With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the following methodology for data analysis was followed in this study:
Component 1 (primary)
A qualitative analysis of responses from a sample of three Grade R teachers in School A was conducted, using the discourse analysis of written responses to a questionnaire and transcribed recordings of group discussions, primed by private and informal peer conversations. The questions in both cases were the same. Furthermore, in the group discussions, the questions were orally asked in the mode of a semi-structured conversation in order to generate more in-depth qualitative data (Baumann & Basson, 2004: 288). On the other hand, the open orientation of the questionnaires still encouraged the focus on qualitative data, even though the responses may have been more structured and deliberate. In the case of both textual and oral data, a critical discourse analysis was conducted involving a “fusion of larger social questions with (mainly) smaller scale analytical questions” (Florio- Ruane & Morrell, 2004: 56).
The questions used in the questionnaire and recorded focus-group discussions were
developed according to the following considerations:
(1) How do teachers articulate their own subject knowledge of VP and curriculum
knowledge of CAPS?
(2) What strategies do teachers use to practically implement subject knowledge of VP by means of visual training using CAPS teaching strategies? (3) What do they understand about the role of diagnostic assessments, such as
BtLAB, in the classroom?
(4) How do teachers describe their vision and motivation for fulfilling their role as
Grade R teachers?
67
The questionnaire is included below:
Written-Response Questionnaire and Focus-Group Discussion Points
1. Briefly describe the type of pre-service training you did and how you experienced it. 2. Can you remember where you learned something about visual perceptual skills? 3. How would you define visual perceptual skills in your own words?
4. In what way do you think visual perceptual skills can help a child get ready to read in Grade 1?
5. Give an example of apparatus which you use to teach visual perceptual skills in your class. Describe how you use that apparatus in a concrete way.
6. In what way do you think the CAPS training file has helped you to teach the children in your class.
7. Describe your experience of the CAPS training. What do you think CAPS sets out to achieve?
8. In what way does CAPS help you to teach visual perceptual skills?
9. What kind of assessment do you do? In what way was it changed in the past to improve it?
10. What do you think the purpose was of the BtLAB?
11. What was the value, if any, of the BtLAB to you and to the children?
12. What kind of feedback did you receive from the Learning Support Educator or the District Office after the BtLAB was conducted?
13. How would you describe your basic role as a Grade R teacher? What would you say motivates you the most to fulfil that role?
14. What kind of support do you receive from your school and from the education department?
15. Would you like to teach Grade R in the long term? If so, why?
Component 2 (secondary)
A qualitative documentary analysis was made of the Grade R CAPS curriculum, based on a set of considerations that assess the comprehensiveness, clarity and applicability of the curriculum’s subject content of VP, according to prominent VPS listed in Table 2.1. The rationale for analysing CAPS is that it is the basic source document for teacher subject knowledge and educational practice in South African schools. If the subject content of VP is not clear and valid, the implementation of VPS development will be compromised.
The documentary analysis was developed according to the following basic
considerations:
(1) How explicit and comprehensive is the VP subject knowledge contained in the document, in accordance with recognized VP subject knowledge? (2) What subject knowledge of VP does the document provide the Grade R teacher with in order to teach and assess visual training towards early reading? (3) What subject knowledge of VP does the teacher still need to acquire, in order to effectively use the curriculum-document for visual training?
Component 3 (secondary)
A qualitative documentary analysis was made of BtLAB assessments used in School A, using a set of considerations which determined how VPS were assessed. The site had been designated a focus school by the district office and a BtLAB Pilot school by the WCED. As a result, in 2012 the BtLAB assessment instrument was administered to each Grade R learner individually by a Learning Support Educator. The relevance to this study lies in the fact that the instrument could potentially form part of the learner’s profile for use by teachers afterwards. Therefore, they would need to have teacher subject knowledge of the concepts the instrument contained in order to address the skills gaps identified.
The BtLAB was analysed because it was a diagnostic assessment done externally to the classroom assessment process, and was disconnected from the compilation of progress reports. This gave it an objectivity and neutrality that greatly assisted teacher reflection on the actual VPS of the learners. As the focus was on teacher and not learner knowledge, the learners’ results were not analysed in detail but used to highlight the challenges and stored for possible future research.
The documentary analysis of BtLAB, specifically Section A, was developed
according to the following basic considerations:
(1) How explicit and comprehensive is the visual perceptual subject knowledge contained in the document, in accordance with recognized VP subject knowledge? (2) What subject knowledge of VP would the teacher still need to acquire, in order to prepare a learner for BtLAB, or to effectively use the document for early identification and intervention pertaining to VPS gaps in Grade R?
69
Component 4 (secondary)
A quantitative analysis was made of the first Grade R CAPS assessment results in the CWD of the WCED and School A in 2012 and of VP related BtLAB results of the CWD of the WCED and School A in the same period, by means of the statistical analysis of performance data. As this quantitative analysis is not the central or extensive thrust of the study, the CWD cohort of 2968 learners sufficed for our purpose, compared to the WCED cohort, which, at the time of writing comprised 60158 Grade R learners in ordinary public schools and 15933 Grade R learners in private pre-schools. Some contextualization will be provided as follows: The CAPS results will be compared to the BtLAB results to consider the scientific and social validity of both.