La construcción teórica del nuevo paradigma

The response to the primary research question in chapter four was twofold, given that the essence of the lived experiences of the particants were based on a structural and a textural description. The first part of the primary question is based on the context of the study (see section 4.3.1), the second on what the participant FP teachers experienced at an underperforming school in Gauteng regarding interventions for reading literacy such as FFL, ANA and GPLMS. The five emergent themes (Table 4.1) will therefore be reflected upon in order to summarise the findings since these interrelated themes are based on the lived experiences of the participants regarding interventions for reading literacy such as FFL, ANA and GPLMS.

Throughout the first theme, the findings of this study regarding the challenges that hamper effective teaching and learning in the participants’ classrooms validated the assertion by Howie, van Staden, Tshele, Dowse and Zimmerman (2012) that learners’ reading literacy

is influenced by home, school and classroom contexts, as well as the communities in which they live, as evident in the summary below.

Given the home contexts, the results of studies conducted by the IEA for 20 years indicated “a strong positive relationship” between the reading literacy achievement of primary school learners and a supportive home environment” (Mullis et al., 2007). However, the results of this study regarding the lived experiences of FP teachers about interventions for reading literacy refuted the findings of the IEA as a lack of support and motivation at home has been identified as a challenge that could hamper the reading literacy achievement of the learners at Funeka (pseudonym) Primary.

In consideration of the school contexts, the findings confirmed the statement by Masterson (2013, p.11) that “The number of languages spoken in Gauteng schools in Gauteng adds substantially to the challenges that teachers of literacy are faced with”. The participants were indeed faced with the challenge of “language barriers” as the home language of the majority of learners at this school was Zulu but the LoLT of the schools was English. A survey conducted in South Africa also showed that Zulu was the most common language spoken in Gauteng (Statistics SA Census data, 2011). These “language barriers” identified by the participants is disconcerting since Bond, Tinker, Wasson and Wasson (1994) asserted that if the home language of the learner differs from the LoLT it places the learner at a disadvantage as far as reading is concerned, since language differences increase reading difficulties. This assertion of Bond et al. (1994) was also affirmed in the theoretical framework of this study as Education White Paper 6 (DoE, 2001 p. 7) states that learning barriers may occur as a result of “inappropriate LoLT”. On the other hand, Hong Kong SAR is a former British colony that also faces a language issue having predominantly English Second Language (ESL) learners (Mullis et al., 2007). Yet this country achieved the second highest reading literacy results in PIRLS 2006 (Appendix J). Most importantly, there appears to be disparity amongst policymakers and parents regarding the issue of the home language of learners versus the LoLT. The Language in Educational Policy (LiEP) of 1997 recognises that South Africa is a multilingual society and assumes that the home language of learners is the most appropriate for the LoLT. In addition, Francis Sampa (during the first Foundation Phase Conference held in Mokopane) suggested that the correct choice of language policy was crucial for effective learning and advised that English remain as the LoLT, but learners must first be taught in a language

they understand (DoE, 2008b). On the other hand, South African parents are allowed to choose the language in which their children should be educated (DoE, 2002) and most of these parents request that their children should be be educated in English (Heugh, 2009).

What is more, inadequate classroom space was identified as a challenge by the participants as a few FP teachers have 48 learners in their classrooms, which make it difficult for them to give individual attention to those experiencing barriers to reading literacy. Numerous studies have compared the standardised test results of learners in smaller classes with those of learners in larger classes, and significant improvement of the standardised test results can be attributed to a reduction in class size (Haimson, 2014). In addition, the participant FP teachers are well trained as evident in the statement: “…but truthfully these teachers

are already well developed especially after READ” (N10 L193 – 195). Lastly, this school

had a library and a full-time librarian (Appendix G3 p.300), but the findings highlighted a lack of a reading specialist.

Bearing in mind the classroom context, Mullis et al. (2007) suggested that the availability of reading materials such as a reading series or textbook is relevant for the acquisition of reading literacy in classrooms. The findings revealed that Graded readers are available in each classroom as well as other readers for enjoyment (Appendix G5 p.302). Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, and Foy (2007) suggest that a classroom library may inculcate positive reading habits or attitudes and expose learners to a wider variety of texts. In this regard, Appendix G5 (mentioned earlier) shows examples of mobile libraries in the classrooms of the participant FP teachers who were discovered by the researcher, even though no reference was made by the participants to these.

In view of the national and community context, the findings revealed alcohol and drug abuse in the broader community in which the learners lived. Given the revelation of a few participants about alcohol being abused by parents in the community it was argued that some learners at Funeka primary might be experiencing FAS. The Healthline Editorial

Team (2015) pointed out that heavy drinking by the mother during the first three months

may cause FAS and this syndrome may lead to problems with vision, hearing, attention span and abilities to learn. Chall (1983) was concerned about the reading literacy results of learners from families of low socio-economic status. This concern was also shared by the participants who highlighted poverty as another challenge to effective teaching and

PIRLS 2006 (Table 2.5), which revealed that a group of learners from economically disadvantaged homes scored a lower mean score for reading literacy than counterparts from the wealthiest schools. Finally, learner absenteeism was highlighted as another challenge that hampered effective teaching and learning in the classrooms of the participants. The statement by Masterson (2013) about poverty was thus endorsed as she pointed out that the impact of poverty could be seen as a chain of reactions, given that poor nutrition affects the health of learners, which in turn affects learners’ attendance in school.

As a final point about the context of learners, the instruction and experiences, as well as the learner characteristics and attitudes, are usually evident in reading achievement as well as learner behaviour and attitudes, such as positive attitudes to reading and attitudes to learning to read (Howie et al., 2012). As far as reading achievement is concerned, the participants pointed out that most learners were struggling with reading, the majority with the identification of initial sounds in words, recognising the ‘look and say’ words, and reading fluently and with comprehension. According to Rude and Oehlkers (1984) struggling learners usually read one or two years beyond their current grade. Concerning the attitudes of learners to learning to read, these learners were not interested in reading whilst others did not enjoy it.

The participants’ opinions about barriers to reading literacy commonly experienced by learners in classrooms corroborated the notion of the NRC (1998) that barriers to reading literacy were linked to the critical components of reading, such as oral language, phonological awareness, word recognition, fluency, reading vocabulary and comprehension. The manifestations of barriers to reading literacy commonly experienced by learners in the participants’ classrooms are evident in the discussion below.

Learners mostly used one-word answers during the listening and speaking sessions, since the majority were unable to understand or speak English, validating Dednam (in Landsberg, 2011) who provided an example of the manifestation of barriers to the spoken language as learners answering with the movement of the head only to indicate ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Even though phonemic awareness has been highlighted as one of the most important components of phonological awareness in chapter two, and has been established as a critical precursor skill to successful reading and spelling performance, the learners of

Funeka Primary were unable to identify initial sounds and blends correctly. Incorrect spelling of words was also identified as a common barrier to reading literacy, whilst some learners were unable to instantly recognise words in the readers or the ‘look and say’ words, and others to read fluently or with expression. Finally, most were unable to read with comprehension.

In view of the preceding discussion it is clear that the FP teachers were able to identify barriers to reading literacy in their classrooms that were in line with the assertions of Shanker and Ekwall (1998) concerning the manifestations of barriers to reading literacy. They were also able to share their experiences of addressing these barriers to reading literacy that were confirmed by Bear et al. (2000), Callela (2001) and DBE (2013). It is therefore deduced that the participant FP teachers were relatively knowledgeable about these aspects.

During the second theme, the implementation plan of FFL generated only one positive opinion, as opposed to nine negative ones, although this intervention campaign was launched in response to the results of PIRL 2006 and SAQMEQ 2008 that found more than half of South African learners were not reading at the required level. The purpose of FFL was thus to increase the average literacy and numeracy results within South African schools to 50% by providing appropriate resources and detailed lesson plans, and establishing teacher forums in all districts (Meier, 2011). The negative opinions of the participants concerning FFL appear to shed more light on the reasons the participant FP teachers deemed FFL ineffective as opposed to the reasons of the DoE that appeared to be greatly based on the ANA results of 2008 (see chapter two). The FP teachers indicated a lack of training for teachers regarding FFL, a lack of expertise on the part of designers of the FFL files, difficulty in understanding them, and too many programmes being simultaneously implemented at this particular school. Finally, one of the participants acknowledged that she was not interested in FFL, another labelled it “nonsense”, whilst the last regarded it as a “failure”, endorsing a statement by the GDE (2010a, p.7) that “FFL was deemed not effective to improve the literacy results in Gauteng.”

At some stage of the third theme a few participants displayed a positive attitude towards ANA since these FP teachers indicated that ANA provided a yardstick to determine whether their learners were on par with learners of the other provinces, and provided a way

Meier (2011) that ANA provided standardised evidence of learner achievement in literacy that would enable teachers and districts to plan effectively for the improvement of literacy results in South Africa. In contrast, some participants displayed a negative attitude towards ANA as they pointed out that it was mostly intended for the private schools; all the pressure was on the Grade 3 teachers and learners to do well in ANA; it did not cater for learners with barriers to learning; and whilst Grades 1 and 2 educators could read the question papers for the learners the Grade 3 educators could not. Finally, according to the evidence in Appendix D1 (pp. 230-238), it may have been difficult for the grade three learners of 2013 to have read the ANA question papers due to the poor quality of the typing.

With regard to the negative attitudes of the participants towards ANA, some of the findings substantiate one of the findings of research conducted by Meier (2011) which found that an ex-model C school performed exceptionally well in the ANA of 2008 and 2009 as opposed to so-called township schools. The findings on the reliability and fairness of ANA confirm the view of Spaull (2013 pp.7-8) that …

Although the Annual National Assessments (ANAs) are one of the most important and needed policy innovations … given the way that these tests are currently implemented – including the formulation, marking, invigilation and moderation procedures – they cannot be used as a reliable indicator of progress.

In contrast, the findings of this study refuted the statements by NEEDU (2013) that teachers are exposed to good teaching practices and appropriate test standards because they administer and mark ANA tests themselves. The teachers are able to determine the strengths and weaknesses of their own learners and understand the efficacy of their own teaching strategies due to the ANA results. Most importantly, five unions (SADTU, NAPTOSA, SAOU, NATU, PEU) publicly announced that ANA was not effective in its current form or beneficial to the education system as it did not contribute to effective teaching and learning (Abrue, 2015).

With reference to the fourth theme, the participants had conflicting feelings about teaching at an underperforming school. Some corresponded with those of Hargreaves and Fullan (1998), such as feelings of panic, fear, inadequacy, frustration, struggle and incompetence;

given that some of the participants indicated that they felt demoralised, inadequate and incompetent. However, a few appreciated teaching at an underperforming school. These conflicting feelings are in line with the findings of a study conducted by Hargreaves (2004) who found that teachers’ responses to mandatory change were largely negative. He also found that mandatory change was usually associated with government changes and often disliked because it was compulsory and teachers were not consulted in the process prior to the implementation. Positive emotional feelings towards mandatory changes were few and far between and most likely to be experienced by female teachers. In this instance the mandatory change mentioned by Hargreaves (2004) could refer to the interventions for reading literacy such as FFL, ANA and GPLMS that had been implemented by the participants since 2008.

Based on the perceptions of the participants regarding the consequences of teaching at an underperforming school, they revealed a feeling of intense pressure caused by the GDE and the coaches; and the “top-down approach” of interventions for reading literacy which they were compelled to follow. Hargreaves (2004) stated that mandatory change is usually associated with government changes and is often disliked because it is forced down teachers without their involvement. Similarly, Kallaway (2007) noted that teachers were not consulted nor their years of teaching experience affirmed or acknowledged. More to the point, he argued that the top-down policies (in improving literacy) which bypass and neglect teachers’ knowledge and insights will not have the desired outcomes. The implication of the latter argument could be that these “top-down” approach interventions for reading literacy implemented by the participants in their classrooms, might not have improved the reading literacy levels of the learners at this particular school.

Different feelings, beliefs and perceptions were highlighted by the participants about the aspects of GPLMS, such as the lesson plans, strategies or methodologies, graded readers, and the process of coaching and mentoring which will be summarised in the next section.

According to the GDE (2010a), detailed lesson plans were provided as part of the intervention strategies of GPLMS to provide guidance in terms of the pacing and progression of the teaching of reading literacy. The findings of this study thus confirm the foresight of the GDE (2010a) that these detailed lessons plans will provide guidance in terms of pacing and progression, in this instance guidance in terms of the components such

GPLMS and having to follow these strategies and methodologies slavishly even though it was not effective. Circular 6 of 2012 (DBE, 2012 p.2) endorse the findings of this study as it stipulates that: “THESE ARE THE ONLY LESSON PLANS AND ASSESSMENTS to be used by the prioritised schools…for [the] duration of the strategy.” Cognisance should be taken that this instruction was probably written in capital letters by the DBE to stress the importance thereof. This endorsement by the DBE is also substantiated by the monitoring tool (Appendix F2 pp. 272-277), which explicitly shows that coaches checked whether the FP teachers were teaching the expected component on the expected day and date. Meier (2011) claimed that FFL conveyed a military approach since all primary schools were expected to increase their average results in literacy and numeracy to no less than 50% (RSA, 2008). In view of the findings of this study, it appears that the same military approach was adopted for the GPLMS given the above instruction by the DBE (2012) that was typed in capital letters, as well as the indication by the participants that they were compelled by the coaches to use the strategies of GPLMS. Finally, Hargreaves (2004) was concerned that education authorities generally risk effective change due to the following factors: non-involvement of key stakeholders; poor field testing; insensitivity for teacher emotions and feelings; and disregard of research results on similar measures in other countries. The participants in this study echoed similar concerns, pointing out that GPLMS was compulsory and they were not involved as stakeholders, one saying that the strategies or methodologies were not effective for the learners in her class.

Lawrence (2011) claims that teachers understand the strengths, needs and culture of their learners, and one of the principles regarding learner support material and books outlined in the National Policies for Education: South Africa (OECD, 2008, p.180) states that “Teachers should have the responsibility to evaluate and select the books and materials that best suit their learners.” Yet it appears that the participants did not evaluate or select the graded readers for their learners since most were in agreement that they were not suitable or interesting for the learners of this school. As Bond et al. (1994) found, dull or uninteresting reading material may cause reading difficulties. The learners were unable to relate to the stories and the vocabulary is too difficult. In this regard, the NRP (2000, p.107) acknowledged that readers should “access their background knowledge to construct meaning from the text”, whilst Irwin (1991) cited research showing that unfamiliarity with words as an impediment to reading comprehension.

Concerning the procedures or strategies employed by the coach to develop their understanding of GPLMS, most of the participants indicated workshops at the beginning of each term, class visits, as well as video workshops. These were in line with the DBE (2012) outline of one of the roles of the coaches as being to provide support, school-based workshops and peer learning groups (PLGs) training for teachers at prioritised schools, and DBE (2011) strictures for GPLMS coaches to visit the classrooms twice a month.

Still, the DBE (2011) stated that GPLMS coaches are literacy experts who will provide coaching and support to teachers so that they are able to implement GPLMS effectively in their classrooms. This agreed with the definition of Harisson, Dymoke and Pell (2006