4.6. Teachers’ Pedagogic Content Knowledge (PCK) regarding EFAL
4.6.1. Teachers’ response to reading errors
The following question was asked in the test in order to see how teachers responded to reading errors. In both the sentences, the child has made an error. The purpose was to establish whether teachers would think that an error of meaning is more problematic than an error where the meaning remains the same, but the incorrect word is used.
Two grade 3 learners are reading aloud a text that contains this sentence:
The woman screamed and drove away as fast as she could.
Chid A reads: “The woman streamed and drove away as fast as she could”.
Child B reads: “The woman screamed and rode away as fast as she could”.
Which error (Child A or B) would you be more worried about and why?
Table 9: Identifying and correcting errors N=86
Errors identified and how to correct them %
No answer/ incomprehensible answer. 14.0%
Has answered the question but incorrect content knowledge/
misunderstood the question / gives another response of relevance
3.6%
Child A because the meaning changed and the child didn’t see it 17.4 %
Child A but no reason given 2.3 %
Child B but reason given is incorrect 8.1%
Child B because the teacher has not seen the error in child A 36.0 %
Total 100%
Child A has changed the word ‘screamed’ to ‘streamed’ and thus the meaning of the sentence changes or rather it no longer makes sense. Ideally the teacher needs to recognise that this is a more problematic error than Child B, where, although the child has read ‘rode’ instead of
‘drove’, the meaning of the sentence is the same. From Table 5, it shows that only 17.4% of the sample understood this. Some respondents gave an incomprehensible answer and others
66
could not answer the question, at 14%. A large number of responses (36%) identified an error in Child B.
An efficient reader draws on three sources in order to make meaning: Graphophonic information, semantic information and syntactic information. Without the necessary information from the three sources it would be very difficult for EFAL learners to understand what they read (Hugo & Lenyai, 2013). It is evident from data presented that some teachers could not give comprehensible responses, which indicates that they lack these three sources.
If an experienced teacher is aware of a problem such as the above example, he/she should understand and be able to remedy it by drawing on his/her knowledge of the reading process.
This example implies that teachers still lack strategies to address problems learners’
experience.
This illustration shows, also, that the respondents who cannot see an error in child “A” lack miscue analysis, a process which can be used to analyse some errors in a text (Joubert et al., 2008). Furthermore, Joubert et al (2008 p. 114) assert that for written text to be understood and be interpreted meaningfully, “syntactical and contextual clues” are considered.
Syntactical clues refer to arranging of words in grammatical order and contextual clues refer to giving meaning to the sentence. The contextual clue in the example of Child A is a concern, as meaning is lost. In the words screamed/streamed there is no relationship, as they give a different meaning.
The above question with the words screamed/streamed was further probed in interviews, as it was a question which was not understood by many participants in the test. All five teachers mentioned that both children made an error., However, four teachers were able to mention that child A was the one to be more worried about which was identified by 36% in the test.
The four participants could understand that the meaning in Child B is the same except that different words with similar meaning were used, which could not be identified by many respondents in tests. However, one teacher could not observe the same meaning of the words used in sentence B. This question confused the participants in tests and was understood better during interviews as the different responses mentioned above show.
If teachers cannot identify errors in a sentence it implies that teachers are still challenged in teaching English and might face specific challenges when teaching word and sentence
67
recognition and correcting errors made by learners. Joubert et al (2008) state that readers should apply reading skills if they are not sure of the text by interacting with insight, understanding and meaning with the written text. These skills were not used by some participants, especially those who could not identify the error in child A.
It is imperative that teachers be able to identify errors and give reasons for such errors. If they know where the problems are, teachers are be able to come up with appropriate strategies to help learners if they struggle with any language skills.
In CAPS, the aim is to produce learners who can communicate effectively using symbolic, visual and various other modes of language skills. This means that teachers should be experts in both HL and FAL.
Reading is one of the main skills contributing to the development of language.
The two contrasting perspectives in teaching reading are the psycholinguistic and behaviourist approaches. Psycholinguistics believe that meaning is the most important feature which forms foundation in reading. In this approach the process of reading is not in fragments, but as a whole process. It considers a top-down approach (Joubert et al., 2008). Of the participants, 17.4% understood how language functions and could identify child A as incorrect. These participants made meaning of the written text and appear to understand that meaning is the key in reading.
Joubert et al. (2008) assert that behaviourists, on the other hand, view reading as a technical and mechanical process. In this approach, reading starts from letters to single words, sentences and paragraphs. The respondents who saw child B as incorrect appear to understand reading as a technical process, where meaning is not that important. This process is referred to as the bottom-up approach.
To conclude, about 75% of teachers’ PCK, from the data presented and analysed indicated that some participants are not well developed in robust ways to teach language; hence they could not identify problems which contribute to lack of reading. Therefore, teachers would battle to help learners if they are unaware of the problems they face when reading. A few teachers came with appropriate responses to the question asked about giving feedback, and they would be able to give feedback and assist their learners to develop better language acquisition skills.
68