Many South African children attend African language medium of instruction (MOI) schools, learn English as an additional language and switch to English MOI three years later. There is still much to be researched about how a child’s first and second language literacy develops over time in South Africa.
This study aims to outline the first and second language skills at the start of Grade 1, which are associated with English Second Language literacy at the end of Grade 1 through the use of a longitudinal design.
Data was collected from 80 predominantly rural no-fee isiZulu and Siswati MOI schools in Mpumalanga.
A total of 1347 learners were randomly selected from these schools and were individually assessed on various first language (isiZulu or Siswati) and English skills at the start and end of Grade 1.
The data show that learners begin school with varying first and second language oral language proficiency levels, and most learners are pre-literate. Decoding skills improved over the year, but 45.7% and 35% of learners were still unable to read a first language or English word correctly in 1 min.
The data confirm the importance of first language phonological awareness and letter–sound knowledge for later word-reading abilities in isiZulu, Siswati and English, as well as their importance for English spelling. The study highlights the importance of the systematic development of English oral proficiency during the Foundation Phase especially for rural children who are not exposed to English in their communities.
Early literacy has taken centre stage as one of the most important aspects in ensuring sustained learning throughout an individual’s schooling career. Through the acquisition and transfer of knowledge via reading and writing, literacy allows individuals to unlock their full potential and become better contributors to modern society. Literacy, therefore, does not only hold major benefits for the individual but also has spill-over effects on the broader society, and at a national level is associated with economic growth.
Literacy rates with respect to all languages are very low in South Africa, with 78% of Grade 4 learners not having reached the low international benchmark in their first language (L1) in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS) assessment in 2016 (Howie et al.
The literacy issue is complicated in South Africa. Although the Language in Education Policy (South Africa
With regard to bilingual literacy, international literature has focused on what reading and language skills in the L1 are transferred to the second language (L2) or facilitate language and literacy acquisition in the L2 (Koda
This paper, therefore, addresses the lack of knowledge regarding which L1 skills predict ESL language and literacy abilities in Grade 1 in South Africa through secondary analysis of the data from a large-scale study in 180 no-fee-paying schools. Using the data collected through the evaluation of the Second Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS II), this paper focuses on the language and literacy abilities of learners in L1 and ESL at the start of schooling, and how these L1 and ESL competencies influence their first year of language and literacy development in formal schooling. The paper addresses two research questions:
What are learners’ L1 and ESL language and literacy abilities at the start and end of Grade 1?
Which skills in L1 and ESL measured at the start of Grade 1 are predictors of ESL decoding and oral proficiency at the end of Grade 1?
There are many definitions of literacy, but here the cognitive definition is taken: being literate is the ability to construct meaning from a text (Grabe
These reading skills are interrelated. Phonological awareness, specifically phoneme awareness, contributes to the development of letter–sound correspondence knowledge, which in turn improves phonological awareness (Adams
Word recognition, reading fluency and oral language proficiency in L2 are also needed to enable comprehension in L2 reading (Grabe
Reading in an additional language may be facilitated by L1 skills. According to the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, some aspects of the languages of a bilingual reader share common proficiencies which can be transferred from L1 to L2, given sufficient automaticity of these proficiencies in L1 (Cummins
Studies which examine the transfer of various L1s to ESL have found that both oral language proficiency skills (such as vocabulary) and decoding skills (such as phonological awareness and word recognition) transfer from L1 to ESL. Results from the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth in the United States of America (August & Shanahan
In summary, oral language and decoding skills from L1 can transfer to oral language and decoding skills in L2, although decoding skills are most amendable to transfer. While similar skills (such as inferencing, knowledge of genre conventions and comprehension monitoring) are used for reading comprehension in ESL and L1, ESL readers do not always have an adequate English vocabulary to aid their reading comprehension in English (Hedgcock & Ferris
Data from South Africa show that children do not develop adequate lower-level reading skills in their L1, calling into question whether ESL decoding can benefit from L1 reading knowledge. Results from the Early Grade Reading Study, a Randomised Control Trial (RCT) in no-fee Setswana medium of instruction schools, provide some evidence for low L1 reading skills. Learners in the control schools of this study could correctly identify 5.4 letters and read 7.9 words on average in 1 min in Setswana at the end of Grade 1 (Taylor et al.
Research reports poor performance in ESL reading as well. Draper and Spaull (
With regard to oral language proficiency, small-scale research has shown that English vocabulary levels of ESL children in South Africa are low. Wilsenach (
Regardless of low levels of both L1 and ESL literacy in sub-Saharan Africa, evidence of transfer from L1 to ESL has been found. Shin et al. (
In contrast, at least one study has found that L1 reading skills do not transfer to ESL reading. Piper et al. (
To conclude this section, data from five sub-Saharan countries show that children underperform in both L1 and ESL reading. Even so, there appears to be evidence of successful transfer from L1 to ESL reading abilities. There are, nevertheless, gaps in knowledge about L1 and ESL reading in South Africa in the following areas. Firstly, with regard to L1 reading, there is little known about isiZulu and Siswati reading abilities in a large sample of readers, especially in Grade 1. There are also no available quantitative studies on reading abilities in Siswati. Secondly, the majority of studies that examine reading in South Africa do not include both L1 and ESL measures of reading. Most research has also measured only reading abilities or oral language proficiency, whereas we attempt to measure both aspects. Lastly, the research on transfer from L1 to ESL reading has been limited to smaller sample sizes and cross-sectional studies. We use the data from the EGRS II to address these knowledge gaps.
The South African Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) for English First Additional Language (EFAL) follows on from the research that highlights the key roles of decoding and oral language competence in ESL literacy. The CAPS covers four main learning areas (listening, speaking, reading and writing) with the integration of thinking, reasoning and language structure in the four areas (DBE
The EFAL curriculum prioritises the development of English oral proficiency in the first grade with only incidental reading exposure, which gradually transitions to more explicit reading and writing instruction in Grades 2 and 3 (DBE
The EFAL curriculum, therefore, relies on the following assumptions:
English oral proficiency is necessary for later English literacy acquisition.
There is a strong L1 literacy foundation from which English literacy proficiencies can be developed.
A total of 2–3 hours per week of English instruction for 3 years is sufficient for learners to develop the necessary vocabulary (conceptual and academic) in order to transition to English medium instruction in year 4.
Teachers are able to use English as the main language of instruction in EFAL lessons to increase learners’ exposure to English.
A comparative curriculum analysis by Umalusi considered the Foundation Phase EFAL curriculum relative to the previous curriculum, the Revised National Curriculum Statement. The main recommendations from this review pertained to strengthening the teaching of the subject, rather than the content of the curriculum (Umalusi
This study uses data from the first year of the EGRS II. The study is designed as an RCT, which aims to measure and compare the effects of two teacher-support interventions to the situation among a comparison group of learners who receive regular teaching. The interventions include structured lesson plans, reading coaches and additional material and focus on strengthening teachers’ instructional practices for EFAL. The study began in 2017 in 180 no-fee primary schools in the Mpumalanga province of South Africa and will continue until 2019.
The focus of this paper is to provide evidence on the literacy and language skills of South African children in rural areas at the start of Grade 1, and how these skills predict reading in English at the end of the year. Given that we are interested in the general patterns of transfer from learners’ L1 at the start of the year to ESL at the end of the year, and that instructional contexts do affect literacy transfer patterns (Kim & Piper
Participant and school characteristics are presented in
Sample characteristics.
Variables | Mean | SE | |
---|---|---|---|
Learner = Boy | 1347 | 0.53 | 0.02 |
Learner age at end of Grade 1 | 1347 | 6.65 | 0.02 |
Learner language = Siswati | 1347 | 0.70 | 0.01 |
Parent education = Did not complete secondary | 1329 | 0.60 | 0.01 |
Parent education = Only completed secondary | 1329 | 0.26 | 0.01 |
English at home = Never | 1347 | 0.28 | 0.01 |
English at home = Sometimes | 1240 | 0.75 | 0.01 |
Speak English to others = Never | 1347 | 0.40 | 0.01 |
Teacher age | 137 | 49.82 | 0.73 |
Older than 55 | 137 | 0.23 | 0.04 |
Teacher language = isiZulu | 137 | 0.29 | 0.04 |
Teacher language = Siswati | 137 | 0.67 | 0.04 |
Multi-grade classroom | 137 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
Class size | 137 | 42.80 | 0.91 |
Teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree | 137 | 0.55 | 0.05 |
Principal age | 80 | 52.55 | 0.57 |
Older than 55 | 80 | 0.38 | 0.05 |
Quintile 1 school | 80 | 0.54 | 0.06 |
Quintile 2 school | 80 | 0.31 | 0.05 |
Quintile 3 school | 80 | 0.15 | 0.04 |
Ehlanzeni | 80 | 0.55 | 0.06 |
Gert Sibande | 80 | 0.45 | 0.06 |
LoLT = isiZulu | 80 | 0.27 | 0.05 |
LoLT = Siswati | 80 | 0.73 | 0.05 |
SE, standard error; LoLT, language of learning and teaching.
The baseline and midline learner assessment instruments used for this study were based on the EGRA (Dubeck & Gove
Subtasks contained in the instruments at each time point.
Construct | Baseline – Start of Gr 1 | Midline – End of Gr 1 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
L1 | English | L1 | English | |
Receptive vocabulary | - | x | - | x |
Expressive vocabulary | x | x | x | x |
Listening comprehension | x | - | - | x |
Phonological working memory | x | - | - | - |
Phoneme identification | x | - | - | x |
Letter–sound recognition | x | - | - | x |
Word-reading fluency | x | - | x | x |
Spelling of a CVC word | - | - | - | x |
CVC, Consonant – vowel – consonant; L1, first language; Gr, grade.
Short vocabulary tasks which assessed farm animal knowledge were developed for the baseline and midline assessment. At baseline, all learners were administered a project-designed expressive vocabulary task in their L1 (either isiZulu or Siswati) and English. For both tasks, instructions and examples were given in the learners’ L1. To assess L1 expressive vocabulary (12 items), learners were shown a picture of farm animals and asked, ‘what is that?’ while the enumerator pointed at the relevant animal. The same picture was used to elicit English vocabulary with the fieldworker, asking, ‘what do we call this animal in English?’ (three items). The animals named in the L1 and English tasks were different. Learners’ receptive knowledge of English animal names was tested by asking the following question: ‘show me the [animal name]’ which required learners to point at the correct animal, after first being shown an example (three items). At midline, the same animal task was used to assess learners’ English receptive vocabulary of farm animals (two items). An L1 expressive vocabulary task (five items) at midline was administered in which learners were shown pictures of children completing actions and had to identify the actions.
The limitations of assessing vocabulary in this way are noted. Other picture vocabulary tests such as the PPVT (used by Wilsenach
Because of learners’ unfamiliarity with English at the start of Grade 1, an L1 listening comprehension task was administered. The enumerator read a short paragraph twice with expression about a girl playing in the rain. Learners were then asked four inferential questions about the story. At the end of Grade 1, an English version of the same paragraph was used for the English listening comprehension. Again, the passage was read twice with expression and learners were asked three of the same inferential questions about the text.
At midline, learners’ knowledge of basic English instructions was assessed using a project-designed instructions task. This task required learners to perform a number of English instructions such as ‘please stand up’. This task has not been used in EGRAs before.
Phonological working memory was assessed in learners’ L1 with a word span task (four items) and a non-word repetition task (five items) at the start of Grade 1. The word span task required learners to repeat a sequence of words in the same order as they were presented orally. The number of words per sequence increased from two to five. The non-word repetition task included the repetition of non-words of increasing difficulty: non-words increased in syllable number from two syllables to six syllables. The words chosen were similar for both isiZulu and Siswati and non-words were created by making a few changes to existing words in the languages.
An L1 phonological awareness task was administered at the start of Grade 1. After two examples, learners were asked to identify the first phoneme of two syllable real words (e.g. what is the first sound of
A letter–sound knowledge task was administered to learners at both points in time to assess their automatic knowledge of letter–sound correspondences. At the start of Grade 1, learners were asked to provide the isiZulu or Siswati (depending on their L1) letter sound for a maximum of 20 letters presented in a chart. At the end of Grade 1, learners were required to provide English letter–sounds for a maximum of 80 letters presented in a chart. Some English letters which are not pronounced the same as the L1 (such as ‘c’ pronounced [k] in English but as a voiceless dental click in Siswati) were included. For the most part, the English and L1 letter sounds are pronounced the same. Letters which sounded different in English compared to isiZulu and Siswati were only included 17th, 23rd, 28th, 34th and 58th in the chart. Learners were timed for 1 min and errors were recorded and subtracted from the total number of letters attempted. Learners’ scores are reported as letters correct per minute.
At baseline, learners were asked to read an isiZulu or Siswati word list (six words) depending on their L1. The words were all two syllables long and similar in structure in both languages. Because of floor effects, the results of the baseline word-reading task are not reported here. Learners completed a longer L1 word-reading task at midline (18 words). Learners read the L1 word list for one minute. Errors were recorded and subtracted from the total number of words attempted. Learners completed two English word-reading lists and were given 30 sec to read from each list. One list contained CVC regularly spelled nouns, and one list contained high-frequency words from the Dolch sight word list (Dolch
At midline, learners were shown a picture of a
Index scores were created for phonological working memory (word span and non-word repetition) and English oral language proficiency (instructions, listening comprehension and vocabulary). To analyse the patterns of transfer from learners’ L1 at the start of Grade 1 to English at the end of Grade 1, an ordinary least squares regression model was run on each of the midline assessment tasks. The models regressed each of the baseline tasks as explanatory variables and controlled for the sampling strata and the district. As a robustness check, these models were also run including various learner, teacher and school characteristics to increase the precision of the estimates. It was, however, evident that the coefficients of the baseline tasks did not change significantly with the inclusion of the additional controls, but that the sample size was reduced as a result of missing data. The additional controls were therefore not included in the reported models. To control for the clustering effect of learners in schools, standard errors were clustered at the school level.
The research methodology, with the intended instruments and research consent forms related to the baseline data collection, was formally submitted to the University of the Witwatersrand in May 2016. The project was approved on 03 November 2016 and was granted ethical clearance for the duration of the study up to 02 November 2019.
Sub-test descriptive statistics.
Time | Variable | Reliability | Mean | SE | p10 | p25 | p50 | p75 | p90 | Min. | Max. | Proportion of zero scores (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. L1 expressive vocabulary | 1347 | 0.67 | 7.15 | 0.04 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 1.5 | |
2. L1 word span | 1347 | 0.76 | 9.98 | 0.04 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 12.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 14.0 | 1.0 | |
3. L1 non-word repetition | 1347 | 0.58 | 4.21 | 0.02 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 1.2 | |
4. L1 phoneme isolation: First | 1347 | 0.87 | 1.13 | 0.03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 62.4 | |
5. L1 listening comprehension | 1347 | 0.51 | 2.13 | 0.02 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 8.9 | |
6. L1 letters correct per minute | 1347 | - | 6.98 | 0.14 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 4.5 | 9.0 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 18.0 | |
7. ESL vocabulary | 1347 | 0.52 | 0.84 | 0.02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 50.4 | |
8. Index: Phonological working memory | 1347 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 0.02 | −1.2 | −0.4 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 1.0 | −4.9 | 1.5 | - | |
9. L1 expressive Vocabulary | 1347 | 0.40 | 4.90 | 0.01 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.2 | |
10. L1 words correct per minute | 1347 | - | 5.54 | 0.12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 12.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 18.0 | 45.7 | |
11. ESL phoneme isolation: First | 1347 | 0.89 | 1.79 | 0.02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 31.1 | |
12. ESL phoneme isolation: Last | 1347 | 0.87 | 1.42 | 0.02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 43.7 | |
13. ESL phoneme isolation: Middle | 1347 | 0.83 | 0.62 | 0.02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 70.3 | |
14. ESL letters correct per minute | 1347 | - | 17.62 | 0.31 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 13.0 | 27.0 | 41.0 | 0.0 | 80.0 | 10.6 | |
15. ESL words correct per minute | 1346 | - | 5.16 | 0.13 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 8.0 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 36.0 | 35.0 | |
16. ESL listening | 1347 | 0.78 | 2.66 | 0.02 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 12.8 | |
17. ESL listening comprehension | 1347 | 0.84 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 85.9 | |
18. ESL vocabulary | 1345 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 66.0 | |
19. ESL spelling | 1342 | - | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 75.6 | |
20. Index: English oral language proficiency | 1342 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.03 | −1.4 | −0.7 | −0.3 | 0.6 | 1.3 | −1.4 | 4.3 | - |
Note: Treatment, district and stratification dummies controlled for. Standard errors are clustered at school level.
SE, standard error; p, percentile; ESL, English as a second language; L1, first language; Gr, grade; Min., minimum; Max., maximum.
*,
In general, there is variability in learners’ vocabulary levels, phonological working memory and listening comprehension ability at the start of Grade 1. Learners have varying levels of letter–sound knowledge with half the learners naming five or fewer letters correctly in a minute, and 18% of learners not being able to identify a single letter correctly. Most learners were unable to identify the first phoneme of a two-syllable word in their L1, with learners only at the 75th percentile able to identify two of six phonemes correctly. Half the learners could not name or point to farm animals in English, and even at the 90th percentile, learners could identify only two of six animals.
By the end of Grade 1, most of these skills showed improvements, but there were still large numbers of zero scores in the sample. With regard to word-reading, learners at the 50th percentile could read one L1 word correctly; while this was zero below the 50th percentile, at the 90th percentile learners could read 17 words per minute correctly. Similar results were found for ESL word-reading. Learners below the 50th percentile could not perform English phoneme identification tasks correctly by the end of Grade 1. Learners could recognise more letter–sounds correctly on average moving from a mean of 6.98 at the start of the year to a mean of 17.62 by the end of the year. However, learners at the 10th percentile were still unable to identify a letter correctly in the given time at the end of Grade 1. Overall, learners’ knowledge of English vocabulary is low with regard to the listening to instructions task; learners on average managed to correctly respond to about three of the five instructions given in English. The listening comprehension and the English expressive vocabulary tasks proved to be more difficult. Learners managed to correctly answer one of the listening comprehension questions only at the 90th percentile and at the 75th percentile they managed to give the correct English word for a picture. Only learners at the 90th percentile were able to spell the English word
Each column in
Regression coefficients and standard errors of start of Grade 1 variables as predictors of end of Grade 1 variables.
Start of Gr1 Variable | L1 Vocab | L1: Words | ESL: PA | ESL: Letters | ESL: Words | ESL: OLP | ESL: Spelling |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
L1 Vocab | 0.011 |
0.082 (0.107) | 0.01 (0.046) | 0.127 (0.277) | 0.157 (0.106) | 0.02 (0.014) | 0.004 (0.006) |
L1 phonological working memory | 0.019 (0.013) | 0.234 (0.175) | 0.188 |
0.544 (0.458) | 0.129 (0.171) | 0.033 (0.027) | 0.004 (0.016) |
L1 phoneme identification | −0.005 (0.005) | 0.506 |
0.314 |
0.972 |
0.466 |
0.022 (0.019) | 0.029 |
L1 listening comp. | 0.01 (0.009) | 0.128 (0.150) | 0.296 |
0.61 (0.436) | −0.055 (0.188) | 0.051 |
−0.006 (0.011) |
L1 letter sounds | 0.003 |
0.265 |
0.047 |
0.627 |
0.232 |
0.016 |
0.013 |
ESL vocabulary | −0.019 (0.013) | 0.303 (0.205) | 0.117 (0.095) | 0.673 (0.532) | 0.349 (0.215) | 0.317 |
0.045 |
Note: Treatment, district and stratification dummies controlled for. Standard errors (indicated in parentheses) are clustered at school level.
Comp, comprehension; Vocab, vocabulary; PA, phoneme awareness; OLP, oral language proficiency; ESL, English as a second language; L1, first language.
,
,
,
L1 vocabulary at the start of Grade 1 showed significant positive associations to L1 vocabulary at the end of the year but had no other statistically significant associations with the other end of Grade 1 tasks. L1 phonological working memory had a significant positive association with ESL phoneme awareness. L1 phoneme identification was strongly associated with increased L1 and ESL word-reading, ESL phoneme awareness, ESL letter–sound recognition, ESL spelling. L1 listening comprehension measured at the start of Grade 1 was positively associated with ESL phonemic awareness and ESL oral language proficiency. L1 letter sounds at the start of Grade 1 showed significant positive associations with all other subtasks at the end of Grade 1. ESL vocabulary at the start of Grade 1 showed significant positive associations with ESL oral language proficiency and spelling.
This study considers the skills related to ESL literacy after the first year of formal schooling in South Africa. The majority of South African learners are ESL but will be required to learn their content subjects in English from Grade 4. It is, therefore, imperative to understand how English decoding and oral proficiency develop alongside learners’ L1. This knowledge can inform teaching practice and, with the inclusion of future waves of data collection, can help teachers identify learners at risk of reading failure. The learners sampled in the EGRS II are predominantly from rural areas in Mpumalanga with either Siswati or isiZulu as the medium of instruction in the Foundation Phase. They attend no-fee Quintile 1–3 schools, do not have well-educated parents and are taught by teachers who are mainly ESL speakers.
Because of a lack of quantitative research on isiZulu and Siswati in Grade 1, our first research question addresses the language and literacy abilities with which children begin and end Grade 1.
With regard to oral language proficiency at the start of Grade 1, there was variation in the L1 oral proficiency of learners, measured through a project-designed vocabulary task which required learners to give the isiZulu or Siswati name for animals in a picture. The listening comprehension task also showed variation. Differences in vocabulary among learners may be a result of various emergent literacy, home and community factors. Learners, therefore, start school with different experiences with their L1, which can affect later reading performance (Ntuli & Pretorius
By the end of Grade 1, L1 expressive vocabulary showed no variation, possibly because of the task not being sensitive enough. IsiZulu and Siswati vocabulary development is, therefore, an area for further research. The ESL oral language proficiency tasks showed that children were beginning to understand English, but they still have a far way to go if they are to become proficient English users. Children performed best in the English listening task where they had to demonstrate their understanding of English instructions by performing actions. This is a skill included in the curriculum for Grade 1 (DBE
Our results emphasise the challenge that learners face in South Africa, where they will eventually need to complete all their learning in English after only having had 3 years of ESL instruction in the Foundation Phase. This highlights the need for a structured approach to the teaching of English oral proficiency in the Foundation Phase and also highlights the central role of teachers to develop ESL language proficiency in rural contexts such as this. Story book reading is one possible solution to developing learners’ L1 and English vocabulary (Ntuli & Pretorius
With regard to decoding, we consider the phonological processing skills, which include phonological working memory and phoneme awareness, under decoding skills. We also address letter knowledge and word-reading fluency. Phonological working memory was measured at the start of Grade 1 to account for differences in later reading ability because of its involvement in vocabulary and letter learning (Gathercole & Baddeley
The knowledge of letter–sound correspondences is a good indication of learners’ previous print and reading instruction exposure. The data again suggest that children have different emergent literacy experiences before they start school. At the start of Grade 1, learners on average identified seven L1 letter–sound correspondences correctly per minute. This is significantly higher than the mean of 5.4 letters reported for Setswana in the control schools in the EGRS I (Taylor et al.
The majority of learners began school unable to read words. At the start of Grade 1, an L1 word recognition task had floor effects and was therefore not included in the analysis. At the end of Grade 1, learners were assessed on an L1 and English word recognition task. Learners could read slightly more words in their L1 than English. The average performance on the word recognition tasks was 5.51 L1 words and 5.16 English words. What is concerning is that 45.7% of learners could not read a single L1 word correctly, and 35% could not read an English word correctly at the end of the year. English word-reading may be in line with the curriculum where learners should be able to ‘recognise a few high-frequency sight words’ by the end of Grade 1 (DBE
In summary, these results suggest that English oral language proficiency is relatively weak at the start of Grade 1, but given the focus of the curriculum on this skill in Grade 1, some improvements are made. Similarly, learners’ L1 decoding skill as measured by letter–sound recognition was quite weak at the start of Grade 1. Learners are explicitly taught decoding in their L1 during Grade 1 and the unimpressive improvements in the overall learner performance on the L1 decoding skills attest to the weak instruction of this precursory skill for fluent reading and comprehension in L1. English word-reading at the end of Grade 1 reached levels similar to L1 word-reading in this sample, but in the absence of established reading norms it is unclear whether these improvements are sufficient for learners to successfully learn from their textbooks from Grade 4, written in English, which are also used by and written for L1 English speakers.
The second research question explores the relationship between the skills at the start of Grade 1 and decoding and English oral proficiency at the end of Grade 1. A significant linear relationship between L1 skills at the start of Grade 1 and ESL skills at the end of Grade 1 is argued to constitute transfer of skills.
The results in
L1 letter–sound recognition measured at the start of Grade 1 was also a significant predictor of all the L1 and L2 decoding and oral proficiency skills assessed in this study even after controlling for phoneme identification. Letter–sound correspondence knowledge is affected by both orthographic and phonological awareness. The results therefore provide evidence of the transfer of letter – sound correspondence knowledge from the L1 to ESL. The data show that once children have developed letter – sound knowledge in the L1, they are able to use this knowledge in reading and spelling in ESL at the end of the year. The contributions of start of Grade 1 letter–sound knowledge to the end of Grade 1 ESL phoneme identification and letter–sound knowledge highlight the reciprocal relationship between letter knowledge and phoneme awareness. Letter–sound knowledge also predicted L1 and ESL oral language proficiency. This relationship can be explained with reference to the use of letter–sound correspondence knowledge in word-reading. Better word readers are more likely to learn new vocabulary and syntactic constructions from print, which in turn results in increased oral proficiency. There is some evidence from Northern Sotho speaking children that early skills (such as vocabulary and letter knowledge) are correlated in Grade 1 (Wilsenach
As to be expected, the English vocabulary of learners at the start of Grade 1 is also positively correlated with the English oral language proficiency skills assessed at the end of Grade 1. ESL vocabulary also predicted spelling at the end of Grade 1. This relationship to spelling can be explained by referring to the items included in the tasks. The ESL vocabulary task at the start of Grade 1 assessed learners’ receptive and productive knowledge of animal names in English. The first item required learners to point to the
Weaker predictive relationships were found between L1 vocabulary at the start and end of the year, highlighting that children who begin school with better vocabulary tend to get better over time (Pretorius & Stoffelsma
A limitation of this study is the ‘snapshot’ approach of the tasks, where literacy constructs are not examined in detail. Because of the time constraint and costs involved in large-scale data collection, in-depth examination of any one skill was not possible, nor necessary for the goals of the EGRS II. This, however, prohibits us from evaluating the low levels of language and literacy skills. Moreover, the lack of language benchmarks in African languages, as well as in ESL, for Grade 1 in South Africa means that there are no norms against which these results can be evaluated. This study therefore aims to contribute to the evidence base by reporting on the levels of these skills in Grade 1.
This study provides an overview of the relationships between and development of various L1 and ESL oral proficiency and literacy skills over time. The authors suggest the following areas for future research:
Development of reading benchmarks for ESL letter–sound knowledge, word-reading, passage reading and vocabulary in the Foundation Phase to enable the tracking of reading development and ensuring that learners reach the required level of reading comprehension to cope with the curriculum demands in Grade 4.
Further research to understand which L1 language and literacy skills transfer to ESL language and literacy skills over time.
An examination of home and school level factors which affect literacy acquisition over time. The current study did not report on these contextual factors which do play a role in literacy acquisition.
An examination of why some learners fail to read after 1 year of instruction in their L1.
This study details the literacy skills with which learners begin Grade 1. While learners began school with various levels of L1 oral proficiency, limited knowledge of English and limited decoding ability, these skill levels improved during the school year. However, there is still a large proportion of learners who fail to make adequate progress in their literacy development in both L1 and ESL. The low level of literacy in both school languages is a cause for concern.
For early grade reading skills related to ESL development, the data confirm that code-based skills are more amenable to transfer (Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg
The authors would like to thank the United States Agency for International Development for the ongoing costs of implementation and evaluation of the Second Early Grade Reading Study.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Both authors collaborated on writing the article through their work on the Second Early Grade Reading Study. M.S. was responsible for the literature review and presentation of the research study. Data analysis was undertaken by J.K. Both authors contributed to interpreting the results and writing the conclusion.
The authors declare that the views expressed in this article are their own and not necessarily representative of the organisations they are affiliated with.
In the South African curriculum, instruction in English as a second language (ESL) is referred to as English as First Additional Language because English is not necessarily a second language for most learners. However, to align with international literature, we will use the term ESL when referring to English as First Additional Language.
As the study is still ongoing, this paper takes advantage of the data that have been collected, and does not aim to do any analysis on the interventions. For a full description of the EGRS II, as well as the impact of the interventions after the first year, see Kotzé, Fleisch and Taylor (
In South Africa, public schools are grouped into quintiles which describe the wealth of the school, and therefore how much government funding they are entitled to. Quintile 5 schools are the top 20% of wealthy schools in the country, while Quintile 1 schools are the poorest. Quintile 1–3 schools do not charge fees, and a large proportion of these schools participate in the National School Nutrition programme where learners receive a free meal at the school. These schools are legally not allowed to charge school fees and are usually the worst performing in the system.