Oral Language Teaching In English As First Additional .

2y ago
30 Views
2 Downloads
602.94 KB
10 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Isobel Thacker
Transcription

Reading & Writing - Journal of the Literacy Association of South AfricaISSN: (Online) 2308-1422, (Print) 2079-8245Page 1 of 10Original ResearchOral language teaching in English as First AdditionalLanguage at the Foundation Phase: A case studyof changing practiceAuthors:Faith K. Kimathi1Carol Bertram1Affiliations:1School of Education,University of KwaZulu-Natal,Pietermaritzburg Campus,Scottsville, South AfricaCorresponding author:Faith Kimathi,kimathif@ukzn.ac.zaDates:Received: 27 Mar. 2019Accepted: 09 June 2020Published: 27 Aug. 2020Background: Despite South Africa’s huge investment in professional development, there isnot a lot of research that shows that teachers change their teaching practices by attendingformal interventions. This article focuses on English as First Additional Language (EFAL) andexplores how one Grade 2 teacher changed her practice of oral language teaching whileenrolled for an Advanced Certificate in Teaching (ACT) programme. The programme wasoffered to Foundation Phase teachers to improve their teaching knowledge and ultimatelychange their teaching practices.Objectives: The article explores one teacher’s oral language teaching and use of teacherresources in a township school. The purpose is to understand how her instructional practiceschanged or did not change during the 18 months while she was enrolled with the ACTprogramme.Method: Data were collected over 18 months by observing six video-recorded literacy lessons,corroborated with interviews and field notes. These were analysed using principles of teachingEFAL espoused in the programme’s intended curriculum.How to cite this article:Kimathi, F.K. & Bertram, C.,2020, ‘Oral language teachingin English as First AdditionalLanguage at the FoundationPhase: A case study ofchanging practice’, Reading &Writing 11(1), a236. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v11i1.236Results: The two exemplars offered demonstrate a gradual shift in teaching of oral languageand use of resources by the end of the programme. The teacher code-switched appropriatelymost of the time and adequately used various strategies. She created opportunities to developlearners’ oral vocabulary; however, explicit sentence building was absent. Findings furtherrevealed that the teacher’s engagement with many collaborative professional developmentactivities, school support, together with her goal-achieving character, contributed toinstructional changes.Copyright: 2020. The Authors.Licensee: AOSIS. This workis licensed under theCreative CommonsAttribution License.Conclusion: This study highlights that there are a number of other factors, such as the schoolcontext, the teacher’s motivation and other informal learning opportunities that supportteacher learning from a formal professional development intervention. It also advocates formore robust studies on how a teacher’s practices change as a result of formal professionaldevelopment opportunities.Keywords: South Africa; English as first additional language; professional developmentprogramme; foundation phase; oral language; teaching change.IntroductionRead online:Scan this QRcode with yoursmart phone ormobile deviceto read online.In South Africa, professional development (PD) interventions are perceived as mechanismsthrough which teachers can acquire higher teaching credentials, improve their contentknowledge and competencies of the subject they teach and ultimately improve learners’performance (Department of Basic Education & Department of Higher Education and Training2011). Studies on PD interventions in the last two decades indicate that despite the efforts toupgrade teachers’ qualifications and provide developmental courses in various subjects, teachersseldom change their teaching practices (Adler & Reed 2000; Bertram 2011; Fleisch 2016; Meyer &Abel 2015). In the context of teaching language and literacy at the Foundation Phase1 (FP), thePD interventions have been criticised for generic designs and failure to prioritise contextual orteachers’ needs (Murris 2014). Most programmes seem to apply western models which have notbeen tested empirically in the global south contexts (Stoffelsma 2019). Studies on PD haverevealed that FP teachers’ attendance at language and literacy or mathematics interventionsseems to have superficial or no impact on their teaching practices among rural and townshipschools (Blease & Condy 2014; Brodie, Lelliott & Davis 2002). It is against this backdrop that this1.First phase of formal learning (Grade R to Grade 3) in the South African schooling system.http://www.rw.org.zaOpen Access

Page 2 of 10article offers insights about one FP teacher’s teaching of orallanguage during a formal PD intervention to understandhow the programme impacted on her teaching practice in atownship school.According to Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements(CAPS), teaching of language and literacy in home language(HL) and English as First Additional Language (EFAL) at theFP is associated with acquisition of listening, speaking,reading and writing skills (Department of Basic Education[DBE] 2011). The school curriculum document clearlyhighlights the benefits of the explicit teaching of languageskills to the early graders. Scholars argue that children whodo not acquire these skills by the end of Grade 3 are morelikely to struggle in their future academic endeavours (Fleisch2008; Murris & Thompson 2016; National EducationEvaluation and Development Unit [NEEDU] 2013).According to Murris (2014), CAPS is grounded on socialconstructivism principles but most FP teachers lack theknowledge base /or are not able to make sound pedagogicaldecisions to enact these principles. There is extensive researchabout the teaching and acquisition of EFAL reading, phonics,vocabulary and writing skills at the FP (Cilliers & Bloch 2018;Pretorius 2014; Sibanda & Baxen 2018; Spaull & Hoadley2017). However, we have limited literature on teaching orallanguage or the impact of PD interventions on oral languageinstructional practices. This case study addresses this gap.The South African DBE has successfully implemented arange of structured pedagogical interventions such as theGauteng Primary Literacy and Mathematics Strategy(GPLMS) in Gauteng, and Primary School ReadingImprovement Programme (PSRIP) and Early GradeReading Study (EGRS) in North West and Mpumalanga.The aim of these programmes is to fulfil the DBE’s visionand mission to improve the teachers’ content knowledge,increase the number of early graders who can fluently readand write in HL and EFAL, and improve the instructionalpractices and learners’ outcomes (De Clercq & Shalem 2015;Kotze, Fleish & Taylor 2018). Related classroom studies inNorth West and Gauteng reveal that most teachers dependedon traditional approaches such as rote learning or choralapproaches and keep within familiar discourses duringclassroom interactions before these interventions (NEEDU2014; Prinsloo et al. 2015). Teachers employ ‘authoritarianroles doing most of the talking’ a few individual readers oractive engagement with vocabulary or writing activities(Hoadley 2012:189). Similar projects in Western Cape,Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) resonate withthese findings (Spaull & Hoadley 2017). The commonconsensus in these studies is that PD interventions shouldenable teachers to improve their teaching of language andliteracy at the FP.Internationally administered literacy tests have constantlyshown poor results in the last two decades among South Africanlearners (Spaull & Hoadley 2017). The 2016 ProgressInternational Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) indicates thathttp://www.rw.org.zaOriginal Research78% of South African children barely comprehend what theyare reading (Howie et al. 2017). The findings echo a pre-PIRLSstudy which revealed that 58% of Grade 4 learners could notread fluently or decode texts in either their HL or secondlanguage (Spaull & Hoadley 2017). These results also concurwith South Africa’s own Annual National Assessment (ANA)results (DBE 2016) despite the fact that the government hasbeen spending larger amounts of its budget on education thanany other African country in the last 20 years.The DBE consistently attributes learners’ poor performancein international and local assessments to a number of factors,such as poor language and literacy knowledge among FPteachers, poor teaching methods, the poor social economicstatus (SES) in rural or township communities and othermultifaceted national challenges (DBE 2016). In particular,empirical evidence reveals that inadequately conceptualisedlanguage knowledge among FP teachers is the main cause oflearners’ poor outcomes in language and literacy (DBE 2016;Fleisch 2008; Pretorius 2014). In addition, what teachers learnand the impact of PD programmes on language and literacyinstructional practices is still a concern in the field of research(DBE 2016; Kotze et al. 2019).Historical arguments partially blame the poor learners’performance in language to the apartheid schooling systemwhich offered different curricula for different races. Thesehistorical systems shaped the post-apartheid bimodalperformances in which 30% of the privileged learnerscontinue to achieve within the expected grade while 70% oflearners perform poorly in rural areas. The first post-apartheidschool curriculum (an outcomes-based, learner-centredapproach) did not consider these contextual differences orprovide a clear sequence of how to teach English languageand literacy. So, many of the poorly trained FP teacherscontinue to struggle not only with their own Englishproficiency but also with implementation of the schoolcurriculum (Murris 2014; Slonimsky & Brodie 2006; Spaull &Hoadley 2017). Effective PD for teachers is perceived as oneway of improving literacy teaching in the Eastern Cape, KZN,Limpopo and North West – areas subjected to high levels ofpoverty and unemployment over decades (Fleisch 2008;NEEDU 2013). Research show that children’s literacydevelopment probably can reduce poverty by enhancingpositive and sustainable development, leading to better livingstandards (Nag, Snowling & Asfaha 2016; Rule & Land 2017).Against this background this article focuses on one teacher’soral language teaching in a township school in KZN. Thearticle explores the teacher’s teaching approaches,interactions and use of resources to develop her Grade 2learners’ oral language proficiency. The main intention wasto gather insights into how instructional practices shifted (ornot) during the period she was enrolled with the AdvancedCertificate in Teaching (ACT) programme. The researchquestion is: How did the teacher’s oral language teachingand use of resources change during the 18 months she wasenrolled with ACT programme?Open Access

Page 3 of 10The overarching concepts informing this qualitative studyare effective PD interventions, teacher professional growthand the communicative approach of EFAL teaching. Theprinciples of teaching EFAL stipulated in the language ACTprogramme’s intended curriculum were used to analyse datacollected in 2014–2015 for a PhD study (Kimathi 2017).As the study is a case study, we cannot claim any form ofgeneralisation of our findings. However, the insightscontribute to the scholarship of teaching EFAL in a similarcontext or among teachers with limited access to in-serviceprogrammes. The article also offers valuable insights to thedesigners of language and literacy PD activities in SouthAfrica and other similar contexts.This case was purposively selected and pseudonyms wereused to ensure confidentially of the school and the participant.Consent letters were sent to the participant in line withuniversity and DBE ethical considerations.Conceptual understanding of professionaldevelopment activities for teachersAccording to Day (1999) and Desimone (2009), PDinterventions refer to learning experiences and activitiesintended to improve teachers’ knowledge and classroompractices. Factors such as teachers’ biographies andpersonalities, social histories, peer groups, teachingpreferences, school context, quality of external activities, aswell as broader policies, determine the outcomes of PDactivities (Fraser et al. 2007). Dependent on the context,teachers’ gains from PD activities are diverse, and range fromemotional and social support to practical and cognitiveknowledge which are essential to improve teaching practice(Day 2004). Professional development programmes are oftenoffered as a particular formal initiative, underpinned bycollaborative approaches for teachers to acquire new ideas,review and extend ‘their commitment as change agents to themoral purposes of teaching’ (Day 1999:4). This manifests inthe idea that teachers learn as a result of attending specificevents such as in-service programmes within a given studytime (Opfer & Pedder 2011). Often short events likeworkshops are perceived as collaborative interventionsintended to improve teachers’ knowledge and classroompractices (Lundgren, Scheckle & Zinn 2015). However,research shows that these activities are ‘quick fixes’ to teacherknowledge deficiencies with no regard to the complexities ofhow teachers learn to teach or the contextual challenges(Brodie et al. 2002). We agree with scholars who argue thatformal PD programmes may or may not lead to a teacherlearning or instructional changes (Brodie et al. 2002; Lundgrenet al. 2015), and acknowledge that teacher learning canhappen as a result of a range of activities: informal learning,collaborative communities and structured programmes.Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) offer a teacher growthmodel that illustrates how teachers can shape ‘their ownprofessional growth and positive changes through reflectiveparticipation in professional programmes and in practice’http://www.rw.org.zaOriginal Research(p. 948). The authors affirm that interaction of differentvariables within teachers’ spheres determines the nature ofindividual professional growth and teaching changes. Theseconceptualisations concur with complexity theory’s view ofteacher learning as a dynamic process influenced by threesystems (individual teacher, school context and externalstimulus). These systems consist of subsystems which‘combine differently from one person to another at differenttimes’ (Opfer & Pedder 2011:374). This means that attendinga workshops or PD event is not enough to change teachingpractices.We ground our study within these complex conceptualunderstandings of PD and change in teachers.The stand of the curriculum on English as FirstAdditional Language teachingThe CAPS for EFAL at the FP encompasses four mainlearning areas (listening, speaking, reading and writing) withthe integration of thinking, reasoning and language structurein the four areas (DBE 2011). The aim of CAPS is to strengthenthe content knowledge of FP teachers and indicate how theteacher can put the theoretical knowledge into teachingpractice. Specific content and preferred pedagogic practicesare stipulated regarding what to teach over a year, dividedinto coverage per week or per term within the allocatedtimeframes (DBE 2011:18–23).The FP curriculum takes an additive bilingualism approachwhere EFAL proficiencies are meant to be built on the priorHL proficiencies. According to this approach, HL refers tothe ‘mother tongue language’ and assumes that learnerscome to school able to understand and speak their HL. Theadditional languages curricula assumes that learners do notnecessarily have knowledge of the language. Thus, learningof EFAL is done simultaneously with the HL, with theintention to increase the learners’ ability to understand,speak and write in their HL, then transferring the literacyabilities and building the new language (DBE 2011; NEEDU2013). Studies on teaching and learning of EFAL indicate thatlearners who fail to master the literacy competencies in theirHL struggle to learn EFAL (Sibanda & Baxen 2018). Incontrast, children growing up in high SES homes withadequate resources, develop a significant vocabulary,decoding skills and general knowledge at an early age intheir HL (Crawford-Brooke 2013).The CAPS recommends teaching oral language (listeningand speaking) as a foundation of developing early graders’emergent literacy in their additional language (DBE, 211:12).Oral language is the foundation of learning a languageusually acquired in a child’s HL and ‘consists of phonology,grammar (syntactic), morphology, vocabulary, semantics,discourse and pragmatics’ (Crawford-Brooke 2013:1). Theschool curriculum further states that the teaching, learningand assessment of EFAL are grounded in a communicativeapproach. According to this approach, language acquisitionis a slow holistic process mostly acquired informally. InOpen Access

Page 4 of 10Original Researchteaching, language is assumed to be a tool to understand aspecific message. This means that formal teaching ofgrammar structures is not enough for learners to develop,practise and perfect EFAL skills. Children need to hear thelanguage, make sense of what they hear from the teacher andinteract with the environment, prior to speaking theadditional language to absorb the grammar and vocabulary(DBE 2011:10).instructions, audio-media reading, observing familiar visuals,representing thoughts graphically, critical literacies, andother creative opportunities within enjoyable and relaxedenvironment (Crawford-Brooke 2013; Schaffler et al. 2019;Sibanda & Baxen 2018). If teachers develop this conceptualknowledge and effective strategies, learners can acquire andcomprehend 1000–2000 contextual words by the end of Grade2 (DBE 2011:22) and become confident English speakers.The CAPS does not offer a single approach to teachingadditional languages. It supports the integration of acommunicative approach with teaching of language structure(meaning and form) to improve the HL or EFAL on thelearners’ level of language development which concurs withlanguage studies (Crawford-Brooke 2013; Sibanda & Baxen2018).According to this outline, the content to support FP teachersin how to teach oral language and support learners’acquisition of EFAL skills confidently, is accessible in theschool curriculum but implementation of this policy is stillproblematic.In Grade 1, teachers should expose children to numerousenvironmental prints in English or display familiar visualslike traffic and shopping signs and adverts to developchildren’s spoken language. The teachers should label someobjects in both HL and EFAL to support incidental learning.Building ‘word walls’ and labels in the classroomcontinuously exposes children to simply sighting wordsthus building their vocabulary and grammar (DBE 2011:16).To improve learners’ confidence in oral and writtenvocabulary, FP teachers are encouraged to facilitate moreindependent reading using suitable graded readers. Thisconcurs with scholars who argue that a child with a goodknowledge of vocabulary and grammar develops the coderelated skills and advanced language skills needed forcomprehensive reading. However, there is no consensus onwhether reading development is influenced by vocabularyacquisition only or all components of oral language (Foormanet al. 2015; Schaffler, Nel & Booysen 2019).What about becoming a competent user of EFAL? Accordingto CAPS, learners must practise speaking what they learnand speak simple one-word or two-word utterances.Learners’ spoken language should be standard (memorisedsongs, action rhymes) and phrases like ‘Good morning, howare you?’, ‘I’m fine, how are you?’ (DBE 2011:10). Gradually,as children begin to understand EFAL, they will informallystart peer conversations. The teacher ought to createopportunities for all learners to develop their spokenlanguage. For instance, using a scaffolding technique(modelling and support) where learners can act out storiestold by the teacher, generate simple peer conversations andthen retell the stories. As they progress, the teacher givesthem more oral language tasks. For example, the teacher willintroduce oral recount (e.g. telling people abo

principles of teaching EFAL stipulated in the language ACT programme’s intended curriculum were used to analyse data collected in 2014–2015 for a PhD study (Kimathi 2017). As the study is a case study, we cannot claim any form of . generalisation of our findings. However, the insights co

Related Documents:

CARDURA ORAL TABLET: CAROSPIR ORAL SUSPENSION. cartia xt oral capsule extended release 24 hour: carvedilol oral tablet. carvedilol phosphate er oral capsule extended release 24 hour: chlorthalidone oral tablet. cholestyramine light oral packet: cholestyramine light oral powder. cholestyramine oral packet: cholestyramine oral powder. clonidine .

DIURIL ORAL SUSPENSION doxazosin mesylate oral tablet DUTOPROL ORAL TABLET EXTENDED RELEASE 24 HOUR DYRENIUM ORAL CAPSULE EDARBI ORAL TABLET EDARBYCLOR ORAL TABLET . cholestyramine oral powder clonidine hcl oral tablet clonidine transdermal patch weekly colesevelam hcl oral packet

Proficiency Test (IPT) Score Levels on Pre-IPT-Oral English, 4th Edition IPT I-Oral English, Form G IPT II-Oral English, Form E with . CORRELATIONS OF PRE-IPT ORAL ENGLISH, FOURTH EDITION SCORE LEVELS WITH BROWARD COUNTY LANGUAGE LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS AGE 3 PRE-IPT Score Levels Start testing all

The aim of this thesis is to apply the theoretical basis of communicative language teaching (CLT) to English pronunciation teaching within the context of Finnish school and curriculum for grades 7-9. Communicative language teaching is a prevailing teaching method used in English language teaching in Finland among many other Western countries.

Communicative Language Teaching- a case study with secondary high school learners of English Language" . 2.1 A brief history of English Language Teaching methods Language teaching or language education in its simplest form refers to the process of acquiring a new language. Language is the core of language teaching.

1. Speech is Movement 2. Defi nition of Oral-Motor Therapy 3. Purpose of Oral-Motor Therapy 4. Primary Goal of Oral-Motor Therapy 5. Therapies which Incorporate Oral-Motor Techniques 6. Goals of Six Therapy Areas 7. General Goals of the Oral-Motor Program 8. Oral-Motor Therapy for Speech Is Not Feeding Therapy 9. Relationship Between Speech .

Alaska Oral Health Plan — 2012-2016 Alaska Oral Health Plan — 2012-2016 5 Healthy People 2010 One component of the national plan for oral health is a set of measurable and achievable objectives on key indicators of oral disease burden, oral health promotion and oral disease prev

ORAL LIQUID 15-6.25-325 MG/15ML: P *Antitussive-Expectorant*** cheratussin ac oral syrup 100-10 mg/5ml. P: diabetic siltussin-dm oral liquid 100-10 mg/5ml. P: DIABETIC TUSSIN MAX ST ORAL LIQUID 10-200 MG/5ML. P: extra action cough oral syrup 100-10 mg/5ml. P: MUCINEX FAST-MAX DM MAX ORAL LIQUID 20-400 MG/20ML. P: mucus relief dm cough oral .