An Introduction to Reading to Learn

RtL is a ‘literacy’ programme developed by scholars working within the linguistic framework of Systemic Functional Grammar who recognised a ‘literacy’ achievement gap between

38 academically successful and academically considerably less successful students. These scholars believed that their perspective on language as a social construct could be used to develop teaching and learning strategies that would close this gap (McRae et al, 2000; Culican, 2006; Rose, Rose, Farrington & Page, 2008). The gap was perceived as particularly pronounced between students from historically advantaged homes with easy access to the ‘Discourse’ of education, and historically less advantaged students with very limited access to the ‘Discourse’ of education conventionalised in their learning environment. (Rose & Acevedo, 2006) The fundamental premise, on which the RtL approach is based, is one which proposes redistributing categories of consciousness normally linked to middle-class occupations, to community groups disadvantaged by the ‘discourse practices’ of the high- literate community. By introducing middle class pedagogic ‘discourse’ to students from home communities largely excluded from such ‘discourse’, the RtL-developers believed they could democratize the school classroom, and offer equal opportunities of success to all students (Rose & Acevedo, 2006; Rose & Martin, 2012). In other words, RtL was developed with its main goal being to eliminate educational oppression by ensuring that all students, regardless of socioeconomic status or linguistic affiliation, have equal access to quality ‘literacy’ practices (Rose, Gray & Cowey, 1999). This they believe can be achieved by offering a ‘literacy’ intervention to students that has as its focus, the scaffolding17 of students’ acquisition of vital orientations to reading and writing skills specific to formal educational domains.

Originally designed for use among Australian students in the middle years of schooling, RtL has been further developed to reach students across all grades of schooling, including adult education and the tertiary sector, as well as across subject disciplines. The programme has a number of distinct features, which are said to render it suitable for South African school- based interventions in a similar way to its suitedness to Australian students. These include a pedagogy designed to be appropriate for adolescent students; an inclusive pedagogy with regards to diversification of cultural and linguistic factors found within multilingual and multicultural classes; a close link to conventional, national curriculum standards and practices; flexible modes of delivery, and a strong supportive base for advanced ‘literacy

17 _{The term “scaffolding” is explained in detail in section 3.4.4 of this chapter. It basically refers to the input}

teachers give to students to assist them to produce tasks that they ordinarily would not be able to complete on their own.

39 development’ which apply to reading and writing skills, as well as grammar skills. Further, RtL offers a ‘literacy’ pedagogy aimed at extending the ‘literacy’ skills of more abled students as well as those of underachieving students within one classroom (Culican, Rose & McCusker, 2004; Rose & Acevedo, 2006; Rose & Martin, 2012). In other words, it has been designed as a pedagogy that allows educators to “pitch” one lesson to diverse students with differing abilities and at different levels of skills development. It is hoped that this would limit the need to develop multiple classroom activities to meet the needs of diverse skill sets amongst students, and enable a more inclusive classroom practice.

RtL is a teaching and learning methodology for ‘literacy’ development. It includes a professional teacher development programme that, as mentioned above, was developed in Australia over a number of years to meet the needs of a community of students who typically find it difficult to gain access to learning content due to serious lags in their ‘literacy’ development (Rose, 2004; Rose & Martin, 2012). The programme is based on three core principles. The first principle derives from the assumption that reading provides the primary mode of learning. Thus, the explicit teaching of reading concurrently with the teaching of curriculum content is advised. Teachers then need to integrate the teaching of reading and writing skills across all subject disciplines (Rose & Acevedo, 2006:1). This means all teachers, regardless of subject discipline, are considered ‘literacy’ teachers. Secondly, unlike current trends in education in South Africa, which sees class activities pre-determined by student ability, all students in the same classroom are taught at the same level of reading and writing skills to ensure the abilities gap commonly found in classrooms, and maintained by differentiated learning, is not maintained, or exacerbated. This is discussed further in section 3.4.4. Thirdly, learning supposedly takes place when teachers are able to offer support to students beyond their current abilities, therby ensuring students reach higher levels of learning through purposeful scaffolding (Rose & Acevedo, 2006:1).

From a South African educational perspective, the above three core principles sound promising. However, current research shows that South Africa may lack the skilled teacher force needed to implement such a programme like RtL (Nel & Muller, 2010; Krugel & Fourie, 2014). Firstly, given that a large majority of educators, especially in lower socioeconomic schools lack foundational English language skills, asking subject specialist

40 educators to now incorporate the teaching of English ‘academic literacy’ in their classrooms may prove problematic (Balfour, 1999; De Wet, 2002; Nel & Muller, 2010, Fakeye, 2014; Krugel & Fourie, 2014). Bear in mind this study is researching ‘academic literacy’ at a Grade 11 level which requires English as the lanuguage of teaching and learning. Secondly, given that successful scaffolding requires mastery of subject material, and given that a large majority of educators are not proficient in the language of teaching and learning, successful scaffolding through RtL may be challenging. This is because RtL uses ‘genre theory’ and systemic functional grammar, both not widely taught in teacher education programmes in South Africa. However, inefficiency in the teacher labour force should not be a deterant if the intervention is deemed successful. Rather, recommendations for additional training should be given to the Department of Basic Education.

With the three core principles in mind, one of the main reported “accomplishments” of RtL is its ability to minimise educational inequality in classrooms (Rose & Acevedo, 2006; Acevedo, 2010; Millin, 2011; Rose & Martin, 2012). This is achieved by making use of a pedagogy that has as its central focus, the supporting of students’ in the development of essential orientations to ‘academic literacy’ skills (reading and writing) accomplished by explicit scaffolding in a specifically designed teaching cycle. Rose & Acevedo (2006:36) refer to this cycle as the Initiate-Response-Feedback (IRF) cycle (Rose, 2006a:5). Backtracking to the acquisition of essential reading and writing skills, if one examines university ‘academic literacy’ requirements, one of the most important skills required for access and subsequently success, is the capacity to learn from reading independently (Rose et al 2008). This is due to the fact that university modules generally require considerable amounts of abstract academic texts to be read prior to lectures to ensure vast amounts of resources are incorporated into the module curriculum. The function of the lecture, and subsequently the role of the lecturer, is then to synthesise and build upon information supposedly already acquired via pre-lecture course readings (Rose et al 2008). Students are then expected to demonstrate knowledge acquisition, and comprehension of subject material by way of written assignments. Rose et al (2008) refers to this practice as the traditional academic cycle (See Figure 3.1). However, according to Rose et al (2008), the traditional academic cycle may erroneously take for granted that students enter university with the necessary skills needed to independently learn from reading. This is a skill that should have

41 been developed in the secondary school phase. Consequently, students that might already have been disadvantaged by a poorer quality of secondary school education might be further disadvantaged when entering university. This could be as a result of being unable to develop the skills required to independently learn from reading – a necessary requirement for autonomous learning at university.

Already mentioned in the introductory chapter of this thesis, studies which report on the under-preparedness of secondary school students are Troskie-De Bruin (1999); Penrose (2002); Van Schalkwyk (2008) and Allardice (2013). From Figure 3.1, the assumption that the secondary school system has adequately prepared students to cope with the traditional academic cycle cannot be taken for granted. It is no surprise then that university academics in South Africa are faced with, for example, relatively high rates of attrition insofar as lecture attendance is concerned. An inability to read and understand what has been read before lectures coupled with student attrition, means tutorial sessions fail to remedy an already systemic problem in relation to weaker performing students. This implies a failure of such students to demonstrate adequately, in writing, what has been learnt, and which in turn translates to a breakdown in the traditional academic cycle (Rose et al, 2008). In other words, students not fully equipped for independent learning at the secondary schooling phase of education, might find themselves at a distinct disadvantage when entering the tertiary sector. Traditionally, this type of student is considered as one emanating from lower socioeconomic families, and or communities (Duncan & Seymour, 2000; Ghosh, 2013). However, universities are increasingly finding that students from more affluent families with urban schooling backgrounds also might lack the necessary ‘literacy’ skills to independently learn from reading18.

18 _{This is observational and stems from information regarding the demographics of students attending extended}

degree programmes at Stellenbosch University. This also stems from lecturing experiencing at three separate universities in South Africa (Stellenbosch University, University of KwaZulu-Natal and Varsity College).

42 Figure 3.1: The Traditional Academic Cycle

Source: Rose et al (2008)

Given that university lecturers in mainstream subject specialisations lack the time and skills needed to remedy students’ individual ‘literacy’ shortcomings, it is hoped that the RtL intervention, at a secondary school level, may offer the support needed to equip students with the requisite ‘literacy’ skills needed to learn from reading at school, and subsequently university. This is supposedly achieved through the scaffolding academic cycle. See Figure 3.2. Instead of assuming students are able to independently read academic material, educators scaffold the reading of more advanced texts in class by working through specific language patterns found in texts. Further, during the preparation for reading phase, educators assist students in developing critical reading skills. This supposedly gives students access to the ‘discourse’ of formal education.

43 Figure 3.2: Scaffolding Academic Cycle

Source: Rose et al (2008)

Given the dilemma faced by many students at University, it becomes even more important to ensure adequate preparation is done at a secondary school context, to ensure high school students transitioning into the university sector are adequately prepared for the rigours19 of ‘academic literacy’ at university. Students deemed at-risk of struggling to assimilate easily into the ‘Discourse’ of university might benefit from this level of scaffolding. The RtL ‘literacy’ intervention was apparently designed to alleviate this problem through a very specific classroom cycle.