EVALUTAION OF A PROGRAMME.html
Evaluation of a programme to support foundation-phase teachers to facilitate literacy
Anna-Marie Wium
Department Communication Pathology
,
University of Pretoria
Brenda Louw
Professor Emeritus: Department Communication Pathology, University of Pretoria
Irma Eloff
Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria
Correspondence to: A Wium (Anna-Marie1.Wium@ul.ac.za)
Abstract
Learners
who do not develop adequate listening and language skills during their
early years are at risk of academic failure and early drop-out. Future
learning problems may be prevented by supporting these children in the
foundation phase to overcome their developmental delays. A continued
professional development (CPD) programme was developed to support
foundation-phase teachers to facilitate literacy. The theoretical basis
for the workshop material was the articulation between an auditory
processing model, a language processing model, and literacy.
The
focus of this article is on the qualitative findings obtained from the
literacy component of a more comprehensive CPD programme that covered
several topics. The research was conducted as action research cycles
across two contexts (a semi-rural and an urban-township context) and
included 96 participants. This article explores how the teachers
implemented the strategies to facilitate literacy in their classrooms
and the benefits obtained from it. Data were collected by means of
questionnaires, self-reflections and focus groups, as well as a
research diary and field notes.
The results
revealed that the strategies trained were implemented in the classrooms
and were valued by the participants. Those who participated in critical
reflection felt that they had developed competence and professional
growth. Challenges identified included the language used in the support
provided, which had an impact on phonological awareness training, and
the use of terminology. The importance of collaboration was emphasised.
The participants gained in the sense that they learnt how to implement
the assessment standards in the curriculum, and learners benefited from
the new strategies as they could all participate in the activities. The
research confirmed the value of teacher support in the facilitation of
literacy, which highlights the role of speech-language therapists
working in school contexts.
Keywords:
teacher support, listening, auditory processing, phonological
awareness, qualitative research, speech-language pathologists
Background
This study developed a continued professional
development (CPD) programme for foundation-phase teachers to facilitate
and promote emergent literacy skills. The first author acted as
programme facilitator, and will be referred to as such throughout the
article. The CPD programme was based on the principles of adult
learning (Knowles, Holgotn, & Swanson, 1998) and whole-brain learning (Herrmann, 1996), to accommodate all learning preferences.
The relationship between auditory processing and language processing
Information processing is a complex process (Hamman & Squire, 1996, 1997 in Owens, 2004)
that involves sensory input on many levels, which in turn is integrated
and regulated by meta-cognition. It requires selective attention,
inhibition, and the co-ordination of stimuli and concepts. The
facilitation of literacy skills in this study is based on a three-level
model that aligns a model for central auditory processing (Bellis, 2003) with a language processing model (Richards, 2004),
which is then articulated with literacy. Figure 1 was created to
illustrate the link between Bellis’s model for central auditory
processing and how Richards described the language processing model,
and the learning outcomes for literacy (Revised National Curriculum
Statement (RNCS)) (Department of Education, 2002).
In Figure 1, the first level of the central auditory processing model refers to how the sound signal is being received through the ear (Bellis, 2002), which corresponds with the first level in the language processing model, described by Richards (2004)
as ‘listening skills’. Listening is an active process that
involves an awareness and localisation of sounds, as well as the
behaviour (characteristics) of a good listener (Bellis, 2003).
The acquisition of such skills is an important first step in the
processing of auditory input and also the first step in acquiring
phonological awareness. Learners need to learn the art of listening
actively, attentively and analytically in order to learn (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998).
The second level in the auditory processing
model refers to the ‘signal manipulation’ level, which in
turn corresponds with the ‘perception of speech’ (Gillon, 2002)
in the language processing model. This level includes both phonological
awareness and phonemic processing. Phonological awareness is critical
to the ability to analyse (segment) speech units and to synthesise
(blend) speech sounds into words, which makes it a strong predictor of
success in reading and writing (Goldsworthy, 1998; Muter & Diethelm, 2001).
Poor phonological awareness in turn negatively affects the acquisition
of reading and spelling, so phonological awareness is viewed as the
strongest predictor for academic success (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, & Yaghoub-Z., 2001).
Learners need to develop phonological awareness skills to an
age-appropriate level at school entry. Many learners from low
socio-economic schools (SES) have not developed adequate phonological
awareness skills on entering school (Nancollis, Lawrie, & Dodd, 2005).
This may be attributed to limited or no prior literacy experiences at
home. It is often found that such learners have limited access to
structured preschool education. Learners who are unable to read by the
end of grade 1 tend to lag behind and may develop learning problems.
On the third level of the auditory processing
model (Figure 1), the auditory signal is interpreted through higher
cognitive functions, and relates to how meaning is extracted from the
auditory input. Richards (2004)
considers the focus on this level to be more on linguistic skills than
on auditory skills. Such a view supports the notion that these two
processes are closely related. Bellis (2003: 95) is of the opinion that,
‘… it is not easy to separate acoustic and phonemic
processing from one another or from higher-order linguistic
influences’. To facilitate literacy development in the classroom,
each of the three levels of language processing (Richards, 2004) has a different effect on literacy learning (Figure 1).
The relationship between the three-level model and the national curriculum
The national curriculum (NC) specifies ‘listening’ as
the first learning outcome (LO1) for ‘literacy’ in the
foundation phase (grades R - 3). LO1 is a stepping stone for acquiring
phonological awareness skills, which is integral to the development of
emergent literacy skills.
Because the development of oral language is a prerequisite for the development of reading and writing (Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005),
this aspect is addressed in learning outcome 2 (LO2) of the RNCS,
(referred to as ‘speaking’) (Figure 1). Language skills
include the visual modality (Johnson & Roseman, 2003),
which is addressed in learning outcome 3 (LO3) (referred to as
‘reading and viewing’), as well as learning outcome 4 (LO4)
(referred to as ‘writing’), where the focus turns towards
acquiring more formal literacy skills. Foundation-phase learners are
also introduced to ‘thinking and reasoning’ in learning
outcome (LO5) and ‘language structure and use’ in learning
outcome 6 (LO6). The last four LOs correspond with the third level of
the three-level language model, which is described as ‘linguistic
skills’. The workshops provided in this CPD programme addressed
each of the learning outcomes for literacy in the RNCS, which again
corresponds with the three levels of the model for language processing
shown in Figure 1.
A CPD programme for foundation phase for the facilitation of literacy
The content of this specific CPD programme was developed in
collaboration with the Gauteng Department of Education (provincial and
district levels), and had to correlate with the RNCS. The programme was
considered a joint effort between the programme facilitator and the
district facilitators. The other learning outcomes were addressed in
the CPD programme as a whole, but this article focuses on the section
that targeted the facilitation of ‘listening’ as a stepping
stone for the development of phonological awareness and phonic
awareness (refer to levels 1 and 2 in Figure 1), as such skills are
required for literacy.
The CPD programme consisted of three components: a training component, supported by practical and mentoring components (Wium, Louw, & Eloff, 2010).
The training component in turn consisted of a series of workshops that
were repeated in two contexts over a period of 2 years. The workshops
(refer to Appendix A) provided the participants with strategies and
activities to facilitate literacy.
The approach followed in the CPD programme
was based on adult learning theories and made use of facilitative
strategies for learning, e.g. action learning strategies (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005), co-operative learning (Department of Education, 2002; Killen, 2007) and peer learning. Experiential learning (Kolb, 1984)
opportunities allowed participants to practise the strategies through
role play in the workshops and thereafter to implement it in their
classrooms. Such support allowed the participants to first observe the
strategies before they were required to apply them, and then allowed
them the opportunity to reflect on the process by completing
self-reflection sheets for their portfolios.
Method
Aim of the research
The aims of the article are to explore how the participants
implemented the strategies to facilitate literacy in their classrooms,
and to describe the benefits of the support provided.
Study design
This study was part of a more comprehensive study using programme evaluation as research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
The research made use of two action research cycles across two contexts
(semi-rural and urban townships), and made use of qualitative methods
of inquiry.
Participants
The data collected for this article were obtained from the main
study. In its effort to redress past inequalities, the Gauteng
Department of Education (GDE) identified 24 low socio-economic schools
(SES) in the Tshwane region to participate in this project; 12 schools
were from a semi-rural area, and 12 from an urban/densely populated
area (including township schools and schools in informal settlements).
Stratified sampling was used to select the sample (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006),
as each school that accepted the invitation to participate in the
programme identified 1 teacher in each grade level of the foundation
phase (e.g. grades R, 1, 2 and 3), so 4 teachers from each school
enrolled for the programme, provided their participation was voluntary.
There were 12 teachers representing each grade level in the foundation
phase (grades R - 3) included in the programme, totalling 96. At the
time of the research it was estimated that there are about 3 - 4
classes in each grade level of each school, and therefore the selection
of one participant from each grade level in each school represented
approximately 25% of the total number of foundation-phase teachers in
these selected schools. As only one primary trainer was available to
conduct the workshops, groups of 48 participants per context were
regarded as manageable, and were sufficient to allow for possible
attrition later in the programme.
In the larger study each group of four
teachers in each school was encouraged to select a representative to
attend the focus group meeting, which implies that these participants
have already met the selection criteria for the original sample (nested
design) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2005).
The focus groups consisted of 12 participants in each context (1 from
each school), considered an adequate size for a focus group and a
representative sample (25%) of the entire group that was trained. It
also allowed for attrition (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
Focus groups were voluntary; in some instances more than one
participant from each school attended the meeting, and in other cases
none attended. The programme facilitator also acted as moderator in the
focus groups, whereas the district facilitators acted as assistant
moderators in both the contexts of the research.
The district facilitators were required by the GDE to assist the
programme facilitator, and were partners in the project. Both district
facilitators were Northern Sotho speaking and familiar with research
methods as they were both enrolled for master’s degrees at that
time. With the exception of two participants, all were female.
The sample was fairly homogeneous in terms of
contexts, grade levels represented and the teachers’ experience
in teaching, but not in terms of qualification, and therefore is
considered as a realistic cross-section of the population (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).
The participants’ qualifications and prior learning may have been
an advantage for some and a disadvantage for others, as the pace of
training could have been too fast for some while adequate for others.
Questionnaire and self-reflection data were collected from 96
participants, whereas focus group data were contributed by 24
participants across the two contexts. In these specific contexts the
most prominent language used as language of learning and teaching
(LoLT) was Northern Sotho (62%), followed by English (24%), SeTswana
(8%) and isiZulu (6%). All participants were part of the larger study
and therefore were required to be appointed in full-time teaching
positions in the foundation phase at schools in the targeted contexts.
They also had to be willing to use English during the contact sessions,
as it is the language used by the GDE in all communication with and
support of teachers. English is also the language used as medium of
instruction at all institutions of higher education. This aspect was
explained in the initial invitation letter to the schools, and also in
the briefing meeting, so that participants could make informed
decisions on whether they wanted to participate in the programme.
Participants who declined were not included. It was also emphasised
that the teachers had to participate of their own free will and not as
a result of coercion by their superiors.
Data collection
Qualitative data were collected from a
variety of sources. All the participants from the main study attended
the specific workshop to facilitate emergent literacy, and each of the
96 participants was expected to complete questionnaires after the
workshops and to engage in self-reflection following a period of
implementation of the strategies learnt in their classrooms. The
original purpose of the questionnaires was mainly to collect
quantitative data and therefore included only a limited number of
open-ended questions, as they take longer to complete and therefore
could be a cause of non-response (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Such open-ended questions provided the opportunity for additional comments or recommendations, which was explanatory.
All participants (n=96)
were required to implement the strategies to facilitate literacy in
their classroom following the workshops and to complete portfolio
assignments for assessment. As part of the portfolio assignment they
were required to engage in self-reflection (using reflection sheets) at
the conclusion of the implementation period. Such self-reflection is an
inherent part of outcomes-based education (OBE) (Killen, 2007), and is known to facilitate deep learning. It was also a useful tool to monitor the implementation of the strategies.
The two focus groups (each with 12 participants) were conducted
4 - 6 weeks after the workshops and were used to evaluate the workshop
in terms of the participants’ perceived benefits, and to obtain
feedback on their experiences in implementing the strategies. A
focus-group schedule was used to guide the discussions.
Diary entries were made by the programme facilitator throughout the
entire programme, without following any particular pattern. Entries
were made whenever the programme took a specific turn, or after a
specific event took place, or when the researcher felt the need to
reflect on specific issues. The aim of the research diary was to
document the research process and to reflect on issues arising. It also
provided insight regarding the system, and factors that could affect
the outcomes of the programme. These entries were used to share ideas
with experts and colleagues, and therefore elicited meta-reflection.
All the workshop material and measuring instruments/procedures were
developed in English, although particular examples were prepared in
Northern Sotho for the facilitation of phonological awareness. It was
acknowledged from the start that not all participants would be equally
proficient in English, and because the programme facilitator had
limited proficiency in the indigenous languages, arrangements were made
with the district facilitators (each of whom was proficient in at least
two African languages) to translate or interpret should the need arise.
Participants were encouraged to participate in their language of
preference throughout the programme.
Credibility
The credibility of the questionnaires was increased when a language
editor reviewed and edited the questions. These questions were also
scrutinised by two experts in the professional field, as well as a
statistical advisor, to identify any potentially imprecise or ambiguous
terms. Pre-testing determined the clarity of instructions as well as
questions, and the time for completion.
Focus group schedules were scrutinised by two
experts prior to use to determine whether they would elicit the
required responses. Such measures increased the likelihood of
trustworthiness. The programme facilitator acted as the moderator of
the focus groups, and the district facilitators as assistant
moderators, and as interpreters and translators when necessary. The
district facilitators documented significant quotes and summarised each
question discussed on the summary sheet specifically designed for this
purpose. At the conclusion of the session, the district facilitators as
assistant moderators verbally summarised the responses to questions.
Member-checking was done when these summaries were presented to the
groups for approval, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of the data
(Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, & Robson, 2001). The programme facilitator took field notes to supplement the summary and transcription of the audio recording.
After the participants had departed, the programme facilitator
(moderator) and the district facilitator (assistant moderator) met to
reflect on the procedures, the participation, and outcomes of the
session. They compared notes and confirmed the key ideas. Shortly after
the session the programme facilitator further reflected on the focus
group by keeping a research diary. However, the fact that the assistant
moderators were involved in the study may have biased the results to
some extent.
The audio recordings from the focus groups
were transcribed verbatim by the course facilitator according to
guidelines obtained from the literature (Bloor, et al., 2001).
Coding was confirmed by 80% inter- and intra-rater agreement. For
reasons of anonymity, speakers were referred to as ‘participant
1’, ‘participant 2’, etc. Thick descriptions within
the context were created and rich data from several data sources (diary
entries, focus groups and open-ended questions) were obtained. It is
acknowledged that the close proximity of the programme facilitator and
the participants over time could have impacted on the results as the
programme facilitator personally conducted the focus groups and
transcribed, coded and analysed the data, and may have become
subjective.
Data analyses
The responses obtained from open-ended
questions in questionnaires, as well as the self-reflections, were
listed in Word documents. The focus group sessions were transcribed
verbatim and these, together with the self-reflections, diary entries
and open-ended questions from questionnaires, were placed in a single
hermeneutic unit and qualitatively analysed using content analyses.
Units were identified to answer the research questions (Ryan & Bernard, 2000) and were coded with the ATLAS-ti software suite (Thomas Muir Scientific Software Development, 2003-2004), and categorised. The strength of ATLAS-ti
is its ability to manage and organise large quantities of textual data.
All text (apart from opening statements) was coded, and in turn
categorised and grouped as major themes. The
software used to analyse the qualitative data enabled the counting of
specific codes (enumeration) to indicate the prominence of the various
categories and themes. All items coded were categorised as either
positive (confirming the research question) or negative (refute the
research question) to provide a judgement in the evaluation of the
programme, and were calculated as a percentage.
Results and discussion
The findings were grouped as topics to answer the two research
questions which relate to the implementation of strategies in the
classroom, and the benefits obtained from the support provided.
Implementation of strategies in the classroom
In response to the question: ‘How were the strategies implemented in the classroom?’ the following topics emerged.
Confirmation that strategies were applied in classrooms following
the training
The data firstly confirmed the implementation
of strategies in the classrooms. The results showed that from the 125
items coded, 70% confirmed the implementation of strategies in
classrooms. Evidence of strategies being implemented in classrooms was
obtained from portfolio assignments. Strategies were implemented in the
classrooms by using the LoLT, which was in accordance with the language
policy specified for the foundation phase (Department of Education, 2002).
Such results show a shift from what was the situation a decade ago,
when the majority of teachers in Gauteng were teaching in English (Setati, Adler, Reed, & Bapoo, 2003). Mother-tongue or home-language instruction is considered most effective for learning in the foundation phase (Motshekga, 2010).
However, some participants acknowledged that the portfolio
assignment was not a true reflection of their teaching as it was
submitted without implementing the strategies.
T: ‘There is no use to writing. You know writing, for the sake of a due date.’ (Line 130, focus group 2(b))
A: ‘So
some of you did the assignment without implementing it in the class. So
you feel the assignment is not a true reflection of what is going on in
the class? Oh, OK.’
T: ‘But
you … you don’t implement that what you have written on
the assignment, you just write it to submit it to the lecturer. It is
like studying for a degree.’ (Line 200, focus group 2)
Such revelations indicated negative feelings (n=35),
and because these individuals were from two specific schools, their
attitudes could be school-related. A negative school culture has been
identified as one of the reasons for dysfunctional schools (Metcalfe, 2008).
The participation in the CPD programme (e.g. implementation of
strategies in the classroom as part of a portfolio assignment) depended
on the participants’ motivation and attitudes, which emphasises
the importance of including motivational strategies in future
programmes.
Participants’ appreciation of the strategies
The information included in the CPD programme for literacy was viewed positively as 73% (n=20) of the items coded as such indicated that the participants appreciated the information and the strategies taught.
‘I have
learnt good ways of improving listening and be able to draw the
attention of learners to listen attentively.’ (Focus group 3(b))
‘Those strategies … we can now go on all day and forget about the time.’ (Line 50, diary entry 29)
The facilitation of listening requires
teachers to firstly make learners aware of sound and to provide them
with positive reinforcement for active attention to sound (Bellis, 2003).
Such facilitation of strategies may imply a shift from the didactic
approach where learners are instructed to listen, to a whole-body
listening approach that focuses on active attending in class (Bellis, 2002).
Critical reflection on practices/professional development
Currently reflective thinking in teacher support is emphasised as it facilitates quality teaching and professional development (Cunningham, 2005). The participants reported that the implementation of strategies in their classrooms made them ‘think and
reflect’
on their practices. As a result of the CPD programme several
participants reported a change in their teaching practices. Such
reflection on practices is in keeping with the reflective competence
required by the ‘Norms and Standards for Teachers’ (Department of Education, 2000). Reflection on their practices also put teachers in control of their own learning (Bowles, 2004), which is in accordance with adult learning practices and therefore could be related to behaviour changes.
‘… improve my teaching, help me to reflect back’ (Line 97, un-tabled open questions)
‘It makes you think.’ (Line 217, focus group 1)
‘The
workshop made a big difference to me because I could see that I was
doing many wrong teaching in my teaching.’ (Line 123, un-tabled
open questions)
However, the review of the portfolio
assignments revealed that the personal reflection and self-assessments
were often omitted. The fact that participants were required to
complete the reflections by themselves in written format in the
portfolios could have contributed to such omissions. It is also
possible that the participants (and district facilitators) had little
prior experience of reflective practices (Killen, 2007)
and did not know how to apply this technique. Because of the recent
introduction of these practices with the implementation of the OBE
approach (Killen, 2007), the majority of
the participants in this study may not have been trained in reflection
and self-assessment. Reflection is the basis for the successful
implementation of OBE (Schwahn & Spady, 1998).
The participants’ inability to reflect on their own practices
indicates that they had not yet mastered the basic skills required by
an OBE approach. Reflection (from a technical or moral perspective) is
an acquired skill that needs to be developed by practice and guidance (Killen, 2007), and therefore this practice needs to be addressed in future programmes.
Challenges in the support provided
Language of delivery in the CPD programme
A limitation of the workshop was that there were insufficient
examples of phonological awareness in the different languages. Despite
preparing several examples in Northern Sotho, the participants required
more impromptu examples in the workshops, and also in the other
official African languages. Some of the participants found it difficult
to transfer the knowledge learnt in the workshop (in English) to the
LoLT used in their classrooms.
Despite having the district facilitators
supporting the training, it proved challenging as the programme
facilitator was not proficient in an African language and the district
facilitators were not familiar with the concepts related to
phonological awareness as they had not been pre-trained, and were also
not proficient in other African languages. Direct translation of
English to the LoLT is often not possible as it does not provide the
required results (in many African languages a combination of words
would be required to fully translate the meaning of a single English
word). The multilingual South African context poses a challenge to
speech-language therapists (SLTs) supporting teachers in training
phonological awareness as currently less than 3% of SLTs have an
African language as L1 (Health Professions Council of South Africa, 2005).
A solution would be to have a teacher who is proficient in the LoLT and
who has a sound understanding of the underlying phonetic structure of
the language as co-presenter of such workshops.
Concept of rhyming in African languages
Rhyming, as it appears in English, is a repetition of the final vowel-consonant cluster (Johnson & Roseman, 2003), (e.g. ‘the cat sat on the mat’), and is the first level in the development of phonological awareness (Gillon, 2007). Several comments (n=43)
obtained from the data described the facilitation thereof as
‘difficult’, which implies that it is an unfamiliar concept
in African languages (Vermaak, 2006).
‘It was
difficult for me, the rhyming. Like, we don’t have so many rhymes
like they have in English. So it was difficult with the LoLT, to get
like rhymes, to find rhymes. Like we associate to do that. To get songs
and rhymes. That was difficult for me.’ (Line 205, focus group
1).
These preliminary data call for critical consideration of
facilitating rhyming as the first step in phonological awareness
training in certain African languages, e.g. Northern Sotho, SeTswana
and IsiZulu. If rhyming does not occur commonly in these African
languages, then there is no point in training it as the concept cannot
be explained to learners. Further research is needed to determine the
nature of rhyming in such languages. The question also arises whether
this aspect should be facilitated in English additional language (EAL)
classrooms.
Examples obtained from portfolio assignments
showed that the participants were more familiar with the concept of
alliteration, which is repetition of a word beginning or ending with
the same sound (e.g. ‘tloka, tlela’), with onset being the
initial phoneme (Johnson & Roseman, 2003).
The purpose of facilitating alliteration is similar to that of rhyming,
in that it familiarises the ear to repetitive patterns of sound (at the
beginning of words). Would it then not be more suitable to focus on
onset-rime in these African languages, as it is possible that the same
benefits can be derived as for rhyming? This matter should be further
researched.
Teachers’ unfamiliarity with new terminology
The use of new terminology was, however, not generalised during the training as became evident when 64% (n=14) of the items were coded as ‘inability to recall the information’.
P: ‘Yeah,
I think I benefited from it, because when I was trying this clapping
method … so that the learners were enjoying it. They clapped two
times, and then they clapped three times.’
A.M: Yes –
that was segmentation. Yes … you will learn the terminology for
these things soon … but I understand what you are saying. It was
one of the strategies we did.’ (Line 96, focus group 2).
The above example indicates an awareness of specific concepts, which
is the lowest level of acquiring new knowledge and thus regarded as
‘shallow learning’. Such participants did not necessarily
understand the information provided in the workshops, or know how to
apply it. In several instances confusion in terminology was noted in
the self-reflection in the portfolios, e.g. the term ‘auditory discrimination’ was used interchangeably with the term ‘rhyming’, as were ‘identification’ and ‘auditory memory’.
This lack of understanding of these concepts became apparent early in
the programme presented in the rural context. When the programme was
repeated in an urban context the term ‘auditory
discrimination’ was specifically emphasised and explained as:
‘... the difference between the sounds ...’ which appeared
to be more effective, as no such confusion was noted again. Sufficient
repetition and explanation of new vocabulary is required in workshops,
as discipline-specific terminology used by SLTs is unfamiliar to
teachers. In a collaborative approach to providing teacher support it
is necessary for SLTs and teachers to share their knowledge in order to
come to a new understanding of such vocabulary in relation to the RNCS.
Multidisciplinary collaboration should therefore be addressed in
teacher preparation.
Benefits of the programme
Participants learnt to address assessment standards
The results showed that the participants had previously omitted
assessment standards in the curriculum because they did not know how to
apply these. The participants believed that they had benefited from the
training because they had learnt to address assessment standards in the
RNCS which they were unable to do before.
‘You know you helped us a lot. We used to skip most of the things.’ (Line 284, focus group 1)
Strategies specified by the RNCS to facilitate literacy, such as
‘riddles’ (used to facilitate auditory memory) and
segmentation and blending activities, were particularly popular and
were singled out by some participants as being successful and useful.
‘Yes, in mother tongue I like the riddles, we also have the songs.’ (Line 214, focus group 1)
Certain elements of phonological awareness were reportedly easy to
teach in the LoLT, specifically the segmentation of words as syllables
and sounds, as well as the identification of the initial and final
sounds of words.
‘…
they specifically singled out “riddles” and
“segmentation and blending activities” as being very
effective and it seemed as if they have all implemented these
strategies.’ (Diary entry 14)
Many of the participants reported that they
had previously omitted phonological awareness training from their
curriculum because they did not understand the rationale thereof and
did not know how to address it (even though it is specified in the
RNCS). Adult learners learn more effectively when information is
relevant to their needs and can be applied to their contexts (Bowles, 2004).
The participants were therefore more receptive to learn the new
strategies, because as adult learners they were motivated to learn when
they could understand the relevance of the learning objectives and
activities for their own work (Bowles, 2004).
Phonological awareness (in particular
phonemic awareness) is facilitated in the context of literacy
activities (LO2, LO3 and LO4). Phonological awareness training in
English (Bernthal, Bankson, & Flipsen, 2009) follows a developmental sequence, of which rhyming is the first step in the English language (e.g. in nursery rhymes and songs, discrimination and production, e.g. ‘the cat sat on the mat’).
This is followed by onset-rime, when the initial consonant changes the
meaning and phonograms, e.g. ‘h-and’, ‘s-and’,
‘l-and’, ‘st-and’, etc. Alliteration is
repetition of a word beginning or ending with the same sound (e.g.
‘Bana ba sekholo’). The next step is segmentation (auditory
analyses), which is the ability to separate sentences as words;
compound words, syllables, and also phonemes (e.g. b-u-s). Segmentation
of sounds consists of isolating initial, final, medial sounds (e.g.
which sound is at the beginning/end or in the middle of
‘hat’?). It also comprises deletion of parts (e.g. say
dustbin, say again without the ‘dust’ part). The most
advanced levels are sound substitution (e.g. say ‘hat’, say
it again but change the ‘h’ to ‘m’ = mat), and
sound blending where sounds/components are connected in one meaningful
utterance (e.g. ae-ro-plane = aeroplane, or sun + flower = sunflower).
As mentioned previously, such skills require advanced knowledge of the
sound system of the language, and therefore should ideally be
facilitated by a teacher/facilitator who is proficient in the LoLT.
The facilitation of phonological awareness
skills in the foundation-phase curriculum is a preventative strategy
that enhances literacy development. It is of particular importance to
learners from low SES, as they are at risk of experiencing difficulties
in developing literacy skills (Nancollis, et al., 2005). Poor development of phonological awareness may lead to difficulty in reading and spelling (Rvachew, Chiang, & Evans, 2007).
Reading and spelling problems can be prevented if phonological
awareness is facilitated in the foundation phase, which justifies the
inclusion of such information in teacher support programmes.
Benefits for learners
Participants in both contexts were exposed to information regarding
phonological awareness and its role in facilitating literacy for the
first time, and were excited about the effect the strategies had on
their learners.
T1: ‘...
you know, we teachers have never done stories, songs and rhymes in
class. We thought all of that in the RNCS – it was for nothing. I
feel our children ... their minds were caged in. We have since opened
the screws, and the children came flying out like ... birds!’
(Line 45, diary entry 16, focus group 1).
The current study reported perceived gains
made by learners, but these findings were subjective. Research to
determine the impact of programmes on learners’ performance is
limited (Khoza, 2007).
Recommendations for teacher support programmes
Phonological awareness should be presented by facilitators who are
proficient in the LoLT as the concepts cannot be translated directly
as, for example, vocabulary. The support of teachers in the
facilitation of phonological awareness in workshops firstly requires
in-depth knowledge of the sound system of the LoLT in order to generate
language-specific examples. A clear understanding of the sound system
of a language will allow programme facilitators to determine whether
rhyming features in that language, and to plan an alternative means of
facilitating where necessary. District facilitators who are proficient
in African languages should be included in such workshops as
co-presenters to facilitate phonological awareness skills.
Alternatively teachers who are proficient in the various African
languages should be pre-trained as co-presenters of such skills.
From the results obtained in this study it is
proposed that research be conducted to determine whether alliteration
rather than rhyming should be facilitated in schools where the LoLT is
an indigenous language. Should research confirm this notion, it will
infer a slight adaptation of the assessment criteria in the RNCS. It is
important for SLTs working in education contexts to acknowledge the
uniqueness of the local language and culture (Sowden, 2007).
Such sensitivity contributes to a better understanding of the specific
dynamics embedded in the context, which may be attributed, at least in
part, to the fact that South Africa is a country characterised by
considerable linguistic and cultural diversity. Support programmes for
teachers therefore cannot be generic in nature, but should be designed
with consideration of the specific language and culture of the context.
Although such considerations may be time-consuming, they will be
worthwhile to improve the performance of learners.
SLTs have specific roles to play in education contexts. Firstly,
they have a preventive role, to provide preschool and foundation-phase
teachers with support in the acquisition of literacy skills. Secondly,
they have to play a consultative and collaborative role in both
district and school-based support teams to facilitate literacy and
numeracy by providing training, mentoring, monitoring and consultation.
It is recommended that district facilitators/teachers who are
proficient in the LoLT be included in the preparation of the workshop
material, and also be pre-trained by the SLT as co-presenters in such
workshops. Such measures build capacity and contribute to more
effective collaboration.
Finally, it is important that such
collaborative programmes be carefully documented as knowledge about
their impact on learners’ performances is limited (Khoza, 2007). The effect of CPD programmes for teachers on learners’ performance needs further investigation.
Conclusion
The finding that the strategies trained
through this specific CPD programme were mostly implemented in the LoLT
is in accordance with the language policy (Department of Education, 2002)
for foundation-phase teaching and learning. Such results show a shift
from the situation a decade ago, despite the guidelines provided by the
language policy at that time. The fact that the language policy is
currently adhered to implies that progress has been made in the
implementation of education policies, and that it is possible to change
how teachers implement policy. The Department of Education has been
effective in breaking down stereotyping and prejudices that existed
with regard to English being considered by teachers and parents as
superior to the local languages. In accordance with the language policy
it is currently accepted throughout all levels (ranging through
national, provincial, district and school levels) that mother-tongue or
home-language instruction is considered as most effective for learning
in the foundation phase (Motshekga, 2010).
It is disturbing to note that participants
previously omitted phonological awareness because they did not
understand this concept and did not have skills and strategies to teach
it. This could have impacted on their learners’ development of
literacy (Justice & Kaderavek, 2004).
The support provided to the teachers in this study was considered
effective as they felt that they could implement the strategies in
their classrooms. Such results also confirm that collaboration with
district officials is important to achieve success, but that
pre-training is required for optimal assistance in workshops.
Within a collaborative approach to teacher
support, it is essential to establish positive and constructive
relationships among SLTs, teachers and district facilitators, as this
contributes to the success of adult learning experiences (Galusha, 1998). It is therefore also essential that the education system supports SLTs in the execution of their tasks (Law, 2002: 2, in O’Toole & Kirkpatrick, 2007). With regard to the SLT’s role in supporting learners in the acquisition of literacy (Department of Education, 2001),
it is imperative that teachers and SLTs work as a team, because as a
team they can achieve so much more than when attempting anything on
their own.
Acknowledgements
. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Shuttleworth Foundation for supporting the fieldwork.
References
Adams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children: a classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.
Bellis, T. (2002). When the brain can’t hear: unravelling the mystery of auditory processing disorders. New York, NY: Atria.
Bellis, T. (2003). Assessment and management of central auditory processing disorders in the education setting: from science to practice (2nd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: Thomson.
Bernthal, J.E., Bankson, N.W., & Flipsen, P. (2009). Articulation and phonological disorders (6th ed.). Boston, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bowles, T. (2004). Adult approaches to learning and associated talents. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 4, 1-12.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, B. (2005). Mentoring teachers in post-compulsory education. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Department of Education (2000). Norms and standards for educators.
Department of Education (2001). White Paper 6: Special needs education
- building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria.
Retrieved on 16 September 2011 from
http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/white_papers/educ6.html11 fr
Department of Education (2002). Revised National Curriculum Statement for Schools: Grades R - 9.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, S.R., Schuster, B.V., & Yaghoub
Z.S.T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to
read: evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.
Galusha, J.M. (1998). Principles of training and of adult education: a comparison (No. ED416378). Hattiesburg, MS: University of Southern Mississippi.
Gillon, G.T. (2002). Phonological awareness intervention for children: from research laboratory to the clinic. ASHA Leader, 7(22), 4-5, 16-17.
Gillon, G.T. (2007). Phonological awareness: from research to practice. New York: Guilford Publishers.
Goldsworthy, C.L. (1998). Sourcebook of phonological awareness activities. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.
Health Professions Council of South Africa (2005). Exit level outcomes. Pretoria: HPCSA.
Herrmann, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. New York: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, K.L., & Roseman, B.A. (2003). The Source for phonological awareness. East Moline, IL: Lingui Systems.
Justice, L.M., & Kaderavek, J.N. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent
literacy intervention: background and description of approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 201-212.
Justice, L.M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words
from storybooks: an efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 17-32.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Khoza, G. (2007, December 2007). A model for improving schooling. Jet Bulletin, 1-12.
Killen, R. (2007). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education (2nd ed.). Cape Town: Juta.
Knowles, M.S., Holgotn, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Leech, N.L., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2005). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Paper presented at the The annual meeting of the American educational research association, Montreal, Canada.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2005). Practical research: planning and design (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2010). Practical research (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Lessing, A., & De Wit, M.W. (2008, 30 September - 1 October). Do teachers know what the essential literacy skills are? Paper presented at the Laying Solid Foundations for Learning conference, Makopane, Limpopo.
McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston: Pearson.
Metcalfe, M. (2008, 13 January). Why our schools don’t work ... and 10 tips how to fix them. Sunday Times, p. 10.
Motshekga, A. (2010, 6 July). Statement by the Minister of Basic
Education, Mrs Angie Motshekga, MP on the progress of the review of
National Curriculum Statement. Retrieved on 17 August 2011 from http://www.education.gov.za.
Muter, V., & Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological
skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a
multilingual population. Language Learning, 51(2), 187-219.
Nancollis, A., Lawrie, B.A., & Dodd, B. (2005). Phonological
awareness intervention and the acquisition of literacy skills in
children from deprived social backgrounds. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 325-335.
O’Toole, C., & Kirkpatrick, V. (2007). Building collaboration
between professionals in health and education through interdisciplinary
training. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23(3), 325-352.
Owens, R.E. (2004). Language disorders: a functional approach to assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Richards, G. (2004). Redefining auditory processing disorder: a speech-language pathologist’s perspective. ASHA Leader, 9(6), 7-21.
Rvachew, S., Chiang, P., & Evans, N. (2007). Characteristics of
speech errors produced by children with and without delayed
phonological awareness skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 60-71.
Ryan, G., & Bernard, R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Schwahn, C., & Spady, W.G. (1998). Why change doesn’t happen and how to make sure it does. Educational Leadership (April), 45-47.
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2003). Code-switching
and other language practices in mathematics, science and English
language classrooms in South Africa. In J. Adler & Y. Reed (Eds.), Challenges of teacher development: an investigation of take-up in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Sowden, P. (2007). Culture and the good teacher in the English language classroom. ELT Journal, 61 (4), 304-310.
Thomas Muir Scientific Software Development (2003 - 2004). ATLAS-ti:
The knowledge workbench V5.0. Berlin, Germany: Thomas Muir Scientific
Software Development.
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen, learning to teach: the power of dialogue in educating adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vermaak, C. (2006). Phonological
awareness skills of a group of grade 4 learners, in a multi-cultural,
multi-lingual education context with English as language of learning
and teaching Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Wium, A.M., Louw, B., & Eloff, I. (2010). Speech-language
therapists supporting foundation phase teachers with literacy and
numeracy in a rural and township context. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 57(1), 14-22.
Fig. 1. The
relationship between the three-levels of central auditory processing
(Bellis, 2003) with language processing (Richards, 2004) and Literacy
Outcomes (Department of Education, 2002).
Appendix A. Content of the workshops to facilitate emergent literacy
Facilitating listening skills
The participants in this study were provided
with sufficient information to understand the rationale for
facilitating listening skills, but also received strategies and
opportunities to develop hands-on skills which allowed them to
effectively facilitate listening skills. The participants were made to
understand that in order for them to create an optimal listening
environment in their classroom, may require of them to make some
acoustic and teacher-based environmental modifications (Bellis, 2003). The programme made participants aware of how to minimise interfering factors (Goldsworthy, 1998) and how to facilitate listening behaviour that facilitates auditory attention (e.g. whole-body listening strategies) (Bellis, 2003).
Furthermore, the workshops included strategies and activities to
facilitate auditory tasks, e.g. auditory discrimination, memory,
sequencing, figure-ground and perception of speech, which are required
for language development, but also for phonological processing skills.
Facilitating phonological processing
Several teachers in the current education
system feel unsure about the facilitation of phonological awareness and
have a need for support. Less than 5% of the teachers in Lessing and De
Wit’s (2008) study in Mpumalanga
and Limpopo provinces reported that they had confidence in teaching the
sub-skills for literacy acquisition. This may be attributed to the fact
that the role of phonological awareness in the development of literacy
only became fully known in the early 1990s and therefore was not
included in the professional training of teachers until much later. The
facilitation of emergent literacy skills have been included in this CPD
programme because of its relevance to literacy learning, but also to
address a need of teachers who had not been trained in this aspect
before.
The CPD programme addressed the skills
required to develop phonological awareness, e.g. rhyming, alliteration,
segmentation, sound blending, and sound manipulation (Gillon, 2002, 2007; Goldsworthy, 1998). Facilitation
of phonological awareness starts with rhyming songs and nursery rhymes,
and then proceeds to make the learners aware of words in a sentence
(e.g. I-sit-on-a-chair), followed by awareness of syllables (e.g.
but-ter-fly). Lastly, the focus is on the awareness of sounds
(phonemes) which ultimately results in blending and segmenting
individual phonemes (e.g. j-u-m-p; c-a-t, rhi-no-ce-ros) (Bernthal, et al., 2009).
In addition, skills such as auditory closure,
auditory association, and phonemic analysis linked to phoneme
identification, grapheme-phoneme identification, and grapheme-phoneme
correspondence were also included (Richards, 2004).
The workshop activities included demonstrations and practice of the
identification of initial sounds, end-sounds, the segmentation of
sentences into words, words into syllables, and individual sounds.
Blending of syllables and sounds, as well as sound manipulation was
also addressed.
Although the inclusion of songs and rhymes in the facilitation of
literacy is a good start towards the development of phonological
awareness, the traditional actions that accompany these activities are
intended to facilitate the meanings of words and not necessarily to
focus on the sound structure of the language. Participants were made
aware that it is necessary to import different strategies into their
classroom practices, e.g. waving hands when rhymes are heard, clapping
hands/stomping feet when alliteration patterns are recognised, clapping
the syllables in peers’ names, and slowly stretching of arms when
syllables are blended to form words.