Discusión de los resultados obtenidos

Thandi’s and Zodwa’s interview highlighted positive and some negative experiences with regard to literacy teaching. They expressed similar experiences about an existing gap between theory and practice. Their understanding of literacy practices implied the teaching of phonics. Apart from pronouncing explicit teaching of phonics, Thandi had a clear understanding of the approaches that were needed to be used in teaching reading but she could not play them out in practice. This suggests that teachers experienced challenges in implementing the theory they had with regard to literacy teaching.

On the question of access to literacy, both teachers believed that access to literacy suggested mastery of reading skills as well as exposure to different kinds of reading materials. Moreover, Zodwa applauded the audio support they had at the school library where the fluent readers got opportunities to listen to the programme called “Talking stories” and work on the illustrations that were provided. This combination made reading fun, especially for the fluent readers. However, Zodwa did not mention how the programme supported the weaker learners. According to Zodwa the ICT programme provided access to literacy. Her understanding was different from the scaffolding process that meant guiding learners until they reach their maximum potential in literacy.

With regard to the low literacy performance by learners and the availability of resources, both teachers cited the departmental policies as contributing to the problem. Thandi cited the inconsistencies that the policy on promotion and progression created to the schools. She claimed that as a result of the policy, learners got to be promoted, irrespective of their level of competence in literacy. Zodwa related the problem to the continuous policy changes which left teachers not properly trained for the implementation of the new policy. Bridging the gap between policy and practice seemed to be the problem at the school.

125

However, on the question of resources Thandi and Zodwa shared conflicting ideas. Thandi claimed that they had sufficient isiXhosa resources, though Zodwa painted a different picture. Zodwa mentioned that they received isiXhosa readers but they had to design their own isiXhosa Big Books that went hand in hand with the readers because the department proposed that they should use a Big Book, especially during shared reading exercises. This indicated that there was no uniformity between the teachers with regard to developing the Big Books as the expenditure towards developing the book would be incurred by the respective teacher. In all, what Zodwa shared with regard to resources was that they did not have enough isiXhosa resources to enhance isiXhosa literacy instruction.

The interviews also revealed that both teachers understood that learners were at different levels of literacy understanding and application, and that needed to be addressed. They understood that they needed to provide intervention support at different levels. In spite of their knowledge about the intervention support they needed to provide, that was not evidenced during the time I was at the school for observations. For instance, Thandi pronounced intervention measures she could implement that included informing the parents of the weaker learners about the challenges they faced and to design tasks that learners could do at home that could help support those learners. Zodwa, on the other hand, seemed to understand her role as the HOD with regard to offering guidance and support to her fellow colleagues. She claimed that after attending a teacher development workshop, she shared whatever she learned with her colleagues. But, I did not experience this during the period of data collection. Apart from sharing information, as Zodwa had claimed, she also mentioned that she monitored whether teachers provided support to the weaker and over achieving learners in class, but that was not evidenced during the time I spent at the school.

With regard to the question of support that she received as the HOD from the Department of Education, Zodwa expressed some disappointments. Her first disappointment related to the nature of the workshops they received. She claimed that they were ineffective as they did not address the needs they had as the teachers of isiXhosa Home Language. This implied that although the workshops the Department of Education was offering were intended to generally support teachers, they were not specific on what the teachers needed to know. Another ineffectiveness of the support was a consequence of the language mismatch between the

126

Curriculum Advisers (CA) and the languages of the learners in their school. The mismatch tended to be a barrier whereby the CA would be asked to model the technique or the developmental support with the learners at the school. As mentioned earlier, the teachers at the school seemed to experience difficulties in implementing policy in order to enhance literacy practices at the school. The following section deals with parent interviews on their views on literacy.