Sub-question one: What are the effects of a different approach to literacy

I identified three effects that the research-based intervention had on the learners, namely (1) the improvement in assessment scores, (2) the change in their interaction with literacy and (3) a positive emotional orientation towards reading and writing activities.

5.2.1.1 Improvement in assessment scores

It was evident from the processed quantitative data that the low-progress learners as a cohort improved in each of the six assessments from the pre-test to the post-test (See 4.5.3). Each of the learners also improved in their individual test scores (See Figure 4.1; Addendum I1). The statistical results of the comparison between the target and the control groups, indicated that two assessments were significant and four were non-significant. The two tests that were significant were Letter Identification and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words. Adams (1990) found that letter knowledge is an important indicator of later reading

ability. In addition, hearing and recording sounds is an important strategy for letter recognition and authentic writing. These significant tests in the target group thus indicate improvement towards better later reading ability and could therefore influence the other assessment results in a later stage, for example the Running Record.

Another possible reason for the non-significant assessment results could be due to the small sample group. The group average scores can be non-representative of each individual learner’s progress, e.g. Mia who made a great gain. Statistics are usually based on bigger sample sizes and therefore it was expected that all the assessments would test non-

significant (Kidd, 2010). However, two tests showed significant results. The improvement of the target group was significant in Letter Identification and Hearing and Recording sounds in words. This is also proof that letters do not have to be taught in isolation, the WLA stance that I took in the lessons was enough exposure for the learners to gain in letter knowledge. Overall, the statistical trend indicted that the pilot study merited further research on a larger scale.

Although the visual representation of the target groups’ results demonstrated the good progress they made during the intervention, these clinical scores do not do justice to

qualitative improvements that took place in their literacy processing behaviours. An analysis of the qualitative data bore evidence of the improvements in the target groups’

comprehension, strategy use and development of a sense of story. These qualitative improvements were observed during learners’ interaction with literacy, either in reading or writing.

5.2.1.2 Change in interaction with literacy

All the learners, whether low-progress or average-progress, had the same initial strategy on reading and writing texts: they sounded out the words. This represented the phonic-based approach (See 1.4; 2.7.4) and was the only way the learners could solve a word that they wanted to read. This was thus the starting point from which the research-based lessons commenced. Therefore, one of the aims of the lessons in the intervention was to provide the low-progress learners with more strategies to unlock and process the meaning of texts and to assist in their writing (Clay, 2002:34). By the end of the research, the learners in the target group, all used a number of strategies during reading and writing activities (See 4.4.3). Reflective discussions that took place between each learner and me, revealed that the way they work on literacy improved, as did their verbal use of language, which plays a very important part in a child’s literacy development (See 2.2). In addition, the learners’

a result of the learners’ interaction with literacy were thus (1) the development of strategies and (2) a language improvement as discussed in the following sub-sections.

5.2.1.2.1 Development of strategies

As mentioned above, the intervention aimed to introduce learners to new strategies which they could incorporate in their repertoire of problem-solving approaches to literacy (See 2.5.2). The individuality of the lessons allowed each learner to add certain strategies in accordance with their current text-solving knowledge. To improve, it was not necessary for the learners to attain all the strategies at once, because some knowledge of items together with a few strategies can assist a learner sufficiently to work with new items in texts (Clay, 2002:35).

The development of the low-progress learners’ strategies in my study reflected that of Clay (1991:224) and Nathanson’s (2008:148) research. In the initial assessments, the learners displayed one or more of the behaviours discussed in the rest of this paragraph (Clay,

1991:224). They were often correct, but lacked the metacognitive strategies to know whether they were correct or not. They did not make sufficient use of syntactic and semantic

structures while reading and were overdependent on memory and illustrations when reading. The exit data illustrated a shift to more controlled, thoughtful reading of texts. For example: the learners were able to detect and self-correct errors in their own reading and they used several cues simultaneously to improve their responses to the texts. In addition, the learners shifted their attention from an over reliance on illustration to integrated use of information from the print, illustrations and story meanings (DeFord et al., 1991:85). Their limited use of strategies increased over a short time span. By the time the post-test was administered they were solving words, monitoring and correcting, gathering, predicting, maintaining fluency, adjusting, connecting, summarising, synthesising and critiquing (See 2.5.2).

The changes in the learners’ literacy behaviours, the shift in their focus of attention and their attainment of strategies support the view that learning to read develops by reading, and learning to write develops by writing. Also, good use of strategies sustains further learning when reading more complex texts (DeFord et al., 1991:79, 86; Clay, 2002:22, 26). Through the use of strategies, the low-progress learners thus develop a self-extending system that will enable them to learn other subjects.

For each of the low-progress learners, reading and understanding literature in other subjects ought to open up a new world of knowledge (see 1.2), which in turn can inform and direct their future academic success.

5.2.1.2.2 Language improvement

The learners’ syntax and vocabulary improvement was due to a number of factors, namely the exposure to whole texts, the influence of the researcher-teacher as a demonstrator and model, and the use of good language structures during writing exercises (Calkins et al., 2005:4; Clay, 1991:70; Weaver, 1994:336). The learners’ language progress can assist them in the social collaborations in the classroom, such as group work. In classroom lessons where learners are required to do group work, each learner can promote his individual learning by observation of how other learners deploy their literacy strategies and behaviours (Weaver, 1994:334). Thus good language use is not only important for general

conversations, but, also for the extraction of valuable information in social situations.

5.2.1.3 Positive emotional orientation

Each learner’s improved assessment scores and their positive interactions with literacy reflected a mastery of literacy challenges. In turn, their mastery of literacy challenges supported a positive self-concept (Lyons, 2003:188). A positive self-concept was closely related to the teaching and learning process of each individual and resulted in higher expectations of themselves (Lyons, 2003:185). It can be said that the intervention set in motion a motivational cycle: each learner’s accomplishments supported a positive self- concept, which in turn supported further accomplishments.

To conclude, the learners’ positive self-concept was part of the foundation of their success and ensured their positive emotional orientation towards the research-based lessons and their own work. The emotional aspect attached to learning should therefore not be set aside, but constantly be taken into account in the process of learning (Lyons, 2003:188; See

2.5.3.2).

5.2.2 Sub-question two: How will a different approach change the teaching