school achievement, there still remains inadequate research on the literacy knowledge base for teachers at the foundation level, as well as the impact of this on the teachers’ classroom practices in Africa (Banda, 2013; Serbessa, 2006). What the teachers should know in order to enable effective teaching of English literacy in primary schools in most multilingual-speaking African countries, even after decades of democracy, remains unclear or contested. This lack of attention can be attributed partly to social political influences, lack of research funding and the complexity of teacher learning (Vavrus, 2009). It is overwhelming and difficult to determine what teachers need to know, under what circumstances and how they need to know it. On this vein, there is little empirical data on the literacy knowledge base for effective instruction in South African literature.
The area of literacy knowledge base for FP teachers has generated new thinking among scholars in South Africa. Searching the South African Journal of Childhood Education (SAJCE) revealed that there are limited studies on teacher learning on how to teach EFAL and the impacts to classroom practices. Most of the current studies are about teacher knowledge in the mathematics area and the perception of teachers on the current school curriculum (Deacon, 2016; C. Nel & Adams, 2014; Taylor et al., 2013). Investigation into what teachers need to know to teach EFAL and how much of this knowledge they already possess, especially in the historically ill- resourced schools, is critical (Deacon, 2016; Mashiya, 2011; Schaffler, 2015).
68
After the department of education organised the first national conference on literacy teaching and learning at the FP in 2008, a number of studies focusing on learners’ reading competencies and teachers’ proficiency in LOLT at the FP are highlighted by Verbeek in 2010 her PhD study.
Lenyai’s (2011) study explored the teaching of EFAL at the FP in the in KZN province rural schools, South Africa. According to this study, learners would not be able to speak English fluently, since they did not comprehend the English texts. The investigation also revealed that techniques used to teach EFAL did not achieve the stated aims or encourage learners to communicate in English. The findings relates to A. J. Hugo and Lenyai (2013) who argue that, learners who are not fluent speakers often cannot read and write competently and also may not be able to decode English texts. However these studies did not explore the teachers’ knowledge base or the professional learning of the rural school FP teachers.
Other small scale studies on FP teachers mainly focus on literacy teaching and learning in HL or FAL (Mbatha, 2012, 2014). So far, there appear to be very little existing literature which directly addresses FP teachers’ knowledge of teaching EFAL at the FP or professional teacher learning and how it relates to classroom practices and their beliefs. Large scale projects and proposals mainly funded by department of education and other organisations on Foundation Phase literacy teaching and learning are gradually emerging, but empirical studies on teacher learning about EFAL and its impacts in practice is still scanty.
A study on reading skills of monolingual English and bilingual Sesotho-English third grade learners in Free State evaluated the learning of phonological and reading skills (Phindane, 2014), but did not investigate the knowledge base of the teachers. Similarly, Naidoo, Reddy, and Dorasamy (2014) investigated the reading literacy in primary schools in South Africa, but not the teacher learning or knowledge about reading and writing. A small project exploring the kind of knowledge domains acquired by FP teachers from the ACT programme during the 2012-2015 academic years, have one case study which engaged on the complexities of describing teachers’ knowledge and addresses the issues of written tests as a methodology issue (Bertram , Christiansen , & Mukeredzi 2015). This study relates to teacher learning at the FP but the findings are limited by methodological challenges.
69
Literature on literacy campaigns and conceptual articles have been published to understand the government interventions to improve the teaching and learning of HL and English literacy at the FP. According to a report by Taylor (2016), most of the schools where children are taught in African languages as LoLT at FP, learning at Grade 4 is challenging because English becomes the LoLT. This means such learners did not developed good reading skills at their FP to form a sound basis for developing reading skills in English (Pretorius, 2014). According to a research report for the Programme to support Pro-poor Policy development (PSPPD), learning to read for meaning and pleasure at the FP is just at the policy level and in practice literacy teaching and mainly reading continue to be very little in South African schools at the FP. This relates to the instructions predominantly realised in observing Grade 2 reading lessons in 133 rural primary schools in 2012 by the NEEDU team, which consisted of much chanting in chorus when reading a ‘Big Book’ and very little independent reading. Few children were asked to decode or to explain the meaning of words, phrases and sentences (Taylor et al., 2013).
According to the same national report, teaching writing in such contexts is less than 25% of curriculum specifications.
A number of national and provincial education departments have launched different reading initiatives, strategies, interventions and policy documents in the last decade, all focussing (to various degrees) in response to reading challenges in the Foundation Phase. Some of these interventions includes: literacy campaigns such as Readathon; National Reading Strategy (NRS); Foundations for Learning (FFL); Quality Learning and Teaching Campaign (QLTC).
These Campaigns identifies many challenges that affect teachers as they teach reading but unfortunately there have been virtually no success stories, in terms of improved reading outcomes at the FP.
Current research on these campaigns suggests the activities of teaching learners how to read and gives guidance on how to use balanced approaches. They also stress to the teachers the areas of reading in relation to NRP 2005 which include: phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, vocabulary and fluency. It is well documented that many EFAL teachers in South African schools have limited English proficiency and have not been adequately trained in EFAL teaching methodologies (Green et al., 2011). According to Mashiya (2011) and Fleisch, (2008), many teachers lack both the knowledge to facilitate emergent literacy skills (in isiZulu and English) and adequate formal qualifications for FP teachers in the South African
70
context. The lack of the conceptual knowledge of language required for literacy acquisition among many teachers are the causes of ineffective teaching techniques, such as rote learning or learners chanting (Department of Basic Education and Department of Higher Education and Training, 2011). Until these teachers are better equipped with content knowledge, teaching literacy whether in HL or English even through other interventions will remain at peripheral levels and learners will not master the languages as expected (Spaull, 2015).
For more comprehensive discussion on the current South Africa literacy education see detailed works and reports by Pretorius (2014), Taylor (2016), Taylor et al. (2013), Van der Van der Berg, Spaull, Wills, Gustafsson, and Kotzé (2016), etcetera.