Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012
Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012
Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012
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 opportu