Volume 2 Issue 2 December 2012

South African Journal of
Childhood Education
Volume 2 Number 2 December 2012

South African Journal of Childhood Education
Volume 2 Number 2
The South African Journal of Childhood Education publishes interdisciplinary,
peer-reviewed research articles. It is housed in the Centre for Education Practice Research
on the Soweto campus of the University of Johannesburg.
Print ISSN: 2223-7674. Online ISSN: 2223-7682.
Typeset, printed and published by SUN MeDIA Metro, wpo@sunmediametro.co.za,
www.africansunmedia.co.za
Editor: Elizabeth Henning (University of Johannesburg)
Associate editors: Graham Dampier, University of Johannesburg; Hasina Ebrahim, University
of the Free State; Ronel Ferreira, University of Pretoria; Chris Pascal, Centre for Early
Childhood Research, Birmingham.
Journal manager: Delia Arends
Editorial board: Jill Bourne, University of Strathclyde; Virginia Casper, Bank Street College of
Education, New York; Mike Askew, Monash University; Dennis Francis, University of the Free
State; Catherine Snow, Harvard University; Joanne Hardman, University of Cape Town; Leila
Kajee, University of Johannesburg; Luneta Kakoma, University of Johannesburg.
Cover design: SUN MeDIA Metro
Prof Alison Gopnik (University of California, Berkeley) uses the image of a lantern to describe
the mind of the young child. The journal uses this image in the same way.
Sponsors: The establishment of the South African Journal of Childhood Education is
supported by a three-year grant from the Primary Sector Policy Support Programme (PSPSP),
a partnership between the European Union (EU), the Department of Basic Education (DBE),
and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), which has the ultimate goal
of improving primary education in South Africa. Early Childhood Development Supplement.
The annual ECD supplement, Khululeka, is sponsored by ApexHi Charitable Trust.
The opinions expressed in the articles do not reflect those of the editors.

South African Journal of
Childhood Education

Orders and correspondence:
Delia Arends
Soweto Campus, GNA 101
University of Johannesburg
PO Box 524
Auckland Park
2006
South Africa
Tel: 011 559-5102
Subscription form is included at the back of this journal

Contents
Editorial: Toward More South African
Research on Learning in Childhood
Elizabeth Henning &
Graham Dampier
Crossing the “Theory-practice Divide”:
Learning to Be(come) a Teacher Sarah Gravett 1
Cracking the Vocabulary Code in
Mathematics in the Foundation Phase Carisma Nel 15
Test items and translation: capturing
early conceptual development in
mathematics reliably?
Graham Dampier &
Daphney Mawila 35
Can we afford to wait any longer?
Pre-school children are ready to
learn mathematics Nosisi Nellie Feza 58
Reading in Two Languages: Evidence
from Miscue Analysis Brian Lwazi Ramadiro 74
Exploring the Role of the Speech-language
Therapist in City Centre Preschools Sandra du Plessis 94
Early Childhood Care, Child Development
and School Readiness: Evidence
from Zambia
Gunther Fink,
Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski,
Corrina Moucheraud &
Beatrice Matafwali 117
Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation
Programme: What we Know and
Zelda van der Merwe &
What we Should Know Carisma Nel 137
A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module
“Life Skills” in the Foundation Phase at
Miemsie Steyn,
Higher Education Institutions in
Cycil Hartell &
South Africa Nicoleen Schuld 158
Self-Esteem Among Children in Grade R in
an Urban South African School
Anita Keller &
Manfred Max Bergman 177
Call for papers 188
Subscription to SAJCE 190
i

Editorial:
Toward More South African Research on Learning in Childhood
In the fourth issue of this young journal there is already much evidence, based on the
manuscripts we have received, that there is a need to publish more research on the
education of children. The journal is filling a gap, which we recognised four years ago,
when we started planning for it. However, there continues to be a dearth of articles on
the psychology of learning in childhood. Perhaps there simply is not enough research
capacity yet. Perhaps it is the result of the backseat that primary school education,
specifically in the foundation phase, occupied in the educational reform agenda until
recently. Perhaps it is too expensive to conduct studies that inquire into the way
children learn, with fieldworkers required to conduct large scale research with findings
that can be generalised. Perhaps we all feel that we cannot diminish any child’s time
on task in school by interfering in school routine in a country where so much learning
time has been lost in so many ways. Perhaps we have given up on single, qualitative
case studies that do not go beyond description. Although such studies may, logistically,
be easier to conduct, they do not seem to influence policy much. Whatever the reason
may be, no one can argue that we know enough of the tapestry of South African
children’s learning. Certainly, in this journal, preference will be given to empirical work
that reports on research of child learning and development in future, with studies of
any design type included.
The articles
This does not mean we do not welcome manuscripts about teachers and teaching,
especially ones that look at the core of teacher education. Such an article is the first
one in this issue. Sarah Gravett theorises the age old theory-practice ‘divide,’ arguing
that the culprits responsible for this notion may well be those of us who design teacher
education programmes. Her stance is that knowledge of education and ‘doing’ of
education can be ‘interlaced’ in schools that are closely affiliated to teacher preparation
programmes. Such collaboration, she argues, should be on-going, so that school
management teams and teachers of such schools can become part of the teacher
education team of a university. Carisma Nel writes about teacher preparation as well,
proposing that there should be a specific place for “the vocabulary of mathematics” in
the building of teacher knowledge in the pre-service years.
Mathematics education is also the topic of the article by Graham Dampier and
Daphney Mawila. They explain how the translation of a standardised German test was
used with a sample of children who were assessed in isiZulu and Sesotho, concluding
that this pilot inquiry showed that only some items were affected by the translation.
The next article, by Nosisi Feza, about the need for pre-school interventions, concludes
that, ideally, “quality mathematics interventions, longitudinal studies on impact of such
interventions and tracking studies on schooling effects of early quality mathematics
preparation” are sorely needed. Remaining within the field of learning in the early
i

years, Brian Ramadiro reports on a study of grade 2 – 6 learners’ reading errors in
isiXhosa and in English. He concludes that the children who were tested read better in
isiXhosa than in English, but that they are not reading as well as they could be reading
in what is their mother tongue.
The role of speech-language therapists in an inner-city context is the topic of the
article by Sandra du Plessis. Reporting on a descriptive survey study she suggests that
speech-language therapists need to consider and employ innovative service delivery
models that utilise the strengths of inner-city dwellers and teachers in this specific
multilingual context. Günther Fink and co-authors report on evidence they gathered on
the developmental impact of a community-based project to improve school readiness.
They found higher primary school enrolment rates and improved physical development
among children formerly attending the center compared to the matched control group
after one year.
In the next article in this issue Zelda van der Merwe and Carisma Nel report
disconcerting findings of a study they conducted in a teacher education programme.
They examined a programme at a South African university and found that the reading
literacy components are included haphazardly in the programme design and that there
is no evidence-based research included in the curriculum of the pre-service teachers. In
another article on the topic of pre-service teacher education describes the variety of
approaches to programme design for the preparation of foundation phase teachers.
Steyn and co-authors found that the subject area of “life skills” is addressed differently
in nine higher education institutions, with some paying more attention than others to
the national school curriculum content.
Anita Keller and Max Bergman describe a study of grade R children’s self-esteem,
as judged by their teachers. They include issues related to measurement and ecological
validity, culture-sensitivity, and suggest subsequent work on self-esteem of children in
South Africa.
By the time of going to print we have not yet received the outcome of the
submission of the journal for accreditation in the higher education system in South
Africa, where new journals are reviewed after one year. Once more we salute authors
who have donated their work to the two issues of the second volume.
Lastly, we include a call for manuscripts for a special issue on numeracy education,
guest edited by Hamsa Venkat and Mellony Graven.
Elizabeth Henning (editor) and Graham Dampier (associate editor, 2012)
On behalf of the editorial team
December 2012.
ii

Sarah Gravett
Crossing the “Theory-practice Divide”:
Learning to Be(come) a Teacher
Abstract
A common view of theory and practice as domains is that it is difficult, if not impossible,
to traverse the epistemological chasm between them. After all, theories are ways of
organising our world abstractly in ideas and concepts. Practice is the world that we
inhabit empirically. It is a tangible world that we can see, feel, act on, act in, and so
on. So, how can one even begin to argue that these apparently disparate worlds can
be unified or that they are in the first instance not separate at all? My stance on this
is that we, the educators of teachers, are party to the separation. In fact, we teach
students that they should ‘apply’ theory to practice. Working with our own struggle
at the university where I am based, I will argue that there may be ways of opening
the borders between what is, on the one hand a philosophical question, and on the
other, a purely empirical question. How do we teach and how do we teach the doing
of teaching? My argument explores one way we might begin to restore; to whatever
extent this is possible, the unity of theory and practice in teacher education.
Keywords: teacher education, teaching schools, the theory-practice divide, learningto-become
a teacher
Sarah Gravett, University of Johannesburg 1 . E-mail: sgravett@uj.ac.za
1 Invited Keynote Address at the Teacher education conference. Hosted by the Department of Higher
Education and Training (DHET), in partnership with the Council on Higher Education (CHE), the Higher
Education South Africa Education Deans Forum (HESA-EDF) and the University of Pretoria (UP)
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 1-14 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

SAJCE– December 2012
Introduction
A topic such as the one I have chosen is somewhat circumspect, I have to admit.
Theories are ways of organising our world abstractly in terms of ideas and concepts.
Practice is the observable world, a tangible world that we can see, feel, act on, act
in and so on. So, how can one even begin to argue that these apparently disparate
worlds can be unified?
I share with you some of the experiences and challenges that I have experienced
with colleagues and other role players in the establishment of a school that is directly
linked to a university, “a teaching school.” It is in the very establishment of the school,
with its challenges that surface and resurface, that the notion dawned on us that
we, as teacher educators, may be the guilty party affecting the divide. We may be
contributing to the rending of what is, I argue, ontologically a unity, or what should be
a unity. I use the term in line with Heidegger’s (1962) argument that ontology addresses
the question: “What is the meaning of being?” As I see it the epistemological divide
is caused by the need for knowledge to categorise and compartmentalise the world
into manageable units of analysis. The theory-practice divide permeating discussion
of pre-service education rends what is ontologically a unity that exists as such before
knowing commences to reduce this unity to knowable parts.
My argument explores one way we might begin to restore, to whatever extent this
is possible, the unity of theory and practice in teacher education.
Expectations of teacher education
In my interaction with schools and other role-players in education I am often
confronted with strong views about the quality of teacher education in South Africa.
The recent strong lobby in the media to (re-)open teacher colleges, and arguments
made at the Teacher Development Summit in 2009, testifies to the implicit mistrust in
the university education of teachers. Many delegates at this summit voiced the opinion
that universities do not prepare teachers adequately for the schooling system, due to
the ‘academic bias’ of their teacher education programmes. A similar view is reflected
in an article published in the Mail & Guardian, with the headline ‘Why we need colleges
of education’ (Rice, 2010). Rice makes the case that foundation phase teachers should
not be educated at universities, where the focus is on ‘abstract theory,’ because
foundation phase teachers should acquire skills rooted in ‘pragmatic practice.’
The sentiment that universities do not prepare teachers adequately for the realities
of classroom practice is not uniquely South African. Smagorinsky and his co-authors
say university teacher educators are often viewed as “aloof within the ivory tower,
espousing ideals and the principles that govern them” (Smagorinsky et al, 2003, p.
1400). In contrast “school-based teachers engage in practice in the teeming world of
the classroom” (ibid.).
Many of the criticisms that I have been encountering are of course generalizations,
based, for example, on a school principal’s experience of student-teachers who do
not cope during school experience, or novice teachers who struggle to deal with the
2

Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”
demands of the teaching profession (by personal communication): “The students
coming from universities nowadays don’t have a clue … what do you teach them at
the university?”
In responding, I often argue that the expectation that universities should
deliver a “fully prepared” teacher is unrealistic (Gravett et al, 2011). Our task is to
deliver competent beginning teachers, that is, teachers with a starting and growth
competence (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1989) who have the ability to continue to develop
once they enter the teaching profession. I argue that no teacher education programme
can prepare teachers for the full complexity of real classrooms, where they take full
responsibility for the first time.
Feiman-Nemser (2001, p. 1026) makes this point concisely:
“New teachers have two jobs – they have to teach and they have to learn to
teach. No matter how good a preservice program may be, there are some things
that can only be learned on the job. The preservice experience lays a foundation
and offers practice in teaching. The first encounter with real teaching occurs
when beginning teachers step into their own classroom. Then learning to teach
begins in earnest.”
However, it would be arrogant of us not to pay attention to the criticism of our
teacher education programmes and not to engage in serious introspection. What
are the reasons for the perception that we are not doing well in terms of teacher
education? Are we indeed delivering competent beginning teachers? Why do recently
qualified teachers say teacher education programmes are too theoretical and that we
do not prepare them well for the harsh social reality of the classroom? Here I refer
to findings in recent research on novice teachers entering the teaching profession
(Gravett et al, 2011). How can these critiques inform our thinking about our teacher
education programmes?
I will address some of these questions in this paper. I will first discuss the perceived
theory-practice divide as a dilemma that seems to plague teacher education. Then
I will argue that Jerome Bruner’s notion of “learning to be” may provide a solution
to the tangled issues of teacher education. I will also say something briefly about a
phronesis-oriented approach to teacher education as one way of seeing teacher
preparation, discerning different knowledge forms as already distinguished by the
ancient Greeks. Lastly, I will refer to the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for
Teacher Education and Development in South Africa, specifically Activity 4.5, which
reads: “Strengthening the teaching practice/school experience component of teacher
education programmes through the development of Teaching Schools.” Here I will
tell you how we at the University of Johannesburg are grappling with implementing a
programme that has been designed to incorporate a teaching school that is integral to
the programme.
3

SAJCE– December 2012
The perceived theory-practice divide in teacher education
I go then, first, to the much maligned “theory-practice divide.” It is a dominant theme
in the teacher education literature. Educationists discuss the reasons for the divide
and advice on how to bridge it abounds.
I agree with authors, such as Korthagen et al, (2001), McIntyre (1995) and Vander
Ven (2001) who doubt the validity of this position. I too question the perceived theorypractice
binary in teacher education. I argue that the way in which we think about
teacher education and the way in which programmes are planned and implemented
may actually be creating the binary. We have a discourse of ‘studying theory from
books and in lectures’ and then ‘applying’ it practically in what is termed the
‘real world.’
It is expedient to suggest that teacher education institutions appear to deal
with the interplay between theory and practice mainly in two ways. Some follow
a “translation-of-theory-to-practice” approach, implying that the coursework
component of programmes supplies the theory that the students then apply,
implement and “test,” e.g. through assignments, observations and experiences in
schools as sites of practicum.
An analysis of teacher education in various countries shows that this conventional
view of teacher education prevails despite the evidence suggesting that this approach
has a very limited success (Korthagen, 2011; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). Some
of the “new” approaches often take the form of creative procedures and tasks to
try and interest student-teachers in particular theories and linking these to their
teaching practice. (I would add that these theories are often lecturers’ “pet theories”
or theories emanating from their research interests.) This means that the point of
departure in such programmes remains a theory-to-practice-flow.
Other teacher education institutions respond to the criticism of being overlytheoretical
by increasing practicum at schools. Here the belief is that the exposure to
classroom practice will result in improved preparation for the practice of schooling.
This could indeed be the case if students are placed with expert teachers who are
willing and able to mentor students. But, as Darling-Hammond (2001) argues, students
need to learn from good practicing teachers whose practice will serves as good
examples to be emulated in their own practice.
Finding enough of these expert teachers in the current South African educational
landscape proves to be a challenge. Also, as Feiman-Nemser (2001, p 1020) reminds
us “cooperating teachers often feel the need to protect student teachers from
‘impractical’ ideas promoted by education professors who are out of touch with
classroom realities.”
Nevertheless, I would argue that both these approaches may actually be creating a
chasm between what is referred to as theory (“formal knowledge”, knowledge about
ideas, declarative knowledge or what the Greeks referred to as episteme) and practice
(practical knowledge, knowledge of how to do the work of teaching, or procedural
4

Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”
knowledge) by using either a theory-to-practice articulation or by foregrounding
experience in schools. Implicit in both is the distinct separation of theory and practice.
“Learning to be”: the ontological becoming of a beginning
teacher
So how then could teacher education be conceptualised and designed to try to avoid
this divide? Should we see teacher education as a continuum, with theory and practice
occupying epistemological frontiers, or shall we consider them as two sides of the
same coin? I prefer the latter. And I find some solace in Jerome Bruner’s (as cited in
Brown & Duguid, 2000) distinction between “learning about” and “learning to be.”
This has become a useful heuristic for me in thinking about the type of student-teacher
development and learning that is required in teacher education.
Arguably, much of what is taught at universities are facts, concepts, principles
and conceptual frameworks about phenomena – thus, much of university learning is
“learning about.” With his “learning to be” notion Bruner stresses that learning should
also be understood in relation to the development of a social identity. “Learning to
be” is about developing the disposition, demeanour and outlook (“the eye”) of a
competent practitioner. I argue that we should indeed teach students conceptual
knowledge of the field of education, knowledge that they can ‘declare.’ However, if we
want to avoid a theory-practice disjuncture, “learning to be” should be foregrounded,
while “learning about” should be embedded in “learning to be.” But how does one do
that in the practice of teacher education?
My interpretation of Bruner’s “learning to be” resonates with Kessels &
Korthagen’s (2001) argument. They say that a phronesis, or practical wisdom approach
to teacher education resolves the theory-practice binary. They do not argue that either
episteme, or for that matter techne (in the terminology of ancient Greek philosophy)
should disappear from the scenario. In fact, they argue for integration. A phronesis
approach focuses mainly on the development of practical reasoning or perceptionbased
knowledge. The focus is on “deliberation that translates into action, which will
be of practical benefit to those concerned” (Spence, 2007). Kessels & Korthagen (2001,
p. 27) explain that, “To choose and justify a particular course of action … the ultimate
appeal of phronesis is not to principles, rules, theorems, or any conceptual knowledge.
Ultimately, the appeal is to perception.” Choosing a form of behaviour appropriate for
a particular situation requires above all that one must be able to perceive and discern
the relevant details. We always act in, and react to, situations as we see and experience
them. Therefore effective actions require effective ways of seeing.
One must have an eye for the moment. Becoming someone with a disposition of
good pedagogical ‘sight’ is not learned in abstraction but learned in practice, through
experience. For particulars only become familiar with experience, with a long process
of “perceiving and observing, assessing situations, judging, choosing courses of
action, and being confronted with their consequences” (Kessels & Korthagen, 2001,
p. 27). The dilemma is of course, that experience is precisely what student-teachers
5

SAJCE– December 2012
lack. But, the important point that Kessels & Korthagen (2001, p. 27) are making is that
perception-based knowledge “cannot possibly be transferred to students (or induced,
provoked, or elicited) through the use of purely conceptual knowledge.”
So, the question Eisner (2002, p. 382) asks is: “If phronesis cannot be taught
explicitly, how is it secured?” Or to rephrase: If “learning to be(come) a teacher cannot
be taught explicitly, how is it secured?”
To me a “learning to be” orientation to teacher education, drawing on the
phronesis approach, does not imply less conceptual knowledge (it may require even
more), nor does it mean more practical work. This would be missing the point of
phronesis. As Dewey (1938, p. 25) reminds us: “the belief that all genuine education
comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely
or equally educative.” Also, as Henning and Gravett (2011, p. 24) argue: “It does
not follow causally that if certain theoretical principles are studied, they will find an
interface with practice or, inversely, if practice is experienced, that suitable theorising
will be concomitant.”
My interpretation of a “learning to be” orientation draws primarily on the
thinking of Bruner, (1990, 1996); Marton & Trigwell, (2000); Wubbels, Korthagen and
Brekelmans (1997); Kessels & Korthagen (2001) Korthagen (2011); McIntyre (1995)
and Eisner (2002). In essence, this orientation implies that student-teachers mainly
engage in a form of experiential learning emanating from “student concerns.” This
does not imply that teacher-educators simply follow concerns or issues expressed
by student-teachers. Student-teachers, particularly during their early years of study,
are not in a position to identify concerns if they do not have theoretical lenses or at
least declarative knowledge with which to note concerns. If you do not know you
cannot see.
Teacher-educators should generate the concerns by creating suitable concrete
experiences for students. This can be done in coursework through using, for example,
authentic classroom materials, videotapes of teaching and learning, cases and by
invoking students’ own experiences as children and learners in schools. Concerns
could also be created through pre-structured observation schedules in schools. The
experiences that give rise to concerns are akin to what the policy on the minimum
requirements for teacher education (DHET, 2011) refers to as “learning from practice.”
The concrete experiences and concerns can then serve as the basis for what is known
as guided reflection.
In this way the reflection process can serve to make student preconceptions
explicit and it affords students’ the opportunity to articulate their tacit personal,
practical theories. The explicating of student-teachers’ tacit knowledge is crucial,
because as Feiman-Nemser explains: “The images and beliefs that prospective
teachers bring to their preservice preparation serve as filters for making sense of the
knowledge and experiences they encounter. They may also function as barriers to
change by limiting the ideas that teacher education students are able and willing to
entertain” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p 1016).
6

Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”
The guided reflection process also serves to structure the experience through, for
example, clarification, classification, extracting core ideas and principles inherent to
the experience and making tentative generalizations through extrapolation.
Once student-teachers start to become aware of the essence(s) of the situation
or experience they are reflecting on, once they start to articulate their own personal
practical theories related to the experience, the teacher educator guides the students
to focus on some pertinent aspects of the experience. These are then examined
in greater detail, and the teacher-educator simultaneously introduces applicable
theoretical notions into the conversation. Next “formal” conceptual knowledge is
foregrounded, for example, in the form of a lecture and applicable texts in order to
further challenge, adapt, extend and deepen students’ personal theories. These could,
then, feed into further observation and the practicalising or practising of insights with
a view to developing deliberative and deliberate practice.
In other words, what I am advocating is that theory is learned in action, not
applied or transferred from another space. Personal theorising forms the basis
for moving to “formal” conceptual knowledge. In essence, the approach involves
“practical theorising” in the parlance of McIntyre (1995). Intuitive personal theories
are gradually converted and strengthened with new epistemic knowledge and some
good understanding of the techne of pedagogy.
McIntyre makes the point that, “Theorising should indeed be practical. The
focus must be on what will help student teachers themselves to think critically and
productively about how to teach and, more generally, about how to engage in the
practice of schooling. … ‘Theory’ which is not clearly directed to such practical ends is
indeed a burden for student teachers, a burden which most of them cast aside as soon
as possible. But theory-based ideas used to guide practice and to theorise about good
practice, justify themselves through the benefits which they bring” (1995, p. 377-378).
The UJ teaching school
The term “teaching school” was not used when the school was initially conceptualised
(in 2008-2009) and when it was founded in 2010. However, since the establishment
of the school, the “Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education
and Development in South Africa” has been promulgated (2011). In Activity 4.5 the
Framework makes provisioning for the establishment of teaching schools. Teachingschools
(TSs) are described as teaching laboratories, where students can engage in
learning-from-practice. TSs may also be used as centres for research into teaching
and learning. Furthermore, staff at TSs should be developed as mentors for studentteachers
and should be able to teach methodology courses.
The vision
The School was founded in 2010 as a public school, partnered by the UJ and the
Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) through a Memorandum of Agreement
(MoA). The objectives for establishing the school were to:
7

SAJCE– December 2012
• Serve the education needs of young children in close proximity to the UJ Soweto
campus (SWC).
• Develop a clinical/practicum site for the education of teachers of young children,
with school teachers taking on the role of teacher educators, working in tandem
with UJ academic staff, and students moving seamlessly between coursework
and practicum.
• Enable longitudinal child development studies and research on children’s
performance in the school curriculum.
We envisaged that the school would serve as a site that would enable a “learning to
be” orientation to teacher education. We envisaged that students would observe
(perceive) and assess situations in the school, reflect on them and connect them to
relevant theoretical notions presented in coursework. We envisaged the interweaving
of practical (experiential) knowledge with knowledge of ideas (theory). We hoped that
the concrete experience in the school would allow opportunities during coursework
to systematically study, analyze and theorize practice.
We have been trying to do this by coordinating coursework and practical
experiences in the school. First year BEd students study a curriculum that is geared for
grade R children and their practicum takes place in the grade R classes, while in their
second year they focus on grade 1 learners. In their third year they study the learning
and the development of grade 3 and 4 children. In their fourth year they integrate
all the various dimensions of their studies and they spend the bulk of their school
experience in other schools. The school, when it continues later on as a comprehensive
primary school, will also be the place where Intermediate Phase BEd students will go
to learn from and in practice.
Grade R:
1st year
FP*
students
Grade 1-3:
2nd - 4th
year FP
students
Grade 4-7:
1st - 2nd
year FP
students
Figure 1: The Foundation Phase and the Intermediate phase curriculum in concord
with learner cohorts in the school
Students are involved in three ways at the school on a continuous basis: they do
structured observations, they work as classroom assistants and they take up limited
teaching responsibilities.
8

The challenges to the vision
The School as GDE-school
Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”
Despite a memorandum of agreement (MoA) with the Gauteng Department of
Education (GDE), and support from the GDE, UJ has encountered several obstacles
in pursuing the vision. In terms of current education legislation the school is a public
school with no special status. Navigating the relationship with the school is a challenge.
How much can we “interfere” in the school? What do we do when students report to
us objectionable practices in the school? What do we do when we encounter practices
that emanate from GDE policies, rules and training that we find questionable or even
educationally unsound, bearing in mind that the teachers and school will be assessed
on their implementation of these?
The teachers and their contribution to the development of our students
Teachers in a teaching school have to fulfil multiple roles. In addition to their teaching
role, they also have to take up the role of school-based teacher educator, dealing
not only with the complexity of working with and managing groups of students, but
also collaborating with the university-based teacher educators. Ideally, such teachers
should be purposefully selected to ensure that they have the potential to fulfil these
multiple roles. However, as a public school, the teachers are appointed by the School
Governing Body (SGB) and they do not necessarily have the profile that fits the
requirements. Not only do these teachers require a more specialised knowledge of
their subjects and of teaching methods, but also of how to mentor students.
Feiman-Nemser & Buchman (1985, p. 64) rightly make the point that, “If
classrooms are to become settings for learning to teach that go beyond adaptation
and unreflective imitation, purposes of learning to teach cannot automatically be
subordinated to the goal of pupil learning. Teachers also must see themselves as
teacher educators willing to plan for the learning of a novice.” They also argue that
becoming a teacher educator implies that the teacher must shift into another role. A
teacher’s experience as teacher alone is not sufficient. Teachers must be prepared for
their roles as teacher educators.
This creates a dilemma. Although members of the Department of Childhood
Education at UJ have been involved in doing staff development with the teachers, it is
not feasible to expect the teacher-educators to offer the type of comprehensive and
coherent programme that the teachers need to enable them to serve as role models
for students and to fulfil their teacher educator mandate.
An additional dilemma is that currently, teachers, though hard-working and
committed, are generally not modelling exemplary childhood education practices
to student-teachers. One could argue that discrepancies between what is taught in
coursework and what students experience at school could serve to create powerful
learning experiences, because it allows for exploration of experiences. However,
this presupposes that the teacher-educators are familiar with specific practices in
9

SAJCE– December 2012
the school and that they themselves would spend time in the school regularly. How
realistic is such an expectation? Also, my fear is that we may in fact be reinforcing
a model of teaching that we do not want our students to necessarily emulate. As
Darling-Hammond (2001) reminds us: “It is not true that you can learn how to practice
by being told not to do what you’ve seen people doing.”
The coursework – planning and structuring suitable tasks for students
The interweaving of practical (experiential) knowledge situated in the school with
knowledge of ideas (theory) in the coursework requires careful planning and familiarity
with the curriculum followed in the school. It also necessitates close collaboration
between school staff and university staff. These pre-requisites present challenges that
are not insurmountable, but they still place an additional burden on staff at the school
and university.
We have also learned that student observations need to be planned and structured
carefully beforehand and that students need to be prepared well for observation. The
observations must not be an add-on, but integral to the coursework as the basis for
guided reflection. If not, the observations have very little educational value.
Assessing the value and the way forward
Teacher-educators and students concur that the students’ involvement in the
school does indeed play a significant role in guiding student-teachers towards
be(coming) teachers.
Discrepancies between coursework and student experience in the school
Despite the misgivings I expressed earlier, teacher-educators report that discrepancies
between coursework ideas and student experiences in the school do indeed create
valuable learning opportunities if these are used to explore student perceptions and
to bring in additional theoretical notions as “lenses” to explore the discrepancies.
Students also often challenge the coursework ideas, based on classroom observations,
which serve to deepen understanding of the complexity of working with children.
Developing a pedagogical stance rooted in knowledge of child development
Perhaps the greatest value currently is that the way in which the programme is
structured enables the possibility that students will develop “a pedagogical stance
rooted in knowledge of child development” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1018).
One of the teacher educators, Lara Ragpot (2011) offers a module on cognitive
development of children in the early years. She found in her doctoral research that this
very challenging theoretical work was made accessible through constant interaction
with the same children over 18 months. The students did not learn that much from
the teachers, but learned from observing and studying the children. They were able
to bring their concerns about child learning and conceptual development to the
university course in a refreshing and successful way.
10

Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”
A question to consider is whether we should not bolster this potential strength and
focus students’ observation in other courses (modules), that is, more on the children
and their learning and less on what the teachers do (or not do)? This would enable
student-teachers to be(come) steeped in a “developmental perspective” – a deep
understanding of child development, which Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden
(2005 ) view as critical teacher knowledge.
Developing the “tools” for continuous development
Earlier in the paper I mentioned that teacher education should deliver beginning
teachers with “growth competence.” In similar vein Feiman-Menser (2001, p 45)
contends that student-teachers should develop “habits and skills necessary for the
ongoing study of teaching in the company of colleagues.” She argues that the study
of teaching requires skills of observation, interpretation and analysis and she poses
the question how well teacher education programmes address these habits and
skills. I would claim that our students are learning these habits and skills through their
involvement in the school, though we are probably not yet intentionally capitalizing on
this as a strength.
Research involvement
The students also participate in research and so learn to test children individually. In a
longitudinal research project we study the children, specifically in mathematics, science
and language. Students learn to conduct and score the tests (some standardised).
They are trained to conduct individual diagnostic interview tests and learn some of
the statistics to analyse the data. They work with individual children and are likely to
leave the university with skills and understanding that few novice teachers have about
evaluation and assessment.
Developing a teacher education model
The three years of implementing the programme has been a steep learning curve.
The incorporating of a teaching school challenged our preconceptions about teacher
education. We are “learning to be(come)” teacher educators who are responsive to
the concerns of our students and who would be able to optimize the teaching and
learning opportunities that the teaching school afford us. We have also realised the
necessity for continuous reflection on and practical theorising of our developing
teacher education model.
Students and teacher-educators concur that the school is indeed adding value to
the students’ learning experiences. Both groups and the teachers at the school also
concur that much needs to be done to ensure the realization of our vision.
Conclusion
In this paper I argued that a “learning to be” orientation could go a long way to
addressing the perceived theory-practice dilemma in teacher education. I also
11

SAJCE– December 2012
reflected on how we have been grappling with integrating a “teaching school” in our
BEd foundation phase programme.
It would be a fallacy to assume that the integrating of a teaching school as such
will necessarily address the theory-practice integration dilemma or strengthen teacher
education. Also, integrating a teaching school into a teacher education programme
implies that the teacher education goes on simultaneously in two distinct settings. I
concur with Feiman-Nemser & Buchman (1985, p. 63) that it is a “fallacious assumption
that making connections between these two worlds is straightforward.”
Does the teaching school notion as envisaged in the “Integrated Strategic
Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa” have
the potential to enhance teacher education and to “strengthen the Work Integrated
Learning (WIL) component of teacher education programmes” (DHET, p. 3)? Based on
our experience, my answer is an unequivocal yes, as the experience in Finland with
training schools also shows.
However, there are numerous dilemmas and challenges that will have to be
addressed. These include:
• appropriate governance and management (including relationships, roles and
responsibilities) models for such schools
• stumbling blocks/gaps in the current education legislative and regulatory
framework that would inhibit the establishment and effective functioning of TSs
and
• and resourcing of such schools.
The Faculty of Education is currently conducting research, commissioned by the
Department of Higher Education and Training, on these and other aspects related to
the establishing of teaching schools in South Africa. The findings will be disseminated
early in 2014.
References
Bruner, J.S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Bruner, J.S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, Massachusetts:
Harvard Business School Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Thoughts on teacher preparation. Available from: www.
edutopia.org/ldh-teacherpreparation. (Accessed 19 Dec 2010).
Darling-Hammond, L. &; Baratz-Snowden, J. eds. (2005). A Good Teacher in Every
Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve. San
Francisco: John Wiley & sons. Kindle Edition.
Dewey, J. (1938). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston: Heath.
12

Gravett – Crossing the “theory-practice divide”
Eisner, E.W. (2002). From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement
of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (2002), p. 375–385.
Department of Higher Education and Training of South Africa. (2011). National
qualifications framework. Act 67 of 2008. Policy on the minimum requirements for
teacher education qualifications. Government Gazette. Vol. 553. Available from:
http://www.dhet.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=K7sbUydW4ew%3d&tabid=36&
mid=1071 (Accessed 1 October 2011).
Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training (2011). Integrated
Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South
Africa.
Education Labour Relations Council. (2009). Resource document. Teacher development
summit, 29 June-2 July 2009.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice. Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), December 2001,
p. 1013-1055 http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 10824, Date Accessed: 9/15/2012
6:15:08 AM.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning. How do teachers learn to teach? In
Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre D.J., & Demers, K.E. (2008).
Handbook of research on teacher education. Enduring questions in changing
contexts (pp. 697-705). New York: Routledge.
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of Experience in Teacher
Preparation. Teachers College Record Volume 87(1), 1985, pp. 53-65
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 677, Date Accessed: 9/15/2012 6:36:39 AM
Gravett, S., Henning, E & Eiselen, R. (2011). New teachers look back on their university
education: prepared for teaching, but not for life in the classroom. Education as
Change, 15 (S1), pp. 123-142.
Heidegger, M (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper Perennial.
Henning, E. & Gravett, S. (2011). Pedagogical Craft and its Science: Janus-faced in Preservice
Teacher Education. Education as Change, 15 (2), pp. 21-33
Hoy, W. H., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1989). Supervising student teachers. In A. E. Woolfolk
(Ed.), Research perspectives on the graduate preparation of teachers (pp. 108–131).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kessels, J. & Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). The Relation between Theory and Practice:
Back to the Classics. In Korthagen, F.A.J (Eds.). Linking Practice and Theory. The
Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Mahwaw: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kindle
edition.
Korthagen, F.A.J. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice: the pedagogy
of realistic teacher education. Orbis scholae, 2011, 5(2), pp. 31-50.
Korthagen, A.J., Kesselss, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf B., & Wubbels T. (2001). Linking
practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwaw:
Lawrence Erlbaum. Kindle edition.
13

SAJCE– December 2012
Marton, F. & Trigwell. K. 2000. Variato est mater studiorum, Higher Education Research
and Development, 19(3), p. 381-395.
McIntyre D. (1995). Initial teacher education as practical theorising: A response to Paul
Hirst. British Journal of Educational Studies, vol XXXXIII, no 4, pp 365-383.
Smagorinsky, P; Cook L.S; Johnson T.S. (2003). The Twisting Path of Concept Development
in Learning to Teach. Teachers College Record, 105 (8), 2003, pp. 1399-1436
http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 11552, Date Accessed: 9/8/2012 3:55:35 AM
Ragpot, L. (2011). Assessing student learning by way of drama and visual art: a semiotic
mix in a course on cognitive development. Education as Change, 15(sup 1), pp.
63- 78.
Spence, S. (2007). Phronesis and the Student Teacher. Journal of Educational Thought,
41(3), 2007, pp. 311-322.
Tigchelaar, A. & Korthagen F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching
experiences: implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights
into teacher behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20 (2004), p. 665-679.
Rice, M. (2010). Why we need colleges of education. Mail & Guardian. Available at: http://
mg.co.za/article/2010-11-05-why-we-need-new-colleges-of-education. (Accessed
20 September 2011).
Vander Ven, K. (2001). New perspectives on theory-to-practice: Implications for
transforming teacher education and child outcomes. Clearing house on early
education and parenting. Available from: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/
vanderven.html. (Accessed 25 February 2011).
Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M. 1997: Developing theory from practice in
teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, summer 1997, pp. 75-90.
14

Carisma Nel
Cracking the Vocabulary Code in
Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
Abstract
To children going to school for the first time, the symbols and the vocabulary of
mathematics can resemble a foreign language with its seemingly cryptic symbols and
unknown terminology. This is a challenge to foundation phase learners’ ability to read,
write, and communicate clearly. It might be that problems of vocabulary are considered
to be fairly superficial within the whole issue of language and mathematics learning,
but it is nevertheless critical that such problems are not ignored in the hope that they
will go away. Teachers must be purposeful in constructing learning experiences that
direct learners’ attention to specific words and their meaning. The aim of this article
is to highlight the importance of including mathematics vocabulary code cracking as
part of the pedagogical content knowledge, specifically the subdomains of knowledge
of content and students, and knowledge of content and teaching, which should be
addressed within foundation phase teacher preparation programmes.
Keywords: mathematics, vocabulary, strategies, techniques, pedagogical content knowledge
Carisma Nel, North-West University. E-mail: Carisma.Nel@nwu.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 15-34 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

SAJCE– December 2012
Introduction
When we think of spies and secret agents, we might think of lots of things; nifty
gadgets, foreign travel, dangerous missiles, fast cars and martinis being shaken, but
not stirred. We probably wouldn’t think of mathematics or language. But we should.
Cracking codes and unravelling the true meaning of secret messages involves loads of
mathematics and language.
A number of assessment studies in recent years have shown that the educational
achievement of learners in South African schools is unacceptably poor. The Department
of Education’s (since 2010, the Department of Basic Education) systemic evaluations,
conducted in grade 3 (in 2001) show very low levels of literacy and numeracy among
learners. Scores for the grade 3 learners averaged 68% for listening comprehension,
but only 39% for reading comprehension and writing, and 30% for numeracy (RSA DoE,
2003). The second cycle of systemic evaluations conducted in 2007 revealed only a
limited change in learners’ achievement, namely 36% for literacy and 35% for numeracy.
The Annual National Assessments conducted in 2011 indicated that grade 3 learners
(across provinces in South Africa) achieved 28% for numeracy and 35% for literacy,
while grade 3 learners in the North West Province achieved 21% for numeracy and 30%
for literacy (RSA DoBE, 2010).
The statistics mentioned above seem to indicate that our learners have not yet
managed to crack the code of mathematical language. Although mathematics is
visual language of symbols and numbers it is also expressed and explained through
written and spoken words. For learners to excel in mathematics, they must recognise,
comprehend and apply the requisite vocabulary (Aiken, 1972; Monroe & Panchyshyn,
1995; Bay-Williams & Livers, 2009). Thus, vocabulary instruction is as critical in
mathematics as it is in the literacy classroom. Miller (1993, p. 312) states that “without
an understanding of the vocabulary that is used routinely in mathematics instruction,
textbooks, and word problems, learners are handicapped in their efforts to learn
mathematics.” Learners must understand math vocabulary if they are to master
content and be able to apply it in future situations (Thompson & Rubenstein, 2000).
Maths teachers should have a vocabulary toolbox filled with gadgets (i.e., strategies
and techniques) so that they can help learners crack the vocabulary code necessary to
decode the maths message.
The purpose of this article is firstly, to discuss learners’ mathematics vocabulary
difficulties, as well as the use of vocabulary strategies and techniques being part of preservice
foundation phase teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986);
or what Ball, Hill & Bass (2005) call knowledge of content and learners, and knowledge
of content and teaching. Secondly, this article with review learners’ mathematical
vocabulary difficulties, and lastly, provide an overview of strategies and techniques
(i.e., toolbox) that can be used by teachers in order to help their foundation phase
learners crack the mathematical vocabulary code.
16

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
Pedagogical content knowledge:
A focus on mathematics vocabulary
Pre-service teacher training programmes play a significant role in the preparation of a
highly qualified teaching work force, which is necessary to support the development
of a complex 21 st century society (International Reading Association, 2003). In South
Africa, the National Teacher Education Audit of 1996 concluded that the quality of
teacher education was generally poor, inefficient and not cost-effective (Hofmeyer
& Hall, 1996). According to the DoHET (2011, p. 15), the quality and the relevance of
the teacher preparation programmes offered by HEIs, vary widely. In the Integrated
Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa,
2011–2025, (RSA DoHET, 2011, p.3), it is stated that universities have the responsibility
for ensuring that the programmes being offered are of high quality and lead to
meaningful development for teachers. Teacher preparation programmes often cannot
meet the challenge in preparing teachers for highly complex and increasingly diverse
schools and classrooms, the challenge of keeping abreast of current developments
in research and practice, the complexity of the knowledge base, and the difficulty
of learning many of the skills required to enact the knowledge base (Snow, Burns &
Griffin, 1998; Ball & Forzani, 2009).
Central to raising learner achievement in mathematics is improving the quality
of mathematics teaching. Learners who receive high-quality instruction experience
greater and more persistent achievement gains than their peers who receive lowerquality
instruction (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997).
Rivkin et al. (2005) found that learners who were taught by a highly effective teacher
achieved a gain of 1.5 grade equivalents during a single academic year, whereas
learners enrolled in classes taught by ineffective teachers gained only 0.5 grade
equivalents in the same year. Moreover, the effects of high-quality instruction on
the academic achievement of disadvantaged learners are substantial enough to
counteract the host of familial and social conditions often found to impede learner
achievement (Rivkin et al., 2005). Put differently, teachers are critical determinants
of learner learning and educational progress and thus must be well trained to use
effective teaching practices. However, “although many studies demonstrate that
teachers’ mathematical knowledge helps support increased learner achievement, the
actual nature and extent of that knowledge – whether it is simply basic skills at the
grades they teach, or complex and professionally specific mathematical knowledge –
is largely unknown” (Ball, Hill & Bass, 2005, p. 16).
According to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000, p. 17), “[e]
ffective teaching requires knowing and understanding mathematics, learners as
learners, and pedagogical strategies.” Teachers’ mathematics knowledge is essential
to effective teaching and learner learning (Ball & Bass, 2001; Shulman, 1987). To teach
effectively, teachers must possess the knowledge and skills to; a) effectively structure
and present content to learners, (b) understand learners’ common conceptions,
misconceptions, and difficulties when learning particular content, and (c) select
17

SAJCE– December 2012
specific teaching strategies and techniques that can be used to address learners’
learning needs, which derives from Shulman’s original notion of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) (Rowan, Schilling, Ball, & Miller, 2001; Shulman, 1987).
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is that distinctive knowledge domain of
teaching that differentiates the expert teacher in a subject area from the subject
expert. While general pedagogical knowledge can be generically applied to all
teaching subjects, much of PCK is specific to individual teaching subjects. An emerging
consensus is that teachers’ knowledge of discipline-specific pedagogy is critical (cf.
Darling-Hammond, 2000). Studies have shown that novice teachers often struggle
to represent concepts in an understandable manner to their learners, because they
have little or no PCK at their disposal (Kagan, 1992; Reynolds, 1992). In the teaching
of mathematics, Ball (2000) stressed how the depth of teachers’ understanding of
mathematics PCK is a major determinant of teachers’ choice of examples, explanations,
exercises, items and reactions to children’s work. Pedagogical content knowledge
also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or
difficult” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Ball, Thames & Phelps (2008, p. 389) state that “the
continuing appeal of the notion of pedagogical content knowledge is that it bridges
content knowledge and the practice of teaching.” However, they also state that
“the term has lacked definition and empirical foundation, limiting its usefulness.”
Based on their efforts to develop a practice-based theory of content knowledge for
teaching, Ball et al. (2008) divided Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge into two
empirically detectable subdomains, namely knowledge of content and learners (KCS),
and knowledge of content and teaching (KCT). Knowledge of content and learners is
knowledge that combines knowing about learners and knowing about mathematics.
Teachers must anticipate what learners are likely to think and what they will find
confusing. Knowledge of content and teaching combines knowing about teaching and
knowing about mathematics. This knowledge requires teachers to use knowledge of
mathematics to develop or choose teaching actions or moves.
Mathematics is recognised as the most difficult content area as far as reading
material is considered, “with more concepts per word, per sentence, per paragraph
than any other area” (Schell, 1982, p. 544). Since vocabulary represents and provides
access to concepts, instruction in the vocabulary of mathematics cannot be incidental.
According to Monroe (1998, p. 538), “[t]eachers need assistance in knowing how to
provide meaningful vocabulary instruction in mathematics.” Given the pivotal role
of vocabulary, it is surprising that typically very little class time has been focused on
vocabulary instruction. Researchers including Durkin (1979), Scott & Nagy (1997), and
Biemiller (2005) have documented the small present of instructional time dedicated
to vocabulary teaching and the general absence of systematic, explicit vocabulary
instruction. Teachers need to be able to identify learners’ mathematical vocabulary
difficulties and address them systematically (Rubenstein & Thompson, 2002). This
knowledge required by teachers is, therefore, part of teachers pedagogical content
knowledge, and more specifically what Ball et al. (2008) have called knowledge of
content and learners (e.g., identify the difficulties learners have with mathematics
18

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
vocabulary) and knowledge of content and teaching (e.g., determining which tools
can be used to address learners mathematics vocabulary difficulties).
Mathematical vocabulary difficulties
Vocabulary instruction is one of the essential elements of a learner’s academic
development (Snow, 2002). Although commonly associated with language proper,
vocabulary proficiency is a significant contributing factor in learning and mastering
mathematical concepts. Researchers have found a relationship in mathematics
between vocabulary and comprehension, identifying vocabulary understanding as a
key component in understanding mathematics (Miller, 1993). In examining the role
that vocabulary plays in mathematical understanding, Lindgren, Roberts & Sankey
(1999, p. 16) stated that, “[m]athematics is a language. Reading a mathematics text
is somewhat like reading Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina in the original Russian.” Adams
(2003,p. 787) stated that weakness in learners’ mathematics ability is often due
to difficulties in reading “the language of mathematics.” In other words, learning
the vocabulary of mathematics is like learning a new language and learners must
understand this language if they are to communicate and apply mathematics with
proficiency (Monroe, 2002).
Even though some of the language used to talk about mathematics may sound
familiar, because aspects of the language we use to talk about mathematics are
borrowed from our everyday language (e.g., table) (NCTM, 2000; Pimm, 1987),
in practice the language of mathematics can be alienating and act as a barrier. The
use of everyday language in mathematics is colloquial, common and familiar, and
includes conversational language (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Delpit, 1998). By
contrast, the register of mathematics (Halliday, 1978), which is unique to the subject,
is highly formalised and includes symbols, pictures, words and numbers. Since
the mathematical register is used in unique ways, it is not easily usable outside the
mathematics classroom, not even in other subject classrooms (NCTM, 2000; Dahl,
2004). Consequently, the mathematical register and thus mathematical language
more generally, can indeed sound, feel and look much like a foreign language, unless it
is made explicit to learners.
A learner’s inability to successfully minimise interference can potentially
undermine his or her ability to learn. The multiplicity of representations of words
in everyday language and within the mathematical register can create significant
linguistics interference as learners struggle to assign appropriate meanings to words in
unfamiliar contexts. As a result, developing the mathematical register can be difficult
for learners unless similarities and differences are made explicit (Kotsopoulos, 2007).
There are three main ways in which children’s failure to understand mathematical
vocabulary may manifest: children do not respond to questions in lessons, they cannot
do a task they are set and/or they do poorly in assessments/tests/exams. Their lack of
response may be due to:
19

SAJCE– December 2012
Misunderstanding the spoken or written instructions. Children cannot learn the
meanings of words in isolation. The use of questions is crucial in helping them to
understand mathematical concepts and use mathematical terms correctly. It is
important to ask questions in different ways so that children who do not understand
the first time may pick up the meaning later on. Learners who have a home language
(e.g., Setswana) that differs from the medium of instruction (e.g., English) will benefit
from vocabulary instruction, and so will others who are not always familiar with the
vocabulary and grammatical structures used in school. It is easy to use certain types
of questions (e.g., recalling facts – How many days are there in a week?; applying facts
– What are the factors of 42?) more often than those that require a higher level of
thinking (e.g., hypothesising or predicting – Estimate the number of marbles in this
jar?; designing and comparing procedures – How might we count this pile of sticks?;
interpreting results – What does the graph tell us about the most common shoe size?;
applying reasoning – Why is the sum of two odd numbers always even?). If teachers
can use the full range of question types they will find that children begin to give more
complex answers in which they explain their thinking (UK Department for Education
and Employment, 2000, p. 4).
According to Abedi (2009:173):
There is a difference between language that is an essential part of the content
of the question and language that makes the question incomprehensible to
many learners [...] While it is important to understand and value the richness
of language in an assessment system; it is also important to make sure that
[...] learners [...] not be penalized for their lack of English proficiency in areas
where the target of assessment is not language. Though we understand the
views of some language modification critics in not “dumbing down” assessment
questions by simplifying the language, we also recognize the distinction
between necessary and unnecessary linguistic complexity.
In English there are many basic words, such as pronouns, prepositions, and
conjunctions that make a big difference in learner understanding of mathematics
problems. For example, the words of and off cause a lot of confusion in solving
percentage problems, as the percent of something is quite distinct from the percent
off something. The word a can mean “any” in mathematics. For example, when asking
learners to “show that a number divisible by 6 is even,” teachers aren’t asking for a
specific example, but for the learners to show that all numbers divisible by 6 have to
be even. When we take the area “of” a triangle, we mean what the learners think of as
“inside” the triangle. Similarly, learners often ask: why doesn’t 6 divided into 12 mean
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).
A study by Kathryn Sullivan (1982) showed that even a brief, three-week programme
centered on helping learners distinguish the mathematical usage of “small” words
can improve learners’ mathematics scores. Words studied in the programme cited
by Sullivan (1982) include the, is, a, are, can, on, who, find, one, ones, ten, tens, and,
or, number, numeral, how, many, how many, what, write, it, each, which, do, all, same,
exercises, here, there, has, and have.
20

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
Mathematical text is lexically dense which means that it contains a minimum of
redundant words, that is, contextual clues (NSW Department of School Education,
1997). Learners’ attention needs to be drawn to dense phrases that contain multiple
concepts which can pose difficulties to learners, for example, reflex angle, closest to,
possible outcomes, exactly halfway, number sentence, per person, satisfies equations,
best estimate, number line, equal length, regular hexagon, percentage decrease, square
based pyramid, average daily saving, stem and leaf plot, four consecutive whole numbers,
three quarter turn clockwise, sum of dots on opposite faces.
They are confused when different words may be used to describe the same concept
in mathematics (cf. Table 1) or when terms are related, but learners confuse their distinct
meanings (e.g., hundred and hundredths, denominator and numerator, solve and
simplify, factor and multiple) (Thompson & Rubenstein, 2000).
Table 1: Words describing the same concept
Addition Subtraction Multiplication Division
Add Are not By (dimension) As much
Altogether Change Double Cut up
And Decreased by Each group Divided by
Both Difference Multiplied by Each group has
How many fewer Of Half
(or other fractions)
How much Have left Product of How many in each
In all Left over Times Parts
Increased by
How many did triple
Quotient of
not have
Plus How many more Separated
Sum Less than Share
something equally
Together Remain split
total
subtract
Take away
Taller/shorter
They are not familiar with the mathematical vocabulary found only in mathematical
contexts. Teachers need to explain the mathematical vocabulary explicitly, for
example, quotient, decimal, denominator, quadrilateral, parallelogram, etc.
They may be confused about mathematical terms that have different meanings
in everyday English. Teachers need to recognize and make explicit the difference
between ‘mathematical’ English and ‘everyday’ English (Pierce & Fontaine, 2009; Saxe,
1988). Examples of such words are mean, volume, key, face, head, tail, range, positive,
product, prime, and rule. Panchyshyn and Monroe (1992) report that more than 50%
of the general vocabulary terms used in elementary mathematics textbooks are not
used frequently in other reading materials. As a result, learners are not exposed to the
21

SAJCE– December 2012
correct meanings of these words unless the teacher specifically plans for vocabulary
instruction. For example, a teacher who asks, “What is the difference between 9 and
4?” could get a wide range of answers from “9 is odd and 3 is even” to “5” to “one has
a circle and one has a triangle.” Even within mathematics words such as scale, cube
and square have more than one meaning. In some cases, the same word functions as a
different part of speech, for instance square can be a noun, verb or adjective.
Some mathematical phrases can cause difficulties (understanding a concept is
harder when the concept is made up of the relationship between two words), for
example, all numbers greater/less than X, Mary earns 5 times as much as John,, Mary is
6 years older than John, two numbers, the sum of which is 1, etc.
They may be confused about other words which are used in everyday English and
have similar, though more precise, meanings in mathematics. Words falling into this
category include, average, reflection, even, edge, etc.
There are, then, practical reasons why children need to acquire appropriate
vocabulary so that they can participate in the activities, lessons and tests that are part
of classroom life. There is, however, an even more important reason: mathematical
language is crucial to children’s conceptual development. If children don’t have
the vocabulary to talk about division, or perimeters, or numerical difference, they
cannot make progress in understanding these areas of mathematical knowledge (UK
Department for Education and Employment, 2000).
Providing teachers with a mathematical vocabulary toolbox
A report from the Department for Education and Employment (UK DfEE, 1999, p. 2) in
the United Kingdom stressed that “a structured approach to the teaching and learning
of vocabulary is essential if children are to move on and begin using the correct
mathematical terminology as soon as possible.” In order to ensure that learners master
critical concepts and build a solid base for learning new words, teachers should focus
on helping learners crack vocabulary’s CODE: connect, organise, deep process and
exercise. Teachers should connect the words being introduced to what the learners
already know, organise new words into meaningful categories and frameworks in
order to discover relationships between terms, process the terms deelpy to internalise
their meanings and exercise the words to gain ownership (Spaniak, 2009).
It is impossible to teach every word a learner should know. Teachers should
prioritise vocabulary words by conducting a brief content analysis during unit planning
and then organising key vocabulary into three categories, namely essential or core,
important and good to know. Each category serves as a guideline for how much
emphasis and time should be spent on different words.
Teachers need a repertoire of instructional techniques to teach vocabulary.
Research indicates that vocabulary learning improves dramatically when learners are
exposed to words multiple times and are given the opportunity to work and play with
those words in a variety of ways (Marzano, 2004). In addition, different kinds of words
call for different kinds of instructional techniques. Teachers should have a vocabulary
22

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
toolbox which contains a variety of vocabulary tools and strategies that can be used
to crack the CODE.
Connecting tools
During the connect phase teachers should help learners establish a connection
to what they already know or what they may observe. Word walls are an ideal tool
for creating a classroom culture that breeds that all important familiarity between
learners and the words they encounter in their classrooms or texts (cf. Figure 1). The
purpose of the mathematics word wall is to identify words and phrases that learners
need to understand and use so as to make good progress in mathematics. They need
to be familiar with mathematical vocabulary and mathematical terms to understand
written and spoken instructions.
LEFT OVER
A.M
Remaining
one
set
of 4
left
over
means the 12 hours
from midnight to
noon; it is called ante
meridian.
12 midnight 12 noon
NUMBER LINE
P.M
Evenly spaced
numbers marked in
order
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
p.m. stands for the
12 hours between
noon and midnight;
it is called post
meridian. 12 noon 12 midnight
12 ÷ 3 = 4
6
3 groups of 5
÷ 4 24 2 x 4 = 8
3 x 5 = 15
(divide)
X
(multiply)
18 divided by 2 is 9
5 times 4 is 20
Figure 1: Word Walls (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2012).
23

SAJCE– December 2012
A vocabulary notebook is a tool for helping learners use context clues to develop their
own perspective on the meaning of difficult words. Effective word-learners attack
unknown words, break them into their meaningful parts, hypothesise meanings for
the larger words and then check their meanings against the context of the text as
well as their own background knowledge (Anderson & Nagy, 1992). One vocabulary
instruction method that has not traditionally been associated with the foundation
phase is a morphological approach; an approach that taps into the fact that a
significant number of words, particularly academic words, in English are derived from
Latin and Greek. Knowledge of Latin and Greek roots increases learners’ ability to
understand English words (Rasinki, Padak, Newton & Newton, 2011). Research has
demonstrated that many roots and affixes, including those of Latin and Greek origin,
can readily be learned in the primary grades (Biemiller, 2005; Mountain, 2005). All
primary-level reading instruction includes attention to phonics or word decoding
(National Reading Panel, 2002; RSA DoE, 2008). Children learn to “look inside” of
words for familiar letters, word families, etc. Teachers can use this foundation as a
platform to help learners learn about word roots, prefixes, suffixes and base words.
When it comes to teaching vocabulary, a little knowledge of root words, prefixes and
suffixes goes a long way (cf. Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2: Root Words, Prefixes and Suffixes
Unknown word Root Prefix Suffix Guess meaning
Kilometre Meter (measure) Kilo (thousand) Thousand
measures
Percentage Cent (hundred) Per (through) -age (belongs to) Belongs to
numbers through
a hundred
Perimeter Meter(measure) Peri (around) To measure
around
Intersecting Sect (cut) Inter (between) -ing (result of an
activity)
Result of cutting
between
Table 3: Elementary Level Latin and Greek Roots and Affixes (Rasinki et al., 2011: 136).
Prefixes
a-, ab-, absadco-,
com-, con-, coldedi-,
dif-, dis-
exin-,
im-, ilin-,
im-, ilpre-
away, from
to, toward, add to
with, together
own, off of
apart, in different
directions, not
out
in, on into (directional)
not (negative)
before
24

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
proresubtra-,
tran-, transun-
forward, ahead
back, again
under, below
across, change
not (negative)
Parallel Latin and Greek Prefixes
Latin
Greek
Contra-, contro-, counter anti- against
Circu-, circum- peri- around
Multi- poly many
Super-, sur- hyper over
Sub- hypo- under, below
Bases
Audi- audit-
Cred-, credit-
Cur-, curs-, cours-
Dict-
Duc-, duct-
Fac-, fic-, fact-, fect-
Graph-, gram-
Mis-, mit-
Mov-, mot-, mobil-
Pon-, pos-, posit-
Port-
Scrib-, script
Terr-
Vis-, vis-
hear, listen
believe
run, go
say, tell, speak
lead
do, make
write, draw
to send
move
put, place
carry
write
earth
see
Numerical bases
Uni-
Bi-
Tri-
one
two
three
Parallel Latin and Greek bases
Latin
Greek
Aqua- hydro- water
Ped- pod- foot, feet
Terr- geo- earth
Suffixes
-able, ible
-arium, -orium
-er
can, able to be done
place for, container for
more
25

SAJCE– December 2012
Suffixes
-est
-ful
-ify
-less
-or, -er
-ose, -ous, -eous, -ious
most
full of
to make
without
one who does
full of
The root word tree is a graphic organiser that allows learners to examine a single
vocabulary word for its different word parts. When using the graphic organiser
learners locate an unknown word, write it at the base of the tree, and break apart the
word into recognizable chunks to help them decipher its meaning (cf. Figure 2).
ROOT WORD TREE
Name:
Teacher / Period:
FIND AT LEAST FOUR WORDS USING THE ROOT
DIRECTIONS: IN THE BOX ON THE RIGHT USING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROOT WORD MAKE A GUESS OF THE
DEFINITION. THEN IN THE BOX ON THE RIGHT, PLACE THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION.
YOUR BEST GUESS
DICTIONARY DEFINITION
Figure 2: The Root Word Tree (McKnight, 2010).
Teach learners how to use the Four S’s (See It, Say It, Spell It, Show It) to connect
deeply with the new word. See the word: note its spelling and the way it looks when
written. Say the word: saying the word out loud a few times forges a connection
between your mouth and your brain. Spell the word: write the word out in your
26

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
glossary, paying close attention to how it is spelled. Show the word: show your
understanding with sketches and sentences you create for these words in a glossary
or vocabulary journal. This tool is especially useful when the context doesn’t provide
any substantial information about a word’s meaning.
Engage pupils in the creation of learner-created math glossaries. Provide pupils
with pages marked with alphabet letters (cf. Figure 3). Instruct learners to place these
sheets in the backs of their notebooks and pull them out when they learn new math
vocabulary. Ask learners to add all new vocabulary terms to the glossary as they learn
them. By writing these terms and their definitions, learners reinforce their knowledge
of these terms.
Add
To bring two or more numbers (or things) together to make a new total.
Here 1 ball is added to 1 ball to make 2 balls.
Calendar
A table that shows the days, weeks, and months of a year.
Figure 3: Glossaries
November
S M Tu W Th F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Organising tools
As the number of new words learners encounter grows, the brain creates an
organisational system into which these new words can be slotted. The graphic
organiser, which is closely aligned with current theory about how the brain organises
information, can be used in helping learners assign deeper meaning to words
27

SAJCE– December 2012
(Monroe & Orme, 2002). A graphic organiser represents important concepts and their
relationships visually (Moore & Readence, 1984).
Learners examine the lessons’ vocabulary and place words into groups based
on common characteristics. For each group learners create, they devise a label that
describes what all the grouped words have in common. For example, in groups
learners generate a list of terms for the word “measurement” (cf. Table 4).
Table 4: List-group-label
Learner-Generated List
weight height centimetre length
thermometer tape measure scale age
cup circumference radius meter
area distance time kilogram
width perimeter ruler temperature
Categorise
Units of Measure Things you Measure Tools for Measurement
centimetre weight ruler
meter age tape measure
kilogram height cup
circumference scale
radius
thermometer
area
distance
length
width
perimeter
Deep Processing tools
Deep processing a word can mean visualising it, restating its definition in learners’ own
words, even acting it out or explaining their emotional response to it. Researchers
emphasise the importance of vocabulary, yet also point out that knowing a word
well involves the combination of several different types of knowledge. Stahl (1999)
suggested that knowing a word means not only knowing its literal definition but also
knowing its relationship to other words, its connotations in different contexts, and
its power of transformation into various other forms. Table 5 is an example of the
Frayer model and Table 6 is an example of the K-N-W-S problem solving strategy that
can be used for deep processing. Learners who can master these different aspects of
knowing a word have strong depth of vocabulary knowledge, and learners who are
familiar with many words have breadth of vocabulary knowledge.
28

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
Table 5: Frayer Model of Polygon
DEFINITION
A mathematical shape that is a closed plane
figure bounded by 3 or more line segments
CHARACTERISTICS
• Closed
• Plane figure
• More than 2 straight sides
• Two-dimensional
• Made of line segments
• Pentagon
• Hexagon
• Square
• Triangle
• Rhombus
EXAMPLES
POLYGON
NON-EXAMPLES
• Circle
• Cone
• Arrow
• Cylinder
Table 6: K-N-W-S strategy
Video Pit rents movies for R3 each per night. They also offer a video club plan. The
plan costs R100 per year and allows unlimited rentals at R1 per movie per night plus
two free rentals per month. How many movies must you rent in a year to make the
video club worthwhile?
K
N
W
S
What facts do I KNOW Which information do
from the information I NOT need?
in the problem?
Exercising tools
WHAT does the
problem ask me to
find?
What STRATEGY/
operation/tools will
I use to solve the
problem?
To hold onto the words they learn and what these words mean, learners need to
review their learning in a way that promotes high levels of retention. Teach learners
how to look back on their glossaries and deepen their understanding by using the
four R’s: Revisiting what they’ve recorded, Reviewing the word’s meaning, Refining
their definition of the word in light of new understanding, and Revising their way of
remembering the word by adding their original picture, creating a metaphor or simile,
adding new examples or non-examples, providing a real-world application, etc.
Writing about thinking is challenging. For this reason, it is best not to start out
having learners write about unfamiliar mathematical ideas. First get them used to
writing in a math class. Have learners write a “mathograph” – a paragraph in which
they describe their feelings about and experiences in math (e.g., What do you
remember about learning to add and to subtract? Which did you think was more fun?
Why did you like that one better?). This exercise is a good tool to get to know learners
29

SAJCE– December 2012
early in the year, and to make comparisons later when looking for signs of progress.
Once learners have become accustomed to writing about their attitudes and feelings
toward mathematics in their journals, they are ready to write about simple, familiar
math concepts (e.g., Explain in your own words what subtraction means). When a new
concept is introduced and the class looks disengaged or confused ask the learners to
write an explanation of the method of calculation or a term that was used (e.g., Write
down two questions you have about the work we are doing/the lesson we are working
on).
Conclusion
Pedagogical content knowledge is assumed to develop as teachers gain more
experience in teaching, because it is directly related to the act of teaching (Borko &
Putnam, 1996). However, studies of pre-service mathematics teachers’ knowledge and
skills related to teaching have revealed that methods courses and field experiences are
likely to contribute to the development of PCK (Van Driel, de Jong, & Verloop, 2002).
In order to alleviate the difficulties that pre-service teachers face during their starting
years, teacher educators have a responsibility to ensure that pre-service teachers
acquire sufficient PCK during their preparation. When preparing pre-service teachers,
they should be provided with instructional application experiences in which they can
demonstrate their PCK. To achieve this, they need experience during work integrated
learning sessions.
Mathematics teachers don’t need to become reading specialists in order to help
learners read mathematics texts, but they do need to recognize that learners need
their help reading in mathematical contexts. Teachers should make the strategic
processes necessary for understanding mathematics vocabulary explicit to learners.
Teachers must help learners use strategies for acquiring vocabulary and reading word
problems for meaning.
References
Abedi, J. (2009). Validity of assessments for English language learning learners in a
national/international context. Estudios sobre Educación, 16, 167-183.
Adams, T. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading
Teacher, 56, 786-795.
Aiken, L.R. (1972). Language factors in learning mathematics. Review of Educational
Research, 42(3), 359-385.
Anderson, R.C., & Nagy, W.E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. American Educator,
16(14-18), 44-47.
Ball, D.L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching
and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 241-247.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2001). Interviewing content and pedagogy in teaching and
learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
30

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT:
Ablex Publishing.
Ball, D.L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Ball, D.L., Hill, H.C. & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows
mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American
Educator, 29(3), 14-46.
Ball, D.L. Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what
makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407.
Bay-Williams, J.M., & Livers, S. (2009). Supporting math vocabulary acquisition.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(4), 239-246.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for
choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E.L. Hiebert & M.L.
Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. (pp.
223-242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borko, H. & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Chamot, A., & O’Malley, J.M. (1984). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Dahl, B. (2004). Analysing cognitive learning processes through group interviews of
successful high school pupils: Development and use of a model. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 56, 129-155.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and learner achievement. A review of
State policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Delpit, L.D. (1998). Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In Perry, T. & Delpit, D.
(Eds.) The real ebonics debate. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 518-544.
Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2012). Grade 3 maths resources. Retrieved
5/12/12, from http://www.esl.amdsb.ca/pdf/Grade3EQAOMathResources.pdf
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: the social interpretation of
language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Hofmeyr, J., & Hall, G. (1996). The national teacher education audit: Synthesis report.
Pretoria: Department of Education.
International Reading Association. (2003). Investment in teacher preparation in the
United States. A position statement of the International Reading Association.
Newark, Delaware: IRA.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
31

SAJCE– December 2012
Kotsopoulos, D. (2007). It’s like hearing a foreign language. Mathematics Teacher,
101(4), 301-305.
Lindgren, W., Roberts, G., & Sankey, A. (1999). Introduction to mathematical thinking.
Retrieved on December 15, 2006 from http://www.tec.iup.edu/mhogue/literary_
review.html.
Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement:
Research what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
McKnight, K.S. (2010). The teacher’s big book of graphic organizers. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, D. (1993). Making the connection with language. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(6),
311- 316.
Monroe, E. (1998). Using graphic organizers to teach vocabulary: Does available
research inform mathematics instruction? Education, 118(4), 538-540.
Monroe, E. (2002). Developing mathematical vocabulary. Preventing School Failure,
36(3), 139-142.
Monroe, E., & Orme, M.P. (2002). Developing mathematical vocabulary. Preventing
School Failure, 46(3), 139-142.
Monroe, E. & Panchyshyn, R. (1995). Vocabulary considerations for teaching
mathematics. Childhood Education, 72(2), 80-83.
Moore, D.W., & Readence, J.E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic
organizer research. Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11-17.
Mountain, L. (2005). ROOTing out meaning: More morphemic analysis for primary
pupils. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 742-749.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://
nationalreadingpanel.org
NSW Department of School Education. (1997). Teaching literacy in mathematics in year
7. Sydney: Author.
Panchyshyn, R., & Monroe, E.E. (1992). Vocabulary considerations in mathematics
instruction. Paper presented at the Fourteenth World Congress on Reading,
Maui, Hl.
Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject
knowledge and pedagogic knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces.
International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89-111.
Pierce, M. E., & Fontaine, L. M. (2009). Designing vocabulary instruction in mathematics.
Reading Teacher, 63(3), 239-243.
32

Nel – Cracking the Vocabulary Code in Mathematics in the Foundation Phase
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms.
New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rasinski, T.V., Padak, N., Newton, J., & Newton, E. (2011). The Latin-Greek connection.
Building vocabulary through morphological study. The Reading Teacher, 65, 133-
141.
Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 1-35.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Rowan, B., Schilling, S., Ball, D., & Miller, R. (2001). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge in surveys: An exploratory study. Consortium for Policy Research
in Education, Study of Instructional Improvement, Research Note S-2. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan.
RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). (2003). Systemic
evaluation Foundation Phase mainstream national report. Pretoria: Department
of Education.
RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Education). (2008). Teaching reading
in the early grades. A teacher’s handbook. Pretoria: Department of Education.
RSA DoBE (Republic of South Africa. Department of Basic Education). (2010). Annual
national assessments 2011. A guideline for the interpretation and use of ANA results.
Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
RSA DoHET. (Republic of South Africa. Department of Higher Education and Training).
(2011). The minimum requirements for teacher education qualifications. Government
Gazette No. 34467. Pretoria: Department of Education
Rubenstein, R. & Thompson, D. (2002). Understanding and supporting children’s’
mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2),
107- 112.
Saxe, G. B. (1988). Linking language with mathematics achievement. In R. R. Cocking
& J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schell, V. (1982) Learning partners: Reading and mathematics. The Reading Teacher,
35(5), 544-548.
Scott, J.A. & Nagy, W.E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs.
Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184-200.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation.
33

SAJCE– December 2012
Snow, C.E., Burns, S.M., Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spaniak, N. (2009). The keys to unlocking vocabulary’s c.o.d.e. Paper presented at the
Secondary Reading League Day of Reading, November 7. Retrieved May 25, 2012
from www.dayofreading.org/DOR09HO/SpaniakVocabCode.pdf
Stahl, S. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Sullivan, K. (1982). Vocabulary instruction in mathematics: Do the “little” words count?
American Reading Forum Yearbook, 2, 9-11.
Thompson, D.R., & Rubenstein, R.N. (2000). Learning mathematics vocabulary:
Potential pitfalls and instructional strategies. The Mathematics Teacher, 93(7),
568-574.
UK Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The national numeracy strategy:
Framework for teaching mathematics from reception to year 6. Sudbury: DfEE.
UK Department of Education and Employment. (2000). The national numeracy strategy.
Mathematical vocabulary. London: DfEE.
Van Driel, J.H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice
chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86, 572-
590.
Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects
on learner achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
34

Graham Dampier & Daphney Mawila
Test items and translation: capturing
early conceptual development in
mathematics reliably?
Abstract
Translating items of educational tests from one language to another is problematic.
Arriving at accurate translations of concepts formulated in a language that is
grammatically and syntactically incommensurable with a target language is a concern
that probably won’t find resolution. And the very act of translation can obscure the
accuracy of test items. Item Response Theory holds that only the ability of people
tested and the difficulty of items should have an effect on the dataset. We report on an
instance where a test was translated from German to English and then into isiZulu and
Sesotho. We tested 106 pupils from similar socio economic backgrounds and schools.
Our aim is to determine whether the translation had any effect on the accuracy of the
instrument, which has been normed and standardised in Germany with a sample of
0ver 1000 grade 1 pupils.
Keywords: Item response theory, conceptual development, mathematical
competence, learning and assessment.
Graham Dampier, University of Johannesburg. E-mail: gadampier@uj.ac.za. Daphney
Mawila, University of Johannesburg. E-mail: dmawila@uj.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 35-57 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

SAJCE– December 2012
Introduction: signs and signified in the translation of a test
Translated items of educational diagnostic tests are likely to come with a host of
possible problems. In any translation these may extend beyond the issues associated
with trying to arrive at an approximate equation of meaning from the original to the
translated text. Translation, particularly in the case of languages that exhibit little
commonality, is, by force, constrained. The constraint is due not only to disparate
representational systems, each with their own grammar, syntax and lexicon, but
more problematically to pre-linguistic epistemological stores that are determined and
defined by different geo-cultural points of reference that are captured in different
languages as systems of signs (Benjamin, 1997; Jakobson, 1959; Gopnik and Meltzhoff,
1997). Any given language is involved in the continued production and naming of
new concepts that will in the end be expressed through its system of signs (Evans &
Levinson, 2009; Levinson, 2003). Simply put, different languages tend to represent
concepts and ideas that are often unique to the environment in which they exist.
An often-used example comes from the Inuit language and its variants, which have
many different words for ‘snow’ that describe variation within the phenomenon. Also,
`Nguni languages have the same word for ‘green’ and ‘blue.’
However, research on what Carey (1985, 2009) has referred to as “core cognition”
suggests that children from disparate language groups share certain innate
fundamental predispositions that form the cognitive basis for developing concepts,
or, to be more precise, new and more complex conceptual representations. A Whorfian
(Whorf, 1956) stance does not explain this type of content architecture of cognition,
but does have much to say for the signs by which cognition is communicated and
which develop uniquely in speech communities. In formal education, if one uses De
Saussurean parlance (De Saussure, 1986) the signs of language are as important as
their signifieds (Nazzi & Gopnik, 2001).
The larger topic of how language feeds into education, and vice versa, is not the
focus of this article. We address the way specific test items are used to assess children,
by arguing that the construct validity of these items rests on consensus of the meaning
of test items, across the four languages we will refer to. We describe an example of
the attempt to translate a latent trait encoded in one test from German into English
and then into Sesotho and isiZulu. The MARKO-D, an instrument that assesses
mathematical competence and which was developed in Germany (Ricken, Fritz &
Balzer, 2012), is a test that scratches the surface of basic mathematical cognition. The
test itself is, however, aimed at capturing learned representations. 1
The test was translated into English (originally not the South African variant) and
from there into isiZulu and Sesotho. Some of the formal isiZulu and Sesotho versions
1 There are exceptions. Cultures, such as the Piraha and Munduruku in the Amazon, have not developed the
ability to go beyond core cognition of number, due merely to a lack of need. These cultural systems do not rely
on numerical representations that have developed beyond what evolution has endowed the human species
with. In these languages only the first three numbers are named, while the 1-1 correspondence of objects and
cardinal quantities has not been established for more than three objects. (Carey, 2009; p. 303)
36

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
of the test items were virtually incomprehensible to the grade 1 pupils it sought to
assess empirically, since they were represented in the formal register of the two
languages that the urban children do not use (Welch, Dampier and Mawila, 2011). As a
result, the validity and reliability of the test and the data it sought to gather could have
been compromised, since the representational mode in which the test was delivered
appeared, on face value, not to suit the linguistic context in which it was administered.
The purpose of this article is two-fold. Firstly, using the MARKO-D test, we evaluate
the cross-linguistic assessment of mathematical representations built on core
mathematical cognition. The developers of the test explain that it was designed for
pre-school children (Gerlach, Fritz & Leutner, 2012) and was piloted and later validated
with 3000 children in Germany. They explain that it was developed not to test core
knowledge of mathematical concepts (which is believed to be innate), even though it
taps into this, but that it was designed to measure mathematical concepts that have
been learned socially, from the ability to count with the succession principle through
to knowledge of natural number and cardinality. One of the basic assumptions of the
test is that while all children are born with a set of core mathematical concepts, they
develop basic mathematical skills as they learn, mostly through some instruction, be it
formal or informal, which is mediated, mostly, by language as semiotic mediator.
Secondly, we assess whether the double translation from German into English and
then into isiZulu and Sesotho had any effect on the way in which individuals from the
different language groups responded to the test. The Rasch model of measurement
(Rasch, 1960; Andrich, 1988; Bond & Fox, 2007) was used to assess the effect of the
double translation on the items of the test. The model indicates whether the MARKO-D
is a reliable tool with which to measure mathematical competence in English, isiZulu
and Sesotho in urban South African classrooms. It was used to determine whether our
data violated the assumption of unidimensionality, which is a basic tenet of the Rasch
model and item response theory, more generally (Wright, 1988; Wright & Stone, 1999,
Anrdrich 1988; de la Torre & Patz, 2005; Andrich & Hagquist, 2012; Bond & Fox, 2007;
Rasch, 1960; DeMars, 2010).
This article presents a preliminary analysis of the suitability of the MARKO-D as a
measure of mathematical competence in what is a very distinct setting, the urban
South African ‘township’ classroom. The sample size of the pilot test on which we
report (n=106) is suitable for such a pilot and was followed in 2012 by a sample of 280.
De Mars explains that (2010, p. 34), “Rasch or one-parameter logistic (1PL) models are
often used with samples as small as 100 or 200 examinees,” but prevailing wisdom
holds that increasing the number of examinees will improve the estimation of person
ability and item difficulty. With the limitations of this sample size, we make no claim
to have arrived at a conclusive evaluation of the accuracy, validity and reliability of
the MARKO-D for all urban South African schools that are similar to our sample school.
Instead, this analysis of the test provides a preliminary assessment of the suitability
of the test and the effect of translating the test from German to English and then into
isiZulu and Sesotho.
37

SAJCE– December 2012
The Rasch model indicates (1) whether the MARKO-D assesses mathematical
competence consistently in the three different language groups, in other words, it
determines to what extent the test fits with the population assessed in this study, and
(2) whether the act of translating the test into three different representational systems
has had any effect on the dimensionality of the data. The principle of unidimensionality
maintains that only the difficulty of test items and the ability of individuals should have
any bearing on the data (Wright, 1998; Wright & Stone, 1999, Anrdrich 1988; Andrich &
Hagquist, 2012; Bond & Fox, 2007, DeMars, 2010, de la Torre & Patz, 2005). Violation of
this principle may suggest that extraneous variables are clouding the accuracy of the
MARKO-D as a measure of mathematical competence.
We begin with a brief discussion of what core mathematical cognition refers to,
and, specifically, what Carey’s (2009) theoretical stance entails, before exploring her
theory of learning, or cognitive development. As a leading cognitive developmental
psychologist, her view is widely accepted (Carey, 2001; 2004 & 2009). This will be
followed by a brief discussion of the origin and the validation of the MARKO-D test.
Thereafter, we report on how we used the Rasch model to assess whether this
instrument accesses mathematical competence consistently and accurately across
the three language groups tested. We also discuss the effect that translating the
assessment has had on the different language groups.
Core mathematical cognition
Carey (2009, p. 3) explains that her work, The Origin of Concepts, offers an account
of the “human capacity for conceptual representation.” On the surface her argument
appears to be rather simple, since her basic premise is that (2009, p. 3), “(s) ome
concepts, such as object and number, arise in some form over evolutionary time,”
while other concepts “such as kayak, fraction, and gene, spring from human cultures,
and the construction process must be understood in terms of both human individuals’
learning mechanisms and sociocultural processes.”
The distinction between what is inherent in our species (produced over the course
of our evolution) and what cultures produce in the attempt to articulate what is
particular to them, is maintained throughout the exploration of what she refers to as
conceptual representation and conceptual development. Carey’s argument for core
cognition has been consistent for over a decade.
Along with Spelke (Carey and Spelke, 1994, p. 169), she argues that, “human
reasoning is guided by a collection of innate domain specific systems of knowledge”
and that each system is defined by “a set of core principles that define the entities
covered by the domain and support reasoning about those entities.” Learning, they
argue, will entail the development and the entrenchment of these core principles
(1994, p. 169). The domains of knowledge they are referring to include knowledge
of language, knowledge of physical objects and knowledge of number (Chomsky,
38

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
1980; Carey & Spelke, 1994) 2 . Later, Carey & Spelke (1996, p. 517) argue that in the
same way we “are endowed with multiple, specialized perceptual systems, so we
are endowed with multiple systems for representing and reasoning about entities of
different kinds,” which includes “at least four core conceptual systems encompassing
knowledge of objects, agents, number, and space.”
While Carey has since distanced herself from the “core knowledge” argument
forwarded by herself in collaboration with Spelke, and by other cognitive
developmentalists (Carey & Spelke, 1996; Spelke, 2000; Spelke, 2003; Gelman, 1991;
and Leslie, 1994 3 ), her definition of “core cognition” retains conceptual and theoretical
relations to it. She (2009, p. 10-11) maintains the stance that cognitive development
is organized around a core set of conceptual representations that are “evolutionarily
underwritten,” and that differ from sensory and perceptual representations “in
having a rich, conceptual, inferential role to play in thought.” The major difference
between core cognition and core knowledge is that core cognition, notably, does not
claim to be veridical, which means that core cognition exists independently of contact
with particular phenomena in the world. Core cognition is embedded within the
brain, it exists as the fons et origo of knowledge, and does not require experience to
actively serve its basic function, which is to make sense of sensory input. Even though
knowledge may change over time, it appears that core cognition remains stable
and constant. 4
By implication members of different language groups, for example the German,
isiZulu, English and Sesotho groups, should all, at some point of maturation, have
similar, if not the same, set of core mathematical concepts available to them
before they embark on the process of creating new representational systems that
will arise through sociocultural “semiotic mediation” (Vygotsky, 1978). Cognitive
neuropsychologists have gone a long way to proving that all human beings, regardless
of language and culture, and indeed many animals such as rats, the various primate
species, many species of bird, and so on, are naturally endowed with the ability to
analyse reality in terms of number and quantity (Carey, 2009; Dehaene, 2010; Deheane
& Brannon, 2011; Feigenson, Dehaene & Spelke, 2004; Feigenson, Carey & Spelke, 2002;
Le Corre & Carey, 2007). If core cognition is an evolutionary product, then every child,
regardless of linguistic origin, should have the same basis from which to develop new
and more sophisticated concepts, theories and systems of representation.
2 Leslie (1994, p. 121) writes that: “The language faculty is probably not the only member of a class of core
domains concerned with knowledge of formal systems. Formal core domains plausibly include number and
music, as well as grammar.”
3 Leslie (1994) prefers “core architecture.”
4 Carey & Spelke (1996, p. 519) argue that, “[c]ore systems, in contrast, are elaborated but not revised: neither
infants, nor children, nor adults engaged in commonsense reasoning ever give up their initial systems of
knowledge.” It is foundational in humans as it is foundational in other species.
39

SAJCE– December 2012
‘Bootstrapping’ and the representation of positive integers
“Bootstrapping is the process that underlies the creation of such new concepts
and thus it is part of the answer to the question: What is the origin of concepts?”
(Carey, 2004: p. 60)
In this section of the article we explore the debate around the continuity of core
number cognition and its role in learning. There are two trends in the literature,
seeking to explain the genesis of number and other mathematical concepts.
Carey (2009, p. 12) explains that The Origin of Concepts is an “extended
exploration of learning mechanisms,” and she characterizes “learning processes as
those that build representations of the world on the basis of computations on input
that is itself representational.” The world is understood through representational
input, which can be observed or experienced, that will ultimately be encoded in a
conceptual system. An elemental cistern of concepts serves as the foundation for
learning and development. Carey explains (2009, p. 13) that, the “proposals for the
initial stock of representational primitives and for the types of learning mechanisms
that underlie cognitive development are logically independent, although there are
inductive relations between them.” This posits that learning is the reconciliation of
new information and pre-existing (innate) cognition, which is conducted by inherent
learning mechanisms and the representational systems (such as language) in which
they are communicated. Language as semiotic mediator is plainly crucial.
The development of a mathematical representational system is an example of this.
While individuals share a core set of mathematical concepts that are the product of
human evolution, each individual will create a unique mathematical representational
system as he/she is exposed to further cultural constructions of mathematics.
Carey writes (2009, p. 18) that the “integer list is a cultural construction with more
representational power than any of the core representational systems on which it is
built.” This means that integers, as products of conceptual development and cultural
construction, are built from more basic forms of mathematical cognition. Similarly,
the development of rational numbers “transcends the representations available
at the outset of [this particular] construction process,” which, according to Carey
(2009, p 19), includes the “representation of integers created by children during their
preschool years.”
Children with different linguistic and cultural origins will develop in line with the
proclivities and limitations of the system within which they develop. Since some
learning, be it formal or informal would have occurred before the children tested
in this study entered school, language (as a system of signs that signify concepts)
would have played a major role in their development. The ability of these children to
represent positive integers and to understand cardinality is defined by the language
they speak and the culture they come from. Here core cognition is not the handmaiden
of learning – now language and environment kick in.
Carey argues that while analog magnitude representations of number, the parallel
individuation system and natural language quantifiers, are all products of human
40

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
evolution (the last being a product of language evolution in particular), and qualify
as examples of “core cognition,” the ability to represent natural numbers, or positive
integers, is the product of socio-cultural mediation. 5 The human ability to represent
positive integers is learned. It is a product of culture, not nature. She explains this,
with the notion of conceptual systems (CS) that change from one system to another
(2009, p. 292):
We can examine the core cognition systems with numerical content and specify
the ways in which integer representations transcend them. The most important
task to one attempting to establish conceptual discontinuity is to characterize
CS1 and CS2, demonstrating in what sense CS2 contains representations not
expressible in CS1.
Since the representations of natural numbers are learned, they form part of a
conceptual system, in this case CS2, that is conceptually discontinuous with core
cognition system that 1) analog magnitude representations of number, 2) the
parallel individuation system and 3) natural language quantifies are part of, which is
represented here as CS1 (see figure 1).
Conceptual System 1
• Analog Magnitude
• Parallel individuation
• Natural language
• quantifiers
Conceptual System 2
• Cardinality principle
• Integers
• Natural numbers
Figure 1: The conceptual representation of integers.
Since the publication of Gelman & Gallistel’s The Child’s Understanding of Number (1978)
cognitive psychologists have forwarded conflicting theories of how children learn to
“determine the cardinality of a collection” (Rips, Bloomfield, & Asmuth, 2008, p. 626;
see also Le Corre & Carey, 2007 and Le Corre, Van de Walle, Brannon, & Carey, 2006).
Many cognitive psychologists have argued that two innate conceptual systems of
number form the basis for determining cardinality when children are roughly between
4 and 5 years old (Dehaene, 1997; Feignson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004; Starkey, Spelke
& Gelman, 1990; Holloway & Ansari, 2009; and by Carey herself in various works).
There is evidence that children as young as six months of age are capable of producing
analog magnitude representations of number and parallel individuations of small sets.
These two innate systems of numerical representation, as well as the quantifiers of
5 Elsewhere she argues (2004, p. 60): “Before they acquire language, infants form several different types of
representation with numerical content, at least two of which they share with other vertebrate animals.”
41

SAJCE– December 2012
natural language, have been cited by many, Gelman & Gallistel (1978) most notably, as
forming the basis for children’s ability to represent positive integers.
However, Carey and other authors (2004; 2009; Le Corre & Carey, 2007; Le Corre
et al, 2006) present sceptical views of the plausibility of the argument that these
three innate systems of number are capable of representing positive integers and
allowing children to arrive at an understanding of cardinality. Le Corre & Carey (2007)
explain that, firstly, the analog magnitude system is not capable of presenting the
exact quantities of number that the representation of positive integers requires. The
analogue magnitude system cannot represent numbers as discrete quantities, because
it serves only to estimate quantity and to distinguish between magnitudes of differing
size. 6 The analogue magnitude system “encodes number as would a number line,” and
it is present in human beings as early as “the sixth month of life” (ibid, 2007, p. 397).
Le Corre & Carey conclude that the analogue magnitude system is too limited to serve
as a plausible basis for developing the ability to represent positive integers (2007, pp.
433-434). It is not capable of dealing with the precise values of number required by the
representation of positive integers.
Secondly, these authors also argue that (ibid, pp. 297-298) the parallel individuation
system is capable of representing “sets of individuals by creating working memory
models in which each individual in a set is represented by a unique mental symbol.”
They are quick to caution, however, that this “system has a hard capacity limit” (ibid,
p. 298). They explain:
In adults, it cannot hold any more than 4 individuals in parallel. Many experiments
suggest that the infant system cannot hold any more than 3 individuals in
parallel, though one group of researchers has found that it too can hold up to
4. Importantly, unlike the analog magnitude system, this system contains no
symbols for number. However, it is clear that it has numerical content. Criteria
for numerical identity (sameness in the sense of same one) determine whether a
new symbol is created in a given model. Additionally, infants can create working
memory models of at least two sets of 3 or fewer individuals, and can compare
these models on the basis of 1–1 correspondence to determine numerical
equivalence or numerical order.
Thirdly, they argue, the quantifiers of natural language are similarly limited in their
capacity to represent discrete numerical quantities. Le Corre & Carey (2007, p.
298) explain:
A third system available to non-linguistic primates and to preverbal infants is
what we will call the “set based quantificational system.” This system is the
root of the meanings of all natural language quantifiers. To provide the basis for
quantification, this system explicitly distinguishes the atoms, or individuals, in a
domain of discourse from all the sets that can be comprised of them.
6 Le Corre & Carey (2007, p. 397) write that the analogue magnitude “is characterized by two related
psychophysical signatures –Weber’s law and scalar variability. Weber’s law states that discriminability of
two quantities is a function of their ratio (e.g. 5 and 10 are easier to discriminate than 45 and 50). Scalar
variability holds if the standard deviation of the estimate of some quantity is a linear function of its absolute
value. Analogue magnitude serves to estimate various quantifiable areas of experience (2004, p. 60): “Mental
analog magnitudes represent many dimensions of experience - for example, brightness, loudness, and temporal
duration. In each case at the physical magnitudes get bigger, it becomes increasingly harder to discriminate
between pairs of values that are separated by the same absolute difference.”
42

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
The representation of natural numbers, via numeral (counting) lists, depends on the
ability to 1) count in sequence and 2) the accompanying ability to associate these
representations with discrete quantities that follow successively, which equates to
n + 1 for any number in the count sequence. These abilities are both not innate but
learnt. This requires the formation of a direct relation between, for instance, the
representation “five” and the quantity of five, represented here as five lines “- - - - - ”.
The ability to do this, according to Carey (2009, p. 295), far exceeds the limitations of
analog magnitude representations of number, which she explains are not “powerful
enough to represent the natural numbers and their key property of discrete infinity.”
What is more, analog magnitude representations embedded within CS1 “provide
merely approximate representations of the numbers in their domain, even one,
whereas numeral list systems [which are part of the CS2] represent each natural
number exactly.”
She finds (2009, p. 295) that while systems of parallel individuation may contain
“machinery for indexing and tracking sets of individuals,” it does not contain
“symbols for cardinal values.” Indicating that the ability to represent natural number
exceeds the conceptual limit of parallel individuation systems. In addition, “natural
language includes no representations of exact cardinal values above three” (Carey,
2009, p. 296).
At this stage the question is: “How do children learn to represent positive integers,
that is, are there stages in the process of gaining knowledge of cardinality?”
Carey’s model of learning rests on a characterisation of learning via a process she
calls “bootstrapping” – a metaphor with a specific history, which we will not explore
in this article. While there is not enough space to explore this model of learning in
the detail it merits, it is expedient to provide a brief explanation for this specific
use of term. 7 Since Carey’s model of conceptual change requires that conceptual
discontinuities exist when new representational systems are developed, the metaphor
of bootstrapping maintains that learning entails “building a structure while it is not
[already] grounded” (2009, p. 306). Initially, when new representational systems
are developed, the learner only learns “the relations of a system of symbols to one
another,” and does not associate these symbols with pre-existing concepts (2009, p.
306). This process of association is described as mapping each sign onto a concept
or a component of a concept. Before this mapping takes place, signs serve only as
placeholders, that is, they are spectres of the concepts they will at some point serve
to represent in a direct and semantically constrained relation. Once the signs and
concepts of a new representational system correspond to one another, the learner
has successfully learned how to associate a new system of signs with the concepts
they serve to represent. A new conceptual system has hereby been developed. Once
learners have grasped the notion of ‘decades’ and ‘decupling’, they cannot go back to
a conceptual system (CS1) in which this understanding (CS2) does not feature.
7 For evaluations of “bootstrapping” as a model of learning see Rips, Asmuth & Bloomfield (2008; 2006); Gelman
& Butterworth (2005); and Butterworth (2005) - for criticism of the approach, and Carey (2004 and 2009),
Henning (2012) and Henning & Dampier (2012) - for a description of the process.
43

SAJCE– December 2012
We can explain the notion of place holding further. In learning how to represent
integers or natural numbers, children at first learn the signs of representation before
they come to understand the cardinality of number. And, it appears, that process of
learning occurs in stages (2009, p. 301):
Besides confirming that CS1 and CS2 are stable representational systems, these
data constrain [sic - contain] an account of the learning process. After having
memorized the count list and the count routine [which constitute the signs
of the new representational system], first the child is a no numeral knower,
although by 24 months of age, many English learning children are already “one”-
knowers. Being a “one”-knower is a consistent stage children remain in for six to
nine months. Then they become “two”-knowers, and some also become “four”-
knowers before figuring out how the numeral list represents natural number.
Children stay subset-knowers for 1 to 1.5 years. When they become cardinal
principle knowers, they have created a representation of some positive integers,
a numerical representation [sic] that transcends core number representations.
The bootstrapping process, through which the representation of positive integers is
learned, requires, at first, that the learner learn the system of signs with which natural
numbers will be represented. At first these signs are spectres, since they are devoid of
any conceptual content and exist without stable signifieds. This changes once a direct
relationship between the sign and the concept is established; at this point the signs are
no longer placeholders or spectres for concepts they are meant to represent. In a sense,
at this point the concepts or signifieds come-to-life within the sign, much as Vygotsky
also theorized learning form and through words (Vygotsky, 1992; Henning, 2012).
In learning how to represent positive integers, children will go through various
stages. They will begin to learn the various signifiers of the numeral list, before they
understand that each sign represents a particular quantity (this encompasses the shift
from “no”-knower, to “one”-knower, “two”-knower, “three”-knower, and eventually
to “four”-knower, see figure 2). During the subset-knower phase, learners “know the
numerical meaning of only a subset of numerals on their count list” (2009, p. 298),
but do not know that, “the last word reached in a count [of a subset of the count list]
represents the cardinal value of the set” (2009, p. 298). Cardinal knowers are said to
understand “the numerical meaning of the activity of counting and can now reliably
produce sets with the cardinal value of any numeral on their count list” (2009, p. 298).
44

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
Conceptual System 1
• Analog Magnitude
• Parallel individuation
• Natural language
quantifiers
Conceptual System 2
• Cardinality principle
• Integers
• Natural numbers
“one”-knower
“two”-knower
“three”-knower
“four”-knower
Cardinal principle knowers
Sub-set knowers
Figure 2: From “one”- knower to Cardinal principle knower .
The MARKO-D test
We conducted this pilot study at the beginning of a longitudinal panel research
programme in which we follow the participants over four years in various areas of
childhood development, one of which is mathematical competence. The MARKO-D
was specifically designed to capture development of individual children and to
show the way in which children develop mathematical competence. This process of
development is captured in five levels that increase with complexity and difficulty. Our
thesis is that every more advanced level of development is a representational system
that is conceptually incommensurate with a level that has gone before. This means
that more basic levels in this measure of mathematical competence cannot represent
the concepts of more advanced levels, since each concept and level builds on what has
come before. Ricken, Fritz-Stratmann and Balzer (2011, p. 256), the designers of the
test, describe the instrument as follows (translated from German):
Process-oriented diagnostics require a theoretical framework which allows for the
description and interpretation of individual competence changes. For the MARKO-D
test, a corresponding dimension/scale of mathematical achievement was developed
on the basis of theoretical suppositions and empirical data. Five concepts [which are
representational, conceptual systems in Carey’s parlance] are tested, namely numbers
as counting sequence, the ordinal number line, cardinal understanding, part–part–
whole, and the concept of congruent intervals. There is empirical evidence for the
validity of the model, using a unidimensional Rasch model. The test, on the one hand,
allows for comparison of individual data with a social norm and, on the other hand, is
45

SAJCE– December 2012
usable to make valid statements about individual changes and development as well as
the current competence status of a child.
The MARKO-D measures children’s early mathematical and arithmetical
representations. While the test does not claim to access core mathematical cognition
directly, it does open up empirical windows to basic conceptual representations of
number, quantity, order and relationality. The test was empirically scaled, using Rasch
modelling. Items that could be solved with the same conceptual knowledge were
grouped together in levels that the authors refer to above. These levels of competence
(broadly sequential in development) include:
1. Numerals – counting words
2. Ordinal number line
3. Cardinal numbers and partitioning
4. Conservation and class inclusion
5. Relationality
The test was standardized with data of 3000 children (4-8 years) from different
contexts in Germany and it was normed with data form 1029 children (48 – 87 months),
with 567 boys and 528 girls (M = 64.6 months; SD = 7.2) (Ricken et al: 2011, p.261).
To borrow from Carey, every level of competence represents a representational
system that is more expressive and more complex than the level that has gone before.
Every level hereby “transcends in some qualitative way” the representational system
that has gone before (Carey, 2004: p 59). Each level also represents a limit that must
be transcended if new and more powerful representational systems are to develop.
Administering the test in an urban South African setting
The basic premise of the Rasch model of measurement is that the ability of persons
tested is independent of the difficulty of items used to measure a latent trait (Wainer,
Morgan & Gustafsson, 1980; Linacre, 2002). The model is used to estimate the
probability that a person with an ability of β x
will get an item with the difficulty of δ x
correct. Like other IRT models it assumes that a single construct or latent trait is being
measured (Wainer et al, 1980; Wright, 1998; Wright & Stone, 1999; Andrich, 1988;
Andrich, Marias &Humphrey, 2011; Bond & Fox, 2007, Linacre, 2002). For this reason,
it makes the assumption that all items measure the same trait (Wainer et al, 1980) and
that individual persons are responding to items in a way that is consistent with other
people (Wright & Stone, 1999) 8 . The principle of unidimensionality maintains that no
other dimension or extraneous variable should have any bearing on what is tested
by the items, or on the way in which persons respond to items, that is, this principle
8 Wright & Stone (1999, p. 48) explain: “The Rasch model is derived from the requirement that person measures
and item calibrations be separately estimable. This requires that (1) a more able person always have a greater
probability of success on any item than a less able person, and (2) any person always be more likely to do better
on an easier item than on a harder one.”
46

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
requires that only one construct is measured in persons and by items. Bond & Fox
(2007, p. 32) explain that the “focus on one attribute or dimension at a time is referred
to as unidimensionality.”
Unidimensionality is a general concern of item response theory (DeMars,
2010). Cook, Dorans & Eignor (1988, p. 19) argue that a basic assumption of the
“most commonly used item response theory (IRT) models is that the data are
unidimensional, that is, statistical dependence among item scores can be explained by
a single dimension.” Even when IRT models are used to measure multiple dimensions,
“a common practice in educational measurement is to estimate these abilities
independently of each other” (de la Torre & Patz, 2005, p. 295). The delimitations
of the Rasch model require that data reflect the measurement of one latent trait
according to the ability of individual persons, and the difficulty of items, on the trait
(DeMars, 2010). This means that data must fit with the assumptions and expectations
of the model (Linacre, 2002).
It is assumed that all items measure the same construct or latent trait. A corollary
of this is that all persons are expected to respond to the items in a way that is
consistent with their ability on the trait and in relation to the ability of other persons.
When these two requirements are satisfied the data are likely to fit the parameters of
the model (Wright, 1998, Bond & Fox, 2007). Or as Andrich (1988, p. 61) writes “if there
is discord between the data and the model, it is left open to question whether the
model or the data are at fault. It is conceivable that when the data do not accord with
the model with which they are intended to accord, that something has gone astray
with the data or its collection.” In determining the fit of the data with the model, we
are essentially trying to determine whether the data accord with the delimitations of
the model. Write & Stone explain (1999, p. 47):
A complete analysis must include an evaluation of how well the data fit this
essential specification. If a person answers the hard items on a test correctly but
misses several easy items, we are surprised by the resulting implausible pattern
of incorrect responses. While we could examine individual records item-by-item
to determine this kind of invalidity, in practice we want to put such evaluations
on a systematic and manageable basis. We want to be specific but also objective
in our reaction to implausible and hence invalid observations.
Does it Fit?
According to Wright & Stone (1999, p. 48), “(f)it analysis shows us the extent to
which any data can be used to construct measures. Each data analysis must include an
evaluation of how well those particular data fit the expectations which measurement
requires.” One way of determine the fit of the data to the parameters of the model is
to examine the fit statistics of the data. Bond & Fox (2007, 310) define fit statistics as
“indices that estimate the extent to which responses show adherence to the modelled
expectations.” There are two measures of fit; infit and outfit. Infit statistics indicate
the extent to which persons or items fit with the Rasch model, that is, they indicate
“the degree of fit of observations to the Rasch-modelled expectations” (Bond & Fox,
2007, p. 310), while outfit statistics “are influenced by off-target observations,” and
47

SAJCE– December 2012
indicate the extent to which extreme cases and/or unexpected responses are affecting
the data (Wright & Stone, 1999, p. 53).
This table summarizes the infit and outfit statistics for the items used to measure
the latent trait.
Table 1: Summary of 54 measured items
INFIT
OUTFIT
TOTAL SCORE
COUNT
MEASURE
MODEL ERROR
MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD
MEAN 62.1 105.9 .00 .29 .99 -.1 1.04 .1
S.D. 30.4 .3 1.85 .13 .09 .8 .42 1.1
MAX. 30.4 106.0 3.91 1.01 1.24 1.9 3.22 3.5
MIN. 5.0 105.0 -4.56 .21 .81 -2.4 .18 -2.2
REAL
SEPARA-
RELIABIL-
.32 TRUE SD 1.82
5.66 ITEM
RMSE
TION
ITY
.97
MODEL
SEPARA-
RELIABIL-
.32 TRUE SD 1.82
5.74 ITEM
RMSE
TION
ITY
.97
S.E. OF ITEM MEAN = .25
MINIMUM EXTREME SCORE: 1 ITEM
Table 3 indicates the extent to which items measured the ability of individuals in the
data set. Three items, 34, 35 and 30 exhibited statistically significant misfit (ZSTD <
2.00). These items also had large outfit mean square values (> 1.50) which means
that their suitability for measurement needs to be assessed. 9 This table suggests
that these items elicited responses from persons that were affected by something
other than mathematical competence. These items were not measuring the latent
trait effectively. There is, to borrow from the discourse, some ‘noise’ in these items
(Linacre, 2002).
These items measure the degree of competence in ordering numbers on an ordinal
number line. In each respective language the rater would ask, what translates into
English as, “What number is one bigger than 7?” (30), “What number is two smaller
than 5?” (34), and “What number is two bigger than 4?” (35).
In our initial review of the English translations of the original German test,
we considered these items to be linguistically incongruent with the South
African linguistic context. Even the English cohort that we tested struggled
with the formulation of these items. The reasons for this may be multiple, but
one possible explanation lies in the fact that our English cohort consisted of
learners who speak an African language at home, and are schooled in English
from Grade 0 through to Grade 12. They receive no instruction in an indigenous
African language while at school. However, it appears that they retain certain
9 Linacre (2002) explains that values greater than 1.0 suggest the presence of unmodeled noise or other source
of variance in the data. This essentially degrades measurement. On the other hand, values less than 1.0 suggest
that the model predicts the data too well. A value of .99 is desirable, since Linacre (2002) argues that MNSQ
values between 0.5 and 1.5 are productive for measurement.
48

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
linguistic representations of quantity, number and spatial orientation from their
mother tongue.
By asking learners from all three linguistic groups in our sample to determine which
“number is two bigger than 4,” we were essentially confusing the learners, some
of whom interpreted this question as referring to size that can be measured, rather
ironically, with a ruler. We effectively confused terminology, signs and concepts for
them. Bear in mind that the test was administered orally in clinical interview mode. The
children may have been baffled by the issue of whether the word “number,” in the
formulation, refers to a digit (that can be signed), a quantity (that can be measured),
or a concept (that we have of a number)? Does “two” refer to the digit, the numeral as
a sign for measurement or the concept? And does “five” refer to the digit, the quantity
or the concept?
Table 2: Item statistics: misfit order
INFIT OUTFIT PT-MEASURE EXACT MATCH
ENTRY NUMBER
TOTAL SCORE
TOTAL COUNT
MEASURE
MODEL S.E.
MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD CORR. EXP. OBS% EXP%
34 10 106 3.13 .34 1.14 .6 3.22 3.5 A-.06 .24 90.6 90.5
35 11 106 3.01 .33 1.05 .3 2.16 2.3 B .13 .25 89.6 89.6
30 25 106 1.93 .24 1.24 1.9 1.59 2.4 C .05 .34 73.6 77.6
31 22 106 2.11 .25 1.03 .3 1.42 1.6 D .24 .32 79.2 79.9
3 82 106 -.90 .25 1.11 .8 1.41 1.8 E .20 .36 79.2 79.1
32 20 105 2.20 .26 1.09 .6 1.40 1.5 F .17 .31 81.0 81.1
47 5 106 3.91 .47 1.08 .3 1.39 .8 G .05 .18 95.3 95.3
17 77 106 -.60 .24 1.16 1.4 1.34 1.8 H.20 .37 70.8 75.8
33 13 106 2.81 .31 1.10 .5 1.33 1.0 I .13 .27 87.7 87.7
7 79 106 -.72 .24 1.20 1.6 1.26 1.3 J.17 .37 71.7 77.1
28 84 106 -1.02 .26 1.02 .2 1.23 1.0 K .32 .35 79.2 80.6
2 78 106 -.66 .24 1.02 .2 1.20 1.1 L .31 .37 77.4 76.4
10 82 106 -.90 .25 1.08 .7 1.17 .8 M .26 .36 79.2 79.1
6 79 106 -.72 .24 1.14 1.1 1.17 .9 N.24 .37 71.7 77.1
MEAN 62.9 105.9 -.11 .32 .99 -.1 1.04 .1 81.1 80.3
S.D. 30.7 .3 1.99 .24 .09 .8 .42 1.1 8.1 8.6
The misfitting nature of items 34, 35 and 30, respectively, suggests that these
items, or rather the translations of the original German formulation into English,
Sesotho and isiZulu, are having a negative effect on the ability of these items to
measure a person’s ability to place numbers on the ordinal number line, which is a
component of mathematical competence.
Table 4 indicates the extent to which persons measured responded consistently
with items used to determine their mathematical competence. It shows that six
respondents out of 106 who were tested provided responses to items that were
not anticipated or predicted. In most cases respondents with low mathematical
competence answered difficult items correctly when the Rasch model expected them
49

SAJCE– December 2012
to answer incorrectly. Since the MARKO-D only requires correct or incorrect answers,
it is reasonable to assume that these respondents guessed correctly, or provided
incorrect responses to comparatively easy items.
Table 3: Person statistics: misfit order
ENTRY NUMBER
TOTAL SCORE
TOTAL COUNT
MEASURE
MODEL S.E.
INFIT OUTFIT PT-MEASURE EXACT MATCH
MNSQ ZSTD MNSQ ZSTD CORR. EXP. OBS% EXP%
42 13 55 -1.93 .39 1.26 1.2 6.14 3.7 A .35 .53 77.8 83.1
89 29 55 .04 .35 1.49 2.6 3.20 4.0 B .34 .60 68.5 77.6
73 33 55 .53 .36 1.65 2.9 2.69 3.1 C .32 .60 72.2 80.1
84 30 55 .16 .35 1.46 2.4 2.66 3.2 D .38 .60 66.7 78.2
106 33 55 .53 .36 1.52 2.4 2.50 2.8 E .38 .60 68.5 80.1
50 21 55 -.89 .34 1.31 2.1 2.46 2.5 F .41 .57 63.0 74.7
36 25 55 -.43 .34 1.16 1.1 1.81 1.8 G .50 .59 68.5 75.6
MEAN 32.6 55.0 .54 .37 .99 -.1 1.04 .1 81.1 80.3
S.D. 7.2 .2 .94 .02 .24 1.2 .71 1.1 6.6 3.0
Andrich, Marais & Humphrey (2012, p. 417) consider “random guessing to be the
function of the difficulty of an item relative to the proficiency of a person,” and not
“a property of the item per se” (418). When a person with a relatively low manifest
ability on the latent trait gets a difficult answer right, it is reasonable to assume that
the person guessed correctly, unless the person suddenly develops an increased ability
on the trait being tested. While other explanations abound, the unexpected response
recorded when a person with a low ability endorses a difficult answer suggests that
something has gone wrong in the measurement of the latent trait.
Table 4 shows that the responses of six persons out of the 106 tested did not fit
with the model’s expectations of how they should have fared. A closer look at their
recorded responses suggests that five of the six persons got an item, or a number
of items, right that they should have got wrong, while one person “106” got
comparatively easy items wrong. A lack of concentration could have affected the
answers given by this person.
The question we are faced with is: “now that we know which items and persons
are misfitting, what is to be done with them?” The most tempting solution would
be to remove faulty items and aberrant responses from our data to get a better fit,
but the problem with this is that, in the process, useful information about our items
and the persons measured is ignored. It would be more useful to use the information
gained from the misfitting items to produce better formulations of the items to better
measure the latent trait. However, when it comes to dealing with person fit it would
be a good idea to conduct an analysis of item invariance across the three different
cohorts to determine whether responses to the items were influenced by something
50

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
other than item difficulty and person ability. A differential item functioning (DIF)
analysis and an analysis of invariance were conducted to determine whether there
were significant differences to report.
The differential item functioning analysis shows that the differences between the
groups, which appear to be slight, may indicate that the way in which particular items
were translated, scored or communicated to the learners tested could have affected
responses to a limited set of specific items. This might suggest that something other
than item difficulty and person ability was having an effect on the way in which learners
responded to particular items. However, an analysis item polarity did not indicate a
definite difference between the three groups for the test as a whole, suggesting that
the principle of unidimensionality was not violated.
Generally, it appears that the groups had similar responses to the items in the test.
With significant differences occurring at items, 11, 42, 43 and 45. These differences
ultimately called for an analysis of invariance across the three groups. The analysis
indicated that there is little difference between the Sesotho and isiZulu cohorts, but
that there might be a case for arguing there is variance between the English and
Sesotho and the English and isiZulu responses to the items of the test.
8
6
1 i1
5 i5
9 i9
13 i13
17 i17
21 i21
PERSON DIF plot
ITEM
25 i25
29 i29
36 i36
40 i40
44 i44
48 i48
52 i52
DIF Measure (diff.)
4
2
0
-2
-4
1
2
3
-6
-8
Figure 3: Comparing the performance of individuals in the three language groups
51

SAJCE– December 2012
8
7
6
47
5
4
3
45
46
31
35
Measure (SeSotho)
2
1
0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9
4
12
20
76
11
22
7
8
14
52
6
3
51
17
49
26
13
-1
-2
-3
28
37
39
40
19
38 50
44
18
55
48
32
21
25
29 28
-4
43
23
2
58
-5
-6
-7
-8
Measure (English)
Figure 4: English-Sesotho comparison
Figure 3 indicates the extent to which the English and Sesotho cohorts varied in their
responses to the items used to measure the latent trait.
This scatter plot indicates that a notable portion of items (10 of 55) fall outside of the
95 % confidence interval, which indicates that these two language groups differed in
the way they responded to these particular items. Ideally all of the items should fall
within the confidence intervals to negate the possibility of unmodelled noise affecting
person responses to the items. When contrasted with the isiZulu-Sesotho comparison
(Figure 3) it is clear that there is more variation in the English-Sesotho comparison than
in the former (8 fall outside of the confidence intervals, which still suggests that an
extraneous variable is affecting responses to these items, however slight it may be).
The same can be said for the English-isiZulu comparison (where as many as 14 items
fall outside of the confidence intervals). Notably, when we first assessed the isiZulu
translation we considered it to be the most cumbersome and problematic (Welch et
al, 2010).
52

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
9
8
7
6
47
5
4
Measure (SeSotho)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
41
9
23
43
42
26
28
53
6
5
12
13
15
48
14
52
54
39
3
28 29
40 21
18
1922
48 8
24
37
38
55
10
51
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
2
31
32
25
46
35
44
45
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
Figure 5: isiZulu-Sesotho comparison
-10
Measure (IsiZulu)
Conclusion
More data are required to make a conclusive assessment of whether or not there
are significant differences between the three linguistic groups and whether an
added dimension is likely to affect the accuracy of the MARKO-D’s ability to measure
mathematical competence in this South African setting. However, it was shown that
the double translation did have an influence on how particular items were understood
by the learners, which affected access to the construct these items were designed
to assess.
While it may not be empirically or scientifically sound to make a hard and fast
generalization at this point, it does appear that the MARKO-D measures basic
mathematical competence across various language groups, and that language
does not interfere to a significant extent with its ability to capture mathematical
competence in learners from three different language groups, for which the test
was not initially designed. Even though the linguistic formulation of certain items
can be strengthened and rendered more linguistically-culturally sensitive, as it has
been in subsequent testing of the first and second cohorts, the test goes a long way
to measuring mathematical competence in Sesotho, isiZulu and English learners in a
shared urban South African setting.
The MARKO-D was designed with language, and the role it plays in conceptual
development, in mind. The levels embedded within this instrument are a synthesis
53

SAJCE– December 2012
of theories that try to account for the development of mathematical competence.
Language plays a big part in this process of development, since the cultural
construction of mathematical representations, as in the case of integers, rests and
relies on language as a semiotic mediator.
The pupils tested in this study are schooled either in their home language
or in what is set to become the language of teaching and learning, i.e. English, yet
performance across the cohorts in this test is consistent. In contrast with conventional
wisdom, this suggests that the medium of instruction does not play a significant part
in the development of early mathematical representations. Why then do we persist
with implementing a language policy that suspends our children in a state of linguistic
liminality, “betwixt and between” political ideals and global imperatives (Henning &
Dampier, 2012; Dampier, 2012)?
Acknowledgements
The research is conducted with funding from the National Research Foundation in a
competitive rated research grant for Prof E. Henning and the authors are members of
her research team. The work is also supported by the DHET/EU grant programme for
research in foundation phase teacher education.
We wish to thank Elbie Henning for her expert assistance in the writing of the
article. Deon De Bruin and Annemarie Fritz-Stratmann provided valuable insights and
suggestions to earlier iterations of this article, which would not have been finished
without their critical input.
References
Andrich, D (1988) Rasch Models for Measurement. London: Sage Publications.
Andrich, D., & Hagquist, C. (2012). Real and artificial differential item functioning.
Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 37(3), 387-416. doi:
10.3102/1076998611411913
Andrich, D., Marias, I., &Humphrey, S. (2011) Using a theorem by Andersen and the
dichotomous Rasch model to assess the presence of random guessing in multiple
choice items. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, 37(3), 417-442. doi:
10.3102/1076998611411914
Benjamin, W (trans. Rendall, S). (1997) The translator’s task. Traduction, Terminologi,
Redaction 10(2), 151-165.
Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007) Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in
the Human Sciences (2 nd edition). London: Routledge.
Butterworth, B. (2005) Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(12), 534-541.
Carey, S (1985) Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994) Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L.
A. Hirschfield & S. A. Gelman (eds) (1994) Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in
Cognition and Culture (pp. 169-200). Cambridge University Press: New York.
Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1996) Science and core knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 63(4),
515-533. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/188065
Carey, S. (2001). Cognitive foundations of arithmetic: Evolution and ontogenesis.
Mind and Language, 16, 37–55. Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of
concepts. Daedalus, 133, 59–68.
Carey, S. (2004) Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus 122(1), 59-68.
Carey, S. (2009) The origin of concepts. London: Oxford University Press
Chomsky, N. (1980) Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hauge:
Mouton Publishers.
Cook, L. L., Dorans, N. J., & Eignor, D. R. (1988) An assessment of the dimensionality of
three SAT-verbal test editions. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics,
13(1), 19-43. doi: 10.3102/10769986013001019
Dampier, G. A. (2012) The (f)utility of additive bilingualism in South African education.
Education as Change: Journal of Curriculum Research 16(1), 69-81
Dehaene, S. (2010) The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Revised and
expanded edition). New York: Oxford University Press
Dehaene, S. & Brannon, E. (2011) Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the
Foundations of Mathematical Thought. London: Academic Press.
de la Torre, J., & Patz, R. J. (2005) Making the most of what we have: A practical application
of multidimensional item response theory in test scoring. Journal of Educational
and Behavioural Statistics, 30(3), 295-311. doi: 10.3102/10769986030003295
DeMars, C. (2010) Item Response Theory. Cape Town: Oxford University Press
De Saussure, F (1986) Course in General Linguistics. London: Open Court
Evans N & Levinson S C 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and
its importance for cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 32(5): 429-492
Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (2002) Infants’ Discrimination of Number vs.
Continuous Extent. Cognitive Psychology 44, 33-66.
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelker, E. (2004) Core systems of number. Trends in
Cognitive Science 8(7) 307-314.
Gelman, R. & Gallitsel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Gelman, R. (1991) Epigenetic foundations of knowledge structures: initial and
transcendent cognitions. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.) Epigenesis of mind: Essays
on biology and cognition (pp. 293-322). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gelman, R., & Butterworth, B. (2005) Number and language: How are they related?
Tends in Cognitive Science 9(1), 6-10.
55

SAJCE– December 2012
Gerlach, M., Fritz, A., & Leutner, D. (2012). MARKO-T. Mathematik und Rechnen –
Training zur Förderung von Konzepten im Vorschul- und frühen Grundschulalter
[MARKO-T. A math and arithmetic training on concepts in pre-school and primary
school age]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Gopnik, A., & Meltzhof, (1997) Word, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Henning, E. (2012) Learning concepts, language, and literacy in hybrid linguistic codes:
The multilingual maze of urban grade 1 classrooms in South Africa. Perspectives in
Education 30(3), 70-79
Henning, E., & Dampier, G. A. (2012) Linguistic liminality in the early years of school:
Urban South African children “betwixt and between” languages of learning.
South African Journal of Childhood Education 2(1), 100-119
Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2009) Mapping numerical magnitudes onto symbols: The
numerical distance effect and individual differences in children’s mathematics
achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 103, 17-29.
Jackobson, R. (1959) “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In Venuit, L. (2004) The
Trasnlation Studies Reader, pp 139-147. London: Routledge.
Le Corre, M. & Carey, S. (2007) One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of
the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition 105, 395-438.
Le Corre, M., van de Walle, G., Brannon, E.M. & Carey, S. (2006). Re-visiting the
competence/performance debate in the acquisition of the counting principles.
Cognitive Psychology, 52, 130-169.
Leslie, A. M. (1994) ToMM, ToBy, and Agency: Core architecture and domain specificity.
In L. Hirschfeld and S. Gelman (Eds.) Mapping the Mind: Domain specificity in
cognition and culture (pp. 119-148). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Levinson S C 2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In: S D Blum (ed.),
Making sense of language: Readings in culture and communication: 95-104. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Linacre, J.M. (2002) What do Infit and Outfit, Mean-square and Standardized mean?
Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16 (2), 878.
Nazzi, T & Gopnik, A (2001) Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: when does
language become a tool for categorization? Cognition, 80, 11-20.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.
Copenhagen: Nielsen & Lydiche.
Ricken, G., Fritz, A., & Balzer, L. (2012). MARKO - D - Mathematik und Rechnen - Test zur
Erfassung von Konzepten im Vorschulalter [MARKO-D – math and arithmetic –
test for assessing concepts at pre-school age]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Rips, L. J., Bloomfield, A., & Asmuth, J. (2008) From numerical concepts to concepts of
number. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 31, 623-642
56

Dampier & Mawila – Test items and translation
Rips, L. J., Asmuth, J., & Bloomfield, A. (2006) Giving the boot to the bootstrap: How
not to learn the natural numbers. Cognition 101(3), 51-60
Spelke, E. (2000) Core Knowledge. American Psychologist, 55, 1233-1243.
Spelke, E. (2003) What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D.
Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.) Language in mind: Advances in the study of
language and thought (pp. 277-311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Starkey, P., Spelke, E. S., & Gelman, R. (1990) Numerical abstraction by human infants.
Cognition 36, 97-127.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes.
M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (eds and translators).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1992) Thought and language. (edited and revised by A. Kozulin, 6 th Edition).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wainer, H., Morgan, A., & Gustafsson, J. (1980) A review of estimation procedures for
the Rasch model with an eye toward longish tests. Journal of Educational and
Behavioural Statistics, 5(1), 35-64. doi: 10.3102/10769986005001035
Welch, N., Dampier, G. A., and Mawila, D. (2011, October) Funda UJabule: Pilot Findings.
In E. Henning (Chair) CEPR Research Seminar. The seminar was conducted at the
University of Johannesburg, Bunting Road Campus.
Whorf, B. (1956), John B. Carroll (ed.), ed., Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected
Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, MIT Press
Wright, B. D. (Spring, 1988) Where do dimensions come from? Popular Measurement,
1(1) 32.
Wright, B.D. & Linacre, J.M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch
Measurement Transactions, 8 (3), 370.
Wright, B.D. & Stone, M.H. (1979). Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA Press.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1999) Measurement Essentials (2 nd Edition). Wilmington,
Delaware: Wide Range, inc.
57

Nosisi Nellie Feza
Can we afford to wait any longer?
Pre-school children are ready to learn
mathematics
Abstract
South African students’ poor mathematics performance on national and international
tests can be attributed to the gap the children begin schooling with from different
socio economics homes. Wright et al assert that this gap continues to grow the
longer students are in school. Early childhood research highlights the significant
educational gains of exposing young children to quality, structured mathematical play
or activity that goes beyond what is learned within the family and community. South
Africa has high levels of poverty and inequality and also has tremendous difficulties
in overcoming these inequalities. Most provision of quality pre-school education is
private, self-funded and not targeted to poor children resulting to different levels of
mathematics readiness prior entry to primary school. This paper argues for quality
mathematics interventions, longitudinal studies on impact of such interventions and
tracking studies on schooling effects of early quality mathematics preparation, higher
education effects, and labour market effects.
Keywords: Inequity, innate abilities, play-based, early childhood, mathematics
Nosisi Nellie Feza, Human Sciences Research Council, Education and Skills Department.
E-mail: nfeza@hsrc.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 58-73 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

Introduction
Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
Herein lies a danger. If children from different socioeconomic and cultural
backgrounds enter elementary school at notably different levels of readiness
in school mathematics, the nations with relatively well-prepared children will
be better able to meet high expectations and a rapid instructional pace in
K-12 mathematics than nations with relatively less-prepared children. Thus,
the accommodation of raised expectations will need to occur at the prekindergarten
level as well (Starkey et al, 2004, p.117).
Poor mathematics performance of South African students in national and international
tests has been investigated. Research on mathematical instruction revealed poor
content knowledge of teachers and lack of relevant instruction (Adler, 2001; Mji and
Makgato, 2006; van der Sandt and Niewoudt, 2003). Also, studies on factors that
impede mathematics conceptualisation indicated that learning mathematics in a
language that is not a student first language create complex processes, (Adler, 2001)
Such challenges lead to code-switching that teachers are ashamed of (Setati & Adler,
2001 ) Little is known about the early exposure to mathematics stimulation. This paper
supports Starkey et al (2004) in encouraging mathematics play at the pre-school level.
Starkey et al (2004) highlight that the learning of mathematics depends on structured
exposure to mathematical concepts in pre-school years. Likewise Bowman, Donovan &
Burns (2001); and Denton & West (2002) indicated that in the United Kingdom children
from low socio economic backgrounds and minority-languages demonstrated lower
levels of mathematics knowledge than their more advantaged peers, who assumedly
have more exposure. This difference has been proven to increase over time (Denton
and West, 2002; Wright, Martland & Stafford, 2000). Hence studies were conducted on
interventions that were intended to close the gap between the levels of mathematics
knowledge of children from low socio economic backgrounds and children from higher
socio economic background (Becker and Luther, 2002; Judge, Puckett and Bell, 2006).
In the South African literature studies on mathematical exposure of young children
from low socio economic pre-school has proven that interventions yield to improved
numeracy skills and teacher-child interaction (Hoppenbrouwer, 2011). Hutchinson and
Pournara (2011) revealed that children who were four and half year old and above from
middle and upper socio economic ECD centres were able to copy extended patterns
with more focus on colour than objects used at different developmental levels. Little
is known about the quality of mathematics young children from 0 to 4 are exposed
and the levels of understanding possessed by practitioners of young children about
learning and teaching of mathematics. In this article I argue that such evidence
about young children in middle and higher socio-economic ECD centres and also such
interventions are one way of contributing to our understanding of early mathematics
concept development and the role of pre-school education. However, there is a need
for quality mathematics interventions that will bring forth the understandings of preschool
practitioners of children’s learning and teaching of mathematics and a need
for longitudinal studies that will assist in raising awareness to the parents, private
sector and government of the importance of ECD mathematics as Biersteker and
59

SAJCE– December 2012
Dawes (2008) and Richter et al (2012) suggested in addressing the varied quality of
ECD provision.
Current status of ECD provisioning
South Africa is a country with high levels of poverty and inequality (Penn, 2008)
and faces tremendous difficulties in overcoming these inequalities. For this reason,
the Minister of Education called for a pause in participating in the TIMSS after 2003
and until 2011 with the hope of addressing some of the inequalities concerning
mathematics and science education.
Furthermore, an integrated plan (2005-2010) for 0-4 year children that brings
together department of health, social development and education was formulated.
Some of the issues the plan aimed to address were “the uncoordinated service
delivery, limited access to services, inequities in existing ECD provisioning, and variable
quality of ECD services” (UNICEF, 2005; p.5). The national integrated plan (NIP) for
ECD aimed “to create an environment where children can grow, thrive and be able
to be better prepared for their future roles and responsibilities in society” (UNICEF,
2005; p.7). The implementation of this goal according to the plan was guided “by
principles of excellence, access, equity, diversity and accountability and communitydriven
provision’ (p.11). Biesterker & Dawes (2008) evaluated ECD programmes of
Brazil and Philippine with an objective to inform the up scaling of ECD in South Africa.
Their summary report suggested that South Africa through legislation of free health
care made a significant coverage therefore, using health system as a vehicle on
parenting education and more services have potential to expand ECD services like in
the other two countries. They also highlighted the disadvantage of not having clear
roles that the equally responsible departments play in ECD: the Department of Social
Development (DoSD), the Department of Education (DoE), the Office of the Rights
of the Child (ORC) impedes realization of the NIP. Also localizing ECD delivery on
municipal level was suggested however this kind of delivery requires competency, a
challenge in the South African context that will need capacity building. A significant
factor learnt from the United States and United Kingdom is informing parents, private
sector and government about the importance of ECD.
The current status of ECD in South Africa is presented by the diagnostic review
that was commissioned by the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
in the Presidency and the Inter- Departmental Steering Committee on ECD. The review
highlighted a lot of improvement that the South African government has achieved
regarding services needed by children since 1994 in terms of access to safe water,
access to electricity, access to clinics, prevention of HIV AIDS transmission from mom
to child, increased immunization, increased birth registrations, increased eligibility of
child support Grant and increased enrolments to Grade R (Richter et al., 2012). The
review highlights the disconnectedness of the departments that are responsible for
ECD as reasons for gaps in service because of the lack of a joint goal a concern that
was previously raised by Biersteker and Dawes. According to Richter et al. (2012) the
60

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
isolated pockets of delivery results to discrepancies in services provided. The review
indicate that the funding is skewed towards older children leaving children (0 - 2 years)
without needed help due to the assumption that family is an appropriate provider
of care in a way ignoring the socio economic gaps of the South African community
Richter et al (2012). On the other hand the enrolment for 3-4 year olds depends on
availability of ECD centres in their communities and availability of fees from home to
pay for the service. For poor families access is denied and hindering the realization
of the NIP while for some ECD centres resources are limited hampering high quality
service. Therefore, the review indicates the varied quality of ECD services provided
(Righter et al. (2012). Such service cannot address the inequity challenges the system
has in education as research has proven the impact quality pre-school has on future
learning and labour market. This opens up a role research has to play for cognitive
development of the child. Research has a role to play in informing curriculum
development of young children’s mathematics, in informing the professionalization of
ECD practitioners on developmental needs of practitioners on how to expose young
children in mathematical developmental appropriate activities with a purpose, in
informing the South African community about the importance of quality mathematics
exposure for young children in building human capacity.
Knowledge of mathematics learning
I hope that the day will come when teachers entering the classroom and those
already in the classroom have as much scientific knowledge about how children
learn mathematics as physicians have about the causes of illnesses (Kamii, 2011)
Kamii’s NCTM statement supports the argument of this paper on calling for
interventions that will highlight the practitioners’ competencies on how children
learn mathematics and develop them, also how to assess children’s levels of thinking
to inform practice. Research has indicated that quality pre-school mathematics
predicts future success in future learning experiences regardless of socio economic
background. Currently, South Africa needs confidence boost from students’
mathematics performance in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS), the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational
Quality (SACMEQ) and the Annual National Assessments (ANAs). Sylva et al (2004) and
Siraj-Blatchford et al (2002) confirmed that through quality mathematics interventions
policy and curriculum development in the United Kingdom was influenced. In addition
early childhood practitioners became acquainted with observing, scaffolding children’s
learning, extending children’s thinking through questioning, learning through play,
balanced between child-initiated and adult-initiated activity, and between individual
and group work with new curricula that is “play-based” and “child centred” (Slovin &
Veneciano, 2008; Brooker, 2011,p. 139).
The United States research on how to develop young children’s numeracy
concepts lead to interventions and curricula for early childhood mathematics (Kamii,
2000; Clements, 2001; Young-Loveridge, 2004). Interventions that proved to have gains
for all children encouraged scaffolding of mathematics learning, small group work
61

SAJCE– December 2012
for individualism, planned activities, informal mathematics experiences, developing
mathematics from children’s spontaneous activity, focusing on children’s interests and
play situations, connecting children’s informal knowledge to formal mathematics, and
making the purpose of mathematical learning unambiguous (Clements and Sarama,
2007; Starkey et al, 2004; Clements and Sarama, 2004; Ginsburg et al, 2006; Clements
and Stephen, 2004; Clements et al, 2004).
Pedagogical support of young children in learning mathematics
In understanding how children learn and can be taught mathematics prior to
entering formal education, Lee and Ginsburg (2009) discuss nine misconceptions
about “learning and teaching mathematics for young children” (p.37). Those
misconceptions are:
• Young children are not ready for mathematics education
• Mathematics is for some bright kids with mathematics
• Simple numbers and shapes are enough
• Language and literacy are more important than mathematics
• Teachers should provide an enriched physical environment, step back, and let the
children play
• Mathematics should not be taught as stand-alone subject matter
• Assessment in mathematics is irrelevant when it comes to young children
• Children learn mathematics only by interacting with concrete objects
• Computers are inappropriate in teaching and learning mathematics
Some of the misconceptions Lee and Ginsburg listed originate from misinterpretation
of the two ancestral theories of cognition: the Piagetian and the Vygotskian, more
especially the Piagetian theory.
Piagetian Perspective
Jean Piaget’s theory of constructivism established that children construct knowledge
through experiencing the world actively. DeVries and Sales (2011, 11) extend the
meaning of construction to “creation, testing, refining of original thoughts”, impulsive
ideas about how things work. According to Piaget (1964) and Piaget and Inhelder
(1969) this active experimentation for young children is about physical knowledge. In
constructing knowledge young children connects relations between objects mentally
(DeVries and Sales, 2011). For example when children play with shapes they begin to
make relations between a square and a triangle and begin to talk about “look like a
box” and “look like a roof of the house” (Van Hiele, 1986). This description comes
from connecting previously experienced observations to the new ones. Hence, Kamii
and DeClark (1985) argue that educators need to understand the concept of autonomy
62

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
as the aim of education Piaget advocated. Kamii and DeClark see this need as of crucial
importance for educators if they are to create conducive classroom environment
for learning so that children will be able to have these experiences that involves
their physical world. Autonomy is described by Kamii and DeClark (1985, 40) “being
governed by one self”. She discusses the moral and intellectual aspects of autonomy.
Moral autonomy advocates for nurturing of independent responsible decision makers
without depending to gaining rewards (Kamii and DeClark, 1985). Children should be
able to independently choose the right actions from wrong. Intellectual autonomy
refers the connection of the relationships in the physical world that leads to children
questioning things that do not connect. For example Kamii & DeClark (1985) refers to
the belief in Santa Claus when a six year old girl one day asked her mom the following
questions: “How come Santa Claus uses the same wrapping paper as we do?” (p.45).
Her mom’s response was satisfactory for that moment but as time goes her next
question was “How Come Santa Clause has the same handwriting as Daddy?” (p.45).
This example indicate that the child has her own thoughts about Santa and started
connecting her experiences and observations together and started figuring out that
something was strange about Santa and them. First it was similar wrapping papers
and now Daddy’s hand writing is the same as Santa. Then the next question will be,
“Is there Santa Claus?” Has Daddy been Santa all this time? The child’s autonomous
thought do not match what the child has been taught. As educators Kamii and
DeClark advocates that encouraging autonomy in children’s mind will enrich their
thinking capabilities however, controlling their creation, and experiences impede
their development.
Vygotskian Perspective
The sociocultural theory of Vygotsky asserts that all children have potential for
learning. Kozulin (2003) highlights three important elements of sociocultural theory.
He argues that this theory addresses multiculturalism, mediation and learning
potential. In describing multiculturalism Kozulin (2003) support the notion of diverse
ways of knowing by bringing in the notion of psychological tools. Psychological tools
in Vygotskian perspective are symbolic artifacts (Kozulin, 2003). These symbolic
artifacts originate from all cultures. Each culture has its own symbolic artifacts that
children internalize and use them to master or learn new ideas. One of these artifacts
is literacy that children attain from home through observations, listening to adults
and other children etc. This literacy when internalized by children it becomes their
psychological tool that assist their psychological function of perspective, memory
and attention (Kozulin, 2003). Activities that parents and the environment expose
to children’s mathematical development support the development of psychological
tools children need. Starkey and Klein (2007) compared the sociocultural influence of
American children in their mathematical development with the Chinese and Japanese
children. In their results Chinese and Japanese children enter preschool with superior
mathematical performance than American children. In explaining this discrepancy
Starkey and Klein (2008) discovered that the early environment children experience
63

SAJCE– December 2012
influences their mathematical performance prior entering preschool. In Vygotskian
terms the Chinese and Japanese culture expose children to different experiences that
develop their psychological tools to a superior level. Investigating these experiences
Starkey and Klein (2007) assert that Asian literacy develop number sense better than
English, also Asian mothers teach their children to count to high numbers (White,
1987). Thus, certify the role of different symbolic artifacts children experience in their
development. Donato and Maccormick (1994) describe mediation as a tool of cognitive
change. In their perspective mediation takes place in many forms. Sometimes it can
take the form of the textbook, manipulatives, classroom discourse, interaction with
peers, direct instruction from the teacher. Mediation is intertwined within the context
of sociocultural processes. Learning potential is referred to as part of the zone of
proximal development (ZPD) (Chaiklin, 2003). The ZPD is described as the child’s actual
performance and learning potential (Vygotsky, 1978). Kozulin (2003, 17) describes the
ZPD as a level that informs educators about (1) ‘psychological functions of the child
emerging at a particular moment, not fully developed (2) the assisted performance
that could be used as a legitimate parameter of assessment procedure (3) how to
conceptualize the difference between the level of the child’s actual performance and
learning potential.
Young children’s mathematical innate abilities
Cognitive developmental psychologists have shown that young children have some
number concept as early as six months old. For example, Hyde and Spelke (2010)
found that (6-7 months) old children possess two developing systems of non-verbal
numerical cognition: one that responds to small quantities as individual objects and
the other that responds to large quantities as approximate numerical value. These
results provide evidence of the existence of these numerical intuitions that had been
proven to become active in learning to count (Condry and Spelke, 2008). Furthermore,
a study of 5 to 7 year old children who received no formal schooling revealed that
the students had intuitive multipliable abilities they possessed innately (McCrink,
and Spelke, 2010). Also, five year old children solved arithmetic problems accurately
in a pre-school investigation that was assessing the understanding of the inverse
relationship between addition and subtraction (Gilmore and Spelke, 2007).
In addition, young children do not only show innate numerical abilities, they
also demonstrate spatial reasoning abilities. Clements et al. (1997) highlighted the
importance of developing geometric knowledge and spatial sense at an early age.
Freudenthall (1973) states that; “Geometry is grasping space. And since it is about
the education of children, it is grasping that space in which the child lives, breathes,
and moves. The space that the child must learn to know, explore, and conquer, in
order to live, breath and move better in it. Are we so accustomed to this space that
we cannot imagine how important it is for us and for those we are educating?” (p.
403). Geometric reasoning has been proven to emerge early as Lu (2001) mentions
that the crawling of young children provides them opportunities to understand space.
“As children learn language and other symbol systems, they begin to combine their
64

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
core numerical and geometrical representations productively, in uniquely human
ways. These combinations may give rise to the first truly abstract concepts at the
foundations of mathematics” (Spelke, 2011, 287). Navigation skills demonstrated
by animals are proved to be innate in humans too in understanding space (Wang
& Spelke, 2002). Due to this navigation, interest in spatial reasoning develops at an
early age. 1,872 preschool-1st grade children demonstrated high spatial reasoning
ability (Zhong, 2009). Gersmehl, & Gersmehl (2007) in their review concluded that
children’s spatial reasoning functions as early as three years (Nardini et al., 2006;
Blaut et al, 2003 and Huttenlocher, et al., 1999). Blaut et al, (2003) proved that this
spatial reasoning function is universal, ecological and cultural. The universality of
spatial reasoning is highlighted in Pellicano, Rhodes & Peters (2006) that map-like
modelling is used by nearly all cultures Blaut et al. (2003) reported that 4 year olds
in Durban South Africa were able to read aerial photographs of their surroundings.
Generally, underestimating young children’s ability to learn mathematics goes against
their psychological development. Research has to focus on how to strengthen ways of
developing these innate abilities further for future gains.
Perceived mathematics ability differences
Lee and Ginsburg (2009) argue that teachers believe that only certain children have
ability to learn mathematics. Izard et al (2009) investigated whether children have to
come from specific cultures, or groups to possess abstract numerical representations.
The findings showed that new-born babies have a sense of numbers that is
characterized by ratio dependence and this number sense “increase[s] in precision
over the course of human development” (p. 10384).
Literacy and mathematics
In support Lee and Ginsburg’s (2010) claim that mathematics ability in early years
predicts academic success at a later stage a meta-analysis of six longitudinal studies
indicated that reading and mathematical abilities are equally important in predicting
later reading and mathematics achievement (Duncan et al., 2007). In this metaanalysis,
it is clear that “school entry reading skills predict subsequent reading
achievement better than subsequent mathematics achievement, just as early math
skills are more predictive of later math than reading achievement” (p.1437). This study
further showed that knowledge of numbers and ordinality showed more strength in
predicting later learning with an effect size of .34, while language and reading skills,
such as vocabulary and word knowledge, indicated lesser strength in predicting later
learning with an effect size of .17 (Duncan et al., 2007). Hence, the National Research
Council (2009) in the US common core standards state that:
Mathematics experiences in early childhood settings should concentrate on
(1) number (which includes whole number, operations, and relations) and (2)
geometry, spatial relations, and measurement, with more mathematics learning
time devoted to number than to other topics. Mathematical process goals
should be integrated in these content areas (p.3).
65

SAJCE– December 2012
Young children’s mathematical development has been acknowledged as a critical
step towards preparing them for successful gains in their learning experiences and
future learning.
Role of the educator in young children’s learning
of mathematics
Kirova and Bhargava (2002) conducted a qualitative inquiry investigating the role
played by a teacher in guiding mathematical development of young children through
play using everyday materials. Their findings highlighted professional growth as the
critical area teachers need to attain in order to guide children’s understanding of
mathematical concepts. The three areas highlighted by this study are:
• The ability to recognize children’s demonstrated understanding of mathe matical
concepts
• The ability to use mathematical language to guide their progress from behavioural
to representational understanding of mathematical concepts
• The ability to assess systematically children’s understanding of mathematical
concepts
The first critical area relates back to the children’s innate abilities as they are what
children bring to the pre-school classroom. Practitioners need to remain aware of the
thinking levels children enter his/her classroom with. For example, from activity based
research funded by NSF conducted by the Regents’ Centre for Early childhood at the
University of Northern Iowa a three year old boy (Tyla) was playing with drums making
some music. When I joined him I realized he was counting as he bit the drum and his
sequence was 1, 2, 4, 6. He called each number with the bit of the drum. This could
indicate that he was doing one-to-one correspondence. However, the sequence was
mixed. The role of the teacher in such a case is to recognize where Tyla is with the
concept of counting. What does Tyla know? Where does he fall short in the knowledge
he demonstrates? In this case find out if Tyla is counting or singing by saying 1, 2, 4, 6
by playing along and introducing other objects and ask him to count them even the
drum sticks he is using to bit the drum then depending on his response you might
establish that he knows that a number goes with a bit or an object (one-to-one
correspondence). Therefore he falls short of using correct number sequence, instead
of 1, 2, 3, 4 Tyla knows 1, 2, 5, 6.
According to Lee and Ginsburg (2010) children learn to use the language of
mathematics at the age of two by memorizing the first 10 counting words. These
counting words are “essentially nonsense syllables with no underlying structure or
meaning” (p. 39). Therefore, Tyla’s counting words have no meaning, but his use of a
bit that matches a number word indicates his understanding of matching a counting
word with a bit. Therefore, the role of his teacher would be to develop the concept
of one-to-one correspondence further by developing the verbal counting sequence
first. In doing so the teacher needs to find a path towards development of correct
66

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
number sequence. Clements and Sarama (2009:1) suggest learning trajectories for
developing young children’s mathematics development; these learning trajectories
have three parts; 1) a mathematical goal, 2) a developmental path along which children
develop to reach that goal, and 3) a set of instructional activities, or tasks, matched to
each of the levels of thinking in that path that help children develop higher levels of
thinking. These learning trajectories then guide teacher development for teachers of
young children.
A mathematical goal
According to Clements and Sarama (2009), a mathematical goal refers to the ‘big
ideas’ of mathematics. In describing big ideas Clements and Sarama (2004) express
the centrality of these ideas to mathematics; they include mathematical skills, clusters
of mathematical concepts that are lucid, “consistent with children’s thinking, and
generative of future learning” (Clements and Sarama, 2009, 1). For example, in Tyla’s
case, mentioned previously, the big idea is meaningful counting. As it is in the story
there are many skills and concepts he needs to attain towards becoming a meaningful
counter, the first will be verbal counting sequence followed by many more hence
the cluster of mathematical concepts that generate future learning are part of the
description of big ideas.
In order to achieve learning of these mathematical concepts by young children,
Clements (2001: 270) asserts that “quality preschool mathematics is not elementary
arithmetic pushed onto younger children; instead, it invites children to experience
mathematics as they play in, describe, and think about their world”. Therefore,
mathematical learning for young children is about their own world, not the adult
world. Adults have to adjust themselves into thinking like children for them to be able
to nurture their mathematical development.
Developmental progression
Nurturing of mathematics development for young children should be at the level of
the children. This acknowledgement of developmental appropriate experiences guides
strategies used in mediating mathematics to young children. Thus, the developmental
progression has two main paths: the paths for learning and the paths for teaching.
The paths of learning
Thinking levels of children are vital at this point. Children are considered the starting
point for the learning. Going back to Tyla’s story, a developmental path that will lead
him to be able to count in a socially constructed way has to be drawn. With children’s
ideas and interpretation in mind, Tyla’s developmental path has to acknowledge that
he is playing with drums and using counting words at the bit he makes on the drum.
Tyla requires a teacher that will recognize his interest in the drum playing and use
this play purposefully. Clements and Sarama (2009: 3) place Tyla at the recite thinking
67

SAJCE– December 2012
level because “he counts verbally with separate counting words not necessarily in
the correct order”. At this level using the drum play with Tyla associating it as he did
with number words in correct sequence will be the beginning of the learning path
(Clements and Sarama, 2009).
The paths for teaching
Extending Tyla’s play into repeated activities in different contexts will provide him with
tasks that will nurture his development towards becoming a counter. These tasks are
the paths for teaching that are matched at each thinking level of the child. Clements
and Sarama (2009) have developed tasks for each development. It is important to note
that the ages they allocated at each level are approximated depending on children’s
experiences. Also as Tyla’s story indicated that a child can be in more than one level
at the same time. Therefore, learning is not always linear; Siegler (2007) asserts that
it varies within children and amongst children. Developing these tasks is not easy,
but challenging instead. Tyla might not be able to do one-to-one correspondence on
using counters for counting. Therefore, teachers need to understand this variability
and carefully plan with no high expectations on the outcomes. Clements and
Sarama learning trajectories give a foundation for teacher development on teaching
mathematics and for research to assess how children go through the developmental
progressions in order to support or refute Siegler’s view.
Conclusion
Early childhood mathematics research from other countries played a significant
role in improving quality mathematics practices, policy formulation and curriculum
development. South African research needs to be rigorous in enabling the realization
of the NIP on mathematics stimulation. Literature proves the impact of pre-school
quality mathematics, however in implementing such ideas South Africa needs to
consider its unique challenges. As Richter et al (2012) suggested access to ECD centres
has to improve; home-based stimulation needs to be part of the NIP and empowering
of local government in delivering ECD services have to be considered. Therefore
this paper argues for mathematics interventions that are able to equip the mother/
grandmother/care giver who is taking care of kids at home as well as those who are
in centres through local government. Longitudinal studies on quality mathematics
interventions need to inform stakeholders about the impact in schooling experiences,
college experiences and labour market. Through these tracking longitudinal studies
the private sector and the responsible departments would support early childhood
mathematics stimulation with empirical evidence and gain confidence in promoting
and educating the community on the importance of mathematics stimulation in
the ECD.
68

References
Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Dodrecht: Kluwer
Becker, B. E.; & Luther, S. S. (2002). Social-Emotional Factors Affecting Achievement
Outcomes Among Disadvantage Students: Closing the Achievement Gap.
Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197-214.
Biersteker, L.; & Dawes, A. (2008). Scaling up early Childhood Development (ECD) (0-4
Years) in South Africa . Case Studies: ECD Services in Brazil and the Philippines. A
Summary Report, HSRC.
Blaut, J. M., Stea, D., Spencer, C., and Blades, M. (2003). Mapping as a Cultural and
Cognitive Universal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1),
165- 185.
Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating
our pre-schoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brooker, L. (2011). Taking children seriously: An alternative agenda for research? Journal
of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), 137-149.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s analysis of Learning
and Instruction. In Vygotsky educational theory in cultural context, ed. A. Kozulin,
B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller., 39-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clements D. H., Battista, M.T., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S., & McMillen, S. (1997).
Student’s development of length measurement concepts in a Logo-based unit on
geometric paths. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 70-95.
Clements, D. H. (2001). Mathematics in the Preschool. Retrieved by 30 June 2011 at
www.nctm.org. Teaching Children Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics Inc, 270-275.
Clements, D. H., & Stephen, M. (2004). Measurement in the pre-K to grade 2
mathematics. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young
children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education,
299-317. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (Eds.) (2004). Hypothetical learning trajectories.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning [Special issue], 6(2).
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a Preschool Mathematics Curriculum:
Summative Research on the Building Blocks Project. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136-163.
Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young children’s composition of
geometric figures: A learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2),
163-184.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning
trajectories approach. New York: Routledge.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning trajectories in early mathematicssequences
of acquisition and teaching. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy
Development, 1-7. London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research
69

SAJCE– December 2012
Network. Retrieved by 19 October 2011 from http://literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/
topic.php?topld=270.
Condry, K. F. & Spelke, E. S. (2008). The development of language and abstract
concepts: The case of natural number. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 137, 22- 38.
Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in
kindergarten and first grade. Retrieved by 29 June 2011 from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002125. National Center for Education Statistics
DeVries, R. & Sales, C. (2011). Ramps & Pathways: A constructivist approach to physics
with young children. Washington DC: NAEYC
Donato, R. and D. Maccormick. (1994). A Sociocultural Perspective on Language
Learning Strategies: The Role of Mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4),
453-464.
Duncan, G. J., Claessens, A., Huston, A. C., Pagani, L. S., Engel, M., Sexton, H., Dowsett,
C.J., Magnuson, K., Klebanov, P., Feinstein, L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duckworth,
K. (2007). School Readiness and Later Achievement, Developmental Psychology,
43(6), 1428-1446.
Ehrlich, S. B., Levin, S. C., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). Importance of Gesture in
Children’s Spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259-1268.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Gersmehl, P. J., and Gersmehl, C. A. (2007). Spatial Thinking by Young Children:
Neurologic Evidence for Early Development and “Educability”, Journal of
Geography, 106, 186-191.
Gilmore, C.K., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Children’s understanding of the relationship
between addition and subtraction. Cognition, 107, 932-945.
Ginsburg, H. P., Cannon, J., Eisenband, J. G., & Pappas,S. (2006). Mathematical
thinking and learning. In K.McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Handbook of Early Child
Development (pp. 208-229). Oxford, England:Blackwell.
Hoppenbrouwer, E. M. (2011). Introducing a child-centered numeracy play-center
intervention in three rural preschools in Dennilton, South Africa. Thesis submitted
for fulfillment of a Master Social Education and Youth Policy Specialization Education,
Youth and International Humanitarian Cooperation and Aid. University Utrecht –
Faculty Social Sciences, Department Educational Science.
Hutchinson, E., & Pournara, G. (2011). Preschool children’s Mathematical understanding.
South African Journal of Childhood Education, 1(2), 92-111.
Huttenlocher, J., Newcombe, N., and Vasilyeva, M. (1999). Spatial scaling in young
children. Psychological Science, 10(5), 393-398.
Hyde, D. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Neural signatures of number processing in
human infants: evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition.
Developmental Science, 1-12.
70

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
Izard, V., Sann, C., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2009). New-born infants perceive abstract
numbers. Charles R. Gallistel (Ed), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
of the United States of America, 16(25), 10382-10385.
Judge, S., Pucket, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The Journal of the Educational Research,
100(1), 52-60. doi:103200/JOER100.1.52-60.
Kamii, C. & DeClark, G. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implication of Piaget’s
theory. New York: Teachers College Press
Kamii, C. (2000). Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Kamii, C, (2011, April). Key note address. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Annual meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Kirova, A., & Bhargava, A. (2002). Learning to Guide Preschool Children’s Mathematical
Understanding: A Teacher’s Professional Growth. Early Childhood Research and
Practice, 4(1), 1-20.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In Vygotsky educational
theory in cultural context, ed. A. Kozulin, A., B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller, 15-
38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ misconceptions about
mathematics education for young children in the United States. Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood, 34(4), 37-45.
Lu, J. (2001). The study of several of cognitive development. In Contemporary Chinese
psychology, 259-264. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
McCrink, K., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Core Multiplication in Childhood. Cognition, 116,
204- 216.
Mji. A. & Makgato. M. (2006). Factors associated with high school learners’
performance: a spotlight on mathematics and physical science. South African
Journal of Education, 26(2), 253-266.
National Research Council (2009). 2010 Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.
Retrieved by October 19, 2011 at http://corestandards.org/
Nardini, M.,burgess, n., Breckenridge, K., and Atkinson, J. (2006). Differential
developmental trajectories for egocentric, environmental and intrinsic frames of
reference in spatial memory. Cognition, 101, 153-172.
Pellicano, E., Rhodes, G., and Peters, M. (2006). Are pre-schoolers sensitive to configural
information in faces? Developmental Science, 9(3), 270-277.
Penn, H. (2008). Early Childhood Education and Care in Southern Africa. A perspective
report. CfBT Education Trust. Retrieved by 16 June 2011 at http://www.cfbt.com
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In Piaget rediscovered: A report of the
Conference on Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development, eds. R.E. Ripple &
V. N. Rockcastle, 7-20. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
71

SAJCE– December 2012
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. Paris, Denoel.
Richter, L., Biersteker, L., Burns, J., Desmond, C., Feza, N., , , Martin, P., Saloojee, H.
& Slemming, W. (2012). Diagnostic review of early childhood development.
(Commissioned by the Presidency, March).
Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2001). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in
primary multilingual mathematics classroom in South Africa. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 43, 243-269.
Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive Variability. Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 104-109.
Siraj-Blarchford, I., Sylvia, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching
Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY Report). London: DfES Research
Report 356.
Slovin, H., Venenciano, L., & DaSilva, M. (2008, April). How does classroom communication
measure up? Getting kids to ask the important questions. Presented at the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.
Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical
knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 19, 99-120.
Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2008). Sociocultural Influences on Young Children’s Mathematical
Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives on Mathematics in Early Childhood
Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Spelke, E.S., Gilmore, C. K., & McCarthy, S. (2011). Kindergarten children’s sensitivity to
geometry in maps. Developmental Science, 14(4), 809-821.
Spelke, E.S. (2011). Natural number and natural geometry. In E. Brannon & S. Dehaene (Eds.),
Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical
Thought, 287-317. Attention & Performance XXIV, Oxford University Press.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I and Taggart, B. (2004). Final
Report, Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project. London: Institute
of Education.
UNICEF (2005). National Integrated Plan for Early Childhood Development in South Africa
2005-2010. Pretoria
Van der Sandt, S. & Niewoudt, H. (2003). Grade 7 teachers’ and prospective teachers’
content knowledge of geometry. South African Journal of Education, 23(3),
199- 205.
Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72

Feza – Can we afford to wait any longer?
Wang, F. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Human spatial representation: insights from animals.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 376-382.
White, H. R. (1987). Longitudinal stability and dimensional structure of the problem
drinking in adolescence. J Stud Alcohol, 48, 541-550 .
Wright, R. J., Martland, J. & Stafford, A.K. (2000). Early Numeracy: Assessment for
Teaching and Intervention. London, Chapman.
Young-Loveridge, J. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number
books and games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 82-98.
Zhong, T. (2009). A Study of Children’s Spatial Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning
Abilities. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 80-93.
73

Brian Lwazi Ramadiro
Reading in Two Languages: Evidence from
Miscue Analysis
Abstract
This paper reports on the oral reading of five grade 2 to 6 isiXhosa (L1) speakers
reading isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2) texts. It examines the readers’ oral reading
miscues (or errors) to understand the extent to which these miscues constitute a
language or a literacy problem in this group of readers. Conclusions are that (a) these
readers read better in isiXhosa than in English; (b) they are not reading as well as they
could be reading in isiXhosa; (c) isiXhosa reading difficulties appear to be related to
poor teaching of literacy; (d) while English reading difficulties appear to be related to
both poor teaching of literacy and to low levels of language proficiency in English, this
is related to classroom practices but is also independent of it.
Keywords: Reading, reading miscues, language, literacy, isiXhosa, English.
Brian Lwazi Ramadiro, University of Fort Hare. E-mail: bramadiro@ufh.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 74-93 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

Introduction
Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
Language and literacy are subjects of research in many areas of education and social
science research. The specific relationship between language and literacy addressed
in this study is that of the relationship between oral language proficiency and reading
proficiency. The study examines the semantic, syntactic and graphophonic cueing
systems used during oral reading (Goodman, 2003 [1994]) by five grade 2 to grade 6
Eastern Cape isiXhosa primary school readers, reading isiXhosa (First Language/L1) and
English (Second Language/L2) texts. Comparing the patterns of use of these cueing
systems can reveal how readers approach the task of reading (Beatty & Care, 2009,
p. 226) in the Home Language (L1) and First Additional Language (L2) and suggest
implications for teaching and learning. The aim of the study is to contribute to a better
understanding of the complex relationship that exists between language and literacy
in a highly unequal ‘linguistic market’ (Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 37-39), and to provide
nuance to current debates about the need to strengthen the use of African languages
as languages of teaching and learning, alongside English, in the Foundation Phase and
to extend their use in this capacity to the Intermediate Phase.
Although the focus of this paper is the psychological and linguistic aspects of
reading, its point of departure is that the psycho-linguistic aspects of reading are
shaped by and interact with larger societal factors that inform contexts, opportunities
and purposes of learning. These include demographic factors (Sirin, 2005; van der
Berg & Burger, 2003), sociolinguistic factors (Heugh, 2003) and factors operating at
the school-level (Adams, 1990; Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Cummins, 2001). In a
divided and unequal society like South Africa, these societal factors position readers
in different but specific ways in relation to the acquisition and use of literacy. What
people read, if indeed they read, how often, how much, where, with whom, in what
language(s), and, what they ultimately ‘get’ from reading is enabled or constrained by
larger societal factors.
Miscue analysis
Goodman, Watson & Burke (2005, p. 3) define a miscue as ‘a place [in a text] in which
a reader’s observed response (OR) does not match the expected response (ER)’. In
non-technical usage a miscue is an ‘error’ that is produced during oral reading. Miscues
can be of several kinds and include word substitutions, insertions, omissions and
reversals (Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005, p. 63-75). Over the past 45 years miscue
studies have been conducted into a range of linguistic groups, such as speakers of
non-standard dialects of English, second and foreign language speakers of English,
alphabetic languages other than English, and non-alphabetic (written) languages (see,
for example, Flurkey, Paulson & Goodman, 2008). Applications of miscue analysis
include pre-service and in-service teacher training, materials development, one-to-one
reading instruction, whole class reading instruction, as well as special and remedial
education (see essays in Goodman, 1979; Marek & Edelsky, 1999).
75

SAJCE– December 2012
Miscue analysis makes three basic claims: 1) reading is a linguistic process (Goodman,
2003 [1994], p. 2) reading miscues are produced by the same processes that underpin
correct/successful reading (Goodman, 1975), p. 3) reading is a psycholinguistic guessing
game in which three language cueing systems are used to make sense of text, viz. the
graphophonic, syntactic and semantic cueing systems (Goodman, 1976; Goodman &
Goodman, 2004). Each of these claims is discussed below.
Reading is a socio-psycholinguistic process that involves a writer, a text and a
reader (for a similar conception of literacy see Rosenblatt, 2004). A ‘writer creates
a text to represent meaning’ (Goodman, 2003 [1994], p. 4). Writers write for real
social reasons, such as to persuade, inform, entertain or record. In order to increase
the chances of their messages being understood by readers, writers encode their
messages in vocabulary, language patterns, text patterns and genres fit for the
purpose. Writers cannot write exhaustive texts. They expect readers to use their own
knowledge of the world, language and context of the text to infer implicit meanings
of a text. Readers bring their knowledge, experiences and interests about language
and reading to every act of reading. In every act of reading, readers try to figure out
why a writer wrote the text, to identify text patterns, wording, and assumptions the
writer has made about shared knowledge. Reading is, therefore, an active sociopsycholinguistic
process, whose ‘meaning is in the reader and the writer, not in the
text’ (Goodman, 2003 [1994], p. 4).
Goodman’s (2003 [1994]) second claim is that oral reading errors are produced
by the same processes that underpin correct or successful reading. Goodman
prefers the word ’miscues’ over ‘error’ for three reasons. First, ‘error’ has a negative
connotation suggesting that all ‘errors’ are bad and must be eliminated from reading
(Wilde, 2000.p. 2). Goodman would argue that this gives the wrong impression
that ‘proficient reading’ is the same as ‘error free’ reading, and, therefore, that less
proficient readers should be trained to perform error free reading. He argues, in
contrast, that all readers make ‘errors’. All readers substitute, insert or omit words
during oral or silent reading. A chief difference between ‘errors’ of proficient and less
proficient readers is that, overall, proficient readers’ miscues are syntactically and
semantically acceptable within the sentence or text, and if they are not, proficient
readers correct themselves. Second, ‘errors’ are not random but have causes in the
same way that correct responses do. Goodman’s specific contention is that errors,
like expected responses, arise from a reader’s attempt to make sense of text. Thus,
when a reader miscues, she or he is still using the same language cueing systems as
when she or he makes a correct response. Third, the word ‘mis-cue’ underlines the
claim that readers use ‘multiple cueing systems’ of written language to read (Wilde,
2000, p. 2). Simultaneous, flexible and integrative use of graphophonic, semantic and
syntactic cueing systems is necessary for successful reading to take place (Goodman &
Goodman, 2004).
Goodman’s third claim is that reading is a psycholinguistic ‘guessing game’ in
which graphophonic, syntactic cueing systems are used to process (alphabetic)
texts (Goodman, 2003 [1967]). As alphabetic languages, this claim is applicable both
76

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
to English and isiXhosa texts and readers. Goodman, Watson & Burke (2005,pp. 30-
36) describe the three cueing systems as follows. The graphophonic cueing system
governs the relationship between orthography (letters of the alphabet, conventions
of spelling, punctuation and word boundaries, and the phonological system). The
syntactic system is the lexico-grammar (vocabulary and grammatical rules). This
includes naturally acquired or formally taught knowledge about word classes
(including noun classes in isiXhosa), tenses and number. The semantic cueing system
has to do with meanings of words and phrases and how they relate to each other, and
in turn how this knowledge relates to language use. Goodman (2003,p. 32) borrows
from Michael Halliday the idea that grammar is about wording and rules for word and
sentence combination beyond the sentence. Goodman (1996) claims that search for
meaning is the only goal of reading and the semantic cueing system is the single most
important system. Readers use all cueing systems during reading; the distinction is
that proficient readers rely more on the semantic system whereas the less proficient
readers rely more on the graphophonic cueing system (Goodman & Goodman, 2004).
Criticisms of miscue analysis
Miscue analysis has been the subject of criticism at the conceptual (e.g., Mosenthal,
1976/77; Stanovich, 2000), empirical (e.g., Stanovich, 2004; Beatty & Care, 2009), and
pedagogical levels (e.g. Adams, 1990; Wren, 2008). Criticism of miscue analysis is
often framed within a distinction that is made between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’
models of reading. Pushing the ‘top-down/bottom-up’ metaphor to the limit, Freeman
& Freeman (2003,p. 37) go so far as to claim that there are essentially two views of
reading, a word recognition view (bottom-up model) and a socio-psycholinguistic
view (top-down model). According to Stanovich (2000,p. 5), top-down models like
miscue analysis, ‘strongly emphasize the contribution of expectancies and contextual
information. The word recognition process [is] thought to be heavily penetrated by
background knowledge and higher level cognitive expectancies’. Bottom-up models,
on the other hand, suggest that reading is a ‘bottom-up, part-to-whole process and
should be taught as incremental skill-building. In this view, the reader moves from
sounding out and identifying the meanings of words to understanding sentences, then
paragraphs’ (Braunger & Lewis, 2006, p. 9). One proposal to reconcile the two models
of reading is Stanovich’s (2000, pp. 21-43) Interactive-compensatory model.
At least three specific common criticisms of miscue analysis are important for this
paper. The first is about the place of the graphophonic cueing system in the reading
process relative to the syntactic and semantic systems. Goodman & Goodman (2004,
p. 630) make clarify their view of the place of graphophonics in their model of the
reading process. They argue, ‘Our research demonstrates that the least proficient
readers we studied in the 6 th , 8 th and 10 th grades use graphic information more than
the most proficient readers.’ Stanovich (2004, p. 465) contests this claim. First, it
is not that good readers are less reliant on visual information but that they expend
less capacity to process visual information fully. Second, the reason they expend
less capacity is not because they rely on context but because their ‘stimulus-analysis
77

SAJCE– December 2012
mechanisms are so powerful.’ In addition, a recent Australian study of reading miscues
of a hundred children between aged 5-8 years (Beatty & Care, 2009, p. 239) found that
‘average’ and ‘above average’ readers are likely to rely more on graphophonic cues
than ‘below average’ readers when reading an unfamiliar text.
Second, researchers have criticised Goodman’s formulation of the relative
contribution of the three cueing systems to meaning-making (comprehension)
(Adams, 1990). Miscue analysis predicts that proficient readers rely more on semantic
cues and less on graphophonic cues to read unfamiliar texts. Adams (1990) accepts
that all three cueing systems contribute to comprehension, but that the graphophonic
system is fundamental, because it is print on the page that supplies the perceptual
data on which comprehension is dependent (Also see NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-11; Rand
Study Group, 2004).
A final criticism of miscue analysis is that it could mislead users, teachers in
particular, into making unsound pedagogical decisions (Mckenna & Picard, 2006).
The claim is that miscue analysis underplays the role of graphophonics in the reading
process. An often unstated assumption of this criticism is that all users of miscue
analysis are uncritical adherents of the ‘whole language approach’ and see only
a marginal role for graphophonics in the reading process. Critics argue it is just the
wrong thing to encourage children to use contextual cues, illustrations, syntax or
semantics to figure out words and text they don’t know.
Below is an outline of how researchers who are indebted to miscue analysis (e.g.,
Moustafa, 1997) or those who defend some of its assumptions (e.g. Cummins, 2003)
would approach a response to these criticisms. In the first instance, they would argue
that knowledge of graphophonics is essential to all beginning readers. The issue in
dispute is: how do beginning readers acquire knowledge of graphophonics? Because
there are multiple pathways to acquire phonemic and basic graphophonic knowledge
before entering school or soon thereafter, ensuring that all children acquire this
knowledge is more important than how they acquire it (Cummins, 2003). Second,
some strands of the ‘whole language approach,’ exemplified by Moustafa (1997,p. 92),
hold the view that graphophonics instruction in the early grades can be ‘systematic,
explicit and extensive’ by working ‘from whole to parts, from whole texts, to words,
to word parts’. There is no necessary connection between a ‘top-down’ reading
model and marginalization of graphophonics in reading instruction. In any event, ‘it
is not whether whole-word or phonics is “right” or “effective”, but when, for whom’
(Alexander & Fox, 2004, p. 59). Third, reading comprehension, the very reason why
phonics instruction takes place in the first place, is overwhelmingly correlated with
extensive reading because readers learn to read by reading and not only by learning
abstract graphophonic rules (Krashen, 2003).
The current study
The study examines oral language proficiency and reading proficiency. The assumption
of the study is that, all things being equal, readers’ superior oral language proficiency
78

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
in isiXhosa (L1) translates into superior reading in the L1. To this end, the study
examines and analyses readers’ oral miscues to determine if the readers’ miscues
are graphophonically, syntactically and semantically acceptable in the L1 and L2. The
following questions are explored:
1. Do readers’ miscues retain grammaticality in isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2)?
2. Do readers’ miscues retain textual meaning (are the readers’ miscues semantically
acceptable) in the L1 and L2?
3. Are readers’ miscues graphophonically acceptable in the L1 and L2?
4. Are readers using all three cueing systems in an effective manner?
Methods
Table 1: Readers’ biographical and reading data
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reader Age Sex Grade Text Difficulty Language
of text
Miscues
Khanyisile 8 Male 2 Grade 2 isiXhosa 24
Grade 3 isiXhosa 4
Pre-primer English 2
Sub-Total 30
Sbusiso 9 Male 3 Grade 2 isiXhosa 14
Grade 3 isiXhosa 24
Pre-primer English 4
Sub-Total 42
Nobuntu 10 Female 4 Grade 3 isiXhosa 6
Grade 4 isiXhosa 15
Grade 3 English 17
Grade 4 English 21
Sub-Total 59
Mihlali 11 Female 5 Grade 4 isiXhosa 23
Grade 5 isiXhosa 25
Grade 4 English 31
Grade 5 English 26
Sub-Total 105
Sindi 13 Female 6 Grade 4 isiXhosa 26
Grade 5 isiXhosa 20
Grade 4 (N) English 31
Grade 4 (E) English 32
Grade 5 English 26
Sub-Total 135
79

SAJCE– December 2012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reader Age Sex Grade Text Difficulty Language
of text
Miscues
Sisipho Adult Female Postschool
Grade 2 isiXhosa 1
Grade 3 isiXhosa 4
Grade 4 isiXhosa 5
Grade 5 isiXhosa 12
Sub-Total 22
Ayanda Adult Female Postschool
Grade 2 isiXhosa 1
Grade 3 isiXhosa 1
Grade 4 isiXhosa 5
Grade 5 isiXhosa 15
Sub-Total 22
TOTAL 415
Participants
There are a total of 7 participants in this study, 5 young readers and 2 adult readers
(Column 1). The young readers are 3 girls and 2 boys (Column 3) in grades 2 through
6 (Column 4). The group’s age ranges between 8 to 13 years (Column 2). The child
readers attend the same small but relatively well-resourced farm school in the Eastern
Cape. All children use mainly isiXhosa at home, in school and in the community. One
child reported that one of her parents speaks and reads mainly in Afrikaans, although
the child herself used mainly isiXhosa. The adult readers are two university educated
females and L1 speakers of isiXhosa. The adult readers were included in the study
primarily to establish an indicative benchmark upon which to base a miscue analysis,
currently not available for isiXhosa texts. All names are pseudonyms.
Selection
Child readers were selected on recommendation by their class teachers. The brief
to teachers was to identify the strongest readers in class present on the day of the
reading assessment. Adult readers were identified by the researcher on the basis of
availability and willingness to take part in the study and because of their competence
in isiXhosa.
Materials
Each child reader reads 2 authentic isiXhosa and 2 English texts (Column 5 and 6),
except for Sindi (grade 6) who read 3 English texts because she appeared to breeze
through her initial English text. The general approach was to build readers’ confidence
by asking them to begin by reading texts at or below their reading level. Miscue analysis
requires (Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005, p. 46-50) that readers read 1) complete
authentic/connected texts, 2) new texts, 3) texts they are likely be interested in, 4)
texts of sufficient length, and 5) texts that are challenging enough so that readers’
80

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
strategies for dealing with the unknown words are observable but not too difficult to
result in frustration. Reading was stopped any time readers wished to stop or when
they were observed to have serious difficulty with a text. Note with Khanysile (grade
2) and Sbusiso (grade 3) administration of English texts began much lower than their
official grade level as per the Qualitative Reading Inventory (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006).
A conversation with these readers indicated that their knowledge of English was lower
than their official grade level might suggest. IsiXhosa texts were selected from the
school’s library collection and English texts were taken from the Qualitative Reading
Inventory (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). The advantage of using graded passages from
the Qualitative Reading Inventory is that they have established norms for readability/
reading level, accuracy and reading rate (speed). There are currently no equivalent
normative tools in isiXhosa. In order to address this, the two adult readers’ miscues,
accuracy and reading rate scores have been used as an indicative benchmark against
which to compare young readers’ oral reading miscues in isiXhosa. Readers are urged,
therefore, to treat comparisons between reading behaviours of adult proficient
readers and child readers with the necessary circumspection.
Data production procedures
The miscue data reported in this study forms part of a larger and multidimensional
data base. The data was produced in the following order:
• Step 1 - Reading Interview: Administration of a modified and translated version
of Burke Reading Interview (Goodman, Watson & Burke, 2005, pp. 179-182). This
was used to get a sense of the readers’ conception and experiences of reading
(Child readers).
• Step 2 - Reading isiXhosa Texts: Oral reading and marking of isiXhosa and English
text typescripts. All readings were audio recorded and some were also video
recorded (Child and adult readers).
• Step 3 - Retelling isiXhosa Texts: Retelling of isiXhosa texts after each reading
(Child readers).
• Step 4 - isiXhosa Writing: Readers write a short comparison passage in isiXhosa
(Child readers).
• Step 5 - English Word Lists: Oral reading of English word lists. No oral reading
word lists are available for isiXhosa (Child readers).
• Step 6 - Reading English Texts: Oral reading of English texts (Child readers).
• Step 7 - Retelling English Texts: Retelling of English texts after each reading
(Child readers).
• Step 8 - English Writing: Readers write a short comparison passage in English
(Child readers).
81

SAJCE– December 2012
Findings
Syntactic/grammatical acceptability
Analysis of syntactic miscues seeks to establish whether readers’ miscues retain
the grammar of the original text. Miscues that retain text grammar are indicative
of readers’ success in integrating knowledge or intuitions about language in the
process of reading. Fries’ (2008) practice of analysing ‘same grammar’ apart from
‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues is followed here. ‘Same grammar’ miscues
are those miscues that fully and unambiguously retain grammaticality of a text
in the context of both the sentence and the text as a whole. ‘Total grammatically
acceptable’ miscues include ‘same grammar’ and ‘partially grammatical’ miscues.
‘Partially grammatical’ miscues are those miscues acceptable only in the context of
the sentence up to and including the miscue but not acceptable in the context of the
text as a whole (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005, p 136). Given isiXhosa language
dominance of this group of readers, it is expected that data will show that a greater
proportion of readers’ isiXhosa (L1) miscues retain ‘same grammar’ compared to the
English (L2).
Table 2: Same Grammar Miscues Across English and isiXhosa Texts
Khanyisile
Gr2
Sbusiso
Gr3
Nobuntu
Gr4
Mihlali
Gr5
Sindi
Gr6
isiXhosa 13 50%) 7(18%) 13 (62%) 25 (52%) 31 (67%)
English NI NI 8 (21%) 13 (23%) 17 (18%)
NB: not interpretable due to low levels
Table 2 shows that indeed readers’ miscues retain ‘same grammar’ better in isiXhosa
than English. IsiXhosa miscues that retain ‘same grammar’ are rather low considering
that this is the readers’ L1. Only 18% of Sbusiso’s miscues retain ‘same grammar’ and up
to 67% of Sindi’s. The overall suggestion is that these readers are not that successful
at integrating knowledge about isiXhosa language into their reading. Example 1 and 2
below illustrates how readers’ isiXhosa miscues retain ‘same grammar’.
Example 1
Khanyisile, a grade 2 reader, reading a grade 2 isiXhosa text
Original text: Athi uMona, ‘Masimshiye lo xa engnamli (...) (Mona said, ‘let’s leave
her behind if she doesn’t have money’)
Reader’s text: Uthi uMona, ‘Masimshiyeni lo xa engenamali’ (Mona says, ‘let’s leave
her behind if she doesn’t have money’)
82

Example 2
Sbusiso, a grade 3 reader, reading a grade 2 isiXhosa text
Original text: ‘Uthini?’ (What did she/he say?)
Reader’s text: ‘Uthini? (What are you saying?)
Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
In Example 1 Khanyisile makes two miscues. First he substitutes /uthi/ for /athi/. A
subjectival concord /a-/ + verbal form /-thi/ is replaced by a subjectival concord /u-/
+ verbal form /-thi/. Second, he substitutes /masimshiye/, a plural concord +verb
form, for /masimshiyeni/, a plural concord + verb form. His miscues belong to the
same grammatical category as the original words and retain ‘same grammar,’ while
preserving the meaning of the original text. This is not the case with Sbusiso’s miscue
in Example 2. His miscue doesn’t preserve meaning of the original text. The word /
uthini/ looks (i.e., it is spelled) the same in the original text and the reader’s text,
but it is pronounced differently. In the original, text form is said with a rising-falling
tone and it asks, ‘What did she/he say?’ And in the reader’s form, it is said with a levelrising-falling
tone and it asks the question, ‘What are you saying? This miscue retains
grammar, a question is substituted by a question, but the meaning of the text is
altered. For comparison, examination of adult readers’ miscues shows that almost all
their miscues are fully grammatically acceptable. In fact, only one miscue produced by
an adult was partially ungrammatical.
For English, a comparatively smaller proportion of miscues retain ‘same grammar’.
None of the Foundation Phase (grade 2 and 3) readers’ English miscues retains ‘same
grammar’. The highest proportion of miscues in the group that preserve ‘same
grammar’ in English are Mihlali’s at 23%, much worse than the isiXhosa miscues.
Consider example 3.
Example 3
Sindi, a grade 6 reader, reading a grade 5 English text
Original text: When Martin Luther King, Jr. was a boy, many laws would not allow
black people to go to the same (...)
Reader’s text: When Martin Luther King, Jr. was a boy, many laws would not allow
back people to go to the same (...)
Example 3 is typical of the group’s ‘same grammar’ miscues. Sindi read /back/ for /
black/ replacing an adjective with a noun. This miscue would be grammatically
unacceptable except that the reader corrected it. However, the correction appears
to have been triggered less by the reader’s awareness of a breakdown in grammar
or meaning, than by awareness of a graphophonic mismatch between the text and
the miscue.
83

SAJCE– December 2012
Table 3: Total grammatically acceptable miscues
Khanyisile
Gr2
Sbusiso
Gr3
Nobuntu
Gr4
Mihlali
Gr5
Sindi
Gr6
isiXhosa 19 (68%) 15 (39%) 17(81%) 36 (75%) 36 (75%)
English 1 (50%) 2 (50%) 17(45%) 32 (56%) 32 (36%)
In order to get a more complete picture of readers’ control of the grammatical cueing
system, ‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues are considered (see Table 3). From
a ‘total grammatically acceptable’ point of view, the group is cast in a rather positive
light, with Sbusiso being the exception. Khanyisile’s isiXhosa ‘total grammatically
acceptable’ miscues go up from 50% to 68%, Sbusiso’s from 18% to 39%, Nobuntu’s
from 62% to 81%, Mihlali’s from 52% to 75%, and Sindi’s from 67% to 75%. Because ‘total
grammatically miscues’ are arrived at by including the ‘partially grammatical’ miscues,
it is likely that readers’ ability to get to the meaning of the text is impaired.
Adding together ‘same grammar’ and ‘partially grammatical’ miscues has a
moderate effect on ‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues in English. Khanyisile’s
and Sbusiso’s ‘total grammatically acceptable’ miscues increase from 0% to 50%,
Nobuntu’s from 21% to 45%, Mihlali’s from 23% to 56% and Sindi’s from 18% to 36%.
Accounting for ‘partially grammatical’ miscues does improve the group’s outlook.
Note that Khanyisile’s and Sbusiso’s scores are not interpretable because they have
produced so few miscues. There are at least two reasons behind the low number of
miscues. The one is that the readers treated their English text as grammatical and
semantic non-sense and for this reason focused their energies on correctly sounding
out words on the page (graphophonics), and the other is that the two readers read
only a short text each. For the rest of the group, English miscues that partially retain
grammar tend to be those that make a minimal or superficial changes to grammar, like
single word substitutions, resulting in plural forms or changes in word tense. Example
4 illustrates this point.
Example 4
Mihlali, a grade 5 reader, reading a grade 4 English text
Original text: But he never gave up.
Reader’s text: But he never give up.
Strictly speaking, Mihlali’s substituting the past tense verb ‘gave’ for the present tense
‘give’ results in an ungrammatical sequence. Taking account of the fact that Mihlali
is a novice L2 user of English, it is more accurate to regard this miscue as partially
grammatical, because from the point of view of this child the two forms of the verb
are probably grammatically equivalent.
Overall, the readers’ miscues retain grammaticality significantly better in isiXhosa
than in English. The readers’ relative grammatical strength in isiXhosa is just that,
84

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
relative. In real terms, the low levels of miscues that retain grammaticality in isiXhosa
suggest that beyond the problem of language per se, these children have not yet
benefitted from strong enough literacy instruction to empower them to successfully
integrate their own knowledge and intuitions of their (L1) home language into their
reading process. It is also worrisome that the proportion of grammatically unacceptable
isiXhosa miscues, in other words production of words that are grammatical non-sense,
doesn’t decrease as readers move up the grades. While further research is required,
this again points to the hypothesis that current instructional strategies for literacy are
unsuccessful at integrating reading with even L1 language proficiency.
Semantic /meaning acceptability
The route to meaning is through language. A miscue that is grammatically acceptable
is not necessarily semantically acceptable. Grammaticality is a necessary condition
for but not a guarantee of semantic acceptability. Examples 2 and 3 make this point.
Examination of the adult isiXhosa ‘same grammar’ and ‘retained meaning’ miscues
provides additional evidence for this view. Table 4 shows that all the adults’ miscues
are grammatically acceptable but that some of their miscues fail to retain sentence
level and textual meaning. Keeping track of meaning during oral reading can be tough
for adults too. It is only after ‘retained meaning’ and ‘partial meaning loss’ miscues
are combined, as recommended by miscue methodology (Goodman, Watson & Burke,
2005, p. 137), that all the adults’ miscues are 100% semantically acceptable.
Table 4: Adult Readers: ‘Retained meaning’ and ‘Partial meaning loss’ Miscues
Sisipho
Ayanda
Semantically Acceptable 86% 86%
Partial Meaning Loss 14% 14%
100% 100%
Turning to the child readers, Table 5 shows, as expected, that a low proportion of
grammatically acceptable miscues foreshadows a low proportion of semantically
acceptable miscues. Comparison of Table 3 and 5 shows that, across readers
and languages, semantically acceptable miscues are lower than grammatically
acceptable miscues.
Table 5: ‘Retained meaning’ and ‘Partial meaning loss’ Miscues
Khanyisile
Gr2
Sbusiso
Gr3
Nobuntu
Gr4
Mihlali
Gr5
Sindi
Gr6
isiXhosa 16 (57%) 8 (21%) 12 (57%) 31 (65%) 33 (72%)
English 13 (34%) 29 (51%) 30 (34%)
Table 5 shows that isiXhosa miscues retain meaning better than English miscues,
especially so for the Intermediate Phase readers. This is, however, not the case for
85

SAJCE– December 2012
English. Because of the relatively low proportion of grammatically and even lower
number of semantically acceptable miscues, it is expected readers’ retellings will
show that readers struggle to retain the meaning of both isiXhosa and especially
the English texts. The overall suggestion of the data up to this point is that readers
are not successful at using grammatical and semantic cues to get to the meaning of
texts. In other words, these readers are arguably (able to) pay(ing) little attention
to grammatical ‘well-formedness’ of what they read and even less attention to its
semantic ‘sense’. Readers’ retellings, which are not discussed in this paper, do in fact
confirm severe loss of meaning in isiXhosa and especially so in English.
Example 5 below illustrates a ‘grammatically acceptable’ but ‘semantically
unacceptable’ isiXhosa miscue. The possessive /wam/ (mine) is substituted with the /
wakho/ (yours). This miscue has the effect of retaining ‘same grammar’ but changes
sentence referent, its meaning, and potentially leading to a loss of meaning. This
miscue was, however, corrected by the reader.
Example 5
Khanyisile, a grade 2 reader, reading a grade 2 isiXhsoa text
Original text: ‘Uthi umama wam akanamali youkukusa kule ndewo beniza kuya
kuyo” (My mom says she doesn’t have money to take you where you
were going)
Reader’s text: ‘Uthi umama wakho akanamali yokukusa kule ndawo beniza kuya
kuyo” (Your mom says she doesn’t have money to take you where you
were going.)
Turning to English, Table 5 shows that only a small proportion of the readers’ English
miscues ‘retain meaning’. In other words, a large proportion of the readers’ English
miscues are likely to lead to a loss of meaning. Predictably, the scores look a little
better when ‘retained meaning’ and ‘partial meaning loss’ scores are added together.
All Khanysisile’s and Sbusiso’s miscues led to a loss of meaning, even though the
readers were reading texts below their grade levels. A likely explanation is that
children have little access to English in the home, community and also in school. Often
it is difficult to tell apart miscues from ordinary language errors because young readers
with little access to English produce both errors and miscues in their developmental
path towards English L2 proficiency. Example 6 below illustrates this.
Example 6:
Mihlali, a grade 5, reading a grade 5 English text
Original text: When Martin Luther King, Jr., was a boy, many laws would not allow
black people to go to the same places as whites. Some people thought
blacks were not as good as whites.
86

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
Reader’s text: When Matin King, Jr., was a boy, many lows would not allo black
people to go to the same places as whities. Some people thought
blacks were not as good and whites.
The proper noun /Martin/ read as /Matin/ probably is dialect pronunciation, rather
than a miscue. Mihlali pronounced the word the same way throughout the text. /
Laws/ read as /lows/ is not a straightforward case of a miscue. This word, like many
words in English materials read by this group of readers in the course of this study,
doesn’t seem to be in Mihlali’s oral or written vocabulary, raising the possibility that
this is a genuine error rather than a miscue. /Thought/ read as /tot/ is definitely not a
miscue because the voiceless dental /th/ is produced as a voiceless alveolar /t/ by many
isiXhosa-dominant users of English. Finally, the case of /whites/ read as /whities/ is also
unclear if it is an error or deliberate use of a derogatory colloquial, which if it is, would
qualify the word as a genuine miscue. The difficult-to-classify words in Example 6 show
that these troublesome miscues can present to teachers and researchers as primarily
graphophonic problems – as failures to use appropriate decoding strategies, whereas,
in fact, the difficulties are primarily a function of the readers’ underdeveloped
knowledge of the relevant (oral and written) language and the lack of relevant
background knowledge to make sense of the texts set before them.
Graphophonic Miscues
Table 6: Percentage of Miscues that have high graphophonics similarity with the
Expected Response
Language
Khanyisile
Gr2
Sbusiso
Gr3
Nobuntu
Gr4
Mihlali
Gr5
Sindi
Gr6
Sisipho
Adult
Ayanda
Adult
isiXhosa 97% 92% 86% 100% 95% 95% 90%
English 2 (100%) 4 100%) 92% 98% 96% ---- ---
Table 6 shows that a high proportion of readers’ miscues have graphophonic similarity
to the original text. This is the case for child readers’ isiXhosa and English miscues, and
adult readers’ miscues. Similarities between the young readers and adult proficient
readers’ use of the graphophonic system end here. Two things distinguish (adult)
proficient readers’ use of the graphophonic cueing system from less proficient readers.
First, adult proficient readers are efficient in the ways in which they use knowledge
of the graphophonic cueing system to read. Their word recognition/identification
skills are automatic and their reading is fluent. Secondly, adult readers are adept at
integrating their knowledge of graphophonics with grammatical and semantic cues
to make sense of what they read. The child readers tend to rely heavily on just one
of the cueing systems and, in almost all cases, the graphophonic cueing system. The
child readers are often able to decode words, or more accurately, to re-code words
– that is, to sound out words without understanding them and find it hard to convert
graphophonic input into language (grammar) and/or meaning (Goodman, 1996).
87

SAJCE– December 2012
Tables 3, 5 and 6 show that over-reliance on graphophonic cues and minimal use of
syntactic and semantic cues is strongly associated with 1) the least proficient reading
(Khanysile and Sbusiso) and 2) the unfamiliar language of reading (English).
A high proportion of the readers’ miscues are cued by graphophonics cues
implying that the readers are heavily reliant on graphophonic cues (consider Table
7). Closer examination of the evidence suggests that even though readers are heavily
reliant on graphophonic cues, the readers don’t have a good command of isiXhosa
graphophonics. The evidence comes from readers’ reading rates. The reading rate
is a measure of correct words per minute (CWPM). Reading speed indicates two
things: a reader’s word recognition skills and a reader’s ability to create meaning of
what is read at an acceptable rate (Caldwell & Leslie, 2009, p. 97). The young readers’
isiXhosa reading rates are presented in Table 7 below. Columns 2 to 6 presents reading
rates of child readers and Column 7 and 8 reading rates of the adults, for purposes of
comparison. The child readers reading rates are well below those of the adults and the
groups’ reading rates do not improve as readers move up the grades. Having listened
to the readers slow, choppy and laboured oral reading (Rasinski, 2002, p. 93), the
suggestion is that part of the problem is that readers’ isiXhosa word recognition skills
are poorly developed and that this undermines readers’ ability to get efficiently to the
meaning of what they read.
Table 7: Young Readers and Adult Readers isiXhosa Reading Rates
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Text
Level
Khanyisile
Gr2
Sbusiso
Gr3
Nobuntu
Gr4
Mihlali
Gr5
Sindi
Gr6
Sisipho
Adult
Ayanda
Adult
Grade 2 9 15 88 69
Grade 3 -15 1 35 75 78
Grade 4 15 12 -6 79 65
Grades 5/6 12 8 67 43
Discussion
Do readers’ miscues retain grammaticality in isiXhosa (L1) and English (L2)?
Readers’ miscues retain grammaticality of text significantly better in isiXhosa than in
English. This supports the claim that it is comparatively easier for readers to invoke
and use knowledge of language - of grammar in particular - to read in a familiar
language (isiXhosa/L1) than an unfamiliar language (English/L2). Keeping track of
‘well-formedness’ of texts during reading is a necessary but not sufficient condition to
making meaning. Motivation and other cognitive abilities influence meaning making
(comprehension) (Rand Study Group, 2004).
Differences of the effect of miscues on the grammar of isiXhosa and English should
not be overstated because, for example, between 19% and 58% of readers’ isiXhosa
88

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
miscues are grammatical non-sense. Readers are not fully exploiting their superior
oral language proficiency in isiXhosa to acquire discrete language skills and academic
proficiency in isiXhosa (Cummins, 2003). A likely explanation is school language and
literacy practices that do not encourage reading for meaning and a literacy curriculum
that doesn’t teach explicit reading comprehension skills (Nel, 2011).
In terms of cross-linguistic transfer, the data suggests that because readers have
minimal discrete language skills and academic languag proficiency in isiXhosa (L1), very
little of what they have learned in isiXhosa (L1) is usefully transferrable to English (L2)
reading. In fact, likely is that readers are transferring poor reading habits from the L1
to the L2, like the practice of treating text as grammatical and semantic non-sense.
Useful transfer from L2 to L1 is even less likely.
Do readers miscues retain textual meaning (are the readers’ miscues
semantically acceptable?) in the L1 and L2
Readers’ miscues retain meaning in isiXhosa better than English. This supports the
suggestion that readers are ‘better’ able to use their background knowledge, word
meanings and contextual knowledge to figure out what they are reading if it is a
language they are familiar with.
A qualification is necessary here too. IsiXhosa miscues that retain meaning are
lower than isiXhosa miscues that retain grammar, suggesting that while readers
are relatively more ‘successful’ at keeping track of grammaticality of isiXhosa texts,
they are less successful at keeping track of meaning, or at linking grammatical sense
to semantic sense. On the other hand, superficial English language knowledge, as
indexed by low grammatical miscues, doesn’t mean readers are able to keep track of
meaning.
Due to typographical/structural and orthographic differences between isiXhosa
and English and the different contexts in which each of these languages is learned
and used, makes it hard for readers to transfer vocabulary, background or contextual
knowledge from isiXhosa to English, or vice versa.
Do readers’ miscues have high graphophonic similarity to the text in the L1
and L2?
Readers’ miscues have high graphophonic similarity to the text in isiXhosa and
in English. The suggestion is that readers are, in fact, paying very close attention
to the visual and phonic aspects of reading. Additional evidence in support of
this interpretation is that readers’ word accuracy rates are generally high in both
languages. The challenge is not that the readers pay no attention to graphophonics or
are careless in their use of phonics, but that they read too slowly because their word
reading strategies are not efficient in part because they are not reading regularly texts
at their instructional or independent reading levels.
89

SAJCE– December 2012
Are readers using all three cueing systems in an effective manner?
The readers are not using the three cueing systems in an effective manner. The readers
are not involved with their reading, treating it as a mechanical process in which
markings on a page are translated into appropriate sound units. Readers struggle to link
graphophonic, syntactic and semantic cues to create meaning during oral reading. The
process of meaning making is short-circuited at all three levels of the language cueing
system in both isiXhosa and English. The groups’ possibility to grow their knowledge of
isiXhosa and English via extensive reading (Krashen, 2003), for instance, is frustrated
by underlying poor literacy skills. For English, in addition to poor literacy skills, the
underlying lack of basic conversational fluency and access to competent child and
adult L1 or L2 model users of English in everyday interpersonal communication makes
it difficult for children to experience English language instruction as a ‘meaning-full’
activity. Pedagogical implications include 1) improving children’s word identification
strategies, 2) enriching children’s language experiences (via reading and participating
in authentic language activities), and 3) teaching strategies that can assist readers to
develop self-monitoring strategies (Schwartz, 2002 [1997]) and behaviours to improve
reading comprehension (Pretorius & Lephalala, 2011).
Conclusion
The overall conclusions of this paper are that, (a) readers of this sample read better
in isiXhosa than in English, (b) these readers are not reading as well as they could
be reading in isiXhosa. (c) IsiXhosa reading difficulties appear to be related to poor
teaching of literacy, while (d) English reading difficulties are related to both poor
teaching of literacy and to low levels of language proficiency in English, which in turn
is related to classroom practices but also independent of it. Language curriculum and
pedagogy needs take advantage of the potential of isiXhosa to build foundational
literacy skills and learning dispositions in children that can be transferred to English
language learning and to content area learning taught through isiXhosa or English.
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Learning and thinking about print. Massachusetts:
MIT Press
Alexander, P. & Fox, E. (2004). A historical perspective on reading research and practice.
In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes
of Reading (5 th Ed). Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association
Beatty, L. & Care, E. (2009). Learning from their miscues: Differences across reading
ability and text difficulty. Australian Journal of Language and literacy, Vol. 32, No.
3, pp. 226-244
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Massachusetts: Polity Press
Braunger J. & Lewis, J.P. (2006). Building a knowledge base in reading, (2 nd Ed.) Newark,
Delaware: International Reading Association
90

91
Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
Caldwell, J.S. & Leslie, L. (2009). Intervention strategies to follow Informal Reading
Inventory Assessment. Boston: Pearson
Chall, J.S. Jacobs, V.A. & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall
behind. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and friction. In Gilbert
G. Garcia (Ed.) English Language Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English
Literacy. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association
Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Flurkey, A.D., Paulson, E.J. & Goodman, K.S. (Eds.). (2008). Scientific Realism in Studies
of Reading. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Freeman, D. & Freeman, Y. (2003). Teaching English learners to read: Learning or
acquisition? In Gilbert G. Garcia (Ed.) English Language Learners: Reaching the Highest
Level of English Literacy. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association
Fries, P.H. (2008). Words, context, and meaning in reading. In Alan D. Flurkey, Eric J.
Paulson and Kenneth S. Goodman (Eds.) Scientific Realism in Studies of Reading.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Goodman, K.S. (2003 [2004]). Reading, writing, and written texts’. In Alan D. Flurkey
and Jinnguo Xu. (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected Writings of Kenneth
S. Goodman. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Goodman, K.S. (2003 [1976]). Miscue analysis: Theory and reality in reading. In Alan
D. Flurkey and Jinnguo Xu. 2003 (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected
Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Goodman, K.S. (2003 [1975]). The reading process. In Alan D. Flurkey and Jinnguo Xu.
2003 (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman.
Portsmouth: Heinemann
Goodman, K.S. (2003 [1967]). Word perception: Linguistic bases. In Alan D. Flurkey and
Jinnguo Xu. 2003 (Eds.) On the Revolution of Reading: Selected Writings of Kenneth
S. Goodman . Portsmouth: Heinemann
Goodman, K.S. (1996). Ken Goodman on Reading. Portsmouth: Heinemann
Goodman, K. S. (Ed.) (1979). Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana,
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English Name of author and chapter title?
Goodman K.S. & Goodman, Y.M. (2010). Learning to read: A comprehensive model. In
Richard J. Meyer and Kathryn F. Whitmore (Eds.). Reclaiming Reading: Teachers,
Students, Researchers Regaining Spaces for Thinking and Action. London: Routledge
Goodman K.S. & Goodman, Y.M. (2004). To err is human: Learning about language
processes. In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical Models
and Processes of Reading (5 th Ed.). Newark: Delaware: International Reading
Association
Goodman, Y. Watson, D. & Burke, C.L. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation
to instruction, (2 nd Ed.). New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

SAJCE– December 2012
Heugh, K. (2003). Language policy and democracy in South Africa: The prospects of
equality within rights-based policy and planning. Doctoral Dissertation: Centre for
Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University
Krashen, S. (2003). Three roles for reading for minority-language children. In Gilbert
G. Garcia (Ed.) English Language Learners: Reaching the Highest Level of English
Literacy. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association
Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative Reading Inventory -4. Boston: Pearson
Education Inc.
Marek, A.M. & Edelsky, C. (Eds.) (1999). Reflections and connections: Essays in honour
of Kenneth S. Goodman’s influence on language education. New Jersey: Hampton
Press, Inc.
Mashiya, N. (2011). isiZulu and English in KwaZulu-Natal rural schools: how teachers
fear failure and opt for English. South African Journal of Childhood Education, Vol.
1, No. 1, pp.19-31
McKenna, M.C. & Picard, M.C. (2006). ‘Assessment: revisiting the role of miscue analysis
in effective teaching’. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 378-380
Mosenthal, P. (1976/1977). Bridge principles in an abridged reply to Goodman’. Reading
Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 586-603
Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics: Research discoveries and reading
instruction. Portsmouth: Heinemann
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (2000). Report
of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature and its implications for reading
instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S Government
Printing Office
Nel, C. (2011). Classroom Assessment of Reading Comprehension: How are pre-service
Foundation Phase teachers being trained? Per Linguam, 27 (2): 40-63
Pretorius, E.J. & Lephalala, M. (2011). Reading comprehension in high poverty schools:
how it should be taught and how well does it work? Per Linguam 27 (2): 1-24
Rand Study Group, (2004). A Research agenda for improving reading comprehension:
RAND Reading Study Group. In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.).
Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5 th Ed.). Newark: Delaware:
International Reading Association
Rasinski, T. (2002 [2000]). Speed does matter in reading. Evidence-based Reading
Instruction: Putting the National Reading Panel Report into Practice. Newark:
International Reading Association. pp. 91-96
Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In Robert R.
Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading
(5 th Ed.) Newark: Delaware: International Reading Association
92

Ramadiro – Reading in Two Languages
Schwartz, R.M. (2002 [1997]). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. Evidence-based
Reading Instruction: Putting the National Reading Panel Report into Practice,
Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453
Stanovich, K.E. (2004). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. In Robert R. Ruddell and Norman J. Unrau
(Eds.). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5 th Ed.). Newark: Delaware:
International Reading Association
Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and
new frontiers. New York: The Guildford Press
Van der Berg, S. & Burger, R. (2003). Education and socio-economic differentials: A
study of school performance in the Western Cape. Development Policy Research
Unit Working Paper 03/73. University of Cape Town
Wilde, S. (2000). Making miscue analysis easy: Building on students’ strengths.
Portsmouth: Heinemann
Wren, S. (2008). Reading and the three cueing systems. Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory. Austin, Texas
93

Sandra du Plessis
Exploring the Role of the Speech-language
Therapist in City Centre Preschools
Abstract
This study investigates the perception of the strengths and challenges that face city
centre preschool teachers and preschool learners in the acquisition of English as
medium of instruction and to use the results to explore the role of speech-language
therapists in this context. A descriptive survey, incorporating a quantitative data
collection method, was selected as the research design and a questionnaire was
developed as a survey instrument. The findings identified the strengths as including
the creative communication strategies employed by the pre-schoolers and the
innovative techniques of the teachers. Perceived challenges include a cultural and
linguistic mismatch between teachers and learners and communication barriers that
cause emotional and behavioural problems in classrooms. The study suggests that
speech-language therapists need to consider and employ service delivery models
instead of traditional models with the preschool teachers.
Keywords: Additional language learners, city centre preschools, English as language of
learning and teaching, preschool learners, multilingual schools
Sandra du Plessis, University of Limpopo (Medunsa Campus).
E-mail: sandra.duplessis@ul.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 94-116 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

Introduction
du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
The demographics of urban South Africa have changed. An ever-increasing number
of preschool learners are attending preschools where the Language of Learning
and Teaching (LoLT) is not their home language (L1), but an additional language
(L2) (Heugh, 2008). This change has implications for South African speech-language
therapists. In the White Paper 5 (RSA, 2001), the Department of Education (DoE) called
for collaboration between all professionals involved in Early Childhood Education (ECE)
to address, among others, the language needs of young learners. Such collaborative
services to preschool learners are in line with global trends in service delivery (Du
Plessis, 1998). Although teachers are the most important link in the adjustment process
of learners to the classroom (Uys, Van der Walt, Van den Berg & Botha, 2007), it is
accepted that educational support professionals, such as speech-language therapists,
need to be included as team members to support learners. Speech-language therapists
have to serve this population and make a meaningful contribution to support the
learners’ language acquisition and education.
Preschool teachers already have a demanding task in preparing pre-schoolers
for formal schooling and face numerous challenges when teaching learners not yet
proficient in the LoLT. The purpose of this article is to explain the challenges in city
centre preschools through the lens of the preschool teacher in order to provide
guidelines to speech-language therapists in the exploration of their role in the
changed context.
Historical perspective on languages in education in
South Africa
Although South Africa is a young democracy, it has already accomplished the
formulation of a language policy that enshrines in its constitution the equality of all the
South African languages (Cunningham, 2001; Bosman, 2000; Steyn, 2000; RSA, 1996).
Different official languages, however, are used in different contexts (Probyn, 2008;
Achugar, Schleppegrell & Oteìza, 2007; LANGTAG, 1996), and language in education is
one such context.
In South Africa, the government and, in some communities, the parents/caregivers
and learners have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards English (Obondo,
2007; De Klerk, 2002a). It is the most frequently used official language in education
and is regarded by some as the key to higher education (Cele, 2001). Arguably, English
poses the biggest threat to L1 education because of its popularity among parents/
caregivers and learners (Kamwangamalu, 2008; Probyn, 2008). Although many are of
the opinion that English should be accepted as the dominant language in education in
the interest of equality and democracy, ethical and pedagogical questions arise when
so many learners have limited proficiency in English (Probyn, 2008; Soudien, 2007).
In South Africa, English enjoyed prominence during the struggle against apartheid,
both politically and ideologically (Kamwangamalu, 2008). English was the working
language of the African National Congress (ANC) since its inception in 1912 up to the
95

SAJCE– December 2012
present (Holmarsdottir, 2009). This trend towards English as the preferred language
of communication in South Africa is continuing because of its international and
commercial benefits. The perception also exists that English is the only means to
success because the world of opportunity is essentially English speaking (Probyn,
2008). According to Obondo (2007), the desire for English by some Black/African
students is further fuelled by a deep-seated resistance to L1 education. The L1 is
stigmatised as inferior and associated with inferior apartheid education and limited
employment opportunities, as documented by history (Obondo, 2007).
During Apartheid Black/African education was separated from White education
and regulated from 1953 onwards by the Department of Bantu Affairs. Compulsory
L1 instruction was introduced to Black/African learners from Grade One and it was
stipulated that both Afrikaans and English be taught as subjects. In the senior primary
and secondary school years, only Afrikaans and English instruction were allowed
in Black/African schools. In 1974, the then province of Transvaal further stipulated
that social studies and mathematics be taught in Afrikaans (Lemmer, 1995). Black/
African learners had to master difficult subject content in languages other than their
L1. This policy sparked off the Soweto uprising in 1976, resulting in the disruption of
education for a whole generation of Black/African learners (Kamwangamalu, 2008;
Probyn, 2008). When the government finally reversed this decision under tremendous
pressure from the Black/African community, parents/caregivers, for the first time, had
the freedom to choose the LoLT for their children from the Fourth Grade. In 1991, the
De Klerk government took a step closer to democracy and allowed White government
schools to enroll learners of all races, leaving the decision on the LoLT to the parent
body of each school (Peirce & Ridge, 1997). Black/African parents/caregivers were no
longer alienated from decision-making in education (Van Wyk, 2010).
Parents/caregivers were overwhelmingly in favour of sudden transfer to English
after the fourth year at school (Heugh, 2008). This language model is used in most
other sub-Saharan African countries, although there is no evidence that this model
leads to successful learning outcomes (Heugh, 2008; Obondo, 2007). This choice
to switch to English in grade 4 disregards globally accepted theories that the home
language and not the first additional language should be the logical choice as LoLT
(Probyn, 2008; Uys et al., 2007). According to the Language in Education Policy (LiEP),
South African schools may still choose any of the official languages as the LoLT, but
an African language is rarely chosen. In addition, there is no stipulation in policy that
requires a transfer from the home language to English as Language of Teaching and
Learning (ELoLT) is required at any level (Holmarsdottir, 2009).
A study by De Klerk (2002a) illustrates why English strongly appeals to Black
parents/caregivers. De Klerk (2002a) investigated the reason why 194 Xhosa-speaking
learners were sent to English schools in the Grahamstown area from their preschool
years. The reasons why parents/caregivers in the research project decided to send
their children to English schools are summarised in Table 1.
96

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
Table 1: Reasons for placement decision
Reason for placement in Englishmedium
school
Need for better education in more stable
environment
English is the international language
Need to give learners a better chance in life
English will open the door to more job opportunities
English is vital for educational success in general
Prestige of English
Social advantages of English
Want learners to be able to mix with English L1
speakers
Closer geographical proximity to an English school
Expected outcomes
More meaningful education free from problems in
Black/African schools
Learners prepared for modern world with cultural
awareness, tolerance, communication with other
groups
Learners able to be financially better off than
parents/caregivers
Equip learners with competitive edge and ability to
speak the language of the workplace
Learners able to understand other subjects and pass
future exams in English
Higher status of learners able to speak English
Learners will become assertive and confident
Learners must not be embarrassed when speaking
English
Learners must assimilate into English- speaking
Western culture
Source: De Klerk (2002a).
According to Table 1, the parents/caregivers wanted their children to master English.
The parents/caregivers based their decision on the overwhelming approval by family
members (42%) and teachers (24%), as opposed to only 8% of the parents/caregivers
who reported that people tried to persuade them against enrolling the learners in
English schools. Not only access to English, but also more resources, healthier learnerteacher
ratios, as well as better learning opportunities at these schools formed part
of the parents’/caregivers’ motivation for selecting English schools for their children
(Probyn, 2008; De Klerk, 2002a).
The South African history cannot be undone, but it is clear that the country’s
language policies complicated the provision of education in the past. Currently, the
core ideological aims of democracy, racial tolerance, human rights, and peaceful
conflict resolution enshrined in the South African constitution are guiding educational
reform, and emerging educational policies aim to rectify the wrongs of the past and
focus on the needs of society (Le Grange, 2002; Cele, 2001; Gumbo, 2001; RSA, 1996).
The urban school context
In 1991, a few years before the end of the Apartheid era, the former White
governmental schools in South Africa started to accept learners from all races. The
South African Schools Act (Act no 37 of 1997) formalised the process of desegregation
97

SAJCE– December 2012
of schools, after which learners were no longer admitted to schools according to racial
classifications (Van Wyk, 2010; Vandeyar, 2010). The desegregation of schools and the
freedom of movement after apartheid resulted in a demographic shift of Black/African
learners to urban (“White”) schools. Many parents/caregivers chose to place their
children in English schools, some on the basis of the belief that time on task will aid
their children to reach high levels of proficiency in English (Hornberger & Vaish, 2009;
Probyn, 2008). However, 80% of Black/African learners remained in rural or township
schools (Probyn, 2008).
With the migration of Black/African learners to formerly White schools many
teachers in urban English schools in South Africa were caught off guard by the diverse
language situation in their classrooms (Barkhuizen, 1993). The rapid political and
demographic changes of the following few years forced these teachers to adapt to
new situations, which often impacted on their identities, beliefs and value systems
(Vandeyar, 2010; Peirce & Ridge, 1997). Two decades ago it already became apparent
that the sudden and abrupt transition from the learners’ L1 to English was a major
problem that all teachers needed to address, as many learners were not yet proficient
in English when enrolled in English schools.
Vandeyar (2010) has found that two thirds of participant teachers studied have
attempted to assimilate learners from diverse cultural groups into the hegemonic
culture of the mostly “White” urban schooling in South Africa. In other words, they
are teaching from a particular cultural lens without any attempt to create a sense
of belonging for the Black/African learners. These teachers have responded to the
desegregation of schools with assimilation and pseudo colour blindness, the latter
indicating that teachers suppress negative images held of learners by professing
not to see colour (Vandeyar, 2010). The cultural background of every learner in a
diverse classroom needs to be incorporated into lessons (Vandeyar, 2010; Driscoll &
Nagel, 2002). 1
Role-players in language acquisition in the city centre
preschool context
Currently many Black/African learners, who are not proficient in English, are being
placed in city centre English preschools. The parents/caregivers of these learners often
rely on teachers to play a leading role in teaching their children English in preparation
for primary school (Uys et al., 2007). It is generally accepted that, during the preschool
years, parents/caregivers and teachers are the main role-players in the learners’
education, because of the amount of time that learners spend in either the home or
school environment. The White Paper 5 (RSA, 2001) states that the responsibility for
the care and upbringing of young children belongs to parents or families (caregivers),
1 An interesting report from the Minister of Education of Eritrea, where the indigenous languages are the LoLT,
indicated that the most important achievement of this education policy was the unshakable confidence and
self-esteem observed in their learners (Mohammed, in Obondo, 2007).
98

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
which directly implicates their involvement as primary role-players in the support of
their children’s language acquisition.
Preschool teachers are viewed as the second major role-players in the support of
preschool learners’ acquisition of the home language, or the LoLT. As learners spend
many of their waking hours with teachers, their experiences under the guidance of the
teachers will have an impact on the learners’ social, emotional, cognitive and language
development (NAEYC, 1996).
Preschool teachers have special knowledge, acquired through training, of
education in early childhood. They are also knowledgeable about preschool learners
through continuous observation and can assess learners in natural situations (Du
Plessis, 1998). The question arises whether these abilities are sufficient to teach in the
current South African situation where schools have become multilingual, and where
preschool teachers face the predicament of teaching in English, while they know that
all learners will not fully comprehend the content of their teaching.
More and more demands at all levels are made of South African preschool
teachers (Cunningham, 2001). Preschool teachers are expected to have sophisticated
knowledge of subject matter and a wide repertoire of teaching strategies. Moreover,
they need to be familiar with theories of learning and cognition, knowledge of
pedagogy and curriculum, and competence with technology and assessment. The
South African context requires preschool teachers to understand multiple languages,
as well as socio-cultural and developmental backgrounds (Viljoen & Molefe, 2001). It
is clear that multilingual classrooms may present a challenge to teachers as it adds to
existing demands.
Although ASHA (ASHA, 1998; ASHA, 1983) issued a position statement in 1983,
clarifying the association’s viewpoint on speech-language therapists’ role when
serving multilingual clients in the USA, the South African Speech-Language and
Hearing Association (SASLHA) only published guidelines regulating local speechlanguage
therapists’ intervention with learners acquiring an L2 20 years later (SASLHA,
2003). These guidelines clearly indicated that speech-language therapists need to get
involved in the acquisition of a second language.
Speech-language therapists have the training and knowledge to assist preschool
learners in acquiring language-learning skills in the LoLT. Since home language and
second language development, assessment, and intervention are acknowledged
professional functions of speech-language therapists, it is widely accepted that they
are the ideal educational support professionals to intervene in the process of language
acquisition (Ehren & Whitmire, 2005). Apart from understanding the nature of language
and the interaction between a child and his or her environment, a comprehensive
knowledge of language development in young children and intervention strategies to
facilitate the process of language acquisition provide speech-language therapists with
the expertise to offer focused language stimulation (Jordaan, 1993). Speech-language
therapists can make a contribution as one of the team members to support language
learning, even without being proficient in the learner’s L1, because they are familiar
99

SAJCE– December 2012
with language acquisition methodologies and knowledge of language acquisition.
In addition, speech-language therapists’ involvement with preschool learners
may stimulate important collaboration between the professions of the speechlanguage
therapist and the preschool teacher (Ehren & Whitmire, 2005; Du Plessis &
Naudé, 2003).
The linguistic needs of the pre-schooler in urban South Africa - to acquire full
proficiency in L1, as well as the LoLT - need to be addressed by all role-players. The
first language has to be promoted, maintained and developed in order to ensure
that the acquisition of the first additional language is an additive rather than a
subtractive process (Du Plessis & Louw, 2008). Such proficiency would enable
the learners to increase their communication skills and cognitive flexibility in a
multilingual environment. L1 acquisition usually proceeds smoothly for most learners
in the preschool years (Jordaan, 1993), but all learners do not always acquire the LoLT
effortlessly. Role-players may need to intervene in ways that stimulate and support
language development, always taking into account the specific and unique needs of
the preschool learner and the South African educational system.
If teachers are familiar with the unique characteristics and needs of learners,
they may construct a classroom context accommodating these needs (Cele, 2001).
Preschool teachers may create a learning environment that provides conditions for
support and creates a challenge to their learners – a positive learning environment for
education and learner motivation.
To respond effectively to the language acquisition challenges of learners not yet
proficient in the LoLT (English), as well as their personal challenges in facilitating the
acquisition of this language, a group of preschool teachers in a specific city centre
multilingual context requested advice and support from speech-language therapists.
The research reported here was initiated in response to this request.
Method
The purpose of this study was threefold:
• To determine the perceptions and opinions of preschool teachers regarding
the strengths of, and challenges to, preschool learners acquiring English as an
additional language.
• To determine the strengths of, and challenges to, preschool teachers regarding
their role in facilitating communication development in preschool learners that
are in the process of acquiring English.
• To explore the support role of speech-language therapists in facilitating the
acquisition of English.
A descriptive survey research design, implementing the quantitative research method,
was selected for the purpose of this study. Permission to conduct the research
was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities
100

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
at the University of Pretoria. In addition, approval was obtained from the Gauteng
department of education (GDE) and informed consent from the principals and
teachers at the participating schools. The ethical considerations of protection from
harm, informed consent, right to privacy and honesty with professional colleagues
were emphasised and adhered to.
Context
All preschools had to fall in a specified geographical area in a selected city centre. The
specific city centre underwent a radical change in population composition, because
of the political changes in South Africa since 1994. The former exclusively White
population in the city centre changed to a racially desegregated population when
many people from the Black/African communities moved into this area.
Participants
All preschool teachers at the nine identified preschools in the context gave consent
to participate in the study. Participants were selected because of their accessibility
and willingness to participate in the research, irrespective of training and experience.
Questionnaires were sent to 36 teachers and 32 returned the questionnaires yielding a
response rate of 88%.
Material
A self-designed questionnaire was compiled as survey instrument. The questionnaire
enabled the author to gain insight into the first-hand experiences of preschool
teachers who were in their current teaching position involved with preschool learners
acquiring the LoLT, which was English. The strength of such a survey instrument was
that it yielded information on the existing situation and the participants’ feelings and
perceptions. The questionnaire was judged and found to be appropriate by an expert
lecturer in the discipline of Speech-Language Pathology, specialising in childhood
language development. In addition, a pre-test was conducted for face validity and to
finalise the content. Four preschool teachers from four different preschools in the city
centre were randomly selected to form a trial group of pre-test participants. The data
analysis was also confirmed as correct by an independent rater.
The questionnaire was divided into ten sections, namely demographic
information, exposure of the teachers to multilingual classes, general observations
of the teachers regarding the learners, information on the learners’ vocabulary
development, information on the learners’ syntactic abilities, information on the
learners’ pragmatic skills, strategies to support the learner, teachers’ general
beliefs on language development, teachers’ need for training and an open question.
Participants were asked to respond according to the Lickert type scale. The number
of response categories was respectively two, three and four and was alternated in
the questionnaire to prevent bias (Delport & De Vos, 2002). Open-ended questions
were included to allow participants to comment freely and to afford the author
101

SAJCE– December 2012
the opportunity to collect information that might have been omitted from the
questionnaire. The majority of the questions were close-ended, which shortened the
duration for completion.
Data collection
The questionnaires and informed consent forms were delivered to the principal of each
preschool with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the research and providing
guidelines for the completion of the questionnaire. Participants had two weeks to
complete the questionnaire. The researcher collected the completed questionnaires
after two weeks.
Data analysis
Since the nature of the research was exploratory, descriptive and contextual,
descriptive statistics (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005) were used to describe the data and
illustrate trends within the research context. Statistical computations, such as
frequency distributions, were employed to provide an indication of the perceptions of
the teachers.
Results and discussion
Description of preschool teachers
The results demonstrated in Table 2 emphasise that the selected characteristics of
teachers did indeed add to the complexity of the teaching situation in the research
context. The analysis of these characteristics provided an indication of some of the
personal challenges encountered by preschool teachers.
According to Table 2, most of the teachers (84%) were Afrikaans speaking, but they
were teaching mostly in English, which is not their L1, with only 10% of the teachers
having English as the home language. When considering that all participating
preschools had English as their LoLT, it is clear that the majority of the teachers were
not teaching in their home language. Afrikaans is the language of the majority of the
White population in the province where the research was conducted (Census in Brief,
2001), which may explain why the majority of the teachers had Afrikaans as their L1.
From some of the teachers’ responses to the open question it became evident
that all may not be fully proficient in English. As numerous authors, including Nel &
Müller (2010), Cele (2001), Cunningham (2001), Barkhuizen (1993) and Macdonald
(1991), have voiced their concerns about the English proficiency of South African
teachers, a question arises about the English skills of the teachers in this study. If some
teachers were indeed not fully proficient in English, the teaching situation could be
complicated, as limited English language skills may inhibit conversational exchanges in
the classroom. Exposure to a less than ideal model of English may influence learners’
acquisition of English negatively (De Klerk, 2002b).
102

Table 2: Profile of teachers (N=32)
du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
Characteristics Description Number of
teachers
Home language
Afrikaans
27
English
3
Sesotho
1
isiZulu
1
Percentage of
teachers
84%
10%
3%
3%
Additional
languages spoken*
English
Afrikaans
Sesotho
German
isiZulu
isiXhosa
Sepedi
Siswati
Xitsonga
Dutch
Sign language
Not provided
Afrikaans
English
Afrikaans and English
Not provided
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
10 years
17 years
21 years
28
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
3
2
1
5
3
4
6
3
3
3
2
1
1
87%
15%
10%
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
81%
10%
6%
3%
15%
10%
12%
18%
10%
10%
10%
6%
3%
3%
Language
preference
Teaching
experience with
multilingual classes
*Some teacher participants listed more than one additional language.Adapted from Du
Plessis and Louw (2008)
The fact that the overwhelming majority of teachers were White indicated
that teachers kept their positions in the city centre, while the population in this
area became racially desegregated. This may also be the result of previous limited
opportunities in higher education for Black/African learners resulting in a shortage
of Black/African preschool teachers. In contrast to the increasing learner diversity,
there is a lack of diversity among the teaching staff. While Black/African learners have
migrated to city centre schools, the profile of the teachers has remained relatively
unchanged, resulting in a linguistic and cultural mismatch between the teachers and
a large number of the learners (Vandeyar & Killen, 2006). These teachers have to be
cautious not to allow learners to view themselves through their “White” cultural lens,
but rather create a sense of belonging to the Black/African learners.
103

SAJCE– December 2012
Description of preschool learners
Table 3: Language data for 760 pre-schoolers as recorded by 32 teachers
Home language Number of learners Percentage of
learners
Unknown to teacher 281 36,9%
Afrikaans 198 26%
Sesotho 76 10%
English 72 9,5%
Setswana 50 6,6%
isiXhosa 20 2,6%
Sepedi 19 2,5%
isiZulu 17 2,2%
Other specified African languages 9 1,2%
Tshivenda 4 0,5%
Other unspecified African languages 3 0,4%
French 3 0,4%
Seswati 2 0,3%
Xitsonga 2 0,3%
isiNdebele 2 0,3%
Portuguese 2 0,3%
Total 760 100%
Reprinted: Du Plessis and Naudé (2003).
Table 3 provides details of the L1 of the preschool learners in the nine preschools in the
specific city centre. In all of the 32 participating classes, most of the learners (90,5%)
were L2 learners in preschools with English as the LoLT. The preschool teachers in the
study had to cope with English L1 and ELoLT learners in the same classroom and had
to teach learners of whom all were not yet proficient in the LoLT. This trend is typical
in the South African educational context, as has also been pointed out by Dawber and
Jordaan (1999) and Barkhuizen (1993) and implies that a situation thus exists where
preschool teachers have to teach on different language levels to individual learners in
the same classroom.
An alarming fact revealed in Table 3 is that the L1 of a large number of preschool
learners (36,9%) was unknown to the teachers. It should be acknowledged that the
identification of the principal L1 may have been hampered by some learners speaking
more than one language at home, while multiple languages were represented in the
classrooms (Sadiki, 2002). The fact that the teachers could not recognise the L1 of
such a large number of learners may indicate that the teachers could also not identify
104

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
the cultural background of the learners, as language is considered to be the bearer
of culture (Smit, 1993). The importance of being aware of the cultural background
of learners is emphasised in the literature (Vandeyar, 2010) and is recognised as
part of cultural competence. If the teachers were unaware of the L1 and cultures
of the learners, they might not have been able to create a sense of belonging for
their learners, which would result in a classroom atmosphere representative of the
hegemonic culture of the school (Vandeyar, 2010).
The results show that all eleven official languages were represented in the research
context. This is in contrast with the situation in the rural areas where dominant official
languages can often be identified (Census in Brief, 2001) and L1 education could more
readily be implemented. The use of English as LoLT to accommodate learners with
diverse L1s may indeed offer a practical solution in this city centre context.
Preschool learners’ coping strategies
According to the results the majority of teachers (84%) indicated that code-switching
and code-mixing were often used as coping strategies by the learners. In all the
preschools in the research context, 50% or more of the learners in any class found
it difficult to express themselves only in English and reverted to their L1 to facilitate
comprehension. Probyn (2008) observed that code-switching often occurred in
South African classrooms where many learners are from multilingual backgrounds. It
appeared that learners drew on their language resources by code-switching, using it
as a communication strategy (SASHLA, 2003). It is argued that multilingual learners
may be using their L1 to assist understanding and communicating in the context within
which the language is used. The code-switching by multilingual learners was not a
case of confusing languages, but typical of L2 acquisition. Although many teachers
may regard code-switching as undesirable, the literature reflects the view that codeswitching
is normal, useful and widely used in the discourse of multilingual speakers
(Probyn, 2008). Teachers should accept code-switching as typical behaviour and may
use it as a resource in teaching.
The results also indicate that the teachers observed that the majority of the
learners used gestures when communicating in English. The use of gestures as strategy
to facilitate comprehension is a common phenomenon during the non-verbal phase
of L2 acquisition (Roseberry-McKibbin & Brice, 2000), as the learner often listens and
focuses on understanding the L2. It is a phase of active observation and rehearsal or
sound experimentation, usually done quietly. Gestures should be viewed as normal
behaviour and not as a cause for concern during the initial phases of the acquisition
of an L2.
The fact that the preschool learners showed typical patterns of L2 acquisition and
employed creative communication strategies may therefore be regarded as strengths.
105

SAJCE– December 2012
Socio-emotional behaviour observed
According to the results a large percentage of the teachers often observed negative
social or emotional behaviour (such as withdrawal 60%, frustration 60%, discipline
problems 45%, and not volunteering to answer 67%) that could be associated with
poor L2 skills. These teachers perceived language proficiency as influencing school
performance and social behaviour significantly.
Research has highlighted that learners not yet fully proficient in the LoLT are
at risk of developing social problems in the classroom. Crutchley, Botting & Conti-
Ramsden (1997) reported that, although monolingual and multilingual learners arrived
at schools with no emotional and behavioural differences, over time L2 learners
developed and exhibited more emotional and behavioural problems than L1 learners.
The same perceived negative kinds of behaviour as found in the current research were
reported by Viljoen & Molefe (2001), who observed frustration and discipline problems
in South African L2 learners. Fujiki, Brinton, Isaacson & Summers (2001) found that L2
learners displayed more withdrawal and aggressive behaviours than other learners. Viljoen
& Molefe (2001) observed that many of these negative behaviours were not present on the
playground where learners interacted in their L1 with peers from their own culture. These
findings were supported by Probyn (2008), which verifies that communication barriers in
the classroom, caused by poor L2 proficiency, contributed to a large extent to learners’
emotional and behavioural problems. Behavioural problems in these learners therefore
may need to be understood against the background of emotional uncertainty as a result of
language and cultural differences between the home and school.
Strategies employed by teachers
The teachers were requested to indicate which strategies they employed to facilitate
comprehension and participation for preschool learners. An open question was
included in this section of the questionnaire to allow teachers to include techniques
not listed, thus preventing bias from limited possibilities. The results are presented
in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that, apart from planning their lessons, teachers had to plan
techniques to convey meaning. By employing their creative skills, learners were
provided with opportunities to learn and participate in programme activities. Most
of the strategies were verbal, but non-verbal strategies, such as gestures and bodily
movements as cues to facilitate comprehension, were also employed to support
communication. The fact that the preschool teachers used innovative techniques
and developed their own strategies to facilitate comprehension may be regarded
as strengths.
106

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
Table 4: Strategies employed by teachers in relation to their teaching with multilingual
classes (N=32)
Strategies
Teaching experience with multilingual classes
1-5 Years
(N=21)
6-10 Years
(N=8)
10+ Years
(N=2)
Often Seldom Never Often Seldom Never Often Seldom
Simplify/rephrase 19 2 0 7 1 0 2 0
Repeat
instructions
21 0 0 7 1 0 2 0
Accentuate
keywords
21 0 0 7 1 0 2 0
Repeat new
vocabulary
20 1 0 7 1 0 2 0
Additional visuals 20 1 0 6 2 0 2 0
Speak slower 16 4 1 7 0 1 2 0
Repeat learners’
utterances
Expand learners’
utterances
6 7 8 5 1 2 1 0
8 6 7 7 1 0 1 0
Use gestures 14 4 3 7 0 1 2 0
Mime 15 5 1 7 0 1 2 0
Involve parents/
caregivers
4 6 11 4 3 1 1 1
Adapt lesson plan 3 3 15 7 0 1 1 1
*Intentional
misrepresentation
*Stories, songs,
rhymes
*Translate to
learners’ L1
0 1 0
21 7 2
2 0 0
*Dramatizing 0 0 2
*Learners as
translators
*Assistants as
translators
*Individual
sessions
0 2 0
2 2 1
2 0 0
*Responses to open question
An interesting trend revealed in Table 4 is that overall only a small number of
the teachers repeated and expanded the learners’ utterances. Whereas the majority
107

SAJCE– December 2012
of teachers, with more than six years’ experience with multilingual classes, used
these two verbal strategies often, the teacher participants with less than six years’
experience did not employ these strategies as a rule. The teachers with less multilingual
experience may be unaware of the value of such strategies. This possibility questions
their effective use of verbal strategies, as there is strong indication in the literature
(Owens, 2008) that imitation, repetition, and expansion of words and phrases are
central to the language-learning process and facilitate general language growth.
Adult responses facilitate linguistic development by maintaining or adding to the
semantic content of what the learner says, while also highlighting structural aspects
of language.
The preschool teachers in the research context may benefit from information
on naturalistic language facilitation techniques to make instructional input
comprehensible to learners with diverse levels of English proficiency.
Upon further analysis of the results the same pattern emerged with the strategy
of adapting lesson plans. The majority of teachers with less than six years’ multilingual
experience never adapted lesson plans, as opposed to the teachers with more
multilingual experience who often adapted lesson plans. It appears that the latter
group of teachers may be more flexible in their approach, viewing learner-directed
activities as educational opportunities even in an organised framework. Adaptability is
also advocated by Manolson (1992) who pointed out that adults need to be responsive
partners and allow learners to lead in language-acquisition activities.
Table 4 indicates that nine teachers employed some form of code-switching
(two translate to learners’ L1 themselves; two use peer tutors; five use assistants
as translators). Only a small number of the teachers were using code-switching
as a resource. The use of code-switching and peer-tutoring has been reported
in the literature and holds great potential as technique and strategy to facilitate
comprehension in ELoLT learners (Probyn, 2008; Viljoen & Molefe, 2001). Codeswitching
in the classroom may lead to better understanding and communication with
L2 learners and prevent communication breakdown between teachers and learners.
It does pose a challenge to the teachers in the research context where all 11 official
languages were represented. However, it is argued that teachers need to be guided to
explore and appreciate the functions of these strategies, drawing on sources already
available to them.
Support needs of preschool teachers
To establish the support required, the teachers’ perception of their own support needs
was explored. According to the results the teachers were willing to accept support
regarding L2 learners in their classrooms. It is interesting to note that the majority of
the teachers (88%) preferred workshops to formal training, which may be an indication
of the amount of time and money the teachers were prepared to spend on acquiring
the appropriate knowledge and skills. It may also indicate their preference for the
interactive manner of teaching and learning often prevailing at workshops (Du Plessis
& Louw, 2008).
108

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
The responses of teachers indicated their willingness to share responsibilities
regarding the support of L2 learners with other knowledgeable professionals. In the
results two components of teamwork, namely consultation (advice on how to handle
the multilingual learner) and collaboration (assistance by speech-language therapists
in planning language lessons and evaluating the language needs of multilingual
learners) were indicated as perceived support needs. Based on these results the role
of the speech-language therapist as team member of the education support team is
discussed forthwith.
The role of the speech-language therapist
The teachers’ perceptions provided valuable information on the challenges to
preschool learners not yet proficient in the LoLT, with strong pointers for the provision
of a responsive learning environment. As the learners’ challenges and strengths did
not fall into neat categories, interdisciplinary partnerships may have to be established
to bring together different perspectives and expertise for intervention. This presents
a challenge to all teachers and educational support professionals. The onus is to form
partnerships and to share knowledge and skills related to the learners’ strengths and
challenges, working collaboratively to enhance the learning process.
Preschool teachers may feel challenged when attempting to meet all these
expectations. The greatest challenges emerging from the research results appear
to be first, the need for knowledge, and second, the need for support. However,
challenges provide opportunities, one of which is to form partnerships in problem
solving. In such partnerships speech-language therapists would have to be sensitive
to the unique needs of preschool teachers and strive to provide teachers with the
information and support they need.
The teachers’ need for support clearly indicated that the principle role of the
speech-language therapists needs to be indirect, providing mainly consultative,
but also collaborative support. Such collaboration may, however, depend largely
on the competencies of the preschool teachers and the speech-language therapists
in clarifying and redefining their roles to form a team that provides services to the
multilingual learners.
The proposed service delivery model to support the acquisition of the LoLT has
three components, namely consultation, collaboration, and collaborative intervention.
The first consultative role for both the speech-language therapists and the
preschool teachers is professional education or skills development. The preschool
teachers may need instruction in the nature of language and communication, whereas
the speech-language therapists may need information on the nature of the curriculum
and its associated language demands. It may be necessary for the preschool teachers
to familiarise the speech-language therapists with the learning areas of the curriculum,
enabling them to understand their role within the curriculum and develop appropriate
skills and knowledge to work within the curriculum (Struthers & Lewis, 2004). It
implies that both professionals need to become on-going learners themselves, sharing
109

SAJCE– December 2012
knowledge and information, while drawing on the strength of the other in order
to gain competencies and provide services responsive to the unique needs of the
preschool learner.
The second consultative role identified from the research results involves the
designing of learning programmes and the planning of structured language support
in classroom activities. The teachers recognise the importance of language to the
learners’ academic success and socialisation, but they need support to address the
learners’ linguistic needs. In consultation, the preschool teachers and the speechlanguage
therapists need to plan a language-focused curriculum, using the natural
contexts of the classroom as point of departure and the classroom format and
curriculum as sources of programme content (Giangreco, as cited by Prelock, 2000).
The speech-language therapists and the preschool teachers may create a plan of
action for addressing the learners’ particular language needs, based on what could
practically be implemented in the classroom. Such a collaborative approach allows for
the synthesising and generalisation of communication skills across contexts and also
supports accessibility to the curriculum. The preschool teachers need to play a leading
role in any modifications to the curriculum to facilitate comprehension, ensuring
that the conceptual requirements of the learning area are met. The speech-language
therapists in collaborative curriculum design need to analyse the curriculum to identify
important concepts and associated language components (Lazar, 1994), and suggest
modifications to the important LoLT input of the preschool teachers.
The first collaborative role of the speech-language therapists, identified from
the results, is to assume primary responsibility in the team for coordinating the
communication assessment of preschool learners (Ehren, Montgomery, Rudebusch
& Whitmire, 2009). The preschool teachers may take secondary responsibility for
the communication assessment, thereby establishing an integrated view of the
learners’ language abilities (Laing & Kamhi, 2003). In such interdisciplinary appraisals
of the learners’ language proficiency, the speech-language therapists need to assume
responsibility for collecting, analysing and synthesising the language assessment
information, as well as presenting the results to the team (ASHA, 1991). Owing to
the preschool teachers’ involvement and support in assessing the learners their
confidence, skills and knowledge about communication assessment will increase,
while the speech-language therapists will acquire knowledge about the nature of the
language demands of the curriculum and the multilingual preschool learners’ ability to
handle these demands.
The second collaborative role in lesson planning or intervention planning, which a
critical procedure in successful communication intervention (Wilcox & Shannon, 1996),
It is suggested that the preschool teachers need to assume primary responsibility for
planning the curriculum goals and the speech-language therapists for planning the
communication goals. In this manner their mutual perspectives on desired outcomes
may be combined in intervention planning (Ehren, et al., 2009).
Collaborative intervention is the third role of the speech-language therapists
and the preschool teachers, identified from the research results. The role of the
110

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
speech-language therapists in collaborative intervention needs to be a direct
role, which implies direct contact with the preschool learners, as well as shared
responsibilities with the preschool teachers for direct instruction of the preschool
learners (Ehren, et al., 2009). A service delivery model needs to be negotiated
between the speech-language therapists and the preschool teachers, and the level of
role release between these professionals needs to be determined.
It is suggested that the proposed service delivery model may be an effective
approach to providing a supportive intervention to preschool learners who are not
fully proficient in English. The first benefit to the learners may be the integration of
education and support services so that, through the sharing of information among
the preschool teachers and the speech-language therapists, learners with linguistic
barriers to learning may be accommodated in inclusive classrooms (Lewis, 2004).
Second, through joint curriculum planning and intervention, the learners may benefit
in all the learning areas (Lewis, 2004). Third, the multilingual learners may benefit from
integrated language instruction as opportunities to expand their language skills may be
utilised across the curriculum, providing increased opportunities for LoLT stimulation
and acquisition (Lewis, 2004). The fourth benefit to the multilingual learners may be
that LoLT skills could be facilitated outside the therapeutic situation and generalised
to natural communication settings, such as the classroom and home setting (Hadley,
Simmerman, Long & Luna, 2000)
In conclusion, it is suggested that the speech-language therapists have a
consultative and collaborative role to play in the acquisition of the LoLT. However,
the role of the speech-language therapists needs to be primarily an indirect role that
extends to resource sharing and support of the preschool teachers. In the proposed
service delivery model to facilitate the acquisition of LoLT in the research context, the
preschool teacher and the speech-language therapist need to support the educational
context for instruction together.
Limitations
A limitation of the research is that the question evaluation by participants during
the pre-test did not reveal all the limitations of the questionnaire. The rating scales
selected by the pre-test participants in two sections may not have been appropriate
for the type of question asked. One could argue that a pre-test with a larger and
more representative sample of pre-test participants potentially could provide more
opportunities to identify difficulties in the questionnaire. Another limitation is that the
research involved a single context and the results could not be generalised.
Conclusion
Up to now role-players and decision-makers in multilingual education in South
Africa were not sensitive to the needs of the teachers, which resulted in policy and
planning to be a top-down political process (Obondo, 2008). Some teachers believe
that the multidimensional nature of multilingualism may have been oversimplified,
111

SAJCE– December 2012
underestimated and obscured by ideological rhetoric (Lemmer, 1995). In addition,
people at grass-roots level, such as teachers, applied linguists, researchers, educational
support professionals, had little involvement in language policy decisions (Obondo,
2008). What is further needed is that decision-makers should understand that speechlanguage
therapists can help learners to succeed in their education (Ehren & Whitmire
2005). The results of the current study added to the growing awareness that education
needs to be based on a holistic approach to challenges, and that interdisciplinary
partnerships need to be established to bring together diverse perspectives and
expertise for collaborative decision-making.
Speech-language therapists in South Africa are increasingly being called on to
provide services to learners with a L1 different from the LoLT – a call for service that
is legitimate. To accelerate the acquisition of the LoLT in preschool learners, speechlanguage
therapists need to move beyond the traditional models of service delivery,
and expand and release their professional roles across disciplinary lines, as has been
recommended in the literature for the past two decades and practised elsewhere
in the world. While South Africa is in the process of building an inclusive education
system, speech-language therapists are urged to work in collaboration with preschool
teachers as a team to provide preschool learners with a solid foundation in L1 and
the LoLT for lifelong learning and development. Speech-language therapists need to
expand their role into the preschool classroom and engage in a mutual process of
sharing their knowledge and skills with others, and learning from others.
“Challenging SLPs [speech-language pathologists] to ‘Make it so’, requires that
they take responsibility for their own destiny and not wait for others to make
the necessary changes” (Ehren & Ehren, 2001, p. 237).
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express her gratitude to Emeritus Prof Brenda Louw, previously
from the University of Pretoria, for earlier contributions to the research.
References
Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M. & Oteìza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language
analysis: A functional linguistic approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching:
Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8-24.
ASHA, (1983). Social dialects. ASHA, 25(9), 23-24.
ASHA, (1998). Provision of English-as-a-second-language instruction by speechlanguage
pathologists in school settings. ASHA, Spring 1998, suppl 18,24-27.
ASHA, (1991). A model for collaborative service delivery for students with languagelearning
disorders in the public school. ASHA, 33 (suppl. 5), .44-50.
Barkhuizen, G.P. (1993). Introducing language across the curriculum into the English
multilingual setting. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 27(4), 269-277.
112

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
Bosman, N. (2000). South Africa’s culture of non-learning - a by-product of non-mother
tongue education? SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 34(3), 221-228.
Cele, N. (2001). Oppressing the oppressed through language liberation: repositioning
English for meaningful education. Perspectives in Education, 19(1), 181-193.
Cencus in Brief, 2001. http://www.css.gov.za/censuspr/population.htm. Accessed on 6
November 2011.
Coufal, K.L. (1993). Collaborative consultation for speech-language pathologists. Topics
in Language Disorders, November, 1-14.
Crutchley, A., Botting, N. & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1997). Bilingualism and specific language
impairment in children attending language units. European Journal of Disorders of
Communication, 32, 267-276.
Cunningham, D. (2001). Languages, technology and teaching: challenges and solutions
for the 21 st century. SAALT Journal for Language Teaching, 35(4), 201-222.
Dawber, A. & Jordaan, H. (1999). Second Language Learners in the Class-room. Southdale,
MN: Aneene Dawber & Heila Jordaan.
De Klerk, V. (2002a). Language issues in our schools: whose voice counts? Part 1: the
parents speak. Perspectives in Education, 20(1), 1-14.
De Klerk, V. (2002b). Part 2: The teachers speak. Perspectives in Education, 20(1), 15-27.
Delport, C.S.L. & De Vos, A.S. (2002). Professional research and professional practice.
In De Vos, A.S. (Ed.). Research at Grass Roots. For the Social Sciences and Human
Service Professionals. (2 nd ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Dougherty, M. (2009). Psychological consultation and collaboration in school and
community settings. (5 th ed). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
Driscoll, A. & Nagel, N.G. (2002). Early Childhood Education. Birth – 8. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Du Plessis, S. (2005). Multilingual preschool learners: A collaborative approach to
communication intervention. Unpublished DPhil dissertation. Pretoria: University
of Pretoria.
Du Plessis, S. (1998). Spanfunksionering in ‘n preprimêre program vir
kommunikasiegestremde kleuters. Unpublished M.Communication Pathology
Dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Du Plessis, S. & Louw, B. (2008). Challenges to preschool teachers in learners’
acquisition of English as Language of Learning and Teaching. South African Journal
of Education, 28(1), 53-75.
Du Plessis, S & Naudé, E. (2003). The needs of teachers in preschool centres with regard
to multilingual learners. South African Journal of Education, 23(2), 122-129.
Ehren, B. J. & Ehren, T.C. (2001). New or expanded literacy roles for speech-language
pathologists: Making it happen in the schools. Seminars in Speech and Language,
22(3), 233-241.
113

SAJCE– December 2012
Ehren, T.C. & Whitmire, K.A. (2005). Leadership opportunities in the context of
responsiveness to intervention activities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2),
168- 179.
Ehren, B.J., Montgomery, J., Rudebusch, J. & Whitmire, K. 2009. Responsiveness to
intervention: New roles for speech-language pathologists. American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association. http://www.asha.org/members/slp/schools/profconsult/NewRolesSLP.htm.
Accessed on 5 September 2011.
Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Isaacson, T. & Summers, C. (2001). Social behaviors of children
with language impairment on the playground: a pilot study. Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 101-113.
Gumbo, M.T. (2001). Multicultural education and its politics. South African Journal of
Education, 21(2), 233-241.
Hadley,P.A., Simmerman,A., Long,M. & Luna,M. 2000. Facilitating language
development for inner-city children. Experimental evaluation of a collaborative
classroom-based intervention. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools,
31: 280-295.
Heugh, K. (2008). Language policy and education in Southern Africa. Encyclopaedia of
Language and Education. www.springerlink.com/content/p62640m146m43525/.
Accessed on 23 August 2011.
Holmarsdottir, H.B. (2009). Cultural identity and implementing a new Language-in-
Education Policy in South African schools. Globalisation, Comparative Education
and Policy Research. www.springerlink.com/content/v545n4rp30465726/.
Accessed on 23 August 2011.
Hornberger, N. & Vaish, V. (2009). Multilingual language policy and school linguistic
practice: Globalization and English language teaching in India, Singapore and
South Africa. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Interventional Education,
39(3), 305-320.
Jordaan, H. (1993). Language intervention to facilitate the acquisition of English as
a second language by pre-school children. Unpublished MA Speech-Language
Pathology Dissertation. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2008). Second and foreign language learning in South Africa.
Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. www.springerlink.com.content/
k552u42273w6234w/. Accessed on 23 August 2011.
Laing,S.P. & Kamhi,A.2003. Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally
and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 34: 44-55.
LANGTAG. (1996). Towards a National Language Plan for South Africa. Final Report of
the Language Plan Task Group, presented to the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science
and Technology.
Lazar, C.1994. A review and appraisal of current information on speech/language
alternative service delivery models in schools. Communiphon, 308: 8-11.
114

du Plessis – Exploring the Role of the Speech-language Therapist
Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical Research. Planning and Design (8th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Le Grange, L. (2002). Educational research, democracy and praxis. South African Journal
of Education, 22(1), 36-39.
Lemmer, E.M. (1995). Selected linguistic realities in South African schools: problems
and prospects. Educare, 24(2), 82-96.
Lewis, F.2004. Curriculum integration and curriculum innovation – challenges to the
school speech-language therapist of today. Communiphon, 337: 36-37.
Macdonald, C. (1991). Eager to Talk and Learn and Think. Bilingual Primary Education in
South Africa. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
Manolson, A. (1992). It Takes Two to Talk. Toronto: The Hanen Centre.
Morsink, C.V. (1991). Framework and rationale for interactive teaming in Morsink,
C.V., Thomas, C.C. and Correa, V.I. (Eds). Interactive Teaming. Consultation and
Collaboration in Special Programs. New York: Merrill.
NAEYC. (1996). Position statement: Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity -
recommendations for effective childhood education. Young Children, 51(2), 9-12.
Nel, N. & Müller, H. (2010). The impact of teachers’ limited English proficiency on
English second language learners in South African schools. South African Journal
of Education, 30, 635-650.
Obondo, M.A. (2007). Tension between English and mother tongue teaching in postcolonial
Africa. International Handbook of English Language Teaching. www.
springerlink.com/content/h5056123k8785341/ . Accessed on 23 August 2011.
Obondo, M.A. (2008). Bilingual education in Africa: An overview. Encyclopaedia of
Language and Education. www.springerlink.com/content/n3pmx151v4872866/.
Accessed on 23 August 2011.
Owens, R.E.(Jr). (2008). Language Development. An Introduction. (7th ed). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Palikara, O., Lindsay, G., Cullen, M.A. & Dockrell, J. (2007). Working together: The
practice of educational psychologists and speech and language therapists with
children with specific speech and language difficulties. Educational and Child
Psychology, 24(4), 77-88.
Peirce, B.N. & Ridge, S.G.M. (1997). Multilingualism in Southern Africa. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 17, 170-190.
Prelock,P.A.2000. Multiple perspectives for determining the roles of speech-language
pathologists in inclusionary classrooms. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 31: 213-218.
Probyn, M. (2008). Policy, practice and power: Language ecologies in South African
classrooms. Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. www.springerlink.com/
content/nn25k23450705554/. Accessed on 23 August 2011.
115

SAJCE– December 2012
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. & Brice, A. (2000). Acquiring English as a second language. The
ASHA Leader, 5(12), 4-7.
RSA (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: Act No 108, 1996. Cape Town:
Government Printer.
RSA (2001). Education White Paper 5 on Early Childhood Education. Pretoria:
Department of Education.
Sadiki, M. (2002). Mother tongue, other tongue and “another tongue”. Paper
presented at the 14 th International English Academy Conference: Mother Tongue,
Other Tongue? Law, Learning and Literature. Pretoria. April 2002.
SASLHA, (2003). Working with bilingual populations in speech-language pathology.
SASLHA, March 2003, Ethics and Standards Committee.
Smit, B. (1993). Language planning for a future South African educational system:
the German language scenario – pedagogical issues. SAALT Journal for Language
Teaching, 27(2), 155-166.
Soudien, C. (2007). The “A” factor: Coming to terms with the question of legacy in
South African education. International Journal of Educational Development. 27(2),
182-193.
Steyn, J.C. (2000). Quality education and equality in education: a dilemma for
democratic South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 20(1), 46-49.
Vandeyar, S. (2010) .Responses to South African teachers to the challenge of school
integration. South African Journal of Education, 30, 343-359.
Van Wyk, B. (2010). Learner diversity and learning: A perspective from South Africa.
International conference on learner diversity 2010. www.sciencedirect.com. Accessed
on 24 August 2011.
Viljoen, C.F. & Molefe, R.M.L. (2001). Language related problems of limited English
proficiency learners in Grade 1. South African Journal of Education, 21(2), 121-127.
Wilcox,M.J. and Shannon,M.S.1996. Early Intervention practices in speech-language
pathology. In McWilliams,R. (Ed). Rethinking Pull-Out Services in Early Intervention.
A Professional Resource. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Uys, M., Van der Walt, J., Van den Berg, R. & Botha, S. (2007). English medium of
instruction: A situational analysis. South African Journal of Education, 27(1), 69-82.
116

Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski, Günther Fink, Corrina Moucheraud
& Beatrice Matafwali
Early Childhood Education, Child
Development and School Readiness:
Evidence from Zambia
Abstract
While early childhood education has received increasing attention in the developing
world in recent years, relatively little evidence is available from sub-Saharan Africa
on its effects on child development and subsequent school enrolment. We use
a prospective case-control design to evaluate the developmental impact of a
community-based early childhood center in an urban area in Zambia. Comparing 40
children attending the center to 40 children not attending the center from the same
community, we find that center attendance was associated with significantly better
performance in an assessment of task orientation, and was also weakly associated
with increased letter familiarity. We also observed higher performance among center
students on tests of receptive language and pencil-related fine motor skills. These
associations were, however, smaller and not statistically significant. We conducted a
follow-up one year after the initial assessment, when children were seven years old
and should have been in first grade. At follow-up, 27% of non-attendees were not yet
enrolled in primary school, compared to just 11% of center students, suggesting that
participation in early education encourages a timely transition into first grade.
Keywords: Early childhood care, school readiness, assessment tools
Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski, Harvard Graduate School of education. E-mail: sls418@
mail.harvard.edu. Günther Fink, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard
School of Public Health. E-mail: gfink@hsph.harvard.edu. Corrina Moucheraud,
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health. E-mail:
cmoucher@hsph.harvard.edu. Beatrice Matafwali, University of Zambia. E-mail:
BMatafwali2000@yahoo.com
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 117-136 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

SAJCE– December 2012
Introduction
In the developed world, an extensive body of longitudinal research demonstrates the
importance of children’s early developmental experiences for educational and broader
life outcomes (Abbott-Shim, Lambert, & McCarty, 2003; Barnett, 1996; Barnett &
Masse, 2007; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Gorey, 2001; Ludwig & Miller, 2007;
Puma et al., 2005; Reynolds, 2000; Schweinhart et al., 2005). To date, relatively little
evidence is available on the developmental effects of early childhood education (ECE)
programs on children in sub-Saharan Africa. Though the evidence supporting early
childhood education in developed countries is strong, it cannot be assumed that this
evidence translates directly to the context of sub-Saharan African countries. However,
several recent studies conducted in Kenya, Zanzibar and Uganda (Malmberg,
Mwaura, & Sylva, 2011; Mwaura, Sylva, & Malmberg, 2008); Botswana (Taiwo & Tyolo,
2002);South Africa (Liddell & Rae, 2001); and Guinea and Cape Verde (Jaramillo &
Tietjen, 2001) support the argument that ECE is just as important in preparing African
children for later academic success as it is for those living in the developed world.
Despite this emerging evidence, government investment in early childhood
education remains low in the region. With the international focus on the basic primary
schooling targets set out in the Millennium Development Goals 1 , the resources
available to ECE are generally limited, and have in some cases even been reallocated
towards primary schooling. In Kenya, for example, pressures to enrol more children
in overcrowded primary schools led to the closing of some preschool programs that
had been located in those schools (Nganga, 2009). Some have suggested that in
Zambia, attempts to expand ECE “may be premature and potentially damaging to an
already tenuous education system” (Thomas & Thomas, 2009, p.6). In addition, the
inter-sectoral nature of ECE programs—generally involving, at a minimum, ministries
of health and education—provides an additional challenge to implementation (Pence
et al., 2004).
The lack of government support for early childhood education means that
these programs are likely to be costly to parents or, if affordable, of low quality. As
a consequence, ECE net enrolment rates are in the single digits for many countries
in the region, including Burkina Faso, Senegal, Eritrea, and Ethiopia (UNESCO, 2011).
Quality is undeniably critical in ECE, both in attracting parents to enrol their children
and in producing positive developmental outcomes. Rao and colleagues (2010)
found that disadvantaged children in India who attended higher-quality preschool
programs experienced greater developmental growth than those attending poorquality
programs. However, the India study as well as recent evidence from Cambodia
suggest that any early childhood education experience is beneficial to children (Rao,
2010; Rao et al., 2012). Therefore, we argue that Zambia and similar countries should
1 Millennium Development Goal 2a asks countries to “…ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and
girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.” (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
education.shtml)
118

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
begin building ECE systems, even if these programs cannot initially meet international
definitions of high quality.
Zambia is in many respects representative of a larger group of countries in the
region—struggling to balance pressing demands to improve health and education
in a context of limited resources. Despite significant progress made in recent years,
the Republic of Zambia remains among the poorest countries in the world. Zambia’s
current population is estimated at 13 million people, and average per capita annual
income was estimated at US $1,400 in 2010 (World Bank, 2012). With an under-5
mortality rate of 111 per 1000 and an HIV prevalence rate of over 13.5% among
individuals aged 15-49, life expectancy at birth remains below 50 years (Unicef, 2012;
World Bank, 2012).
High fertility rates and a rapidly growing youth population continue to pose
major challenges for governmental education planners and practitioners. Aided by
the removal of attendance and examination fees in 2002, school enrolment at lower
grades is now near-universal and gross enrolment ratios frequently exceed 100% at the
basic school level (Kemp, Elbers, & Gunning, 2008). However, many students enter
primary school at age 8 or later, and dropout rates remain high, with less than 50%
of students progressing to secondary schooling (Macro International, 2007). With
severely constrained overall educational resources, the Zambian public ECE sector has
remained largely underdeveloped: it lacks a national curriculum and policy framework,
and suffers from a shortage of qualified teachers. There is also low coordination
among key stakeholders to facilitate holistic implementation of early childhood
programs (Matafwali, 2007). Overall, Zambian children’s exposure to early childhood
programs appears limited. Only 17% of new first-graders reported any early childhood
care and education experience in 2010 (UNESCO, 2010), while the projection for the
year 2015 stands at 30% (Republic of Zambia Ministry of Education, 2010).
This paper generates a first assessment of the degree to which ECE can lead to
better educational outcomes in the Zambian context. The specific program we
examine is the Amundame center, located in Zambia’s Central Province. Started in 2004
with initial support from the Maureen Mwanawasa Community Initiative, Amundame
(a name derived from the local language Lenje, literally interpreted as “Take Care of
Me”) is among the most well-known early childhood centers in Zambia. The center is
operated as a community-based initiative for children of women working as vendors in
the market of Kapiri Mposhi, a small urban center. The center’s curriculum focuses on
pre-literacy and early numeracy skills, and includes a school feeding component.
The main hypothesis we investigate in this paper is that early childhood education
and care provided by the center will lead to improved cognitive and physical
development, and consequently result in improved readiness for primary school. We
further hypothesize that improved school readiness will lead to earlier enrolment in
primary school, and improve children’s long term educational outcomes.
119

SAJCE– December 2012
Methods
Ethical review
The study was approved by the University of Zambia Humanities and Social Sciences
Research Ethics Committee and the Institutional Review Board at the Harvard School
of Public Health.
Study setting
This center was selected for study based on the recommendations of Zambian
academics and local nongovernmental organization representatives, some of whom
had observed the center’s operations extensively. According to a recent study, the
center met or exceeded the minimum standards expected of a quality ECE program
in four categories: curriculum, trained teachers, nutrition, and availability of teaching
and learning materials (Matafwali & Munsaka, 2011). The center is located in Kapiri
Mposhi, a medium-sized urban center in Zambia’s Central Province, approximately one
hundred miles north of the country’s capital, Lusaka (see Figure 1). The Amundame
center is situated within the town’s market and accommodates children aged three to
six, with a capacity of approximately forty children of each of these age groups (birth
cohorts).The children are divided into two groups by age.
The center’s mission is to prevent children from spending key developmental years
unattended in the market and to expose these children to early learning, thereby
improving their school readiness. The center is open year-round, five days per week.
The three classrooms contain a variety of toys, books, and learning tools. Some of
these objects are handmade from local materials, while others have been purchased
by UNICEF and other donors. The walls are covered with letters, numbers, maps, and
art created by the staff. The center has a walled-in outdoor play area used for games,
free play time, and meals. Initially, the school feeding program served children two
hot meals per day (breakfast and lunch). Financial constraints have reduced the scope
of this program; now at minimum one hot meal is served during the day, typically
consisting of nshima (a thick maize porridge) with vegetables.
There is no mandatory standard curriculum framework for early childhood in
Zambia. Therefore, most of the community-based ECE centers do not have any
curriculum guidelines in place and this constrains the quality of services provided.
However, the Amundame center follows the curriculum guideline from the Zambia
Pre-school Association, a board that coordinates privately-owned and communitybased
pre-schools in Zambia. The curriculum covers a broad range of skill areas
such as language and literacy development, social studies, health, pre-mathematics,
science, expressive arts, physical education, and art and design. The curriculum is
mainly teacher-directed in areas such as literacy development and pre-math skills,
whereas learning in science, expressive arts and design are learner-directed through
exploration and creativity.
120

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
Literacy development at the Amundame center mainly focuses on alphabetic
knowledge with particular emphasis on letters and letter-sound relationships. Children
are exposed to various activities aimed at enhancing early literacy skills, including
print awareness. The projected outcome at preschool level is that children should
demonstrate understanding and knowledge that letters make up words, that letters
relate to sounds in spoken words and that words make up sentences. The teaching
places emphasis on the phonic structures. Other distinct features of the program
include the learner-centered approach in which children are paired in small groups to
work on activities. Language development is enhanced through nursery rhymes and
story-telling. Children are also encouraged to name common items at home and within
the immediate environment. Regarding pre-mathematics skills, the areas of curricular
focus include sorting and classifying objects, building with blocks, and comparing
objects according to size, shape and colour. The teaching materials that are used to
stimulate math skills are locally-made containers of different shapes and sizes, sand,
stones, tires, and sticks, in addition to store-bought materials.
Zambia
Figure 1: Study Location: Zambia and Kapiri M’poshi
Kapiri Mposhi
In addition to a small number of paid staff, volunteers from the community (including
parents and guardians of enrolled children) work at the center. The volunteers
complete a basic training program run by the center’s director and support the
program in a number of ways, including preparing meals and cleaning. The volunteers
do not have classroom responsibilities. Some have argued that relying on volunteers
makes for unstable and uneven ECE programs, and places a low value on the important
contribution of early child care workers (Young, 1996). However, this model makes
the program affordable in a low-resource setting; at Amundame, parents pay only
a minimal contribution towards teacher remuneration and the supply of materials
such as toilet tissue and soap for hygiene purposes. Additionally, it should be noted
that Amundame volunteers generally assist only a few days a month, working their
121

SAJCE– December 2012
schedule around other work and family commitments. Family participation may indeed
be one of the mechanisms responsible for the results shown in the next section;
research with low-income pre-schoolers in the United States suggests that parental
volunteerism in children’s schools is associated with better behavioural and academic
outcomes (Marcon, 1999).
Design and participant recruitment
The study used a prospective case-control design. Given our objective—to measure
the impact of the center on school readiness and on primary school enrolment—we
focused on the oldest Amundame age group, who were born in 2004. Official school
start age in Zambia is 7; with the school year starting in January, this implies that
all children born in 2004 should have entered school by January 2012 2 . Given local
popularity of the center and its limited capacity, enrolment is restricted to 160 children
in total. Local community leaders decide which children are admitted to the center.
The center allows only one child per family to attend, and tries to prioritize poor or
otherwise vulnerable children. Using the center’s administrative records, 40 children
born in 2004 and attending the center for at least one year were identified, and, upon
their assent and their parents’ consent, enrolled in the study. In order to obtain a
maximally comparable control group, we recruited an additional 40 children born in
2004 who never attended the center. Since center attendance is restricted to children
of mothers working on the local market, we restricted recruitment to the market area
in order to minimize the socioeconomic differences between children in the treatment
and control groups. In practice this means that the control group children may
have applied to the center and not been selected, or they may never have applied.
According to their parents, several control group children had attended other ECE
programs. However, given the generally low family incomes and the dearth of formal
centers in the area, it is unlikely that such programs were of comparable quality to the
Amundame center.
The small number of eligible treatment group children limits the statistical power
for the study. In order to achieve power 0.8, a minimum effect size of 0.63 standard
deviations was required to achieve significance at the α = 0.05 level.
Measures and testing procedure
When research staff identified an eligible child, parents or guardians were given a
brief explanation of the research study, given an opportunity to ask questions, and
invited to participate in the study. If parents expressed willingness to participate, an
interview was scheduled at the child’s home. During the interview visit, parents and
children were provided with further information on the scope and content of the
study, and, upon their consent, were formally enrolled in the study. All assessments
2 Early enrollment in school is common in Zambia, with about 25% of children starting school at age six or earlier
(Fink et al., 2012).
122

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
were conducted in Bemba, the primary language in this region, by trained University
of Zambia graduate students. The full battery of child development assessments
lasted 60-75 minutes on average, and was followed by a parent survey collecting
information on early childhood health and schooling experiences as well as household
characteristics. Children were assessed using a combination of internationally- and
locally-developed child development tests compiled for the Zambia Early Childhood
Development Project as discussed in further detail in Fink et al. (2012).
Since the primary objective of the center is to improve school preparedness, we
focus in this paper on four developmental measures related to school readiness:
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), letter naming, a fine motor
assessment focused on pencil skills, and task orientation.
The PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) is an assessment of receptive language and is
frequently used as a measure of school readiness (Bracken & Fischel, 2007; Brown,
Scott-Little, Amwake, & Wynn, 2007; Geoffroy et al., 2010; Jeon et al.; Patrianakos-
Hoobler, Msall, Marks, Dezheng, & Schreiber, 2009; Romano, Babchishin, Pagani, &
Kohen). As described in Author el al (2012), the PPVT-R was adapted to the Zambian
context by dropping culturally unsuitable items, and was translated into the local
language. As a critical pre-literacy skill, letter naming is often used as an indicator of
school readiness (Hanson et al., 2011; Prior, Bavin, & Ong, 2011). In this task, children
were shown a sheet with 24 upper- and lower-case characters, and asked to name the
letters aloud. Pencil skills are less commonly tested as a school readiness measure in
developed countries, where children often use crayons and other writing implements
from an early age. But in the Zambian context, many children are not introduced to
writing implements until first grade--so early exposure to writing tools may be of
major advantage and thus increase school readiness. As part of this pencil skill task
set, children were asked to copy a set of numbers, letters, and shapes, and assessors
evaluated the accuracy of these reproductions as well as the child’s grip on the
pencil. The last school readiness characteristic analysed is task orientation. The task
orientation scale used is based on the adapted Leiter-R Assessor Report (Smith-
Donald, Raver, & al., 2007).This assessment measures a child’s sustained attention
and emotional response to frustration and boredom during the assessment. At the
end of the child assessment, interviewers are asked to report on a series of specific
behaviours capturing the child’s ability to focus, sit still and express emotions. For
example, one item asks the assessor whether the child “pays attention to instructions
and demonstration.” The four response options for each item are specific; for the item
just described, one possible response is “child’s attention frequently drifts and requires
frequent prompts.” Such early self-regulation skills have been linked to children’s
academic performance in the primary grades (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006)
A short follow-up survey was conducted one year later, in July 2011. As part of the
follow-up, we collected information on the child’s primary school enrolment status.
This dichotomous variable indicates whether children were enrolled in grade 1 or
above at follow-up. We also collected data on children’s height, weight and mid-upper
arm circumference. These anthropometric measures have been used extensively in the
123

SAJCE– December 2012
health literature as proxies for child nutrition and health, and have been shown to be
strongly associated with later life school and labour market outcomes (Currie, 2009;
Grantham-McGregor et al., 2007; Grantham-McGregor, 2002; Hoddinott, Maluccio,
Behrman, Flores, & Martorell, 2008; Maluccio et al., 2006).
In addition to the outcome and predictor variables discussed above, we used a
number of control variables in our models to attempt to correct for any imbalances
between the treatment and control groups. We include the child’s age in months,
to adjust for the 12-month age span of children in our sample. We include a variable
indicating whether the child attended any other ECE program, which will allow us
to separate the associations with Amundame attendance from the associations
with attendance of other programs, which would presumably be of lower quality.
Socioeconomic status is a critical component of models predicting developmental
and educational outcomes in developing countries, but it can be difficult to measure
in settings where the majority of parents are engaged in subsistence farming or in the
informal labour market. We therefore follow the approach suggested by Filmer and
Pritchett (2001), and divide households into five wealth quintiles based on a principal
component analysis of households’ asset holdings. In addition, we include the number
of siblings in the household, as larger families face additional financial pressures. As
an attempt to measure another dimension of socioeconomic development, we also
control for the average educational attainment of adults in the household, in years.
We also control for orphanhood, which likely influences children’s early development
and educational experiences, in addition to the emotional effects of losing one or
both parents. Evidence from teachers in Zambia’s Copperbelt Province suggests that
orphanhood results in greater financial and caregiving pressures on children, and is a
cause of dropout (Robson & Sylvester, 2007). With an HIV prevalence rate of over 15%
among adults, and life expectancy at birth continues to be below 50 years (UNESCO,
2010; World Bank, 2012) orphanhood is unfortunately very common in the area.
Analytic approach
In order to estimate the impact of center attendance on developmental and schooling
outcomes, we fit the following empirical model:
y i
= α + ß Amundame i
+ X i
γ + ε i
,
where y is the outcome of interest for child i, Amundame is an indicator for whether
the child ever attended the center, and X is a vector of control variables as described
in the previous section.
As described above, we use four measures of child development: the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, a letter naming task, pencil skills and task orientation. All
scores for these tasks were transformed into z-scores, using standard deviations
obtained from the nationally-representative Zambia Early Childhood Development
Project cohort (Fink et al., 2012). The resulting standardized z-scores were used
for this empirical analysis. Using z-scores allows us to compare the magnitude of
124

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
the estimated effects of the various assessments, which are on different scales. In
addition, we analyse the relationship between center attendance and weight, height,
and mid-upper arm circumference. We use linear regression models to estimate the
center’s impact on the anthropometric and child development outcomes, and logistic
maximum likelihood models for enrolment outcomes (to adjust for the binary nature
of this dependent variable).
Results
Characteristics of the sample
Table 1 compares basic socio-demographic characteristics of children in the treatment
and control groups. On average, children at the center were more likely to be orphans.
The center is, however, less likely to be serving children of the poorest families than
would be expected if spaces were allocated at random across the socioeconomic
quintiles. Center children are more likely to live in slightly more educated households,
and also wealthier households: on average, 20% of households in the control group
were in the lowest wealth quintile, while the same was true only for 2.5% of households
in the treatment group. Table 1 also illustrates the average length of exposure to the
center; while children could in theory attended up to five years, the mean duration of
center attendance was just under two years.
Table 1: Description of the sample
Variable
Treated
(n=40)
Control
(n=40)
p-value
Female child 52.5% 41.0% 0.313
Mean household size 6.3 6.5 0.729
Single or double orphan 17.9% 8.1% 0.210
Adult education in household (years) 8.1 7.0 0.060
Wealth Quintiles
1 (poorest) 2.5% 20%
2 15% 12.5%
3 40% 25%
4 20% 20%
5 (richest) 22.5% 22.5%
Years of Amundame attendance
4 or more 10%
3 10%
2 27.5%
1 52.5%
0 0%
125

SAJCE– December 2012
Table 2 summarizes all outcome variables analysed. The first section of the table
presents the developmental assessment scores collected at baseline in 2010 (prior to
school enrolment). The second part of the table displays primary school enrolment
statistics from the 2011 follow-up, and the third section shows anthropometric data
collected during that round. Out of the 80 children originally enrolled in the study, we
successfully re-assessed 70 (87.5%) in 2011. Ten control-group children could not be
located, generally because they had moved outside of the study area. Following the
WHO guidelines (WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group, 2006), we exclude
anthropometric measures beyond 6 standard deviations from the reference medians,
which results in slightly smaller sample sizes for the anthropometric outcomes.
Table 2: Average outcomes
Outcome N Mean SD
School readiness-preschool development
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 80 21.78 4.13
Letter naming 80 3.75 4.87
Pencil skills 80 2.48 1.57
Task orientation 80 3.07 0.74
School enrolment
Enrolled in primary school (%) 70 87.14%
Anthropometric outcomes
Height (cm) 69 116.38 5.09
Weight (kg) 65 21.54 3.01
Mid-upper-arm circumference (cm) 69 16.68 1.39
With respect to the school readiness tests at baseline, children answered on average
21.7 out of 30 questions correctly on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and
identified 3.8 letters of the 24 tested. The average child correctly performed 2.5 out
of the 4 pencil-based tasks, and got a mean item score of 3.1 on the four-point scale of
the task orientation assessment. By the time of follow-up, 87 percent of children were
enrolled in primary school. Since the official schooling age in Zambia is 7, and only half
of study children were 7 at the time of the interview in mid-2011, these rates support
other evidence that many Zambian children enrol earlier than required by law (Fink et
al., 2012).
As shown in the bottom section of Table 2, the average height of children in our
sample was 116 centimetres, and average weight was 21.5 kilograms. According to
the internationally standardized reference table (World Health Organization, 2007),
the median height in this age range (85 months) is 121 centimetres for girls, and 122
centimetres for boys. Children in this sample are therefore on average approximately
one standard deviation below the international age-specific reference median with
respect to height. The gap is slightly smaller for weight: the median reference weight
is 22.6 kilograms for girls and 23.1 kilograms for boys, which means that children in
126

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
the sample are on average about 0.5 standard deviations below the international
reference median.
Table 3 shows correlations among the outcome measures analysed. The average
correlation across measures is about 0.3. The highest bivariate correlations are
observed for weight, height and mid-upper arm circumference, while the correlations
between the school readiness measures are comparatively low.
Table 3: Correlation of outcome measures
PPV
Letter naming
Pencil skills
Task orientation
In primary school
Height in cm
Weight in kgs
Mid-upper arm
circumference
PPV 1.000
Letter naming 0.241 1.000
Pencil skills 0.345 0.310 1.000
Task orientation 0.184 0.393 0.135 1.000
In primary school 0.233 0.187 0.205 0.236 1.000
Height in cm 0.334 0.024 0.260 0.206 0.125 1.000
Weight in kgs 0.447 0.089 0.334 0.218 0.024 0.538 1.000
Mid-upper arm
circumference
0.312 0.119 0.312 0.200 0.005 0.395 0.665 1.000
ECE and school-readiness-related developmental outcomes
As discussed above, our study design limits our statistical power, and in order to
observe statistically significant relationships, the associations would have to be quite
large (0.63 standard deviations to achieve power 0.8). Therefore, we present our
findings as exploratory and suggestive of potential effects, which may be confirmed in
the future by larger national studies.
On average, the differences between the treatment and control groups appear
consistent across developmental outcome measures, with treated children scoring 0.3
to 0.7 standard deviations higher than children in the control group across the four
tasks (see Table 4). The relationship is strongest for task orientation, for which center
attendance is associated with a higher score of 0.657 standard deviations (p=0.01) on
average in the model incorporating control variables. We also observe an association
between center attendance and letter naming which approaches significance (0.481
standard deviations, p=0.06). The effect sizes of PPVT, letter naming, and pencil skills
are moderated by the addition of control variables (compare Models 1 and 2, 3 and 4,
and 5 and 6), suggesting, unsurprisingly, that at least some portion of the differences
are due to family background characteristics which differ across the two groups rather
than center attendance.
127

SAJCE– December 2012
Table 4: Center attendance and pre-school development
Outcome PPVT Letter naming Pencil skills Task
orientation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Treated 0.569 0.337 0.564 0.481 0.381 0.290 0.616 0.657
(0.216) (0.261) (0.216) (0.255) (0.221) (0.239) (0.214) (0.257)
p-value 0.010 0.200 0.011 0.064 0.089 0.229 0.005 0.012
Controls No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Observations 80 75 80 75 80 75 80 75
R-squared 0.082 0.139 0.081 0.235 0.037 0.309 0.096 0.193
Notes:
All estimates are based on linear regression models. Child development assessment
outcome measures were taken at baseline, and normalized to z-scores. Columns (1),
(3) and (5) show unconditional group mean comparisons. Columns (2), (4), (6) and (8)
include controls for sex of child, age in months at time of baseline survey, household
wealth quintile, maximum level of parental education in the household, presence
of siblings, and whether the child attended any ECP. Numbers in parentheses are
standard errors.
ECE and physical development
Given that Amundame chooses to invest some of its limited resources in a school
feeding program, an important question is whether center attendance affected
children’s physical development. These results are displayed in Table 5. Overall, center
attendance displayed strong positive associations with children’s weight and on
their mid-upper arm circumference. On average, treated children weighed close to 2
kilograms more than children in the control group at follow-up, and had an additional
1 centimetre of mid-upper arm circumference, which corresponds to 0.75 standard
deviations in these two outcomes. As above, however, we must note the baseline
imbalances in socioeconomic status between the treatment and control groups, which
may be responsible for this observed difference at follow-up. Although these models
controlled for many socioeconomic status variables, as described above, there is
always the possibility that other determinants, outside the set of control variables, are
driving the observed difference at follow-up.
No statistically significant relationship was identified between center attendance
and height. Given that most children in the sample started attending the center only
at age four or later, these results support findings elsewhere that children’s height
trajectories may already be established earlier in life (Howe et al., 2010), and hence
respond only weakly to feeding programs in this age range (Grantham-McGregor,
2002). This finding appears consistent with the broader child development and
nutrition literature, which generally views height as more of a “stock variable”
128

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
reflecting cumulative caloric intake rather than measuring short-term nutritional
inputs (Deolalikar, 1996; Sahn & Alderman, 1997).
Table 5: Center attendance and physical development
Outcome Height (centimetres) Weight (kilograms) Mid-upper arm
circumference
(centimetres)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Treated 1.033 -0.188 1.876 1.818 0.804 0.993
(1.229) (1.443) (0.716) (0.920) (0.322) (0.383)
p-value 0.404 0.897 0.0110 0.0535 0.0151 0.0121
Constant 115.9 95.94 20.65 20.11 16.27 13.18
(0.875) (17.63) (0.502) (11.14) (0.230) (4.676)
Controls No Yes No Yes No Yes
Observations 69 65 65 61 69 65
R-squared 0.010 0.040 0.098 0.119 0.085 0.258
Notes: All estimates are based on linear regression models. Outcome anthropometric variables
were measured at follow-up. Columns (1), (3) and (5) show unconditional group mean
comparisons. Columns (2), (4), and (6) include controls for sex of child, age in months
at time of follow-up survey, household wealth quintile, maximum level of parental
education in the household, presence of siblings, and whether the child attended any
early child care or education program. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.
Primary school enrolment
As described in section above, more than 80% of children were enrolled in primary
school when visited for the follow-up assessment in July 2011. A basic group mean
comparison suggests large enrolment differences between children in our sample who
attended the center and those who did not. On average, only 11 percent of treated
children were not in school, while the same was true for 27 percent in the control
group. The regression models shown in Table 6, which displays odds ratios for on-time
primary school enrolment, further highlight these differences, although attrition from
the control group at follow-up further limits the statistical power of these models.
Despite the lack of statistical significance, we do observe a large association in the
expected direction, even in the controlled model. An estimated odds ratio of 1.98
indicates that, conditional on all observed variables, Amundame children are almost
twice as likely to be enrolled in primary school as children in the control group.
129

SAJCE– December 2012
Table 6: School enrolment outcomes
Outcome
Enrolled in primary school
(1) (2)
Treated 2.880 1.980
(1.894) (1.657)
p-value 0.108 0.414
Controls No Yes
Observations 70 66
Notes:
Table displays odds ratios from a logistic regression. School enrolment was measured
at follow-up. Column (1) shows the results from an unconditional group mean
comparison. Column (2) includes controls for sex of child, age in months at time of
follow-up survey, household wealth quintile, maximum level of parental education
in the household, presence of siblings, and whether the child attended any early
childhood care or education program. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.
Discussion
The results from this research study suggest that attendance of early childhood
education is associated with better physical and cognitive development and greater
likelihood of on-time transition to primary school. The results presented in this paper
suggest that the school readiness effects of center attendance are largest for letter
naming and task orientation. Given that most non-attendees in this area are not
exposed to the types of learning materials and structured activities that are offered
at the Amundame center, these results appear plausible. While the center does not
have highly-trained teachers, its curricular focus on letters and early literacy skills, early
numeracy concepts and group play help prepare children for primary school.
Our study also suggests that center attendance makes children more likely to
enrol in first grade on time. This effect would be expected, given the influence of the
professional staff on families’ educational decisions, the habit of attending school
regularly, and the demonstrated value of school attendance. Given that attendance
seems to have improved task orientation, we believe that the benefits of school
attendance would be visible to parents. Beginning primary school on time is the first
step in children’s educational careers, and starting late can be a risk factor for dropout,
as late starters will be above-age for their grade. Social and economic pressures to
leave school increase with age, as alternatives to school, including paid work and
marriage, become more compelling (Kingdon & Theopold, 2006). While evidence on
this issue in Zambia is limited, a number of studies in other countries have found that
increasing age or age-for-grade is a risk factor for dropout (Buchmann, 2000; Ersado,
2005; Fawcett, Hartwell, & Israel, 2010; Hunt, 2008; Lewin, 2009; Lloyd & Mensch,
2000; Schafer, 2006).
In addition to its small sample size, the study has several important limitations.
First, the children in the treatment group had, on average, short (less than 2 years)
130

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
exposure to the Amundame Center. If we anticipate a dose-response relationship
between early childhood programs and their effects, brief attendance may
considerably dilute observable outcomes and we would have underestimated the true
effect here. While we are not aware of any evidence from Zambia or neighbouring
countries on this issue, studies in the U.S. have found dose effects for specific
preschool programs: children with greater exposure to programs experienced
greater growth on outcome measures (Justice, Mashburn, Pence, & Wiggins, 2008).
Second, as for any observational study, children attending the center may differ from
control group children on unobservable characteristics. Although we strove to ensure
comparability of the treatment and control groups by recruiting children born in the
same year and living in the same area, the group comparison presented in Table 1
shows that children attending the center are on average more likely to be orphans and
live with better-off households. While we control for socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics in our empirical models, there might be other omitted confounders
potentially biasing our results, so that the results presented cannot directly be given
causal interpretation. It is worth pointing out, however, that in the context studied
the direction of unobservable biases is not obvious given that the selection of children
through community leaders generally focuses on identifying and supporting the most
vulnerable children. Further research (and ideally also randomized control trials) will
be needed to more precisely estimate the causal impact of early childhood centers like
the one examined in this paper.
Last, the results presented in this paper are based on one specific center only,
and raise the question regarding the degree to which similar results can be achieved
elsewhere in the country. While the Amundame center is undoubtedly perceived as
one of the better programs in the country, the center’s reliance on the community
in terms of financing, management and staff recruitment suggests that establishing
similar programs in other regions should be feasible.
Overall, the findings of this study appear promising for early childhood programs
Zambia as well as in sub-Saharan African countries. The Amundame model seems
to be effective in supporting children’s development, and it is a home-grown and
community-based ECE initiative, which, after some initial support by a national
foundation, has become financially independent and self-supporting. With limited
governmental and private resources to support early childhood education and care,
the Amundame model may offer a viable solution to meet the needs of vulnerable
children for safety, health, and early academic enrichment in Zambia as well as in other
countries in the region.
131

SAJCE– December 2012
References
Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R., & McCarty, F. (2003). A comparison of school readiness
outcomes for children randomly assigned to a Head Start program and program’s
waiting list. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 191-214.
Akresh, R. (2009). Flexibility of household structure: Child fostering decisions in Burkina
Faso. Journal of Human Resources, 44(4), 976-997.
Barnett, W. S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of the HighScope
Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the
Abecedarian program and its policy implications. Economics of Education Review,
26, 113-125.
Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. (2007). Relationships between Social Skills, Behavioral
Problems, and School Readiness for Head Start Children. NHSA Dialog, 10(2),
109- 126.
Brown, G., Scott-Little, C., Amwake, L., & Wynn, L. (2007). A Review of Methods and
Instruments Used in State and Local School Readiness Evaluations. Issues & Answers.
REL 2007-No. 004: Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
Buchmann, C. (2000). Family Structure, Parental Perceptions, and Child Labor in Kenya:
What Factors Determine Who Is Enrolled in School? Social Forces, 78(4), 1349-1378.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-Analysis of the Effects
of Early Education Interventions on Cognitive and Social Development. Teachers
College Record, 112(3), 579-620.
Currie, J. (2009). Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise? Socioeconomic Status, Poor Health in
Childhood, and Human Capital Development. Journal of Economic Literature,
47(1), 87-122.
Deolalikar, A. B. (1996). Child nutritional status and child growth in Kenya: socioeconomic
determinants. Journal of International Development, 8(3), 375-393.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: American
Guidance Service.
Ersado, L. (2005). Child Labor and Schooling Decisions in Urban and Rural Areas:
Comparative Evidence from Nepal, Peru, and Zimbabwe. World Development,
33(3), 455-480.
Fawcett, C., Hartwell, A., & Israel, R. (2010). Out-of-school youth in developing countries:
What the data do (and do not) tell us. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (2001). Estimating Wealth Effects without Expenditure
Data - or Tears: An Application to Educational Enrollments in States of India.
Demography, 38(1), 115-132.
Fink, G., Matafwali, B., Moucheraud, C., & Zuilkowski, S. S. (2012). The Zambian Early
Childhood Development Project: 2010 Assessment Final Report. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.”
132

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
Geoffroy, M.-C., Cote, S. M., Giguere, C.-E., Dionne, G., Zelazo, P. D., Tremblay, R. E., et
al. (2010). Closing the Gap in Academic Readiness and Achievement: The Role of
Early Childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(12), 1359-1367.
Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: A meta-analytic affirmation of the shortand
long-term benefits of educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarterly,
16(1), 9-30.
Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B., et
al. (2007). Developmental Potential in the First 5 years for Children in Developing
Countries. Lancet, 369, 60-70.
Grantham-McGregor, S. M. (2002). Linear growth retardation and cognition. Lancet
Infectious Diseases, 359(:542).
Hanson, M. J., Miller, A. D., Diamond, K., Odom, S., Lieber, J., Butera, G., et al. (2011).
Neighbourhood Community Risk Influences on Preschool Children’s Development
and School Readiness. Infants and Young Children, 24(1), 87-100.
Hoddinott, J., Maluccio, J., Behrman, J., Flores, R., & Martorell, R. (2008). Effect of
a nutrition intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in
Guatemalan adults. Lancet, 371(9610), 411-416.
Howe, L. D., Tilling, K., Galobardes, B., Smith, G. D., Gunnell, D., & Lawlor, D. A. (2010).
Socioeconomic differences in childhood growth trajectories: at what age do
height inequalities emerge? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
10(1136).
Hunt, F. (2008). Dropping out from school: A cross country review of literature. Brighton,
UK: University of Sussex.
Jaramillo, A., & Tietjen, K. (2001). Early Childhood Development in Africa: Can we do more
for less? Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Jeon, H.-J., Langill, C. C., Peterson, C. A., Luze, G. J., Carta, J. J., & Atwater, J. B.
Children’s Individual Experiences in Early Care and Education: Relations with
Overall Classroom Quality and Children’s School Readiness. Early Education and
Development, 21(6), 912-939.
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental Evaluation
of a Preschool Language Curriculum: Influence on Children’s Expressive Language
Skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(4), 983-1001.
Kemp, A. d., Elbers, C., & Gunning, J. W. (2008). Primary Education in Zambia. IOB
Impact Evaluation Report, 312.
Kingdon, G., & Theopold, N. (2006). Do returns to education matter to schooling
participation? Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.
Ksoll, C. (2011). Selecting Good Caretakers: The Impact of Family Networks in Tanzania
on Orphans’ Education Mimeo.
Lewin, K. M. (2009). Access to Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, Problems and
Possibilities. Comparative Education, 45(2), 151-174.
133

SAJCE– December 2012
Liddell, C., & Rae, G. (2001). Predicting early grade retention: a longitudinal investigation
of primary school progress in a sample of rural South African children. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 413-428.
Lloyd, C. B., & Mensch, B. S. (2000). The effects of primary school quality on school
dropout among Kenyan boys and girls. Comparative Education Review, 44(2), 113.
Ludwig, J., & Miller, D. L. (2007). Does Head Start improve children’s life chances?
Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
122, 159-208.
Macro International. (2007). Zambia: DHS, 2007 - Final Report (English). Calverton, MD.
Malmberg, L. E., Mwaura, P. A. M., & Sylva, K. (2011). Effects of a preschool intervention
on cognitive development among East-African preschool children: a flexibly timecoded
growth model. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 124-133.
Maluccio, J. A., Hoddinott, J. F., Behrman, J. R., Martorell, R., Quisumbing, A. R., &
Stein, A. D. (2006). The Impact of Nutrition during Early Childhood on Education
among Guatemalan Adults. University of Pennsylvania Population Studies Center
Working Paper, 06-04.
Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and
public school inner-city. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 395.
Matafwali, B. (2007). ECCD Evaluation Report. In Unicef (Eds.),
Matafwali, B., & Munsaka, E. (2011). Programmes in Zambia: A case of four selected
districts. Journal of Early Childhood Development, 5, 109-131.
McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten
learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 471-490.
Mwaura, P. A. M., Sylva, K., & Malmberg, L. E. (2008). Evaluating the Madrasa preschool
programme in East Africa: a quasi-experimental study. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 16(3), 237-255.
Nganga, L. W. (2009). Early childhood education programs in Kenya: challenges and
solutions. Early Years: Journal of International Research & Development, 29(3),
227- 236.
Patrianakos-Hoobler, A. I., Msall, M. E., Marks, J. D., Dezheng, H., & Schreiber, M.
D. (2009). Risk Factors Affecting School Readiness in Premature Infants With
Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Pediatrics, 124(1), 258-267.
Pence, A. R., Amponsah, M., Chalamanda, F., Habtom, A., Kameka, G., & Nankunda,
H. (2004). ECD Policy Development and Implementation in Africa. International
Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood
Studies, 5(3), 13-29.
Prior, M., Bavin, E., & Ong, B. (2011). Predictors of School Readiness in Five- to Six-Year-
Old Children from an Australian Longitudinal Community Sample. Educational
Psychology, 31(1), 3-16.
134

Fink, et al – Early Childhood Education, Child Development and School Readiness
Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Lopez, M., Zill, N., et al. (2005). Head Start impact
study: First year findings. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Rao, N. (2010). Preschool Quality and the Development of Children From Economically
Disadvantaged Families in India. Part of a special issue: Accountability and Quality
in Early Childhood Education: Perspectives From Asia, 21(2), 167-185.
Rao, N., Sun, J., Pearson, V., Pearson, E., Liu, H., Constas, M. A., et al. (2012). Is Something
Better than Nothing? An Evaluation of Early Childhood Programs in Cambodia.
Child Development, 83(3), 864-876.
Republic of Zambia Ministry of Education. (2010). Education Sector National
Implementation Framework III. Lusaka: Ministry of Education.
Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Robson, S., & Sylvester, K. B. (2007). Orphaned and Vulnerable Children in Zambia:
The Impact of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic on Basic Education for Children at Risk.
Educational Research, 49(3), 259-272.
Romano, E., Babchishin, L., Pagani, L. S., & Kohen, D. School Readiness and Later
Achievement: Replication and Extension Using a Nationwide Canadian Survey.
Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 995-1007.
Sahn, D. E., & Alderman, H. (1997). On the determinants of nutrition in Mozambique:
The importance of age-specific effects. World Development, 25(4).
Schafer, M. J. (2006). Household Change and Rural School Enrollment in Malawi and
Kenya. The Sociological Quarterly, 47(4), 665-691.
Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005).
Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI:
HighScope Press.
Smith-Donald, C., Raver, C., & al., e. (2007). Preliminary construct and concurrent
validity of the Preschool Self-regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based
research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 173-187.
Taiwo, A. A., & Tyolo, J. B. (2002). The effect of preschool education on academic
performance in primary school: A case study of grade one pupils in Botswana.
International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 169-180.
Thomas, C. M., & Thomas, M. A. M. (2009). Early Childhood Care and Education in
Zambia: An Integral Part of Educational Provision? Current Issues in Comparative
Education, 11, 6-14.
UNESCO. (2010). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized.
Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2011). Education for All Global Monitoring Report: The Hidden Crisis: Armed
Conflict and Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Unicef. (2012). Unicef Country Statistics (Publication. Retrieved March 2012: http://
www.unicef.org/infobycountry/brazil_statistics.html
135

SAJCE– December 2012
WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group. (2006). WHO Child Growth
Standards: Length/height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-forheight
and body mass index-for-age: Methods and development. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
World Bank. (2012). World Development Indicators Online database.
World Health Organization. (2007). WHO Reference 2007 (Publication., from World
Health Organization: http://www.who.int/growthref/en/
Young, M. E. (1996). Early Child Development: Investing in the Future. Washington, D.C.:
World Bank.
136

Zelda van der Merwe & Carisma Nel
Reading Literacy within a Teacher
Preparation Programme: What we Know
and What we Should Know
Abstract
Various South African and international studies indicate that the preparation of
teachers to teach reading is inconsistent across universities worldwide. Teacher
preparation programmes lack rigorous research-based findings as the grounding for
their programme design. Recommendations of some studies point to the fact that
evidence-based research should be incorporated to address this inconsistency. There
is a need for a comprehensive curriculum to guide pre-service teachers toward a
coherent knowledge base for the effective teaching of reading, as many teachers do
not have an understanding of what to teach. The study on which we report analysed
a teacher preparation programme with the aim of identifying which reading literacy
components (that are embedded in knowledge of language structure) are included in
the programme. The results show that the reading literacy components are included
haphazardly within the teacher preparation programme and there is no evidencebased
research included in the curriculum of the pre-service teachers.
Keywords: Teacher preparation, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, reading literacy component
Zelda van der Merwe, Northwest University. E-mail: zelda.vandermerwe@nwu.ac.za.
Carisma Nel, Northwest University. E-mail: carisma.nel@nwu.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 137-157 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

SAJCE– December 2012
Introduction
The teaching of reading is an especially critical element of elementary education.
In the 21st century, it is not enough to be able simply to read and write, even young
children must master new and changing literacy’s that come with advances in science,
technology and culture. The dramatically transformed array of media in schools,
the workplace, and other walks of life demands unprecedented levels of reading
proficiency (Smith, Milulecky, Kibby, Dreher & Dole, 2000). If students are to read at a
higher level, the teaching of reading must change accordingly.
“In 2001 and 2004, the Department of Education (DoE) conducted two national
systemic evaluations to establish literacy and numeracy levels in primary schools.
These surveys showed shockingly low levels of reading ability across the country. Large
numbers of our children simply do not read” (DoE, 2008a, p. 4). This was confirmed
by the results of the 2011 Annual National Assessments conducted by the department
of basic education (DoBE). 19 470 Grade 3 learners in 827 schools countrywide were
tested, these tests revealed that South Africa’s children scored a mere 35 per cent
average in the literacy test (DoBE, 2010, p. 18).
According to the International Reading Association (IRA) (2003a, pp. 1-2), “teachers
should be well prepared to implement research-based programs and practices, and
they must have the knowledge and skills to use professional judgement when those
programs and practices are not working for particular children.” According to Moats
(1999), a chasm exists between classroom instructional practices and the research
knowledge-base on reading development. Part of the responsibility for this divide falls
on teacher preparation programmes, many of which, for a variety of reasons, have
failed to prepare their teacher candidates adequately to teach reading. Pandor (2008,
p. 45) notes that “we recognise, however, that teachers still struggle to translate the
curriculum into good classroom practice. Teachers need support to implement the
curriculum.” The South African department of education (2009) appointed a panel
of experts to investigate the nature of the challenges and problems experienced in
the implementation of the National Curriculum Statement (NCS). One factor, which
became apparent, was that “certainty and specificity about what to teach and how to
teach it will help to restore confidence and stability in the system” (DoE, 2009, p. 61).
From this it might be possible to deduce that teachers do not know what to teach or
even how to teach it. The new Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS)
(DoBE, 2011) explicitly states that teachers should focus on the five components
of reading. However, pre-service teacher preparation programmes should not be
preparing teachers to teach the current curriculum, but should be focussing on
preparing teachers to teach children to read. In order to do this, teacher preparation
programmes need to provide pre-service foundation phase teachers with a rigorous
language discipline knowledge base.
The key to ensuring that all children reach their potential in learning to read, rests
with formal training and experiences that teachers receive in assessing individual
differences and in the delivery of direct and informed instruction. Lyon (2002, p. 7)
138

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
suggests that teacher preparation is the key to teaching children to read. The quality of
the teacher is consistently found to be an important predictor of student achievement
(Goldhaber, 2002; Rockoff, 2004).
In 1997, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was convened by United States (US)
governmental agencies and Congress to “assess the status of research-based
knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children
to read” (NRP, 2000, p.1). This panel concluded that research findings support the
inclusion of five components in the teaching of reading: 1) explicit, 2) systematic
teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics, 3) guided oral reading to improve
fluency, 4) direct and indirect vocabulary building, and 5) exposure to a variety
of reading comprehension strategies. Although the National Reading Panel was
criticised for its choice of methodology, the aim of the report was to provide an
unbiased and careful review of the research findings so that schools and teachers
would be able to depend on trustworthy and accurate information on how to improve
reading achievement. The NRP did not differentiate between learning English as
home language versus as an additional language. The results indicated that the five
components are necessary to teach children to read. In 2006, the National Council
on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) used these five categories to evaluate a random sample
of American teacher preparation programmes at the undergraduate and graduate
levels. The NCTQ’s findings are evident from the title of the report on this study: What
Education Schools Aren’t Teaching about Reading and What Elementary Teachers
Aren’t Learning (Walsh, Glaser & Wilcox, 2006). The NCTQ found that of the 72 schools
of education it surveyed, only 15% were educating pre-service teachers about the five
essential components of reading instruction as defined by the NRP and supported
by the DoE in their publications of Teaching Reading in the Early Grades: A Teachers
handbook, and The National Reading Strategy.
Teaching reading is a job for an expert. Contrary to the popular belief that learning
to read is natural and easy, learning to read is a complex linguistic achievement.
For many children, it requires effort and incremental skill development. Moreover,
teaching reading requires considerable knowledge and skill, acquired over several
years through focused study and supervised practice (Moats, 1999, p. 11). According
to Moats (1999, p. 6), comprehensive redesign of teacher preparation programmes
is possible, but it must begin with a definition of the knowledge and skills necessary
for effective practice and demonstration of how these are best learned. New teachers
require much more extensive, demanding and content driven training if discoveries
from the reading sciences are to inform classroom practice (Moats, 1999; Walsh et
al., 2006).
Reading Literacy in Teacher Preparation Programmes
Snow, Burns & Griffin (1998, p. 279) note that pre-service teacher education is
intended to develop teacher expertise for teaching reading and preventing reading
difficulties, but it encounters many obstacles. Teacher preparation programmes often
139

SAJCE– December 2012
cannot meet the challenge in preparing teachers for highly complex and increasingly
diverse learning contexts; the challenge of keeping abreast of current developments
in research and practice; the complexity of the knowledge base; the difficulty of
learning many of the skills required to enact the knowledge base; as well as work with
children who experience learning difficulties.
According to the IRA (2003b, p. 1), there is a growing consensus in the United
States that putting a quality teacher in every classroom is the key to addressing the
challenges of literacy learning in schools. They found that effective teaching makes a
difference in student learning. Teachers – not instructional methods or the materials
– are crucial to promoting student learning. The IRA (2003b, p. 1) mentions that
researchers agree that effective teachers of reading are knowledgeable, strategic,
adaptive, responsive and reflective.
In South Africa, the National Teacher Education Audit of 1996 concluded that
the quality of teacher education was generally poor, inefficient and not very costeffective
(Hofmeyer & Hall, 1996, p. 41). Similarly, a review of eight Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) offering foundation phase teacher training programmes indicated
wide variation in the programme goals espoused, and the design of the programmes
focusing on literacy teaching (Zimmerman, Howie & Long, 2008, p. 45). According to
the DoBE and the department of higher education and training (DHET) (2011, p. 15),
the quality and the relevance of the teacher preparation programmes offered by HEIs,
vary widely. In the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education and
Development in South Africa, 2011–2025, (DoBE & DHET, 2011, p. 3), it is stated that
universities have the responsibility for ensuring that the programmes being offered
are of high quality and lead to meaningful development for teachers.
While the content within teacher preparation programmes seems to be
questionable, teachers still need to fulfil their task of teaching our children to read.
Teachers need to have sufficient knowledge of all the elements that pertain to this
task. According to the DoE (2008b, p. 12), teachers responsible for teaching foundation
phase learners must have knowledge of the five components of reading, namely;
phonemic awareness, word recognition, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.
In 1997, the US governmental agencies and Congress convened the NRP to assess
the status of research-based knowledge as well as the effectiveness of various
approaches to teaching children to read (NRP, 2000). Like the South African DoE,
this panel found that research findings support the inclusion of the five components
in the teaching of reading. Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and
reading comprehension should all form an integral part of foundation phase teacher
preparation programmes.
Knowledge required for teaching reading
According to Moats (2009a, p. 387), teachers feel unprepared for addressing the
instructional needs of learners with language, reading and writing problems. Moats
(2009a, p. 387) argues that teachers often have a minimal understanding of how
140

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
students learn to read and write, or why many students experience difficulty with the
most fundamental task of schooling. Lyon & Weiser’s (2009) research reveals that
teachers lack basic understanding of many concepts that relate directly to teaching
beginning and struggling readers. Moats (2009a, p. 387) explains that teachers are
unaware of or misinformed about the elements of language that they are expected
to teach. This can be alleviated if new teachers are given extensive, demanding and
content-driven training (Moats, 1999, p.13).
According to Moats, Carreker, Davis, Meisel, Spear-Swerling & Wilson (2010, p.
1), teaching reading requires specialised knowledge about language, how children
learn and acquire literacy skills and a variety of instructional strategies. To ensure
that teachers are trained to teach reading, changes are needed in pre-service teacher
preparation and professional development. Policymakers wanting to improve reading
instruction may want to consider:
• Maintaining the goal that all children will read at grade level by supporting
research-based reading instruction; and
• Aligning teacher preparation and professional development with effective
reading principles (Moats, 2001, p. 1).
Moats (2009a, p. 389) argues that progress to true professionalism in reading
instruction rests heavily on deep knowledge of content and the skills necessary
to teach students who struggle to learn. Teaching reading requires considerable
knowledge and skill that are acquired over several years through focused study and
supervised practice (Moats, 1999, p. 11). This accumulation of expertise is imperative,
as teachers need to instruct most students directly, systematically and explicitly to
decipher words in print. The demands on teachers include that of assessing children,
as well as tailoring lessons to individual needs. Therefore, teachers need to have the
capacity to interpret errors, give corrective feedback, and select examples to illustrate
concepts, as well as explain new ideas in several ways (Moats, 1999, p. 11).
Moats (1999:14) established a core curriculum for reading teacher preparation and
in-service professional development and its goal is to bring continuity, consistency
and comprehensiveness to pre-service teacher education. This particular curriculum is
divided into four areas:
• Understanding knowledge of reading psychology and development.
• Understanding knowledge of language structure, which is the content of
instruction.
• Applying best practices in all aspects of reading instruction.
• Using validated, reliable, and efficient assessments to inform classroom teaching.
Since as Moats (1999, p. 14) states that knowledge of language structure is the content
of instruction, other components, such as assessment and literature, are not ignored
and form part of a core curriculum for reading teacher preparation and in-service
141

SAJCE– December 2012
professional development. This study focused on investigating the inclusion of
specialised knowledge related to the five essential components of reading instruction,
which seems to be essential in teacher preparation programmes that focus on
preparing foundation phase teachers.
Knowledge required for teaching phonemic awareness
The IRA (1998:3) defines phonemic awareness as “an understanding about the
smallest units of sound that make up the speech stream: phonemes 1 ”. In other words,
phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify and manipulate the individual
sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. Armbruster et al. (2001, p. 1) emphasise the
fact that children who have phonemic awareness skills are most likely to have an
easier time learning to read and spell than other children who have few or none of
these skills. The NRP (2000) conducted studies which have identified that phonemic
awareness and letter knowledge are predictors of how well children will learn to read
and this indicates the importance of teaching phonemic awareness to children.
Moats et al. (2010, p. 20) state that phonological awareness, print concepts and
knowledge of letter sounds are foundational to literacy. Teachers who understand
how to teach these skills effectively can prevent problems associated with reading.
It is imperative that pre-service teachers must learn phonology in order to teach
phonemic awareness.
Moats et al. (2010, pp. 19-20) stipulate that the phonology 2 as a component of
reading should be covered as follows:
1. Know the progression of the development of phonological skills.
2. Identify the differences among phonological manipulations.
3. Understand the principles of phonological skill instruction (brief, multisensory,
conceptual and auditory-verbal).
4. Understand the reciprocal relationships among phonological processing, reading,
spelling and vocabulary.
Phonological awareness instruction aims to support children’s ability to blend and
segment phonemes that are associated with graphemes. Phonological awareness
instruction also involves more than the manipulation of sub-word units, accurate
identification of, and the discrimination of, confusable phonemes and words is
important for reading and spelling, because if a student confuses rich with ridge,
the teacher can provide explicit feedback regarding the voiceless /ch/ and voiced
/j/ - consonants that are otherwise indistinguishable in manner of articulation
(Moats, 2009b, p. 385). Teachers who enact phonemic awareness instruction should
understand that letters and sounds are separate entities. Teachers should also
1 Phonemes are the smallest parts of sound in a spoken word (Armbruster et al., 2001, p. 1).
2 Phonology refers to the speech sound system within language structure (Wren, 2000, p. 27).
142

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
understand the difference between a phoneme and a grapheme, and should be able to
differentiate between the two during instruction (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005, p. 74).
In order for pre-service teachers to acquire knowledge about the process
developing phonological skills they need to have knowledge of activities that promote
this development. Snow et al. (2005, p. 75) state that reading teachers should have
a working knowledge of the phonological system, which includes the ability to
articulate, identify, count and manipulate phonemes. Moats et al. (2010, p. 19) state
that the awareness of speech sounds in reading, spelling and vocabulary would
help develop pre-service teachers’ knowledge about the reciprocal relationships in
phonological processing. Thus, if teachers can teach children to manipulate phonemes
by using letters and focus on only one or two types of phoneme manipulation, as
opposed to several types, they are equipping students to become phonemically
aware (Armbruster et al., 2001, p. 5-6). If teachers have knowledge of phonological
manipulations they will be able to instruct, teach and help students acquire phonemic
awareness effectively. The activities used to teach phonemic awareness include:
phoneme isolation, phoneme identity, phoneme categorisation, phoneme blending,
phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme addition and phoneme
substitution (Moats et al., 2010, p. 19; Armbruster et al., 2001, pp. 4-5).
Knowledge required for teaching phonics
According to Smartt & Reschly (2007, p. 4), phonics involves the understanding
that there are single speech sounds (phonemes) represented by each letter or
letter combination, as well as the ability to form correspondences between letters
and sounds, and to recognize spelling patterns. Villaume & Brabham (2003, p. 479)
state that phonics has a predefined role in that it helps children to learn and use the
alphabetic principle 3 , while will help them recognise familiar words as well as decode
new words. Furthermore, Villaume & Brabham (2003, p. 479) reiterate that students
who understand this principle know that the sounds of spoken words are mapped
onto written words in systematic ways. As students develop understanding of this
principle, they become adept at using letter-sound correspondences to figure out
unrecognised words.
However, the ability to read unfamiliar words (decoding) is aided by applying
knowledge of phonics (Moats et al., 2010, pp. 21-22). Moats & Foorman (2003) state
that phonics instruction in English requires that the teacher lead students through
multilayered, complex and variable spelling correspondences at the sound, syllable
and morpheme 4 (orthography 5 and etymology 6 ) level. Because the reason for this
3 Alphabetic principle refers to the understanding that there are systematic and predictable relationships
between written letters and spoken sounds (Armbruster et al., 2001: 11).
4 A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of speech, therefore a single word may contain more than one
morpheme (for example: the word smallest has two morphemes namely “small” and “est” and each part has
meaning. Thus, morphology refers to the meaning of word parts (Wren, 2000: 31).
5 Orthography refers to the aspect of language concerned with letters and their sequences in words (Snow et al.,
2005:18).
6 Etymology refers to the origins and relations among words (Snow et al., 2005:18).
143

SAJCE– December 2012
is that reading and spelling requires the student to analyse words by syllable and/
or morpheme. The recognition of prefixes, suffixes, roots, and parts of compounds,
and the recognition of the morphological structure of words to which inflections
have been added, facilitates word recognition, access to word meaning and recall for
spelling (Moats, 2009b, p. 385).
According to Moats (2009b, p. 385), phonics and spelling instruction requires the
teacher to know and explain a multi-layered orthographic system. English orthography
represents sounds, syllable patterns, and meaningful word parts (morphemes),
as well as the language from which a word originated. Phonic decoding, if properly
taught, includes much more than a letter-sound correspondence for each letter of
the alphabet.
Moreover, teachers who enact phonics instruction must be able to appreciate
and explain the morphemic structure of words. Therefore, Cunningham, Zibulski &
Callahan (2009, p. 491) suggest that teachers must have knowledge of the grapheme
and phoneme conventions, as well as have knowledge of the basic information about
morphemes and morphological processes and how they connect to spelling (Snow et
al., 2005, p. 81). Furthermore, spelling and reading build and rely on the same mental
representation of a word and knowledge of the spelling of a word aids reading fluency
(Snow et al., 2005, p. 86).
Knowledge required for teaching fluency
According to Moats et al. (2010, p. 24), fluency is “the ability to read a text accurately
and quickly.” Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard & Linan-Thompson (2011, p. 287) define fluency
as a characteristic of reading that occurs when readers’ cognitive and linguistic systems
are developed so that they can read with accuracy to allow for the understanding of
texts and reflecting its prosodic features.
According to Snow et al. (2005, p. 109-110), fluency depends on a readers’
knowledge about the topic, vocabulary, as well as the readers control over cognitive
and other processes applied in reading. These processes are integrated within
language structure. Phonology, morphology, orthography, semantics, syntax and
pragmatics are the aspects of language that tie into fluency. The development of
fluency rests within the integration of the instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary and reading comprehension.
Teachers need to have knowledge of the above-mentioned in order to place
students in appropriate groups and assign appropriate texts for reading instruction
so that fluency can develop among readers as it is a predictor of reading competence
(Moats et al., 2010, p. 24).
Knowledge required for teaching vocabulary
Armbruster et al. (2001, p. 29) define vocabulary as the words we must know to
communicate effectively. Smartt & Reschly (2007, p. 4) state that vocabulary is a
144

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
function of the ability to recognise and understand individual words in reading and to
use them correctly.
The NRP (2000, p. 4-15) states that vocabulary occupies an important position in
learning to read. As a learner begins to read, reading vocabulary encountered in texts
is mapped onto the oral vocabulary the learner possesses. The reader is taught to
translate unfamiliar words in print into speech, with the expectation that the speech
forms will be easier to comprehend.
Moats (2009b, p. 385) states that phonology also plays a role in vocabulary
acquisition as knowledge of phonology will enable a teacher to be sure that students
pronounce words accurately, and may break them into syllables or morphemes.
Moats & Foorman (2003, p. 24) state that the instruction of vocabulary requires an
understanding of semantic 7 organisation and the relationships among word structure
(morphology), grammatical rule and meaning (etymology and orthography). The
knowledge of words is multifaceted, as it ranges from the partial recognition of a
meaning of a word to deep knowledge, as well as the ability to use the word effectively
in speech and writing (Moats et al., 2010, p. 27). Moats et al. (2010, p. 28) state that the
explicit, systematic teaching of word meanings and indirect methods of instruction,
such as those involving inferring meanings of words from sentence context or
from word parts (for example, root words and affixes), is essential for vocabulary
instruction. Thus, teachers need to know how to develop students’ vocabulary
knowledge, as well as understand the importance of wide exposure to words both
orally and through reading.
Knowledge required for teaching comprehension
The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) defines comprehension as the process
of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction
and involvement with written language. Duke & Carlisle (2011, p. 199) define
comprehension as the act of constructing meaning with oral or written texts, and
state that meaning does not reside in the oral or written text, the reader creates and
adjusts a mental representation of the meaning of the text. This, however, is done
using various interacting entities, such as the text, its author, the reader and the
content. Duke & Carlisle (2011, p. 200) note that in reading these factors work together
to build meaning as the reader accesses the meaning of words in the text, processes
the syntax of the sentences, relates the sentences to one another to build coherence
and then relates the larger pieces of text to build a holistic coherence.
Due to the complex nature of comprehension, Moats & Foorman (2003, p. 24) state
that comprehension instruction requires the teacher to know and explicate linguistic
concepts, such as text organisation, genre, inter- and intra-sentential references,
7 Semantics refers to the understanding of meaning of individual words and sentences and the meaning relations
between them (Wren, 2000:27).
145

SAJCE– December 2012
figurative and idiomatic language (pragmatics 8 ) and sentence structure (syntax) 9 .
Furthermore, Moats et al. (2010, p. 30) state that reading comprehension also depends
on factors, such as background knowledge and knowledge of text structure (syntax).
Evidence-based research points to the fact that aspects within language structure
should form the bedrock of reading literacy training so that pre-service teachers can
be equipped to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and reading
comprehension. Table 2.1 below illustrates how the aspects of language structure form
the disciplinary knowledge base which should be incorporated into literacy modules
so that pre-service teachers can teach the reading literacy components.
Table 2.1: The disciplinary knowledge base required to teach the reading literacy components
Aspect of language structure
Phonology
Phonology
Morphology
Etymology
Orthography
Morphology
Etymology
Orthography
Semantics
Syntax
Pragmatics
Fluency is tied to all of the aspects of
language structure and the integration of
the instruction of phonology, morphology,
etymology, orthography, semantics, syntax
and pragmatics will develop fluency.
Reading literacy component
Phonemic awareness
Phonics
Vocabulary
Reading comprehension
Fluency
While delivering instruction in all the necessary instructional components, the
interdependence of these components should be recognised, as students, who gain
phonological skills, are more likely to improve in vocabulary, and as students, who
use phonic word attack skills proficiently, are more likely to improve their spelling and
writing (Moats, 2009b, p. 386). Teachers who realise these interdependencies may be
more likely to tie instructional components to one another.
A review of national and international literature indicates that teachers need
specific knowledge and skills to teach reading. One consistent finding from the
literature consulted is that phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and
reading comprehension are components which form the foundation of reading
8 Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which focuses on the use of language in social contexts (Snow et al., 2005:18).
9 Syntax refers to the understanding of how words can be combined to form sentences (text structure)
(Wren, 2000:52).
146

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
instruction. Teachers need to have sufficient knowledge and skills to be able to
teach these components. The knowledge and skills needed by teachers to teach
the reading literacy components is manifested within the knowledge of language
structure, as indicated by evidence-based research. Teachers need to have knowledge
of phonology, morphology, etymology, orthography, pragmatics, semantics and
syntax as these aspects form the disciplinary knowledge base (as illustrated in Table
2.1) for teaching the reading literacy components. This disciplinary knowledge base
is also supported by Snow et al. (2005, p. 111) who state that if teachers possess
this disciplinary knowledge base, they will be able to instruct phonemic awareness,
phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension.
Research Methodology
Research design
A qualitative research design was chosen for this study as the methodology allowed for
data to be collected answering the research question, namely; “What reading literacy
components should be addressed within a B Ed Foundation Phase programme?” A
case study was used for this research. This descriptive and interpretive study took
place within a bounded context. It focused on one teacher preparation programme.
Yin (2003, p. 1) supports this when he states that “case studies are the preferred
strategy when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has
little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon
within some real life context.” This approach was best described by Stake (1994, p.
242) who wrote, “qualitative case study is characterized by the main researcher
spending substantial time on site, personally in contact with activities and operations
of the case, reflecting, revising meanings of what is going on.”
Participants
According to Creswell (2007, p. 74) purposeful sampling shows different perspectives
on the problem. For this reason, it is imperative that persons partaking in the study
are knowledgeable about the topic and can be a source where information can be
obtained. This particular study focused on a foundation phase teacher preparation
programme, namely the Baccalaureus Educationist (B Ed) (Foundation Phase) degree.
It is offered over four years and trains students to teach from grade R to grade 3. The
participants included in the study were the literacy lecturers (English, Afrikaans and
Setswana) who work in the foundation phase subject group of this programme (n = 5).
Data collection methods
According to Nieuwenhuis (2007, p. 75), “[a] key strength of the case study method
is the use of multiple sources and techniques in the data gathering process.” It is up
to the researcher to choose evidence as well as determine the techniques that will
be used to collect the data. The data collection methods chosen for this research
147

SAJCE– December 2012
provide rich data specifically focused on the research questions. Data collection
methods included individual interviews, direct observation and the collection and
examination of documents (e.g., study guides, reading compendiums, assignments,
and examination papers).
Interviews
The research procedure utilised in this study was that of interviews with people who
work in the foundation phase subject group within a teacher preparation programme.
In this study interviews were used to generate perspectives and experiences on
reading literacy components and how it is taught within a teacher preparation
programme. According to Seidman (1993, p. 3) the purpose of interviewing is not to
get answers to questions, nor to test hypotheses, and not to evaluate, but at the root
of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the experience of other people
and the meaning they make of their experiences. Merriam informs us that interviews
are necessary when behaviour cannot be observed (Merriam, 2009, p. 88). Qualitative
studies usually employ unstructured or semi-structured interviews. Unstructured
interviews are usually conducted without utilizing any of the researcher’s prior
information, experience or opinions in a particular area (Greef, 2011, pp. 347-348).
However, in this study, semi-structured interviews were utilized. They were organized
around areas of particular interest, while allowing considerable flexibility in scope
and depth.
Observations
According to Given (2008, p. 573), observation is one of the oldest and most
fundamental data collection methods, as it involves collecting impressions of the
world using all of one’s senses. It should be done in a systematic and purposeful way
to learn about a phenomenon of interest. An observation schedule was compiled
to guide the observation process. Given (2008, p. 576) characterises an observation
schedule as a form prepared prior to data collection that delineates the behaviour
and situational features to be observed and recorded during observation. The
categories incorporated on the observation schedule were derived from the purpose
of the research and from what is known about the reading literacy components within
teacher preparation programmes.
Documents
According to Glesne (1999, p. 58), “[d]ocuments corroborate your observations and
interviews and thus make your findings more trustworthy. Beyond corroboration,
they may raise questions about your hunches and thereby shape new directions for
observations and interviews.” The following documents (i.e., syllabi, textbook(s),
reading compendiums, course outline, course hand-outs, examination papers and
assignments) were analysed in this study. Nieuwenhuis (2007, p. 82) makes us aware
that when one uses documents as a data collection technique you will focus on written
communications that shed light on a particular phenomenon you are investigating.
148

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
Methods of analysis
Data analysis is multifaceted. Analysis includes organizing data, generating categories
and themes, coding data, and interpretation. Data analysis is the process by which
a researcher draws out “meaning” from the collected data. Drawing out meaning
involves summarising; interpreting, comparing and categorising what the participants
in the study have said (Merriam, 2001). Wellington & Szczerbinski (2007, p. 101) state
that qualitative data analysis can be messy and complicated, as it involves taking in the
data, digesting it, taking it apart and then putting it back together. Creswell’s (2008,
p. 244-245) steps to analysing qualitative data were followed in this study. These
steps included:
1. The researcher collecting the data.
2. The data is prepared for analysis, which involved transcriptions and field notes.
3. The researcher reads through the data to obtain a general sense of the materials
and coding is done afterwards.
4. Whilst coding the data the researcher should remember to code the rest for
themes to be used in the research as well as code for the description to be used
in the research.
Whilst following Creswell’s steps to data analysis, a method of content analysis was
used to arrive at the categories emanating from the data in light of the research
questions. According to Grbich (2007, p. 112), content analysis is a systematic coding
and categorising approach that can be used to explore large amounts of textual
information in order to ascertain the trends and patterns of words used, their
frequency, their relationships and the structures and discourses of communication.
Given (2008, p. 120) defines content analysis as the intellectual process of categorizing
qualitative textual data into clusters of similar entities, or conceptual categories, to
identify consistent patterns and relationships between variables or themes.
Results
The results are presented according to the aspect focussed on in the research
question, namely “What reading literacy components should be addressed within a B
Ed foundation phase programme?”
The foundation phase students are required to take four literacy modules (LITH
113, 223, 313 and 423 for the English students) in the B Ed programme; one module
149

SAJCE– December 2012
each year. The module outcomes and an outline of the content of LITH 113 indicate a
focus on listening 10 , speaking 11 and language structure and use 12 .
“Demonstrate facilitation skills of methods, procedures and techniques relating
to the teaching of Listening, Speaking, as well as Language Structure and
Use; and
Demonstrate problem solving skills by means of planning and presenting lessons
during the teaching of Listening, Speaking, as well as Language Structure
and Use”
The language structure and use of the study unit does not address aspects, such as
phonology, morphology, syntax or semantics, but focuses on sounds and words and
the teaching of spelling. It is clear that the focus of the module is on the National
Curriculum Statement (NCS) as opposed to an in depth knowledge of language
structure and language development as suggested by the literature. The module
outcomes of LITH 223 focus on thinking and reasoning 13 , as well as the development
of written communication 14 . In the third year of study, the LITH 313 module addresses
perceptual development and reading readiness. LITH 423 focuses on reading and
viewing 15 , which is another outcome of the learning area “languages”, within the
NCS. It is evident that the modules focus on the specific requirements of the NCS.
This is an example of teaching to a curriculum, which can have negative implications
for effective teacher preparation. If a new curriculum is implemented, as in 2012
(Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement), the teacher would be prepared for the
previous curriculum and not how to effectively teach children to read.
The literacy home language modules are presented in Afrikaans, English and
Setswana from the first year through to the fourth year. The study guides indicate that
the Afrikaans content is merely translated into English and Setswana and not revised
for English and Setswana mother tongue. The uniqueness of language structure is not
taken into consideration.
In the LITH 113 module, only three study unit outcomes refer to some of the reading
literacy components. In study unit 4, the students are required to compare assessment
standards from grades 0-3 by referring to the use of sounds and vocabulary. As from
2012, with the implementation of the CAPS curriculum, this will no longer be relevant
for teachers. Students are also required to measure the learners’ literacy milestones of
Grades 1, 2 and 3 with regard to phonics, by explaining the most important differences
and focusing on progression. In addition, students should be able to demonstrate and
10 Listening is learning outcome 1 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum Statement
(Department of Education, 2002:11).
11 Speaking is learning outcome 2 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum Statement
(Department of Education, 2002:11).
12 Language structure and use is learning outcome 6 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National
Curriculum Statement (Department of Education, 2002:12).
13 Thinking and reasoning is learning outcome 5 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum
Statement (Department of Education, 2002:12).
14 Reading and viewing is learning outcome 3 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum
Statement (Department of Education, 2002:11).
15 Writing is learning outcome 4 of the Languages curriculum in the Revised National Curriculum Statement
(Department of Education, 2002:11).
150

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
discuss phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, the alphabetical principle and
working knowledge of sounds. An analysis of the content given in the study guide, as
well as the material prescribed for the particular section, indicates that the lecturers
present the content in a “once over lightly” fashion. Students have to read definitions
and be able to distinguish between the concepts. The reason why phonemic
awareness is relevant to the process or what the relationship is between phonemic
awareness, decoding and oral reading fluency is not addressed in the prescribed
content. This knowledge is essential for teachers in order to determine with what
aspects children are experiencing problems and how this could affect other areas. In
addition, it affects choices of activities and targeted interventions. In study unit 2.3 of
LITH 113, vocabulary is addressed in detail within a prescribed article. However, this
article is used to teach students how to study and interpret academic articles so the
content was not used explicitly for the teaching of vocabulary. Study unit 4.1 and 4.2
in LITH 113 touches on the definitions of phonemic awareness and phonics as these
reading literacy components are used to help the students glean knowledge of the
teaching of phonics.
In study unit 2 of LITH 313, students should be able to define phonological
awareness and evaluate the effectiveness thereof in terms of emergent literacy as
well as to be able to analyse the relationship between insufficient oral vocabulary and
behavioural problems. However, no link is made between oral vocabulary, fluency and
reading comprehension.
In study unit 1 of LITH 423, students should be able to analyse, evaluate and
apply the principles of a balanced reading approach, as well as create opportunities
for the facilitation of the instruction of high-frequency words, vocabulary, phonemic
awareness, phonics, reading fluency and reading comprehension in a balanced reading
approach. The focus of this study unit is on approaches to teaching reading; the
reading literacy components are thus not the focus of the module. This content within
the study unit seems very comprehensive for one unit. This may indicate a lack of
understanding or knowledge of evidence-based research on the part of the developers
of the module as they do not realise how complex reading actually is. Study unit 3
demands that students should be able to analyse, evaluate, plan and demonstrate
applicable learning exercises according to suitable teaching strategies to realise the
progress of the foundation phase learner’s reading capacity. Furthermore, students
are also required to analyse theoretical knowledge of the conceptualisation of reading
comprehension instruction in the foundation phase. Reading comprehension forms a
small part of the work covered in the reading compendium pertaining to this section
of the work. Reading comprehension is covered under the heading of “Continued
Reading Instruction in Practice” within the study guide and the reading compendium.
The five reading literacy components are mentioned throughout the documents
analysed, but the explicit teaching of these is absent.
During the interviews it became clear that the reading literacy components are
covered to a minimal extent. One lecturer stated that:
151

SAJCE– December 2012
“The reading literacy components are covered but I don’t think enough, we
mention them in every year group but by the end of the third year they (the
students) cannot tell you the difference between them.”
The fact that the reading literacy components are simply mentioned, as acknowledged
by the lecturer, could indicate that the lecturers do not value the explicit teaching of
the reading literacy components or that they are very focused on only teaching to
the curriculum. However, it could also be an indication that the lecturers do not think
that in depth knowledge of language structure is required to teach the components.
Another possible explanation is that it could indicate that lecturers themselves have
not kept abreast with evidence-based research conducted about literacy.
Another lecturer said:
“They are done. I know the phonic awareness is done well but fluency and other
components are not, they are just done in passing, not really in depth.”
As indicated in Appendix B, it is evident that the reading literacy components are
merely mentioned within the literacy modules. A specific focus on reading literacy
components was not included in the planning of these modules. According to the
literature studied, these aspects should form the backbone of a teacher preparation
programme that aims to prepare quality literacy teachers. The five (5) components
are mentioned within the content that is spread over the four (4) years. An analysis of
the interviews support what the documents revealed, namely that the reading literacy
components are included within the course content but they stop at a definition that is
required and are consequently done in passing with the students.
Another lecturer stated:
“They are not really covered, what is covered well and even the assessment
thereof is phonic awareness in the activities. When it comes to fluency,
vocabulary and comprehension they are not covered well. The students know
what the components of reading are, but how to teach it and what is involved in
it, and what it means to be fluent, what activities can the children do, how can
it be assessed, what can I do in class, that’s not there it’s done in passing, not
in depth.”
The interviews substantiate the findings of the documents. One lecturer stated that
phonemic awareness is covered as follows:
“I think like a definition and what it is. They learn that it is sounds and that words
are made up of various sounds and also that there is a correspondence between
a letter and the sound but it stops at a definition.”
One lecturer indicated that phonics and the content pertaining to it are covered
as follows:
“Phonics is also sounds of letters, alphabet, vowels and consonants. So they
learn what it is how to use them as well as their use in words and sentences.”
Another lecturer stated:
“They can’t see the difference between phonics and phonemic awareness;
they find it difficult to distinguish between the two. It is mentioned but it’s not
mentioned in depth. I know that if I ask the student off hand what phonemic
awareness and phonics is, they won’t be able to tell me the difference between
the two, but they need to do it and apply it.”
152

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
One lecturer said that fluency is covered within the literacy modules as follows:
“They also just learn what it is but they never get that chance just to practice
fluency and I think it’s a common problem among some of the students as well,
they can’t read fluently themselves.”
Another lecturer indicated:
“I saw that it is included, I gave them some practical examples when we spoke
about fluency, you know you can have a little television have the child read as if
he is a news reporter and that you can tape them on a tape recorder and I think
that some of these practical things they find quite useful.”
From these interviews it is clear that the lecturers tend to equip students with
strategies and skills specifically to enhance teaching in the classroom as opposed
to exposing them to evidence-based research, or broadening their knowledge base
about the reading literacy components, which is necessary for the teaching of reading.
During the interviews, lecturers were of the opinion that vocabulary is covered
sufficiently, one lecturer said:
“They learn the basic concept that you have to teach vocabulary first, see that
it links to their background to their pre-knowledge, relates to their interests
and that a teacher should teach the vocabulary explicitly, you know having the
children on the carpet making sure they understand all the words, writing it,
making a word hospital where words are taught and even if it a bilingual class
you can have the Afrikaans and the English words.”
The above interview seems to indicate that the lecturers are teaching the students as
if they are teaching children in a school classroom. This could be because most of the
lecturers interviewed taught in schools for more than 20 years. One lecturer said that
comprehension is addressed within the literacy modules as follows:
“They learn about it but not enough is done on reading comprehension, if you ask
the students about reading comprehension they will say just ask them questions
but they don’t know of other strategies to use to initiate comprehension, I think
we can be a lot more creative when we teach learners to comprehend, there
are a lot of things you can do but we have to get past the thing of just asking a
few questions and getting it answered, there is also indirect text, the meaning
behind text, things like that.”
The lecturer indicated that the students don’t have sufficient knowledge of
comprehension as students assume comprehension is asking questions about the text.
However, as indicated in the document analysis the students aren’t given sufficient in
depth content to broaden their knowledge of the component, and this could be why
the students associate the asking of questions with comprehension, as they have no
other frame of reference.
The interviews support and confirm the findings of the document analysis which
notes that the reading literacy components do “surface” within the literacy modules.
However, the modules do not include the evidence-based research to teach reading
literacy nor does it require students to apply, reflect or display an understanding of the
content required to teach reading literacy.
Observations were conducted to see what reading literacy components were
taught in the LITH modules. In one class the lecturer started by announcing the
153

SAJCE– December 2012
topic and the learning outcomes for the session were displayed on the power point
presentation. The lecture revised the definitions of phonological awareness, phonemic
awareness and phonics with the students and then the students had to complete
a group activity about the topic. Furthermore, after the revision of the terms there
was no in depth discussion of the topic, there was no critical engagement with the
elements of the reading literacy components either. Moreover, there was no focus on
phonology or aspects related to language structure. No emphasis was placed on the
fact that phonological awareness, concepts of print and knowledge of letter sounds
are foundational to literacy. Some students confused the components like phonemic
awareness, phonological awareness and phonics. It was clear that the students could
not differentiate between phonemic awareness and phonics, and lecturers did not or
could not seem to correct them.
An analysis of the observations indicates that the students were not able to identify
the reading literacy components if it was described. However, they are implicitly aware
of the reading literacy skills but cannot attach names to it or define them. This could
be because the lecturer is inclined to teach to the curriculum and does not realise the
value of the reading literacy components within reading instruction; or because there
is no indication of the in depth content knowledge of phonics or phonemic awareness
within the curriculum of the teacher preparation programme.
In another class scenario the students were asked to summarise the article by
Rasinski & Mraz (2008), which addresses fluency. There were no clear guidelines given
to the students on what the summary had to cover, the summaries were then peer
assessed according to criteria given to the students by the lecturer. However, the
content knowledge of the article was not addressed by the lecturer, which confirms
the lack of in depth knowledge coverage of the reading literacy components. The
summaries were collected and the marks allocated for the summaries, contributed to
the participation marks of the students.
The observation analysis indicates that students cannot accurately define
and identify the reading literacy components. There is great confusion amongst
students about what they should know regarding the reading literacy components.
The possibility that the lecturers lack in depth knowledge of the reading literacy
components should also not be ignored. Even though the interviews and documents
state that the reading literacy components are included in the modules, but stop at a
definition is confirmed by the observations as the students’ confusion and inaccurate
description of the reading literacy components point to this. Regardless of whether
the module outcomes of LITH 423 indicate that students should be able to analyse,
evaluate and apply the principles of a balanced reading approach, as well as create
opportunities for the facilitation of the instruction of the reading literacy components,
the observation analysis indicates that this is done superficially as definitions of
the reading literacy components were simply just given and no in depth content
knowledge was addressed regarding the reading literacy components.
After an in depth document, interview and observation analysis it can be concluded
that the current content of the LITH modules were devised around the National
154

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
Curriculum Statement and does not explicitly include the reading literacy components.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of the disciplinary knowledge base required to
teach reading. It was found that snippets of the reading literacy components do
appear within the literacy modules but evidence-based research of this is not included
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the five reading literacy components suggested by
international literature and required by the DoBE as essential for the teaching of
reading is included haphazardly in the literacy modules of the B Ed foundation phase
teacher preparation programme. The modules were devised around the NCS and the
five reading literacy components are touched on in a “once over lightly” fashion within
this curriculum. There is no indication that evidence-based research was consulted in
the development of these modules. Therefore, pre-service teachers within this teacher
preparation programme do not receive explicit instruction of the reading literacy
components as suggested by the National Reading Panel (2000) and the department
of education (2008b).
A disciplinary knowledge base exists for the teaching of the reading literacy
components; this knowledge base is embedded within language structure. The
modules analysed do not reflect any inclusion of aspects related to language
structure. The implication of the results of this study will affect stakeholders such
as the foundation phase teacher preparation programme analysed as well as other
higher education institutions’ who offer foundation phase teacher preparation
programmes. The foundation phase teacher preparation programme analysed would
have to consider revisiting the content of their literacy modules. A process of recurriculation
and redevelopment should be considered so that the literacy modules
include the disciplinary knowledge base for reading teachers. The findings of this
study support the literature base requiring teachers to be equipped with a disciplinary
knowledge base to teach reading. Furthermore, teachers should be provided with a
rigorous, research-based curriculum which will enable them to become expert reading
literacy teachers who will be well prepared to implement research-based programmes
and practices.
Acknowledgements
This study is based on work sponsored by the department of higher education and
training, and the department of basic education through the European Union Primary
Education Sector Policy Support Programme. Any opinions, findings, conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this study are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
155

SAJCE– December 2012
References
Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F. & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: the research building
blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five
approaches. London: SAGE.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education International.
Cunningham, A. E., Zibulski, J. & Callahan, M.D. (2009). Starting small: Building
preschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development. Journal
of Reading and Writing, 22(4), 487-510.
Department of Basic Education and Department of Higher Education and Training see
South Africa.
Department of Basic Education see South Africa.
Department of Education see South Africa.
Duke, N.K. & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. K. Kamil, P.
D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
Volume IV (pp. 199-228). New York: Routledge.
Given, L.M. Ed. (2008). The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. Volume
1 and 2. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York:
Longman.
Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mastery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student
achievement and teacher characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55.
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Greef, M. (2011). Information collection: Interviewing. In A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C. B.
Fouché, & C. S. L. Delport (Eds), Research at grass roots for the social sciences and
human science professions (pp. 341-374). South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.
Hofmeyer, J. & Hall, G. (1996). The national teacher education audit: Synthesis report.
Pretoria: Department of Education.
International Reading Association (IRA). (1998). Phonemic awareness and the teaching
of reading. A position statement from the Board of Directors of the International
Reading Association. Newark: Delaware.
International Reading Association (IRA). (2003a). Position statement: Investment in
teacher preparation in the United States. Newark: Delaware.
International Reading Association (IRA). (2003b). Prepared to make a difference. An
executive summary of the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher
Preparation for reading instruction. Newark: Delaware.
Lyon, G. R. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction:
Educational and public health issues. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 3-6.
156

van der Merwe & Nel – Reading Literacy within a Teacher Preparation Programme
Lyon, G. R. & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and
the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5),
475- 480.
Merriam, SB. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2 nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Publishers.
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading
should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Moats, L. C. (2009a). Still wanted teacher with knowledge of language. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 387-391.
Moats, L. C. (2009b). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Journal
of Reading and Writing, 22(4), 379-399.
Moats, L.C. & Foorman, B.R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of
language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23-45.
Moats, L.C., Carreker, S., Davis, R., Meisel, P. Spear-Swerling, L. & Wilson, B. (2010).
Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. The International
Dyslexia Association: Professional Standards and Practices Committee.
157

Miemsie Steyn, Nicoleen Schuld & Cycil Hartell
A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the
Module “Life Skills” in the Foundation
Phase at Higher Education Institutions in
South Africa
Abstract
This paper explores how the foundation phase subject area of “life skills” is being
offered at (n= 9) higher education institutions (HEIs) in South Africa. The aim of
the study, about which we report, was to identify similarities and differences in the
curricula offered at these institutions and to establish the extent to which the different
modules attend to the various aspects of life skills according to the most recent
national curriculum. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who
teach the subject at universities and we also analysed curriculum documents. We
worked with a purposive sample of 9 respondents from the respective universities. The
study found that although universities use the CAPS (national curriculum) document
as guideline for structuring their curricula in teacher education programmes, some
participants indicated that they follow an integrated approach, thereby implying that
the different components of the school curriculum as outlined in the CAPS document
are not specifically accommodated within their programmes. An additional finding was
that there is a vast difference in the range of credits allocated to the various aspects of
life skills that may restrict social mobility between various HEIs.
Keywords: Life skills, foundation phase, curriculum and assessment policy statement;
higher education institutions
Miemsie Steyn, University of Pretoria. E-mail: mg.steyn@up.ac.za. Cycil Hartell, University
of Pretoria. E-mail: cycil.hartell@up.ac.za. N Schuld, Tshwane University of Technology.
E-mail: schuldn@tut.ac.za
South African Journal of Childhood Education | 2012 2(2): 158-176 | ISSN: 2223-7674 |© UJ

Introduction
Steyn, et al – A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module
Universities are traditionally viewed as autonomous institutions of learning and
research that are devoted to the examination, production, appraisal, dissemination
and transmission of knowledge as well as the provision of scholarly quality education
to the benefit and advancement of society (Erguder, 2010). As such, academics at
universities are privileged to exercise their academic freedom, which, inter alia, entails
the freedom to conduct research and to select, develop and implement educational
programmes free from external intervention (CEPES, 1992, p. 10; Council on Higher
Education, 2006, p. 16; Erguder, 2010). The Council on Higher Education (2006, p.
16) recognizes this autonomy as the freedom the academy enjoys from outside
interference, which includes the freedom of academics to teach and conduct research
without interference.
Badat (2009, p. 4) argues that universities are characterized by different
missions, varied social and educational purposes and goals, different sizes, different
configurations of academic programmes, different admission requirements and varied
academic standards that are compliant with specified purposes and goals. A university
provides an ideal setting for academics to impart their knowledge and to develop it
through research and innovation (Erguder, 2010). Academics have the freedom and
the right to conduct academic practices in ways that recognise their autonomy, while,
at the same time, observing their duty to do so in a way that recognises and adheres
to various social norms. In the South African context these would involve issues, such
as the right to access education, as well as the need to reflect on the content of the
curriculum to ensure that it meets the demands posed by a diverse student population
and the unique context of the country (Council on Higher Education, 2006, p. 17).
Currently eleven universities in South Africa offer early childhood education
(ECE) as part of their teacher training programmes. These universities offer literacy,
numeracy (mathematics) and life skills, and it is evident that they use the National
Curriculum Statement (NCS), or the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) as
guides for compiling their various ECE programmes. These two documents, the CAPS
document being the most recent, represent the policies for learning and teaching in
South African schools. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how these eleven
universities in South Africa offer the subject life skills, one of the three subjects areas
that constitute the foundation phase curriculum as well as programmes of pre-service
teacher education and training. We do not investigate the content of the life skills
subject area at the respective universities, but explore how universities exercise
their academic freedom and institutional autonomy in the structuring their life skills
programme. More particularly, the paper focuses on how the different aspects of the
life skills subject area are offered in terms of credits, duration, naming of aspects and
the year of implementation.
159

SAJCE– December 2012
The necessity of life skills in the foundation phase curriculum
Internationally there seems to be a growing awareness and recognition of the
demands and challenges that young children have to cope with. “What happens to
children in their first days, months and years of life affects their development, the
development of our society and the development of our world,” according to the
Bernard van Leer Foundation (2004, p. 3). Elliot & Davis (2009, p. 113) argue that during
the early years of development children demonstrate the greatest ability to learn
and develop. For this reason, it is crucial that nations invest in their young, thereby
preparing and equipping them for future challenges. The subject “Life Skills” presents
an opportunity to address all the various aspects of ECD in an integrated manner. In
the CAPS document (DBE, 2012, p. 9) this view is echoed by the aim of the subject,
which is described as “…guiding and preparing learners for life and its possibilities,
including equipping learners for meaningful and successful living in a rapidly changing
and transforming society.” The importance of such a subject is further highlighted by
Mbebeb (2009, p. 22) who quotes the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Africa
(UNECA, 2006) who refers to young people as “…agents of change with the potential
of taking a leading role in tackling Africa’s future development challenges”.
Aidoo (2008) maintains that ECE is the foundation of human development in
that it provides an opportunity for sustainable development, economic growth,
social change and transformation in society. Mbebeb (2009, p. 24) remarks that “[c]
hildhood development has been positioned at the centre of human development as a
foundation for a wholesome personality, productive life skills and it requires a relevant
and qualitative education.” Similarly, UNICEF (2009b) affirms that child stimulation
and development at this early stage of life are indispensable for good health, growth,
success in education and in life. UNICEF report states that “[n]utrition and clean
water, caring families and communities, support for early learning and psycho-social
development, and access to health care are among the jointly necessary conditions for
young children’s survival and well-being, and for their healthy development through
later childhood into well-functioning adulthood” (UNICEF, 2009a, p.46). This report
concludes by stating that ECE has a crucial role in children’s realization of their rights
to survival, development, protection and participation.
Johannsen (2009, p. 81) highlights the responsibility and necessity of ECE in the
formative early childhood years “…for assisting the future adult citizens of the world
to be moral and respectful individuals.” Due to widespread family disintegration,
Berson & Baggerly (2009, p. 375) argue, the school should take the responsibility to
protect children and “…serve as a bridge for the family and community, allowing
development of a social network for the child.” McDevitt and Ormrod (2007, p. 31)
also make mention of the changing task of the school when they remark that “…[t]
hroughout history, the family was expected to support the school. More recently, the
school is being asked to support the family.” In this regard, Joseph & Strain (2003)
report on research in South Africa by the National Research Council and Institutes of
Medicine, which has revealed that early experiences and relationships at home and
school set the stage for how a child learns self-regulation skills, as well as the ability
160

Steyn, et al – A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module
to manage emotions, take the perspective of others, and develop close relationships
with other people. Similarly Schoeman (2005) maintains that learners have to be
prepared for their future responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society, and
she concludes that “[s]chools […] bear a special and historic responsibility for the
development of civic competency and responsibility” (2005, p. 275). Vuckovic (2008)
believes that primary socialization takes place during the early years, and he defines
it as the internalisation of values and attitudes “…as well as preferences and habit
patterns…,” which leave a sustained impact on the individual. Formal ECE is crucial in
creating a supportive environment wherein young children can develop at all levels.
It is clear that the emphasis in ECE should not only be on academic knowledge,
but that it should recognize the importance of equipping young children with nonacademic
knowledge and skills as well. Joseph & Strain (2003, p. 65) refer to the latter
as “…social-emotional curricular programs…” and they describe them as focusing on
“…protective factors and reducing risk factors associated with academic and social
problems.” In other words, non-academic knowledge involves survival and coping
skills to assist an individual in overcoming specific challenges that may be faced in
all dimensions of life. Finn (2006) points to the fact that there has been a paradigm
shift worldwide with regard to the aims of education, so as to include non-academic 1
subjects in school curricula in order to meet the needs of an increasing diverse and
globalised community.
Including non-academic subject matter in a school curriculum
Koo, Kam & Cheong (2003) report on the development of a new culture of learning
and teaching where non-academic subjects are included in the school curriculum to
meet “…the context of political dispensations” (2003, p. 137). Governments all over
the world view education as a tool to inculcate certain dispositions, values and skills
to equip their future citizens in order to guarantee survival, peace, progress and
sustainability.
Ransford, Greenberg, Domitrovich, Small & Jacobson (2009, p. 510) report on the
PATHS curriculum (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies) in the United States and
Australia, which provides learners with instruction in the areas of emotional awareness
and understanding, self-control, social skills with peers and social problem-solving
skills in order to promote their social and emotional competence. Otote & Omo-Ojugo
(2009, p. 654) also provide an account of Nigerian schools where social studies as a
subject encourages the development of socio-civic and personal behaviour, thereby
focusing on the affective domain of learning. Snel, Ganguly & Shordt (2002, p. 9)
report on the Nali-Kali approach used in Indian schools, which aims to “…create
awareness and bring about behavioural change among children and through them, in
parents and the community in selected districts.” This curriculum focuses on hygiene
1 “Non-academic” in this context refers to subjects and curricula that focus first and foremost on knowledge and
skills that do not form part of conventional “academic” subjects such as, for example, Mathematics, History,
Chemistry, etc.
161

SAJCE– December 2012
education and environmental sanitation. The subject life skills makes provision for a
non-academic subject within the South African schools’ curriculum.
How does South Africa accommodate non-academic
subject matter?
In South Africa the value and significance of ECD is recognized and acknowledged by
the government and various other role players. The government’s commitment to
the development of young children is mirrored in the Bill of Rights in South Africa’s
Constitution and from the country’s agreement with conventions, such as the African
Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the United Nations Convention of
the Rights of the Child. The department of basic education (DBE) underwrites the
importance of ECD, and its dedication to quality education for young children is
reflected in the new curriculum (2012). The subjects that have been selected for the
foundation phase level (5-9 years of age) are the following: home language, first
additional language, mathematics and life skills. The value of non-academic subject
matter is recognised and subsequently addressed by the inclusion of life skills.
What are life skills?
Life skills are the personal and social skills required for people (in this case young
children) to think and behave competently and confidently in dealing with themselves,
relating to others and making effective decisions. According to the World Health
Organisation (1999, p. 6) “Life Skills education is designed to facilitate the practice and
reinforcement of psycho-social skills in a culturally and developmentally appropriate
way. It contributes to the promotion of personal and social development, the
prevention of health and social problems and the protection of human rights.”
According to Rooth (1997, p. 6), life skills are essential for successful living and
learning. Its point of departure is the belief that as a person develops more life
skills, the possibility increases that the individual would be better equipped to deal
with challenges, and even to avert some of them. Epstein (2003, p. 28) remarks that
although contemporary early childhood teachers often focus on enhancing reading
and mathematical skills to meet ever increasing academic expectations, teachers
must remain committed to promoting broader thinking abilities. Life skills provide the
foundation upon which children learn to make decisions, regulate their own behaviour,
meet complex challenges and take responsibility for their actions.
Life skills as a subject
The new curriculum (DBE, 2012) describes life skills as a subject that is pivotal to the
holistic development of learners. The subject is concerned with the social, personal,
intellectual, emotional and physical growth of learners and it comprises the following
study areas: beginning knowledge, creative arts, physical education, and personal
and social wellbeing. The latter have been organised as study areas to ensure that
162

Steyn, et al – A Bird’s Eye View on the Status of the Module
the foundational skills, values and concepts of early childhood development and the
subjects offered in Grades 4-12 are taught and developed in Grades R-3 (DBE, 2012,
p. 8).
According to the CAPS document (2012), the aim of life skills is to prepare
learners for all the challenges they will be facing in life, and to equip them to live
meaningfully and successfully in a “…rapidly changing and transforming society”
(DBE, 2012, p. 9). The subject exposes learners to a range of knowledge, skills and
values that will strengthen their holistic (physical, social, personal, emotional and
cognitive) development, creative and aesthetic knowledge and skills, knowledge of
personal health and safety, understanding of the relationship between people and the
environment and learners’ awareness of social relationships, technological processes
and elementary science.
The subject Life Skills is unpacked as follows:
1. Beginning knowledge
The content of beginning knowledge has been drawn from life orientation, social sciences
(history and geography); natural science and technology. The content has been organized into
topics that focus mainly on:
• the child and his/her relationship with his/her immediate family extending to the wider
community;
• the natural environment (flora, fauna, natural resources, etc.);
• South Africa (diverse people - cultures, customs, national symbols);
• Environmental awareness events (Water Week, Arbor Day, Marine Day, etc.);
• National/Public holidays (Heritage Day, Freedom Day, Youth Day, etc.);
• Special celebrations (Days) observed in South Africa by diverse cultural groups.
2. Health education
The content for Health Education has been drawn mainly from Life Orientation and will focus
on topics dealing with:
• personal hygiene and cleanliness;
• healthy eating, nutrition and fitness;
• communicable diseases including HIV/AIDS;
• health services (clinics, hospitals, ambulance, etc.);
• health awareness events (e.g. Dental, Eye, Organ Week, etc.);
• safety in the home and school and road safety.
3. Art and crafts
The content has been drawn from the arts and culture learning area. The four components
of art and crafts are dance, music, drama and art and crafts. Children in grades R - 3 should
be exposed to all four creative art forms. Where feasible, these art forms can be integrated,
for example:
• Dance can be infused with physical education and music;
• Drama and music can be infused with languages (speech, oral skills, storytelling, role-play,
voice projection through singing); and,
• Art and crafts, music and dance can be infused with mathematics (e.g. shape, pattern,
time, counting, distance, size and direction).
163

SAJCE– December 2012
4. Physical education:
The content for physical education has been drawn from life orientation. The emphasis is on
developing children’s fine and gross motor skills mainly through:
• Physical movement activities (locomotive, climbing and balancing);
• Games (including traditional and indigenous games);
• Elementary sports activities (athletics, netball, cricket and soccer skills, etc.)
Problem statement
A recent study by Mosia (2011) found that the majority of teachers experience
difficulties with the implementation of this subject, mainly due to a lack of training.
Teachers maintain that they are not equipped with the required knowledge and
skills to teach the subject, and they admit to utilising the time allocated to life skills
on the timetable for other things just to keep the learners occupied. In this regard
one teacher remarked: “I sometimes wonder if learners are aware that we are not
doing justice to them and we are also held accountable for their weak performance”
(Mosia, 2011, p. 98). Mosia’s study indicates that higher education institutions do not
adequately prepare teachers for the teaching of life skills. Her observation resonates
with Rooth (2005) who reported that 75% of the Intermediate and 54% of the senior
phase LO teachers in her study were not specialists in LO. She concluded that “[i]t
would be a devastating loss of an educationally sound opportu