Meaning for reading: An investigation of teachers’ understandings of reading instruction in low income schooling settings

• In Event: Teaching trials: showcasing successful teacher instruction through global perspectives

Proposal

In the global literacy research community there is intense interest in questions around how children learn to read and how they can best be taught to read. In low income countries huge sums are spent on a wide range of large scale programmes to improve literacy outcomes, often with very meagre effects on learning outcomes ((Glewwe & Muralidharan, 2015); UNESCO 2014).
While there are strident claims that there is now consensus around a balanced approach to teaching reading, many of these programmes take diametrically different approaches. There are programmes that take a systematic approach to reading instruction with an emphasis on phonics as a foundational skill on the one hand. On the other, there are programmes that promote a learner-centred, whole language approach that emphasizes the child’s discovery of meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment (Castle, 2018). Teachers in many countries have to contend with swings between these different approaches brought about by curriculum reform and donor-funded programmes over time. Teachers are trained, and then retrained in very divergent approaches and generally in a minimum of time. What is often ignored in the design of programmes and the training that ensues, is that teachers have well-developed existing conceptualizations of reading instruction stemming from their own experience and from a range of programmes and courses undertaken as part of their professional development. These existing understandings of what it means to read are not systematically considered in programme and policy design and training. They’re neither taken as a useful starting point to develop and shift practice, nor identified as real hinderances to literacy development in children.

This paper draws on a set of 54 interviews with early grade teachers, heads of department and deputy principals in 8 low income township and rural schools in 3 provinces in South Africa. Educators in these schools were asked a range of questions exploring their existing understandings (or working theories) of learning to read. Identifying a range of conceptions (and misconceptions), the paper offers a description of both instructional (content, method) and regulative (understanding of social context, norms, the model of the reader, etc.) aspects to teachers’ theories of reading, developing a schema of the forms of knowledge and attendant repertoire of practices related to reading amongst this sample. These understandings are then considered in the light of some of the current reading policies and programmes in South Africa.

A recent review of large-scale teacher professional development programmes shows that the characteristics of programmes associated with improved student outcomes included those linking participation to incentives such as promotion or salary implications, those with a specific subject focus, programmes incorporating lesson enactment in the training, and those that included an initial face-to-face training (Popova et al, 2018). The present paper suggests a new and hitherto neglected avenue for investigation in relation to teacher development: better understanding of teachers’ prior knowledge as potentially contributing to more targeted reading interventions that engage with teachers’ specific preconceptions prior to the expectation that new understandings be taken on. As Coburn (2001) and Spillane et al (2002) argue, how teachers come to understand and enact instructional policy is influenced by prior knowledge, the social context within which they work, and the nature of their connections to policy or reform messages. The meaning of information or events—in this case, messages about reading—is not given but is inherently problematic. These messages and their reception are key to understanding how teachers understand and teach reading and the possibilities for instructional change.


Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5-51.

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.

Glewwe, P., & Muralidharan, K. (2015). Improving school education outcomes in
developing countries: Evidence, knowledge gaps, and policy implications. University
of Oxford, Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE).

Hoadley, U. (2018). Pedagogy in Poverty: Lessons from 20 years of curriculum reform in South Africa. London: Routledge.

Popova, A., Evans, D. K., Breeding, M. E., & Arancibia, V. (2018). Teacher Professional Development around the World: The Gap between Evidence and Practice.

Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
UNESCO. (2014). EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4: Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.

Author

• Ursula Hoadley, University of Cape Town