and vocabulary. As from<br />

<strong>2012</strong>, with the implementation of the CAPS curriculum, this will no longer be relevant<br />

for teachers. Students are also required to measure the learners’ literacy milestones of<br />

Grades 1, 2 and 3 with regard to phonics, by explaining the most important differences<br />

and focusing on progression. In addition, students should be able to demonstrate and<br />

10 Listening is learning outcome 1 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum Statement<br />

(Department of Education, 2002:11).<br />

11 Speaking is learning outcome 2 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum Statement<br />

(Department of Education, 2002:11).<br />

12 Language structure and use is learning outcome 6 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National<br />

Curriculum Statement (Department of Education, 2002:12).<br />

13 Thinking and reasoning is learning outcome 5 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum<br />

Statement (Department of Education, 2002:12).<br />

14 Reading and viewing is learning outcome 3 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum<br />

Statement (Department of Education, 2002:11).<br />

15 Writing is learning outcome 4 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum Statement<br />

(Department of Education, 2002:11).<br />

150


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

discuss phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, the alphabetical principle and<br />

working knowledge of sounds. An analysis of the content given in the study guide, as<br />

well as the material prescribed for the particular section, indicates that the lecturers<br />

present the content in a “once over lightly” fashion. Students have to read definitions<br />

and be able to distinguish between the concepts. The reason why phonemic<br />

awareness is relevant to the process or what the relationship is between phonemic<br />

awareness, decoding and oral reading fluency is not addressed in the prescribed<br />

content. This knowledge is essential for teachers in order to determine with what<br />

aspects children are experiencing problems and how this could affect other areas. In<br />

addition, it affects choices of activities and targeted interventions. In study unit 2.3 of<br />

LITH 113, vocabulary is addressed in detail within a prescribed article. However, this<br />

article is used to teach students how to study and interpret academic articles so the<br />

content was not used explicitly for the teaching of vocabulary. Study unit 4.1 and 4.2<br />

in LITH 113 touches on the definitions of phonemic awareness and phonics as these<br />

reading literacy components are used to help the students glean knowledge of the<br />

teaching of phonics.<br />

In study unit 2 of LITH 313, students should be able to define phonological<br />

awareness and evaluate the effectiveness thereof in terms of emergent literacy as<br />

well as to be able to analyse the relationship between insufficient oral vocabulary and<br />

behavioural problems. However, no link is made between oral vocabulary, fluency and<br />

reading comprehension.<br />

In study unit 1 of LITH 423, students should be able to analyse, evaluate and<br />

apply the principles of a balanced reading approach, as well as create opportunities<br />

for the facilitation of the instruction of high-frequency words, vocabulary, phonemic<br />

awareness, phonics, reading fluency and reading comprehension in a balanced reading<br />

approach. The focus of this study unit is on approaches to teaching reading; the<br />

reading literacy components are thus not the focus of the module. This content within<br />

the study unit seems very comprehensive for one unit. This may indicate a lack of<br />

understanding or knowledge of evidence-based research on the part of the developers<br />

of the module as they do not realise how complex reading actually is. Study unit 3<br />

demands that students should be able to analyse, evaluate, plan and demonstrate<br />

applicable learning exercises according to suitable teaching strategies to realise the<br />

progress of the foundation phase learner’s reading capacity. Furthermore, students<br />

are also required to analyse theoretical knowledge of the conceptualisation of reading<br />

comprehension instruction in the foundation phase. Reading comprehension forms a<br />

small part of the work covered in the reading compendium pertaining to this section<br />

of the work. Reading comprehension is covered under the heading of “Continued<br />

Reading Instruction in Practice” within the study guide and the reading compendium.<br />

The five reading literacy components are mentioned throughout the documents<br />

analysed, but the explicit teaching of these is absent.<br />

During the interviews it became clear that the reading literacy components are<br />

covered to a minimal extent. One lecturer stated that:<br />

151


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

“The reading literacy components are covered but I don’t think enough, we<br />

mention them in every year group but by the end of the third year they (the<br />

students) cannot tell you the difference between them.”<br />

The fact that the reading literacy components are simply mentioned, as acknowledged<br />

by the lecturer, could indicate that the lecturers do not value the explicit teaching of<br />

the reading literacy components or that they are very focused on only teaching to<br />

the curriculum. However, it could also be an indication that the lecturers do not think<br />

that in depth knowledge of language structure is required to teach the components.<br />

Another possible explanation is that it could indicate that lecturers themselves have<br />

not kept abreast with evidence-based research conducted about literacy.<br />

Another lecturer said:<br />

“They are done. I know the phonic awareness is done well but fluency and other<br />

components are not, they are just done in passing, not really in depth.”<br />

As indicated in Appendix B, it is evident that the reading literacy components are<br />

merely mentioned within the literacy modules. A specific focus on reading literacy<br />

components was not included in the planning of these modules. According to the<br />

literature studied, these aspects should form the backbone of a teacher preparation<br />

programme that aims to prepare quality literacy teachers. The five (5) components<br />

are mentioned within the content that is spread over the four (4) years. An analysis of<br />

the interviews support what the documents revealed, namely that the reading literacy<br />

components are included within the course content but they stop at a definition that is<br />

required and are consequently done in passing with the students.<br />

Another lecturer stated:<br />

“They are not really covered, what is covered well and even the assessment<br />

thereof is phonic awareness in the activities. When it comes to fluency,<br />

vocabulary and comprehension they are not covered well. The students know<br />

what the components of reading are, but how to teach it and what is involved in<br />

it, and what it means to be fluent, what activities can the children do, how can<br />

it be assessed, what can I do in class, that’s not there it’s done in passing, not<br />

in depth.”<br />

The interviews substantiate the findings of the documents. One lecturer stated that<br />

phonemic awareness is covered as follows:<br />

“I think like a definition and what it is. They learn that it is sounds and that words<br />

are made up of various sounds and also that there is a correspondence between<br />

a letter and the sound but it stops at a definition.”<br />

One lecturer indicated that phonics and the content pertaining to it are covered<br />

as follows:<br />

“Phonics is also sounds of letters, alphabet, vowels and consonants. So they<br />

learn what it is how to use them as well as their use in words and sentences.”<br />

Another lecturer stated:<br />

“They can’t see the difference between phonics and phonemic awareness;<br />

they find it difficult to distinguish between the two. It is mentioned but it’s not<br />

mentioned in depth. I know that if I ask the student off hand what phonemic<br />

awareness and phonics is, they won’t be able to tell me the difference between<br />

the two, but they need to do it and apply it.”<br />

152


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

One lecturer said that fluency is covered within the literacy modules as follows:<br />

“They also just learn what it is but they never get that chance just to practice<br />

fluency and I think it’s a common problem among some of the students as well,<br />

they can’t read fluently themselves.”<br />

Another lecturer indicated:<br />

“I saw that it is included, I gave them some practical examples when we spoke<br />

about fluency, you know you can have a little television have the child read as if<br />

he is a news reporter and that you can tape them on a tape recorder and I think<br />

that some of these practical things they find quite useful.”<br />

From these interviews it is clear that the lecturers tend to equip students with<br />

strategies and skills specifically to enhance teaching in the classroom as opposed<br />

to exposing them to evidence-based research, or broadening their knowledge base<br />

about the reading literacy components, which is necessary for the teaching of reading.<br />

During the interviews, lecturers were of the opinion that vocabulary is covered<br />

sufficiently, one lecturer said:<br />

“They learn the basic concept that you have to teach vocabulary first, see that<br />

it links to their background to their pre-knowledge, relates to their interests<br />

and that a teacher should teach the vocabulary explicitly, you know having the<br />

children on the carpet making sure they understand all the words, writing it,<br />

making a word hospital where words are taught and even if it a bilingual class<br />

you can have the Afrikaans and the English words.”<br />

The above interview seems to indicate that the lecturers are teaching the students as<br />

if they are teaching children in a school classroom. This could be because most of the<br />

lecturers interviewed taught in schools for more than 20 years. One lecturer said that<br />

comprehension is addressed within the literacy modules as follows:<br />

“They learn about it but not enough is done on reading comprehension, if you ask<br />

the students about reading comprehension they will say just ask them questions<br />

but they don’t know of other strategies to use to initiate comprehension, I think<br />

we can be a lot more creative when we teach learners to comprehend, there<br />

are a lot of things you can do but we have to get past the thing of just asking a<br />

few questions and getting it answered, there is also indirect text, the meaning<br />

behind text, things like that.”<br />

The lecturer indicated that the students don’t have sufficient knowledge of<br />

comprehension as students assume comprehension is asking questions about the text.<br />

However, as indicated in the document analysis the students aren’t given sufficient in<br />

depth content to broaden their knowledge of the component, and this could be why<br />

the students associate the asking of questions with comprehension, as they have no<br />

other frame of reference.<br />

The interviews support and confirm the findings of the document analysis which<br />

notes that the reading literacy components do “surface” within the literacy modules.<br />

However, the modules do not include the evidence-based research to teach reading<br />

literacy nor does it require students to apply, reflect or display an understanding of the<br />

content required to teach reading literacy.<br />

Observations were conducted to see what reading literacy components were<br />

taught in the LITH modules. In one class the lecturer started by announcing the<br />

153


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

topic and the learning outcomes for the session were displayed on the power point<br />

presentation. The lecture revised the definitions of phonological awareness, phonemic<br />

awareness and phonics with the students and then the students had to complete<br />

a group activity about the topic. Furthermore, after the revision of the terms there<br />

was no in depth discussion of the topic, there was no critical engagement with the<br />

elements of the reading literacy components either. Moreover, there was no focus on<br />

phonology or aspects related to language structure. No emphasis was placed on the<br />

fact that phonological awareness, concepts of print and knowledge of letter sounds<br />

are foundational to literacy. Some students confused the components like phonemic<br />

awareness, phonological awareness and phonics. It was clear that the students could<br />

not differentiate between phonemic awareness and phonics, and lecturers did not or<br />

could not seem to correct them.<br />

An analysis of the observations indicates that the students were not able to identify<br />

the reading literacy components if it was described. However, they are implicitly aware<br />

of the reading literacy skills but cannot attach names to it or define them. This could<br />

be because the lecturer is inclined to teach to the curriculum and does not realise the<br />

value of the reading literacy components within reading instruction; or because there<br />

is no indication of the in depth content knowledge of phonics or phonemic awareness<br />

within the curriculum of the teacher preparation programme.<br />

In another class scenario the students were asked to summarise the article by<br />

Rasinski & Mraz (2008), which addresses fluency. There were no clear guidelines given<br />

to the students on what the summary had to cover, the summaries were then peer<br />

assessed according to criteria given to the students by the lecturer. However, the<br />

content knowledge of the article was not addressed by the lecturer, which confirms<br />

the lack of in depth knowledge coverage of the reading literacy components. The<br />

summaries were collected and the marks allocated for the summaries, contributed to<br />

the participation marks of the students.<br />

The observation analysis indicates that students cannot accurately define<br />

and identify the reading literacy components. There is great confusion amongst<br />

students about what they should know regarding the reading literacy components.<br />

The possibility that the lecturers lack in depth knowledge of the reading literacy<br />

components should also not be ignored. Even though the interviews and documents<br />

state that the reading literacy components are included in the modules, but stop at a<br />

definition is confirmed by the observations as the students’ confusion and inaccurate<br />

description of the reading literacy components point to this. Regardless of whether<br />

the module outcomes of LITH 423 indicate that students should be able to analyse,<br />

evaluate and apply the principles of a balanced reading approach, as well as create<br />

opportunities for the facilitation of the instruction of the reading literacy components,<br />

the observation analysis indicates that this is done superficially as definitions of<br />

the reading literacy components were simply just given and no in depth content<br />

knowledge was addressed regarding the reading literacy components.<br />

After an in depth document, interview and observation analysis it can be concluded<br />

that the current content of the LITH modules were devised around the National<br />

154


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

Curriculum Statement and does not explicitly include the reading literacy components.<br />

Furthermore, there is no evidence of the disciplinary knowledge base required to<br />

teach reading. It was found that snippets of the reading literacy components do<br />

appear within the literacy modules but evidence-based research of this is not included<br />

Conclusion<br />

It can be concluded that the five reading literacy components suggested by<br />

international literature and required by the DoBE as essential for the teaching of<br />

reading is included haphazardly in the literacy modules of the B Ed foundation phase<br />

teacher preparation programme. The modules were devised around the NCS and the<br />

five reading literacy components are touched on in a “once over lightly” fashion within<br />

this curriculum. There is no indication that evidence-based research was consulted in<br />

the development of these modules. Therefore, pre-service teachers within this teacher<br />

preparation programme do not receive explicit instruction of the reading literacy<br />

components as suggested by the National Reading Panel (2000) and the department<br />

of education (2008b).<br />

A disciplinary knowledge base exists for the teaching of the reading literacy<br />

components; this knowledge base is embedded within language structure. The<br />

modules analysed do not reflect any inclusion of aspects related to language<br />

structure. The implication of the results of this study will affect stakeholders such<br />

as the foundation phase teacher preparation programme analysed as well as other<br />

higher education institutions’ who offer foundation phase teacher preparation<br />

programmes. The foundation phase teacher preparation programme analysed would<br />

have to consider revisiting the content of their literacy modules. A process of recurriculation<br />

and redevelopment should be considered so that the literacy modules<br />

include the disciplinary knowledge base for reading teachers. The findings of this<br />

study support the literature base requiring teachers to be equipped with a disciplinary<br />

knowledge base to teach reading. Furthermore, teachers should be provided with a<br />

rigorous, research-based curriculum which will enable them to become expert reading<br />

literacy teachers who will be well prepared to implement research-based programmes<br />

and practices.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

This study is based on work sponsored by the department of higher education and<br />

training, and the department of basic education through the European Union Primary<br />

Education Sector Policy Support Programme. Any opinions, findings, conclusions<br />

or recommendations expressed in this study are those of the author and do not<br />

necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.<br />

155


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

References<br />

Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F. & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: the research building<br />

blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.<br />

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five<br />

approaches. London: SAGE.<br />

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating<br />

quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education International.<br />

Cunningham, A. E., Zibulski, J. & Callahan, M.D. (2009). Starting small: Building<br />

preschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development. Journal<br />

of Reading and Writing, 22(4), 487-510.<br />

Department of Basic Education and Department of Higher Education and Training see<br />

South Africa.<br />

Department of Basic Education see South Africa.<br />

Department of Education see South Africa.<br />

Duke, N.K. & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. K. Kamil, P.<br />

D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research<br />

<strong>Volume</strong> IV (pp. 199-228). New York: Routledge.<br />

Given, L.M. Ed. (2008). The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. <strong>Volume</strong><br />

1 and 2. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.<br />

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York:<br />

Longman.<br />

Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mastery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student<br />

achievement and teacher characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55.<br />

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.<br />

Greef, M. (2011). Information collection: Interviewing. In A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C. B.<br />

Fouché, & C. S. L. Delport (Eds), Research at grass roots for the social sciences and<br />

human science professions (pp. 341-374). South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.<br />

Hofmeyer, J. & Hall, G. (1996). The national teacher education audit: Synthesis report.<br />

Pretoria: Department of Education.<br />

International Reading Association (IRA). (1998). Phonemic awareness and the teaching<br />

of reading. A position statement from the Board of Directors of the International<br />

Reading Association. Newark: Delaware.<br />

International Reading Association (IRA). (2003a). Position statement: Investment in<br />

teacher preparation in the United States. Newark: Delaware.<br />

International Reading Association (IRA). (2003b). Prepared to make a difference. An<br />

executive summary of the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher<br />

Preparation for reading instruction. Newark: Delaware.<br />

Lyon, G. R. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction:<br />

Educational and public health issues. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 3-6.<br />

156


van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme<br />

Lyon, G. R. & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and<br />

the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5),<br />

475- 480.<br />

Merriam, SB. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2 nd<br />

ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.<br />

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. San<br />

Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Publishers.<br />

Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading<br />

should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.<br />

Moats, L. C. (2009a). Still wanted teacher with knowledge of language. Journal of<br />

Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 387-391.<br />

Moats, L. C. (2009b). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Journal<br />

of Reading and Writing, 22(4), 379-399.<br />

Moats, L.C. & Foorman, B.R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of<br />

language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23-45.<br />

Moats, L.C., Carreker, S., Davis, R., Meisel, P. Spear-Swerling, L. & Wilson, B. (2010).<br />

Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. The International<br />

Dyslexia Association: Professional Standards and Practices Committee.<br />

157


Miemsie Steyn, Nicoleen Schuld & Cycil Hartell<br />

A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the<br />

Module “Life Skills” in the Foundation<br />

Phase at Higher Education Institutions in<br />

South Africa<br />

Abstract<br />

This paper explores how the foundation phase subject area of “life skills” is being<br />

offered at (n= 9) higher education institutions (HEIs) in South Africa. The aim of<br />

the study, about which we report, was to identify similarities and differences in the<br />

curricula offered at these institutions and to establish the extent to which the different<br />

modules attend to the various aspects of life skills according to the most recent<br />

national curriculum. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who<br />

teach the subject at universities and we also analysed curriculum documents. We<br />

worked with a purposive sample of 9 respondents from the respective universities. The<br />

study found that although universities use the CAPS (national curriculum) document<br />

as guideline for structuring their curricula in teacher education programmes, some<br />

participants indicated that they follow an integrated approach, thereby implying that<br />

the different components of the school curriculum as outlined in the CAPS document<br />

are not specifically accommodated within their programmes. An additional finding was<br />

that there is a vast difference in the range of credits allocated to the various aspects of<br />

life skills that may restrict social mobility between various HEIs.<br />

Keywords: Life skills, foundation phase, curriculum and assessment policy statement;<br />

higher education institutions<br />

Miemsie Steyn, University of Pretoria. E-mail: mg.steyn@up.ac.za. Cycil Hartell, University<br />

of Pretoria. E-mail: cycil.hartell@up.ac.za. N Schuld, Tshwane University of Technology.<br />

E-mail: schuldn@tut.ac.za<br />

South African Journal of Childhood Education | <strong>2012</strong> 2(2): 158-176 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ


Introduction<br />

Steyn, et al – A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module<br />

Universities are traditionally viewed as autonomous institutions of learning and<br />

research that are devoted to the examination, production, appraisal, dissemination<br />

and transmission of knowledge as well as the provision of scholarly quality education<br />

to the benefit and advancement of society (Erguder, 2010). As such, academics at<br />

universities are privileged to exercise their academic freedom, which, inter alia, entails<br />

the freedom to conduct research and to select, develop and implement educational<br />

programmes free from external intervention (CEPES, 1992, p. 10; Council on Higher<br />

Education, 2006, p. 16; Erguder, 2010). The Council on Higher Education (2006, p.<br />

16) recognizes this autonomy as the freedom the academy enjoys from outside<br />

interference, which includes the freedom of academics to teach and conduct research<br />

without interference.<br />

Badat (2009, p. 4) argues that universities are characterized by different<br />

missions, varied social and educational purposes and goals, different sizes, different<br />

configurations of academic programmes, different admission requirements and varied<br />

academic standards that are compliant with specified purposes and goals. A university<br />

provides an ideal setting for academics to impart their knowledge and to develop it<br />

through research and innovation (Erguder, 2010). Academics have the freedom and<br />

the right to conduct academic practices in ways that recognise their autonomy, while,<br />

at the same time, observing their duty to do so in a way that recognises and adheres<br />

to various social norms. In the South African context these would involve issues, such<br />

as the right to access education, as well as the need to reflect on the content of the<br />

curriculum to ensure that it meets the demands posed by a diverse student population<br />

and the unique context of the country (Council on Higher Education, 2006, p. 17).<br />

Currently eleven universities in South Africa offer early childhood education<br />

(ECE) as part of their teacher training programmes. These universities offer literacy,<br />

numeracy (mathematics) and life skills, and it is evident that they use the National<br />

Curriculum Statement (NCS), or the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) as<br />

guides for compiling their various ECE programmes. These two documents, the CAPS<br />

document being the most recent, represent the policies for learning and teaching in<br />

South African schools. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how these eleven<br />

universities in South Africa offer the subject life skills, one of the three subjects areas<br />

that constitute the foundation phase curriculum as well as programmes of pre-service<br />

teacher education and training. We do not investigate the content of the life skills<br />

subject area at the respective universities, but explore how universities exercise<br />

their academic freedom and institutional autonomy in the structuring their life skills<br />

programme. More particularly, the paper focuses on how the different aspects of the<br />

life skills subject area are offered in terms of credits, duration, naming of aspects and<br />

the year of implementation.<br />

159


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

The necessity of life skills in the foundation phase curriculum<br />

Internationally there seems to be a growing awareness and recognition of the<br />

demands and challenges that young children have to cope with. “What happens to<br />

children in their first days, months and years of life affects their development, the<br />

development of our society and the development of our world,” according to the<br />

Bernard van Leer Foundation (2004, p. 3). Elliot & Davis (2009, p. 113) argue that during<br />

the early years of development children demonstrate the greatest ability to learn<br />

and develop. For this reason, it is crucial that nations invest in their young, thereby<br />

preparing and equipping them for future challenges. The subject “Life Skills” presents<br />

an opportunity to address all the various aspects of ECD in an integrated manner. In<br />

the CAPS document (DBE, <strong>2012</strong>, p. 9) this view is echoed by the aim of the subject,<br />

which is described as “…guiding and preparing learners for life and its possibilities,<br />

including equipping learners for meaningful and successful living in a rapidly changing<br />

and transforming society.” The importance of such a subject is further highlighted by<br />

Mbebeb (2009, p. 22) who quotes the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Africa<br />

(UNECA, 2006) who refers to young people as “…agents of change with the potential<br />

of taking a leading role in tackling Africa’s future development challenges”.<br />

Aidoo (2008) maintains that ECE is the foundation of human development in<br />

that it provides an opportunity for sustainable development, economic growth,<br />

social change and transformation in society. Mbebeb (2009, p. 24) remarks that “[c]<br />

hildhood development has been positioned at the centre of human development as a<br />

foundation for a wholesome personality, productive life skills and it requires a relevant<br />

and qualitative education.” Similarly, UNICEF (2009b) affirms that child stimulation<br />

and development at this early stage of life are indispensable for good health, growth,<br />

success in education and in life. UNICEF report states that “[n]utrition and clean<br />

water, caring families and communities, support for early learning and psycho-social<br />

development, and access to health care are among the jointly necessary conditions for<br />

young children’s survival and well-being, and for their healthy development through<br />

later childhood into well-functioning adulthood” (UNICEF, 2009a, p.46). This report<br />

concludes by stating that ECE has a crucial role in children’s realization of their rights<br />

to survival, development, protection and participation.<br />

Johannsen (2009, p. 81) highlights the responsibility and necessity of ECE in the<br />

formative early childhood years “…for assisting the future adult citizens of the world<br />

to be moral and respectful individuals.” Due to widespread family disintegration,<br />

Berson & Baggerly (2009, p. 375) argue, the school should take the responsibility to<br />

protect children and “…serve as a bridge for the family and community, allowing<br />

development of a social network for the child.” McDevitt and Ormrod (2007, p. 31)<br />

also make mention of the changing task of the school when they remark that “…[t]<br />

hroughout history, the family was expected to support the school. More recently, the<br />

school is being asked to support the family.” In this regard, Joseph & Strain (2003)<br />

report on research in South Africa by the National Research Council and Institutes of<br />

Medicine, which has revealed that early experiences and relationships at home and<br />

school set the stage for how a child learns self-regulation skills, as well as the ability<br />

160


Steyn, et al – A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module<br />

to manage emotions, take the perspective of others, and develop close relationships<br />

with other people. Similarly Schoeman (2005) maintains that learners have to be<br />

prepared for their future responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society, and<br />

she concludes that “[s]chools […] bear a special and historic responsibility for the<br />

development of civic competency and responsibility” (2005, p. 275). Vuckovic (2008)<br />

believes that primary socialization takes place during the early years, and he defines<br />

it as the internalisation of values and attitudes “…as well as preferences and habit<br />

patterns…,” which leave a sustained impact on the individual. Formal ECE is crucial in<br />

creating a supportive environment wherein young children can develop at all levels.<br />

It is clear that the emphasis in ECE should not only be on academic knowledge,<br />

but that it should recognize the importance of equipping young children with nonacademic<br />

knowledge and skills as well. Joseph & Strain (2003, p. 65) refer to the latter<br />

as “…social-emotional curricular programs…” and they describe them as focusing on<br />

“…protective factors and reducing risk factors associated with academic and social<br />

problems.” In other words, non-academic knowledge involves survival and coping<br />

skills to assist an individual in overcoming specific challenges that may be faced in<br />

all dimensions of life. Finn (2006) points to the fact that there has been a paradigm<br />

shift worldwide with regard to the aims of education, so as to include non-academic 1<br />

subjects in school curricula in order to meet the needs of an increasing diverse and<br />

globalised community.<br />

Including non-academic subject matter in a school curriculum<br />

Koo, Kam & Cheong (2003) report on the development of a new culture of learning<br />

and teaching where non-academic subjects are included in the school curriculum to<br />

meet “…the context of political dispensations” (2003, p. 137). Governments all over<br />

the world view education as a tool to inculcate certain dispositions, values and skills<br />

to equip their future citizens in order to guarantee survival, peace, progress and<br />

sustainability.<br />

Ransford, Greenberg, Domitrovich, Small & Jacobson (2009, p. 510) report on the<br />

PATHS curriculum (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies) in the United States and<br />

Australia, which provides learners with instruction in the areas of emotional awareness<br />

and understanding, self-control, social skills with peers and social problem-solving<br />

skills in order to promote their social and emotional competence. Otote & Omo-Ojugo<br />

(2009, p. 654) also provide an account of Nigerian schools where social studies as a<br />

subject encourages the development of socio-civic and personal behaviour, thereby<br />

focusing on the affective domain of learning. Snel, Ganguly & Shordt (2002, p. 9)<br />

report on the Nali-Kali approach used in Indian schools, which aims to “…create<br />

awareness and bring about behavioural change among children and through them, in<br />

parents and the community in selected districts.” This curriculum focuses on hygiene<br />

1 “Non-academic” in this context refers to subjects and curricula that focus first and foremost on knowledge and<br />

skills that do not form part of conventional “academic” subjects such as, for example, Mathematics, History,<br />

Chemistry, etc.<br />

161


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

education and environmental sanitation. The subject life skills makes provision for a<br />

non-academic subject within the South African schools’ curriculum.<br />

How does South Africa accommodate non-academic<br />

subject matter?<br />

In South Africa the value and significance of ECD is recognized and acknowledged by<br />

the government and various other role players. The government’s commitment to<br />

the development of young children is mirrored in the Bill of Rights in South Africa’s<br />

Constitution and from the country’s agreement with conventions, such as the African<br />

Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the United Nations Convention of<br />

the Rights of the Child. The department of basic education (DBE) underwrites the<br />

importance of ECD, and its dedication to quality education for young children is<br />

reflected in the new curriculum (<strong>2012</strong>). The subjects that have been selected for the<br />

foundation phase level (5-9 years of age) are the following: home language, first<br />

additional language, mathematics and life skills. The value of non-academic subject<br />

matter is recognised and subsequently addressed by the inclusion of life skills.<br />

What are life skills?<br />

Life skills are the personal and social skills required for people (in this case young<br />

children) to think and behave competently and confidently in dealing with themselves,<br />

relating to others and making effective decisions. According to the World Health<br />

Organisation (1999, p. 6) “Life Skills education is designed to facilitate the practice and<br />

reinforcement of psycho-social skills in a culturally and developmentally appropriate<br />

way. It contributes to the promotion of personal and social development, the<br />

prevention of health and social problems and the protection of human rights.”<br />

According to Rooth (1997, p. 6), life skills are essential for successful living and<br />

learning. Its point of departure is the belief that as a person develops more life<br />

skills, the possibility increases that the individual would be better equipped to deal<br />

with challenges, and even to avert some of them. Epstein (2003, p. 28) remarks that<br />

although contemporary early childhood teachers often focus on enhancing reading<br />

and mathematical skills to meet ever increasing academic expectations, teachers<br />

must remain committed to promoting broader thinking abilities. Life skills provide the<br />

foundation upon which children learn to make decisions, regulate their own behaviour,<br />

meet complex challenges and take responsibility for their actions.<br />

Life skills as a subject<br />

The new curriculum (DBE, <strong>2012</strong>) describes life skills as a subject that is pivotal to the<br />

holistic development of learners. The subject is concerned with the social, personal,<br />

intellectual, emotional and physical growth of learners and it comprises the following<br />

study areas: beginning knowledge, creative arts, physical education, and personal<br />

and social wellbeing. The latter have been organised as study areas to ensure that<br />

162


Steyn, et al – A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module<br />

the foundational skills, values and concepts of early childhood development and the<br />

subjects offered in Grades 4-12 are taught and developed in Grades R-3 (DBE, <strong>2012</strong>,<br />

p. 8).<br />

According to the CAPS document (<strong>2012</strong>), the aim of life skills is to prepare<br />

learners for all the challenges they will be facing in life, and to equip them to live<br />

meaningfully and successfully in a “…rapidly changing and transforming society”<br />

(DBE, <strong>2012</strong>, p. 9). The subject exposes learners to a range of knowledge, skills and<br />

values that will strengthen their holistic (physical, social, personal, emotional and<br />

cognitive) development, creative and aesthetic knowledge and skills, knowledge of<br />

personal health and safety, understanding of the relationship between people and the<br />

environment and learners’ awareness of social relationships, technological processes<br />

and elementary science.<br />

The subject Life Skills is unpacked as follows:<br />

1. Beginning knowledge<br />

The content of beginning knowledge has been drawn from life orientation, social sciences<br />

(history and geography); natural science and technology. The content has been organized into<br />

topics that focus mainly on:<br />

• the child and his/her relationship with his/her immediate family extending to the wider<br />

community;<br />

• the natural environment (flora, fauna, natural resources, etc.);<br />

• South Africa (diverse people - cultures, customs, national symbols);<br />

• Environmental awareness events (Water Week, Arbor Day, Marine Day, etc.);<br />

• National/Public holidays (Heritage Day, Freedom Day, Youth Day, etc.);<br />

• Special celebrations (Days) observed in South Africa by diverse cultural groups.<br />

2. Health education<br />

The content for Health Education has been drawn mainly from Life Orientation and will focus<br />

on topics dealing with:<br />

• personal hygiene and cleanliness;<br />

• healthy eating, nutrition and fitness;<br />

• communicable diseases including HIV/AIDS;<br />

• health services (clinics, hospitals, ambulance, etc.);<br />

• health awareness events (e.g. Dental, Eye, Organ Week, etc.);<br />

• safety in the home and school and road safety.<br />

3. Art and crafts<br />

The content has been drawn from the arts and culture learning area. The four components<br />

of art and crafts are dance, music, drama and art and crafts. Children in grades R - 3 should<br />

be exposed to all four creative art forms. Where feasible, these art forms can be integrated,<br />

for example:<br />

• Dance can be infused with physical education and music;<br />

• Drama and music can be infused with languages (speech, oral skills, storytelling, role-play,<br />

voice projection through singing); and,<br />

• Art and crafts, music and dance can be infused with mathematics (e.g. shape, pattern,<br />

time, counting, distance, size and direction).<br />

163


SAJCE– <strong>December</strong> <strong>2012</strong><br />

4. Physical education:<br />

The content for physical education has been drawn from life orientation. The emphasis is on<br />

developing children’s fine and gross motor skills mainly through:<br />

• Physical movement activities (locomotive, climbing and balancing);<br />

• Games (including traditional and indigenous games);<br />

• Elementary sports activities (athletics, netball, cricket and soccer skills, etc.)<br />

Problem statement<br />

A recent study by Mosia (2011) found that the majority of teachers experience<br />

difficulties with the implementation of this subject, mainly due to a lack of training.<br />

Teachers maintain that they are not equipped with the required knowledge and<br />

skills to teach the subject, and they admit to utilising the time allocated to life skills<br />

on the timetable for other things just to keep the learners occupied. In this regard<br />

one teacher remarked: “I sometimes wonder if learners are aware that we are not<br />

doing justice to them and we are also held accountable for their weak performance”<br />

(Mosia, 2011, p. 98). Mosia’s study indicates that higher education institutions do not<br />

adequately prepare teachers for the teaching of life skills. Her observation resonates<br />

with Rooth (2005) who reported that 75% of the Intermediate and 54% of the senior<br />

phase LO teachers in her study were not specialists in LO. She concluded that “[i]t<br />

would be a devastating loss of an educationally sound opportunity if Life Orientation<br />

could not fulfil its potential to make a vital contribution to learners’ successful living,<br />

learning and well-being” (Van Deventer & Van Niekerk, 2009, pp. 148-149). Both<br />

these studies recommend that universities should prepare their student teachers for<br />

teaching practice by equipping them with the relevant knowledge and skills to teach<br />

life skills. We use the new curriculum as guideline to explore how different higher<br />

education institutions (HEIs) offer life skills in preparing teachers for teaching practice.<br />

Research methodology<br />

Aims of the research project<br />

The primary aim of this study is to investigate how life skills as a subject is offered<br />

to the B.Ed foundation phase student teachers at HEIs in South Africa. The following<br />