91

References Adams, M.J. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Allen, P. 1999. Mr McGee and the Biting Flee. Australia: Penguin Books.

Barton, D. 1994. Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bester, M., Evans, R. & Joubert, I. 2013. Literacy in the foundation phase. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Black, P.E. & Plowright, D. 2010. A multi-dimensional model of reflective learning for professional development. Reflective Practice, 11(2):245-258.

Bond, G. & Dykstra, R. 1967. The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2:5-142.

Bowman, B. 2002. Teaching young children well. Implications for 21st Century educational policies. Penn GSE perspectives on urban education. 1(1):1-7.

Brault, L.M.J. 2005. Handbook on transition in Early Childhood Special Education Programs. Sacramento, California: California Department of Education.

Brook, J. 2010. An elaboration of the transformative approach to practical theory: Its connections with Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics. Communication Theory, 20:405-426.

Brookfield, S.D. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Chall, J., Jacobs, V. & Baldwin, L. 1990. The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chambers, A. 1993. Tell me: Children, reading and talk. Stroud, UK: Thimble Press: 87-91.

Cohen, R. 2008. Developing essential literacy skills. Newark: IRA.

Cummins, J. 1981. Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada. A re-assessment. Applied Linguistics, 2:32-149.

Delors, J., Al Mufti I., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Gorham, W., Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., Padron Quero, M., Savane, M-A., Singh, K., Stavenhagen, R., Myong Won Suhr & Nanzhao, Z. 1996. Learning: the treasure within: Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO.

Department of Basic Education, Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), General Aims of the South African Curriculum, 2011, Pretoria.

Department of Basic Education, Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), Foundation Phase Home Language, Term 4, 2011, Pretoria.

Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. Boston: DC Heath and Company.

Dion, E., Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. 2004. The promise and limitations of reading instruction in the mainstream: The need for a multilevel approach. Exceptionality. 12(3):163-173.

92

Dockett, S. & Perry, B. 2003. Starting School: Perspectives of Australian children, parents and educators. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003. Available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003324.htm [Accessed: March 2015].

Dyson, A. H. 1998. Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture and classroom literacy. American Anthropological Association, 29 (4), 250.

Ehri, L. C. 1979. Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisition. In T.G. Waller & G.F. MacKinnon (Eds). Reading research: Advances in theory and practice. New York: Academic Press. 1:63-111.

Early Learning Resource Unit. Available: http://elru.co.za/

Farrell, T.S.C. 2004. Reflective Practice in Action. 80 Reflection breaks for busy teachers. California: Corwin Press Thousand Oaks.

Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.

Francis, D. 1997. Critical incident analysis: a strategy for developing reflective practice. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice. 3(2):169.

Gearon, M., Miller, J. & Kostogriz, A. 2009. The challenges of diversity in language education. In Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: new dilemmas for teachers. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, England, 3-17. Available: Deakin Research Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30032704 [Accessed: March 2015].

Graue, E. 2006. The answer is readiness-Now what is the question? Early Education and Development, 17(1):43-56. Available: http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/resources?author=Graue%2C+M.+Elizabeth [Accessed March 2015].

Gravett, S. 2012. Crossing the theory-practice divide: Learning to be(come) a teacher. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 2(2):1-14.

Griffin, M. L. 2003. Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 4(2):207-220

Hall, K. 2003. Listening to Stephen read: Multiple perspectives on literacy. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hatton, N. & Smith, D. 1995. Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1): 33-49.

Heugh, C. 2009. Contesting the monolingual practices of a bilingual to multilingual policy English Teaching: Practice and Critique. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2): 96-113.

Hoban, G. 2000. Using a reflective framework to study teaching-learning relationships. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 1(2): 165-182.

Husu, J., Toom, A. & Patyrikainen, S. 2008. Guided reflection as a means to demonstrate and develop student teachers’ reflective competencies. Reflective practice, 9(1):37-51, University of Helsinki, Finland.

93

Hutchins, P. 1971. Rosie’s Walk. New York: Aladdin.

Igoa, C. 1995. The inner world of the immigrant child. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johns, C. 2010.(Ed.) Guided Reflection. A narrative approach to advancing professional practice. Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Jones, H.R. & Hafner, C.A. 2012. Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. London: Routledge.

Joliffe, W., Waugh, D. & Carss, A. 2012. Teaching systematic synthetic phonics in primary schools. California: Sage.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Korthagen, F.A.J. 2001. Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. New York: Routledge.

Kuhl, P. 2010. Cracking the speech code: Language and the infant brain. Pinkel lecture, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. Available: http://www.ircs.upenn.edu/pinkel/lectures/kuhl/ [Accessed March, 2015].

Kuhl, P. 2014. The linguistic genius of babies. TED Talk. Available: https://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies [Accessed March 2015].

Letterland. Available at: www.letterland.com

Larrivee, B. 2000. Transforming teaching practice: becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3):293-307, California State University.

Lovitt, C. and Clarke, D. 2011. A designer speaks. Educational Designer, 1(4).

Mason, J. 2002. Researching your own practice: the discipline of noticing. Routledge Farmer.

Miller, J., Kostogriz, A. & Gearon, M. 2009. (Eds.) Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Classrooms: New Dilemmas for Teachers. New Perspectives in Language, Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Moll, I. 2001. SAIDE Learners and Learning: A Learning Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 18-20.

Moll, I. Bradbury, J., Winkler, G., Tshule, M., van Voore, M., Slonimsky, L & Gultig, J. (Eds.) 2001. Learners and learning: Learning guide. Southern Africa: Oxford University Press.

Moon, J.A. 2008. Critical thinking. An exploration of theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Muir, T. & Beswick, K. 2007. Stimulating reflection on practice: Using the supportive classroom reflection process. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 8: 74-93.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). 2009. Teaching and learning about literacy: Phonological Awareness is child’s play. In Young Children Journal, January . Available: http://www.niu.edu/ccc/resources/phonologicalawareness.pdf [Accessed: March 2015 ].

94

National Reading Panel (NRP).2000. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions. USA Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf [Accessed: April 2015]

NCTE Position Statement .2012. Defining 21st Century literacies. In Literacy Learning Exchange. Available: http://www.literacyinlearningexchange.org/defining-literacy [Accessed: March 2015].

Nemeth, K. 2012. Basics of supporting dual language learners: An introduction for educators of children from birth through age 8. New York: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Neuman, S.B. 2001. The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36:468-475.

Nolan, A. 2008. Encouraging the reflection process in undergraduate teachers using guided reflection. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(1):31-36.

Pearlstein, E. 2005.What is a theory. Available: http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html [Accessed: 2014].

Pellegrini, A.D., Galda, L., Dresden, J. & Cox, S. 1991. A longitudinal study of the predictive relations between the symbolic play, linguistic verbs, and early literacy. In Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (2):215-235. Available from JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40171188?sid=21105596814761&uid=4&uid=2 [Accessed: March 2015].

Pianta, R. & Kraft-Sayre, M. 2003. Successful kindergarten transitions: Your guide to connecting children, families & schools. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Presley, M., Allington, R.L., Mc Donald, R., Block, C.C. & Morrow, L.M. 2001. Learning to Read: Lessons from exemplary classrooms. London: The Guildford Press.

Principles for Learning. 2010. A foundation for transforming K-12 Education. ACTE, CoSN, NCSS, NCTE, NCTM, & NSTA. In Literacy in Learning Exchange. Available: http://www.literacyinlearningexchange.org/defining-literacy [Accessed March 2015].

Purcell-Gates, V., Jacobson, E. & Degener, S. 2004. Print literacy development: Uniting cognitive and social practice theories. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Read, C. 1971. Pre-school children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1-34.

Read, C. 1975. Children’s categorisation of speech sounds in English. Report No. 17. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers in English.

Reading Rockets website. Available: http://www.readingrockets.org/teaching/reading101/phonemic

Richgels, D. 2002. Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading and writing instruction. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds). Handbook of early literacy research: 142-159. New York: Guilford Press.

95

Roehrich, S.A. 2013. Kuhl Constructs: How babies form foundations for language. Conte Centre at Harvard. Available: http://eibalance.com/2013/05/03/kuhl-constructs-how-babies-form-foundations-for-language/ [Accessed: 2014].

Rogers, C. 1983. Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Roskos, K. & Christie, J. 2001. Examining the play-literacy interface: A critical review and

future directions. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(1): 59-89.

Sandall, S.R., Hemmeter, M.L., McLean, M. & Smith, B.J. 2005. DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention / early childhood special education. Longmont: Sopris Wes.

Scarborough, H.S., Dobrich, W., & Hager, M. 1991. Preschool literacy experience and later reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24 (8): 508-511.

Scarborough, H. 2002. Connecting early language and literacy to later (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory and practice. In S.B. Neuma & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research: 107-108.

Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N.E., Martella, R. C., Simonsen, F.L., Waldron-Soler, K.M. 2002. An analysis of the reading mastery program: Effective components and research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2): 87-119, Summer. Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ651888 [Accessed: March 2015].

Schiller, P. 2001. Creating readers: Over 1000 games, activities, tongue twisters, finger plays, songs and stories to get children excited about reading. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House: 22-44.

Schön D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Schön, D A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers : 22-40.

Shuell, T. 2013. Theories of Learning. Education.com. Available: http://www.education.com/reference/article/theories-of-learning/ [Accessed March 2015]

Smythe, S., Toohey, K. 2009. Bringing Home and Community to School: Institutional Constraints and Pedagogic Possibilities. In J. Miller, A. Kostogriz & M. Gearon (Eds.). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New dilemmas for teachers, new perspectives in language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, P. 1998. (Eds.). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C.E. 1991. The theoretical basis for relationships between language and literacy in development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6 (1): 5-10.

Sparks-Langer, M., Simmons, J.M., Pasch, M., Colton, A. & Starko, A. 1990. Reflective pedagogical thinking: how can we promote it and measure it? Journal of Teacher Education. 41(23):23-32.

Sulzby, E. &Teale, W. 1991. (Eds.). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal and P.D. Pearson. Handbook of Reading Research, 2:727-757. New York: Longman.

96

Thompson, S. & Thompson, N. 2008. The critical reflective practitioner. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Trehearne, M.P. 2011. Learning to write and loving it! London: SAGE

Valli, L. 1992. (Ed.) Reflective Teacher Education – cases and critiques. New York: State University of New York.

Van der Merwe, K. 2008. Learning through play: New revised edition. Cape Town: Early Learning Resource Unit.

Van Manen, M. 1995. On the Epistemology of Reflective Practice. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice. 1 (1): 33-50.

Vasquez, V., Egawa, K.A., Harste, C. & Thompson, R.D. 2004. (Eds.). Literacy as social practice: Primary Voices K – 6. National Council of Teachers.

Walsh, M. 2005. Reading visual and multimodal texts: How is reading different? In Proceedings of the multiliteracies and English teaching K-12 in the Age of Information and Communication Technology ALEA Conference. University of New England, Armidale: NSW; Available: http://www.swanseagfl.gov.uk/literacy/mmres/addread/ReadingMultimodalTexts.pdf [Accessed March 2015].

Western Cape Primary Science Programme. 2011. Teacher’s book: Language across the curriculum in the foundation phase. Cape Town. Available: http://www.psp.org [Accessed 2014].

Whitehurst, G.J. & Lonigan, C.J. 1998. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69(3):848-872. New York: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132208 [Accessed: March 2015].

Whitehurst, G.J. & Lonigan, C.J. 2002. Emergent Literacy: development from pre-readers to readers. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds). Handbook of early literacy research. New York: Guilford Press.

Wray, D., Bloom, W. & Hall, N. 1989. Literacy in action: The development of literacy in the primary years. London: Falmer Press.

Zeichner K.M. & Flessner R. 2009. Educating teachers for social justice. In K.M Zeichner. Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York: Routledge: 24-43.

Graphics: Emergent writing:

My dad took me to school: In Scharer, P.L. & Pinnell, G. S. 2008. Guiding K-3 Writers to Independence. New York: Scholastic. P 34 Fig. 3-2

My dinky cars are little: Trehearne, M. P. 2011. Learning to Write and Loving it! London: SAGE p 37 Fig. 1.15

97

Appendix 1: A guide to using the Literacy DVDs LITERACY DVD 1- GRADE R

CHAPTERS: 1. Listening and perceptual skills 2. Unlocking prior knowledge 3. Teaching a new sound 4. Consolidation Activities Chapter Student

Reflection Activity

Activity Description DVD time indication

3 7 Imaginative play 09:50 – 14:13 2 21 Children’s prior knowledge 00:25 – 04:09 2 22 Extending children’s knowledge 00:25 – 8:47 3 24 The use of resources in learning 06:27 – 08:30 3 25 Storytelling 00:28 – 02:54 2 26 Asking questions 00:27 – 04:08 2 27 The world of print 00:25 – 06:27 3 29 Teaching a new sound 00:28 – 02:54

03:32 – 04:48 04:48 – 06:24

3 31 Q1-4 Teaching a new sound: Review and reflection on lesson

00:24 – 2:54 04:48 – 6:24 12:40 – 14:06

4 31 Q5 00:27 – 03:37 03:40 – 13:20

LITERACY DVD 2- GRADE 1

CHAPTERS: 1. Listening Skills 2. Prior Knowledge 3. Teaching a new sound 4. Consolidating Activities CHAPTER Student

Reflection Activity

Activity Description DVD time indication

1 12 Using home language to support learning 05:51 – 06:40 4 13 Helping children learn through the LoLT 05:27 – 9:25 3 29 Teaching a new sound 00:36 – 9:47 4 32 Struggling to participate 02:38 – 09:25 4 33 Review consolidation activities 01:11- 09:25

98

Appendix 2: DVD 4 – Reflective practice In this DVD a group of CPUT student teachers and their lecturers collaboratively reflect on five Critical Incidents in teaching Grades R and 1 language classrooms. The following partial transcript guides you through the Reflective Practice DVD. It introduces each student, summarises each of the themes discussed with regard to her teaching and also provides the reflection questions. An introduction and five different Critical Incidents are available on the menu of the disc. Each Critical Incident is followed by one or more retrospective guided reflective discussions and questions for further discussion. You may want to add your own reflective discussion. Introduction of CPUT participants Chloé (B Ed 4 FP), Thobeka (B Ed 3 FP), Jodie ( B Ed 4 FP), Nici (FP lecturer), Shelley (FP lecturer), Elizabeth (B Ed 4 FP) Foundation Phase Students

Reflection 1 Reflection 2 Reflection 3 Reflection 4 Reflection 5

Elizabeth Gr R class - multilingual

Authentic contexts: the challenges of a multilingual classroom Question: How can I make provision for the different language needs in my classroom?

Growing a teacher identity: teachers make mistakes too… Questions: How does anxiety influence learning? What is more important: the needs of the learner/s or the requirements of the curriculum?

Qualitative indicators of teaching practices: Form focus and meaning making Questions: How can one use a story to enhance the teaching of phonics? What is the purpose of an introduction and a conclusion to a lesson? How could it affect the learning of your pupils if you leave one or both of these stages out?

Meta-reflection and considering alternative actions Questions: How can I use the question “What if..” to inform my learning as student teacher or practising teacher? Why is this an important way to start a question? What is meant by the distinction between reflection in/ on/ for action on one hand and reflection through action on the other?

Reflecting Collaboratively, using different lenses Questions: What have you learnt as a group of students by watching this Critical Incident, the reflections of the CPUT students and your own collaborative reflections?

You may want to watch this Critical Incident (Elizabeth in Grade R) again to reflect on teaching aspects other than the ones mentioned here.

99

Chloé Gr R: 18 English speaking learners

The case of the broken telephone reframed… Questions: What do YOU think caused the information gap? What learning does one achieve through an activity like this? What aspects should be considered when planning for this activity? Why? Elizabeth felt she had to simplify the story. Chloé felt she should have extended hers to build in more challenges. Yet both were Grade R classes. What strategies can be used to either simplify or extend our input to suit our learners’ needs?

Growing a teacher identity: Assumptions inform our actions… Questions: Think of an incident where your actions were informed by an assumption/s which proved to be wrong. What, do you think, informed your assumption? Listen carefully to your own assumptions and those of the others in your group. What do your assumptions say about your understanding of learning and teaching for life? Respond critically to the following statement: “It is important for a teacher in ECE to ensure that the tasks she sets her learners can be mastered easily by them”.

Authentic contexts: debating the trajectory from Grade R to Grade 1 Questions: There are many myths and assumptions around the role of Grade R and what is appropriate teaching at this level. What are these myths and assumptions and what is your view about them? (Think holistically).

You may want to watch this Critical Incident (Chloé in Gr R) again to reflect on teaching aspects other than the ones mentioned here.

100

Juliette Gr 1: Seven different home languages in this class

Qualitative indicators of teaching practices: but where does repetition fit in? Questions: Experience wires the brain and repetition strengthens the wiring. This understanding should be at the heart of all interactions with children (P Schiller, 2008) What do you think Pam Schiller means when she says experience wires the brain and repetition strengthens the wiring? How does Schiller’s statement relate to the incident you have just watched and the reflection that followed? What do you think Schiller means when she says experience wires the brain and repetition strengthens the wiring? How does Schiller’s statement relate to the incident you have just watched and the reflection that followed?

You may want to watch this Critical Incident (Juliette in Gr 1) again to reflect on teaching aspects other than the ones mentioned here. Jody Gr 1: 3 languages of the Western Cape are represented in this class: isiXhosa, Afrikaans and English

Authentic Contexts: Learners can also be teachers… Questions: Shelley and Chloe discussed Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximinal Development (ZPD). What can you add from the theory to this discussion in relation to the peer teaching incident you watched? The Coleman Report found that the extent to which individuals feel in control of their destiny, made more difference than all other school factors together (1966, 23). Reflect collaboratively on the implications for multilingual classrooms where teachers see the minority language group as “un-teachable”. How would you set about realising the aims of “learning to know, to do, to be and to live with others in your classroom?

Qualitative indicators of teaching practices: The puzzling case of reading backwards Questions: The phrase “we don’t know” often leads to assumptions. Think of the Pygmalion Effect. How can this phenomenon be related to teacher assumptions? The girl who reads backward is actually a very confident learner. What could the consequences be if the teacher assumes she has a major learning problem? How would you attempt to remediate the problem?

Reflecting upon our reflections Questions: Making the tacit explicit in order to learn from and through experience, is one of the aims of Reflective Practice. What other aims can you think of? How has watching this DVD contributed to your understanding of: The teaching of language? Using reflection as a tool to integrate theory and practice?

You may want to watch this Critical Incident (Jodi in Gr 1) again to reflect on teaching aspects other than the ones mentioned here.

101

Appendix 3: Transcript of Grade R lesson on DVD 1, Chapter 2, Unlocking prior knowledge

Transcript of Grade R lesson: Chapter 2, 00:25 – 08:47

[Teacher (T) in a private school] Teacher So today I have a story for you and it is about an octopus. [Teacher shows the class a picture of an octopus]

What can you tell me about this picture? What can you see in this picture?

Lee I can see an octopus, he is smiling and he has eyes T You see an octopus, that is smiling and he has eyes

If you are smiling, how do you feel? How do you think the octopus feels?

Learners Happy T Happy

Manoa, your hand is up. Yes?

Manoa He has eight tentacles T He has eight tentacles

Good! He does

Tyler And he has eight legs T And his tentacles. His legs are very long

Good! T Lee? Lee He is orange T He is orange, the colour of him. T Logan Logan And he looks like a spider T And he looks like a spider

Jordan, why do you think he reminds Logan of a spider? Jordan Because he can walk T Because he can walk

What does he walk with? Class His tentacles T The octopus moves with his tentacles.

What does a spider walk with? Manoa Legs. T With his legs.

How many legs does a spider have? Class Eight. T Eight.

And how many tentacles or legs does an octopus have? Class Eight. T Eight tentacles

102

Very good. Very, very good. Learners Teacher, she looks like an orange. T Why do you think he looks like an orange? Learner Because his body is orange. T Because his body is orange and he is round like an orange. Learner I have seen a giant octopus in my book. T You have seen a giant octopus in your book before.

And where does the octopus live? Class Sea T Luke? Luke Sea. T And he lives in the sea.

Jordan? Jordan In the sea. T In the sea.

Does he walk in the sea like we walk on the ground? Class No T What does he do? Class [Echoes] Swims ... Flies T He swims and sometimes he looks like he is . . . Class Floating. T Floating.

So let’s swim like an octopus. [Teacher and class demonstrates swimming movement] Let’s swim like an octopus with our eight legs. Good! That’s how an octopus moves

T And if something is coming, what does the octopus do? Brings his legs together and shoots backwards, away from the enemy that is coming. So let’s move like an octopus and then something is coming towards it…..and what happens? Shoo… and shoots backwards. And when the octopus shoots backwards, he often shoots something out towards his enemy. Does anybody know what it is?

Learner Web T Not a web

A spider has eight legs and a spider has a web. Learner Water. T He doesn’t shoot water. He shoots something into the water. T Tyler? Learner I know! Ink! T What colour is the ink that he shoots out? Learner Black. T Black! Why do you think the octopus would shoot black ink at his enemy?

Why would he want the water to be black? T Jordan? Jordan So the fish can die.

103

T Maybe it might kill them. Ok! Learner So the fish can’t see where he is going, maybe he will go to the octopus to eat

him. T If the enemy wants to eat the octopus, he shoots out black ink and then the

enemy can’t see the octopus. He will be able to get away.

Learner And if there comes sharks? T And if there are sharks coming and he makes the water black, then the sharks

won’t be able to see him. True!

104

Appendix 4: Challenges of teaching isiXhosa phonics in the Foundation Phase: Grade R-3 The following findings emerged from a number of informal interviews with in-service teachers in the Western Cape reflecting on the teaching and learning of phonics in isiXhosa: Poor training of learning and teaching isiXhosa phonics In-service teachers mentioned that methods of teaching isiXhosa phonics were not included in their pre-service training and pre-service teachers highlighted that they do not remember learning about other aspects of phonics in Foundation Phase i.e. categorization of sounds/phonics. Example: isiXhosa sounds are catagorised in this manner:

1 letter- q, m, n, b 2 letters- mb, nz,bh, dl, gq 3 letters- tsh, ntl

Another feature is that isiXhosa sounds blend with vowels e.g. qa, qe ,qi, qo, qu or tsha, tshe, tshi, tsho, tshu. Teachers may find it difficult to teach phonics in the way prescribed by CAPS. The basic principles refer to English and do not translate directly into isiXhosa. For example in isiXhosa the learners “see, hear, say and locate” the sounds in a word, e.g. if you say they must identify o in the word isongololo- they need to see the word and hear, say and locate the o. Lack of resources In-service and pre-service teachers mentioned that:

x they are not equipped with relevant skills to be innovative with their teaching aids x there are few textbooks available with information on isiXhosa phonics or how to

teach them x there are a limited number of rhymes in isiXhosa that can be used to teach phonics x teachers often find themselves trying to make literal translations from English.

Lack of school support In-service teachers highlighted:

x a need for competent teachers and researchers who know isiXhosa well x incorrect practice: teaching ‘f’ and using a picture of a fish (ifishi instead of intlanzi).

There is direct translation in this example and this can confuse learners, because in intlanzi there are 2 consonants (ntl) and (nz) - ufudo would be the right animal to be used not intlanzi if you are teaching “f”

x a lack of collaboration between FP teachers and other stakeholders - ongoing interaction with education facilitators is needed.

105

Lack of parental support x parents have a negative attitude towards helping their children in isiXhosa activities.

They want their children to know English as an international language. Many parents are not informed about the implications of becoming literate in a language which is not the home language of the child.

Recommendations

x Good collaboration between language methodology and language(academic) lecturers, for example at CPUT, isiXhosa students acquire the methodology to teach phonics in the subject “Language-in-Education” (methodology of teaching a first and first additional language, focusing on English), as well as the subject “isiXhosa First Language” where the methodology of teaching isiXhosa is incorporated onto the subject knowledge and skills.

x Ongoing interaction with and support from the Department of Education is needed. x Pre-service teachers should be taught how to use a variety of resources to enhance

the teaching and learning. x More focus is needed on creative writing in isiXhosa, allowing learners to be creative

with their written work e.g. teach them to make big books, create rhymes or stories in their languages.

x Parents need to be informed about the need for quality mother tongue support and the advantages and disadvantages of becoming literate in a language other than the first/ home language of the learner.