Classroom Observation Study - Education · Classroom Observation Study: Grade 1 05. Given the...

A

Classroom Observation Study

Grade 1

The Second Early Grade Reading Study

OBSERVATION

Contents

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 04

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................ 05

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 07

2 Background ................................................................................................................................................................092.1 First Early Grade Reading Study: Setswana as Home Language ........................................................................ 092.2 The Second Early Grade Reading Study: English at First Additional Language Level ................................... 102.3 Theoretical Overview: Classroom-based studies ...................................................................................................... 13

3 The EGRS II Classroom Observation Study .......................................................................................................... 143.1 Study Design ........................................................................................................................................................................ 143.2 Sample Selection ................................................................................................................................................................ 143.3 Instruments .......................................................................................................................................................................... 153.4 Fieldworker Recruitment .................................................................................................................................................. 163.5 School visits.......................................................................................................................................................................... 163.6 Data Collection Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................................ 163.7 Data Capture .........................................................................................................................................................................173.8 Limitations .............................................................................................................................................................................17

4 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 184.1 Teacher characteristics ..................................................................................................................................................... 184.2 Teaching and Learning Environment ............................................................................................................................ 184.3 Use of Time and Engagement in the Lesson ..............................................................................................................224.4 Instructional Practices ...................................................................................................................................................... 274.5 Planning and Curriculum Coverage ...............................................................................................................................374.6 Support and training ..........................................................................................................................................................42

5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................435.1 Teaching and Learning Environment ........................................................................................................................... 435.2 Use of Time and Engagement in the Lesson ............................................................................................................. 435.3 Instructional Practices ..................................................................................................................................................... 445.4 Planning and Curriculum Coverage .............................................................................................................................. 44

6 Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................46

7 Additional Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... 47

References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 61

List of Tables

Table 1: Suggestive effects of the interventions on teachers’ instructional practices ..................................................... 05Table 2: Summary of EGRS I (North West) interventions ............................................................................................................. 10Table 3: EGRS II Grade 2 weekly routine ............................................................................................................................................ 11Table 4: Summary of EGRS II intervention support ....................................................................................................................... 12Table 5: Overview of classroom observation instruments .......................................................................................................... 15Table 6: Days of the week on which lessons were observed ......................................................................................................17Table 7: Reading carpets and reading corners ............................................................................................................................... 21Table 8: Availability of charts and posters .......................................................................................................................................23Table 9: Frequency of use of print material .....................................................................................................................................28Table 10: Average number of completed written activities per book .........................................................................................36Table 11: Pages completed in DBE workbook ...................................................................................................................................36Table 12: Formal assessment records made available to fieldworkers ......................................................................................36Table 13: Differences between planned and actual time spent on lesson .............................................................................. 40Table 14: Suggestive effects of the interventions on teachers’ instructional practices ..................................................... 45Table 15: Learning and teaching environment ..................................................................................................................................47Table 16: Discipline and time ..................................................................................................................................................................49Table 17: Teachers’ instructional practices – use of learning and teaching support materials ........................................ 50Table 18: Teachers’ instructional practices – language use by teachers and learners .........................................................51Table 19: Teachers’ instructional practice – listening and speaking ..........................................................................................52Table 20: Teachers’ instructional practice – questioning and feedback ...................................................................................53Table 21: Literacy and language development ................................................................................................................................ 54Table 22: Opportunities to write ............................................................................................................................................................56Table 23: Assessment ...............................................................................................................................................................................57Table 24: Planning and curriculum coverage ................................................................................................................................... 58Table 25: Teachers’ approach to literacy and teaching ..................................................................................................................59Table 26: Teaching support received for EFAL as reported by teachers .................................................................................. 60

List of Figures

Figure 1: Teacher age profile .................................................................................................................................................................. 18Figure 2: Teacher qualifications............................................................................................................................................................. 18Figure 3: Reported class sizes by intervention group .................................................................................................................... 19Figure 4: Physical conditions in classrooms (N = 60) .....................................................................................................................20Figure 5: English poster and wall chart content in classrooms ...................................................................................................23Figure 6: Sex differences observed in paying attention to the teacher (n = 60) ....................................................................25Figure 7: Proportion of teachers starting the lesson on time ......................................................................................................25Figure 8: Factors that slow down teaching .......................................................................................................................................26Figure 9: Use of workbooks and other materials to support reading, listening and speaking activities ........................28Figure 10: Teachers’ uses of the tablets during lessons ................................................................................................................. 30Figure 11: Use of English by teachers and learners ......................................................................................................................... 30Figure 12: Frequency of English rhymes, songs and finger plays ..................................................................................................31Figure 13: Teachers’ use of evaluative feedback ...............................................................................................................................33Figure 14: Reading activities covered in class ....................................................................................................................................33Figure 15: Books most written in ............................................................................................................................................................36Figure 16: Activities specified in control school lesson plans .......................................................................................................39Figure 17: Documents most used to plan lessons .............................................................................................................................39Figure 18: Match between lesson plan and lesson observed .........................................................................................................39Figure 19: Teachers’ perceptions of completing the curriculum ................................................................................................... 41Figure 20: Monitoring of curriculum coverage ....................................................................................................................................42

Acronyms

CAPS Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement

CLASS Classroom Assessment Scoring System

COS Classroom Observation Study

DBE Department of Basic Education

DoE Department of Education

EFAL English as First Additional Language

EGRS I First Early Grade Reading Study

EGRS II Second Early Grade Reading Study

FP Foundation Phase

HL Home Language

HOD Head of Department

I1 Intervention 1

I2 Intervention 2

ICT Information and Communication Technology

ISI Individualising Student Instruction

LoLT Language of Learning and Teaching

LTSM Learning and Teaching Support Material

RCT Randomised Control Trial

RCME Research Coordination Monitoring and Evaluation

SMS Short Message Service

SMT School Management Team

T1 Intervention 1

T2 Intervention 2

C Control

The Second Early Grade Reading Study04

Executive Summary

The Second Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS II) is an innovative study that experiments with the use of coaches for teachers in the Foundation Phase (FP). The study evaluates the comparative effectiveness of two ways of implementing a structured learning programme by making use of either a face-to-face on-site coach who visits classroom teachers at their schools or through a virtual coach who keeps in constant contact with teachers through Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). The structured learning programme further enhances this coaching by providing teachers with daily lesson routines and integrated Learner and Teacher Support Material (LTSM) either through paper-based modes or through a tablet-based app designed specifically for the EGRS II. The study intervenes in Grades 1 to 3 to support the teaching of reading in English as First Additional Language (EFAL). As a way of measuring the intervention’s success to guide future implementation, EGRS II is designed as a Randomised Control Trial (RCT), and 180 schools across two districts in Mpumalanga are participating in the study. The quantitative study will provide evidence of whether learner performance has changed in the 100 schools receiving coaching of some form. The remaining 80 schools form part of the control schools allowing for an evaluative comparison group.

A Classroom Observation Study (COS) of 60 classrooms was undertaken, over and above the larger quantitative evaluation, to measure the intermediate outcomes of the EGRS II where changes were most likely to be found. Its purpose was to uncover the aspects of teacher instructional practice that had changed due to the interventions, providing early evidence of the potential underlying mechanisms which could lead to larger scale learner performance improvement. Twenty schools from each intervention group and a further 20 from the control schools were selected to allow fieldworkers the opportunity to observe their EFAL lesson instruction over a period of two weeks in October 2017. Six fieldworkers with experience in FP teaching and knowledge of isiZulu or Siswati each visited 10 schools. This was followed by a classroom document review and a structured interview with the teacher. The EGRS II Grade 1 teacher classrooms were selected as this was the first year of the intervention’s implementation. The schools were purposely sampled based on their location in either urban or rural contexts. This is because evidence from the First Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS I) suggests that improvements in learner performance are more likely to occur in urban rather than rural schools.

The major differences in instructional practices between intervention and control teachers as found in the study were grouped according to three factors (discourse, knowledge and time) and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Suggestive effects of the interventions on teachers’ instructional practices

Discourse

• More assessment tasks

• Use of evaluative feedback (intervention 2 mostly)

• Predominant use of English by teachers and learners (intervention 2 advantage)

• More opportunities for learners to speak English individually (intervention 1 and 2)

Knowledge

• Reading of extended texts

• More opportunities to write creative or longer texts in exercise books

• Introduction of vocabulary in context

• More English print visible (posters, charts, books etc.)

Time

• Starting lessons on time (intervention 2 advantage)

• Covering the content of the lesson plan mostly (leading to greater curriculum coverage)

• Less wasted time in class due to handing out books, writing on board etc.

• Adjusting pace to learners (intervention 1 mostly)

• Extra work given to learners who finish first (intervention 1 mostly)

Classroom Observation Study: Grade 1 05

Given the above, the results of the COS are as follows. The intervention classrooms, on average, were observed providing learners with more assessment tasks and evaluative feedback though this was observed more frequently in the virtual coaching intervention. Learners and teachers were observed using more English during the EFAL lessons and learners from both types of interventions were provided with more opportunities to speak individually. The knowledge instructional practices observed (as described in Table 1) included intervention teachers engaging learners in extended texts more than control schools – but these rates were still disappointingly low. More writing opportunities, the introduction of new vocabulary and print visibility were among the other knowledge practices observed more often in the intervention than in the control schools. Finally, the positive time factors evident in the intervention teachers’ instructional practice included pacing their learners and ensuring that lessons started on time – though both intervention teachers really struggled to ensure lessons stayed within the allocated

time. The findings also showed that more attention was being paid to understanding how to plan and cover the content of the lesson plan by intervention teachers as opposed to control schools.

It seems that, based on Hoadley’s (2012) analysis of South African classroom studies and what instructional practices lead to better learner outcomes, the EGRS II interventions are likely to lead to improvements in learners’ academic performance. As to whether face-to-face or virtual coaching has been more successful in this regard, it is not possible to determine this based on the findings presented in this report. Nevertheless, the COS helped to deep dive into the more nuanced practices of teachers involved in the EGRS II study after just one year of implementation. The findings have provided an indication as to what is ‘working’ to create changes in teachers’ practices, though too early in the implementation to make definitive conclusions.


A number of international and national research projects have shown that South African learners are not acquiring basic reading skills in the early grades and consequently cannot understand what they read in these grades and beyond (Van der Berg et al. 2016; Howie et al. 2017). This is a developmental challenge for the country since the ability to read and understand what is read is the foundation for all further learning. To this end, the Department of Basic Education (DBE), through its Research Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation (RCME) Unit and in collaboration with multiple partners from universities and private donor originations, has initiated large scale studies to improve the quality of early grade reading instruction. The findings of these studies aim to provide insight into what works to improve early grade literacy in the Foundation Phase (FP).

The Second Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS II) investigates the influence of targeted interventions on improving early grade reading in English as a First Additional Language (EFAL). The same group of learners are followed throughout the project. The project started in 2017 with Grade 1 teachers, has continued with Grade 2 teachers in 2018 and will focus on Grade 3 teachers in 2019. The study evaluates the comparative effectiveness of two ways of implementing a structured learning programme by making use of either a face-to-face on-site coach who visits classroom teachers at their schools or through a virtual coach who keeps in constant contact with teachers through Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). The structured learning programme further enhances this coaching by providing teachers with daily routines through lesson plans and integrated Learner and Teacher Support Material (LTSM) either through paper-based modes or through a tablet-based app designed specifically for the EGRS II. Cluster-based teacher training at the start of each school term is also coordinated for teachers. As a way of measuring the intervention’s success to guide future implementation, EGRS II is designed as a Randomised Control Trial (RCT) evaluation. The daily lesson plans specify the activities to be covered each day so that the entire curriculum is covered in the year and at an appropriate pace. The coaches and training provide support for teachers

in making the most efficient use of the lesson plans. Additionally, the resources are integrated into the lesson plans which therefore serve as prompts to ensure the resources are well used.

What differs between the two intervention groups is how the coaching and training are effected throughout the year and how the lesson plans are distributed. The face-to-face coaching group of schools – intervention 1 – have a reading expert who visits teachers in their classrooms monthly. These teachers also receive paper-based lesson plans, meeting at the start of every quarter for cluster-based training at a central location. Intervention 2 teachers receive a digitally mediated experience of coaching through the use of Android tablets preloaded with lesson plans and access to an off-site virtual coach via instant messaging and bi-weekly phone calls. Also a reading expert, this coach does not conduct classroom visits but is able to keep in touch with a larger number of teachers sharing best practice and weekly motivation through the shared use of WhatsApp groups. At the start of every quarter, virtual coached teachers also participate in cluster-based training at central locations.

The impact evaluation of EGRS II provides quantitative data on learner achievement but does not provide sufficient information on which teacher instructional practices have led to improvements (or their a lack) in learner results. Therefore a Classroom Observation Study (COS) of 60 classrooms was undertaken, over and above the larger quantitative evaluation, to measure the intermediate outcomes of the EGRS II where changes were most likely to be found. Its purpose was to uncover the aspects of teacher instructional practice that had changed due to the interventions, providing early evidence of the potential underlying mechanisms which could lead to larger scale learner performance improvement. Twenty schools from each intervention group and a further 20 from the control schools were selected to allow fieldworkers the opportunity to observe their EFAL lesson instruction over a period of two weeks in October 2017. Six fieldworkers with experience in FP teaching and knowledge of isiZulu or Siswati each visited 10 schools. This was followed by a classroom

1 Introduction/


document review and a structured interview with the teacher. The EGRS II Grade 1 teacher classrooms were selected as this was the first year of the intervention’s implementation. The schools were purposely sampled based on their location in either urban or rural contexts. This is because evidence from the First Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS I) suggests that improvements in learner performance are more likely to occur in urban rather than rural schools. Significant and consistent differences provide strong suggestive effects that the interventions are leading to quantifiable and observable changes in classrooms. While this report provides more qualitative information on teacher instructional practices which may have changed, it is meant to be

read in combination with the quantitative evaluation results for a more rounded understanding of the impact of the intervention.

The report begins with a background to the EGRS II and how the intervention builds on the lessons of the first study. This is followed by a detailed description of the study design leading to a discussion of the findings as they relate to teacher characteristics, the learning environment, use of time and learner engagement, instructional practices, curriculum coverage and teacher support and training. A list of recommendations on how to strengthen future iterations of the COS concludes the report.


The EGRS II is a structured learning programme supporting FP teachers in no-fee paying schools in the Mpumalanga province. At the core of its theory of change is the targeting of EFAL instruction in the Foundation years to improve learner literacy achievement. The EGRS II builds on the success of the coaching model as implemented in the EGRS I and seeks to evaluate a more cost-effective virtual coaching model in comparison to the established face-to-face coaching model. In addition, the EGRS II focuses on EFAL given that the majority of South Africa’s children learn in an African Home Language in the FP and are then required to learn in English from Grade 4 (Draper & Spaull, 2015). The majority of teachers in Quintile 1–3 schools are also second language speakers, meaning that exposure to English has been limited.

2.1 First Early Grade Reading Study: Setswana as Home Language

The EGRS I was implemented in North West Province of South Africa from 2015 and aimed to improve early grade reading in Setswana as the Home Language. Also designed as an RCT involving 230 schools of which 80 were control schools, the project implemented three interventions consisting of 50 schools each. All schools (apart from the control schools) received daily lesson plans that broke down the teacher’s language lessons

into a set of daily routines and classroom materials to support these routines. One intervention group received centralised training once a term at a central venue, another received training, combined with on-site face-to-face coaching, and the other a targeted parental involvement component (Table 2).

The training intervention consisted of centralised workshops held quarterly at the beginning of each term as well as the provision of LTSM. The coaching model provided the same resources and training as the centralised training intervention, but teachers received additional on-going support from reading coaches. These coaches supported teachers in the classroom by observing lessons and by monitoring curriculum coverage. Finally, in the parental involvement intervention, parents were invited to weekly meetings where the importance of literacy topics was covered and parents were given ideas on how they could support their children’s literacy development.

After two years of implementing the interventions, the research team found that the coaching intervention led to an improvement in learner scores equivalent to 39% worth of a year of learning when compared to the control schools in the sample who did not receive the added interventions (Department of Basic Education, 2017a). The training and parental involvement interventions also showed a positive improvement in learners’ achievement as compared to the control schools, but this impact was smaller than that for face-to-face coaching.

2 Background/

Strengthening the teaching of English in the Foundation Phase is therefore critical to effect improved learning performance in the later grades.


Table 2: Summary of EGRS I (North West) interventions

Training Coaching Parental involvement

Number of schools 50 50 50

Beneficiary Teachers Teachers Parents

MethodCentralised workshop

training

Centralised workshop training

Face-to-face coaching

Meetings to share literacy methods and resources

Frequency Bi-annuallyBi-annually (workshops)

Monthly (coaching)Weekly

Additional resourcesLesson plans

Integrated LTSMLesson plans

Integrated LTSM

2.2 The Second Early Grade Reading Study: English at First Additional Language Level

Building on the improvements and lessons learned from the EGRS I, EGRS II supports the instructional practice of EFAL teaching in no-fee paying schools where learner performance has historically been lower. In the Gert Sibande and Ehlanzeni districts of Mpumalanga, the quintile 1 to 3 schools have not been different. Learners, as per the national policy, are taught in the initial years of schooling in their Home Language of either isiZulu or Siswati but later transition to English in Grade 4 as the Language of Learning and Teaching (LoLT). Overall, 180 schools made up the participating primary schools in the province where 50 schools were selected to receive the on-site face-to-face coaching model known as intervention 1 and a further 50 schools received the virtual coaching model known as intervention 2. The remainder of the schools formed part of the control schools.

Lesson Plans, LTSM and Centralised TrainingAll teachers in the intervention schools received the same lesson plan content which was distributed either as printed lesson plans (for intervention 1 schools) or lesson plans accessible on an application on a tablet (for intervention 2 schools). The structured lesson plans are based on the South African FP Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) with a day-by-day

breakdown. Activities with the proposed time allocation and guide to resources needed for daily routines enable teachers to fulfil the requirements of the EFAL CAPS in their classrooms at the required pacing.

All teachers in the intervention schools also received LTSM which were integrated into the lesson plans. For the most part, these resources were the same for all teachers except that intervention 2 teachers had access to additional digital material such as method videos and sound clips via the application on the tablet. The DBE workbook, a ‘textbook’ supplied by the DBE to ensure every child has a textbook, is an additional resource used by teachers and integrated into the lesson plans. The workbook is a resource which is currently available in all classrooms, and a resource which is widely used by teachers. Furthermore, it is also a resource that the district or province uses to monitor curriculum coverage. It was therefore quite important to ensure that the workbooks were well integrated with the lesson plans.

The EGRS II training programme specifically focuses on teaching core reading methodologies set out by the CAPS curriculum which show teachers how these methodologies can be implemented in their own classrooms using the integrated resources and routines. The focus of the EGRS II intervention is on changing teachers’ instructional practice. The theory of change is that it is through changing instructional practices that there will be better teaching and learning of reading in EFAL and therefore improved learner outcomes.


Table 3: EGRS II Grade 2 weekly routine

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total time

Daily activities1 15 mins 15 mins 15 mins 15 mins 15 mins 1h15

Shared Reading

10 mins 10 mins 10 mins 10 mins 10 mins 50 mins

Phonemic awareness

5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 20 mins

Writing 15 mins 15 mins

Total 30 mins 30 mins 30 mins 40 mins 30 mins 2h 40 mins

1 Daily Activities build listening and speaking skills.

The instructional practices covered through the EGRS II training programme include Shared Reading methods, developing phonemic awareness while also teaching phonics systematically. Daily activities to foster listening to and speaking English are also included as well as the scaffolding of original writing, learner assessment, the use of display boards, and the strengthening of effective classroom management. Teachers are also provided with LTSM in English and are encouraged to use mainly English in their EFAL lessons.

These methodologies are incorporated in the daily lesson plans, spaced out over a period of five days per week of every term. Thus, every day of the week is allocated different activities that build upon each other for the teacher to pursue.

Teachers from both interventions attended centralised training at the start of the 2017 school year. This training lasted two days for intervention 1 and three days for intervention 2 (because of the need to orient teachers to the tablet). In addition, all teachers attended cluster training at the start of or in the school holiday before Terms 2–4. The focus of teacher training was to explain and revise the core methodologies needed to implement the lesson plans as well as orientation to the EGRS weekly routine. Because the training occurred before the term began, teachers were also oriented to the lesson plans for the entire term. Training sessions for intervention 2 teachers also included demonstrations of how to use the tablet, and troubleshooting for tablets when they did not work optimally.

Face-to-face Coaching

(Intervention 1)Intervention 1 makes use of expert reading coaches to work face to face with teachers in improving teacher content knowledge, instructional practice and professional confidence. The three reading coaches were each based in a specific area and visited each teacher in class at least three times a term. The following activities took place during the coaching visits for each teacher: lesson demonstrations, lesson observations, assessment support and discussions regarding practice. During classroom observations, coaches provided feedback on the lesson and also demonstrated the pedagogy outlined in the lesson plans in the teacher’s own class. This observation and demonstration of teaching using the LTSM provided by the programme is intended to change teachers’ pedagogy, or at least hold teachers accountable. Additionally, once a week coaches contacted teachers to provide them with motivational support. Finally, the reading coaches also held needs-based workshops when necessary for specific lessons or topics that teachers in an area required help with.

Virtual Coaching (Intervention 2)EGRS II experiments with a more cost-effective approach to providing lessons plans and coaching via an ICT component. One reading coach, based in Johannesburg, coaches the teachers in intervention 2 via instant messaging, texts and phone calls. The reading coach followed up on training focus areas with individual teachers every fortnight to improve their instructional practice in EFAL teaching and to ensure they were covering the curriculum. The virtual coach also provided motivational support to teachers via a group message


once a week. Lastly, the virtual coach sent YouTube clips and videos as needed as additional resources for areas teachers found difficult to teach.

In addition to virtual coaching, teachers receive their weekly lessons plans on a tablet which is accessed via an application. The tablets are also equipped with instructional videos, sound clips and information about the core methodologies. These resources can be accessed on demand since they are available in the application.

EvaluationThe theory of change for the EGRS II posits that improved teacher instructional practice in EFAL will result in improvements in learners’ literacy levels in English. Learners, therefore, have been tested at the

start of Grade 1 to establish a baseline and again at the end of each year of implementation in order to determine whether the project has led to improved learner outcomes. This impact evaluation, however, cannot provide detailed information on what aspects of teacher’s instructional practice are present and would change due to the interventions. To this end, a COS was conducted in a sub-sample of the EGRS II schools to uncover what instructional practices are present, consistently applied or emerging, which could signal potential change due to the interventions. The findings of this report, to be read in conjunction with other evaluation evidence, considers the effect of these changes by comparing the extent and frequency that these practices occur between control schools as opposed to intervention schools.

Table 4: Summary of EGRS II intervention support

Intervention 1

(50 schools, 90 teachers)

Intervention 2

(49 schools, 82 teachers)

Provision of lesson plans

Paper-based Electronic

On an application on a tablet

Provision of LTSM Paper-based:

Big books

Posters

Flash cards

Writing frames

Paper-based:

Big books

Posters

Flash cards

Writing frames

Coaching Coach visits the teacher in her classroom.

Once every three weeks.

Coach contacts the teacher via telephone calls and instant messaging (WhatsApp).

Once every two weeks.

Training Initial training:

• Two-day block training

• Quarterly training:

• One day at the start of each term

• Needs-based training:

• As required

Initial training:

• Three-day block training

• Quarterly training:

• One day at the start of each term

• Needs-based training:

• Follow up phone calls to review weak methodologies and review videos made by the virtual coach modelling best practice

Core methodologies Paper-based instructional manual Application-based instructions including videos, sounds clips and photos of example writing


2.3 Theoretical Overview: Classroom-based studies

In an effort to understand factors which affect learner academic performance, researchers continue to debate how best to measure and evaluate teaching and learning in the classroom (Bruns, et al., 2017). Studies have shown that teachers do play a large role in the academic outcomes of their learners, and in some cases, may even play more of a role than school and system-level factors (Hill, et al., 2012). Classroom-based observations have been used to measure and evaluate the quality of teaching at the classroom level. These results have also been linked to learner outcomes to identify the impact of different aspects of teaching on learner performance.

There has been a move internationally for the implementation of interventions to improve teachers’ instructional practice based on evidence of ‘what works’ in context (Raudenbosch, 2005; Douglas 2009). To this end, RCTs have been touted as the gold standard of determining causality since causality can be confirmed through a comparison of a treatment group (who received the intervention) against that of a control group (a sub-sample that does not receive the intervention) (Raudenbosch, 2005). However, because the classroom environment is complex in nature, these RCTs are not sufficient in providing all the information needed to build up an evidence base of what works to improve instructional practices of the teacher in the classroom (Raudenbosch, 2005). Classroom-based studies, therefore, provide a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the improvement or lack of it in learner outcomes.

In a review of classroom-based studies, school effectiveness studies and school improvement studies, Hoadley (2012) summarised current knowledge about teaching and learning in South Africa. Based on the studies in the review, she highlights factors which are associated with improved learner outcomes. These relate to three areas: discourse, knowledge and time. With regard to discourse, better assessment practices and explicit evaluation of learner work (or feedback) which lead to improved learner outcomes. In the category of knowledge, the teacher’s own grasp of the language of

instruction is important as is an emphasis on reading and writing texts. Finally, factors related to time which have been shown to improve learners’ academic performance include pacing work for learners of different ability levels, covering more of the curriculum, and using tasks that require a challenging level of cognitive demand.

Classroom-based studies can be used to triangulate findings from more quantitative studies, as was done in EGRS I. Noting that the large scale evaluation of learner achievement does not directly indicate changes in teacher instructional practice, the research team of EGRS I conducted a COS of a sample of their Grade 2 teachers in North West Province (Department of Basic Education, 2017b). The purpose of that COS was to collect systematic and robust evidence on the changes in teachers’ instructional practice to determine which practices had changed because of the interventions. The EGRS I COS also shed light on which factors of the programme were successful in changing instructional practice, and which elements of the interventions were less successful in encouraging changes in teacher behaviour.

It identified key areas of difference between the control and intervention schools (Department of Basic Education, 2017b). Differences were most evident in the teaching and learning environment. Reading mats and reading corners were observed more frequently in intervention classrooms, and intervention classrooms were more print-rich in comparison to control classrooms. Greater print-richness was a consequence of the provision of LTSM for the intervention groups. The effect of coaching was seen in the area of curriculum planning and coverage: more of the teachers who received face-to-face coaching tracked their curriculum coverage and stayed on track with their lesson plans as compared to either control schools or schools where teachers had received training but no on-site coaching. Thus, it was found that the provision of LTSM led to more use of the material in classrooms and that coaching was beneficial for ensuring that teachers covered the curriculum.

The COS for EGRS II, therefore, seeks to build on this evidence base about what aspects of teachers’ instructional practice lead to changes in learner outcomes.


This COS was conducted with a sample of the Grade 1 teachers in Mpumalanga who were involved in the EGRS II. The purpose of this study was to determine which aspects of teachers’ instructional practice may have changed due to the interventions. Of particular interest was the extent to which face-to-face coaching (intervention 1) and virtual coaching (intervention 2) differed in terms of affecting teachers’ instructional practice for EFAL.

3.1 Study Design

The COS was conducted in 60 schools that were purposely selected from the larger 180 EGRS II schools sample with the intention of having 20 schools per group visited. The COS was both descriptive and analytical in its design. Similar to a mixed methods approach, the study used an enumerative qualitative approach to conducting the observations, opting to pre-define qualitative features and factors of interest through an a priori coding scheme before data collection, which allowed for quantitative analysis of the data post collection. Observers, who were hired fieldworkers, were trained on the identification of these factors that originated from the kinds of differences the study expected to see given the specified nature of the daily routines schedule. Factors also drew from previous classroom-based studies and academic literature, carefully guiding their construction into observation questions with the appropriate priori codes.

The research team acknowledges the inherently subjective nature of observation especially enumerative qualitative observation that seeks to quantify through frequencies (or counting) of what is not always easily countable (Hill, et al., 2012). The results of the classroom observation are therefore only suggestive given the very initial stages of the intervention. In-depth qualitative case studies on schools from the same sample will also be conducted to further contribute to a nuanced understanding of the complex environment of teaching

2 As classified by the principals in a questionnaire at baseline.

and learning in the classrooms and how the factors observed in this COS reflect in the intervention.

3.2 Sample Selection

The initial 60 schools selected as the sample were considered to be the optimal number of schools in which it would be possible to conduct the fieldwork given the budget constraints and cost of collecting such in-depth data. This also required specialised fieldworkers, which further drove up the cost. It was hoped that having 20 schools in each of the three groups would allow for an analysis of trends emerging as a result of the interventions implemented.

The following criteria were used to select the schools from each group:

• Five top-performing urban schools (based on baseline results at the start of Grade 1)

• Five additional urban schools

• Five schools in the top performing 25% of rural schools (based on baseline results at the start of Grade 1)

• Five schools in the bottom performing 75% of rural schools.

An urban/rural distinction was made since EGRS I had shown that the intervention had the largest effect in urban rather than rural schools. Since there were so few urban2 schools in the 180 school sample, for the most part, all urban schools sampled at the start of the year were visited. Top performing schools were over-sampled for this study because, according to the EGRS I findings, they are more likely to follow the EGRS II programme. The observations thus examined the changes in the instructional practice of teachers who were more likely to take up new practices.

Of the 60 schools that were selected, 29 of the schools were from the Ehlanzeni district, and 31 schools were from the Gert Sibande district. The sampling of schools

3 The EGRS II Classroom Observation Study/


from each district does not differ markedly from the larger 180 school sample. The LoLT was mainly Siswati, with only 18 schools (30%) that had isiZulu as their LoLT in FP. This is similar to the larger 180 sample where 27.2% of schools use isiZulu and 72.8% of school use Siswati as the LoLT. As mentioned previously, the COS oversampled urban schools given the significant effects noted in EGRS 1. Consequently, in this COS sample, there is almost an equal inclusion of urban (29 schools ~ 48.3%) and rural (31 schools ~ 51.6%) schools as compared to the 180 school sample where 134 schools (74%) are remote rural.3

3.3 Instruments

An independent instrument developer was commissioned for the study. Three observation-based instruments created by Dr Cheryl Reeves were used to capture elements of teacher instructional practice. These instruments were developed for the South African context to capture information on the classroom level factors highlighted as affecting learner

3 As classified by the principals in a questionnaire at baseline.

academic achievement (Hoadley, 2016). Because of the focus on factors specific to the South African context, other classroom observation instruments such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, et al., 2008), the Stallings classroom snapshot method (World Bank Group, 2015) and Individualising Student Instruction (ISI) (McDonald Connor, et al., 2009) were not considered. Table 5 outlines the instruments designed for this study.

The instruments also included open-ended questions over and above the priori coded questions only in cases where fieldworkers needed to specify ‘other’ as a response option and when fieldworkers were required to make final comments at the end of the instruments. A structured format was used to ensure consistency in recording observations. Fieldworkers received three days of training where the use of the coding provided was emphasised. As part of this training, fieldworkers observed a recorded lesson and practised completing the instrument. The results of each fieldworker’s efforts were then shared with others involved in the training and feedback was given about the response options chosen.

Table 5: Overview of classroom observation instruments

Number of sections Focus

Lesson Observation Schedule

11 sections Teaching and learning environment

Time on task and pacing

Discipline

Use of LTSM

Language of instruction

Listening and speaking

Literacy and language

Phonics and vocabulary development

Opportunities to write

Cognitive demand

Assessment

Classroom Document Review Schedule

5 sections Review of the teacher’s classroom book collection

Work schedule and work plan

Records of assessment

School timetable

Learner workbooks

Teacher Interview Schedule

8 sections Teacher and lesson details

Class size

Time on task

Planning and curriculum coverage

Availability and use of learning material

Approaches to English language teaching

Assessment

Teacher support received for EFA.


3.4 Fieldworker Recruitment

During the inception meeting with the instrument developer, a concern was raised about the quality of fieldworkers that are needed to collect qualitative lesson observation data. The depth and complexity of the instruments designed for use depended on the availability of fieldworkers who were proficient in English and isiZulu or Siswati and who had a specialised understanding of teaching EFAL in the FP. Furthermore, fieldworkers needed to be able to drive to each school, some of which were in remote areas of Mpumalanga. Given these requirements, fieldworkers were recruited based on the following minimum criteria. They needed to have:

• At least a Bachelor’s degree in Foundation Phase teaching

• Fluency in reading and writing in English

• A valid driver’s licence and regular driving experience.

Preference was given to individuals:

• Who had completed or were in the process of completing their postgraduate studies in Foundation Phase teaching

• With previous research experience particularly in academic disciplines such as linguistics or Foundation Phase teaching

• Who were proficient in isiZulu or Siswati.

Based on the above criteria and preferences, six fieldworkers made the final selection. Overall the fieldworkers were experienced educators with a good understanding of the FP classroom environment. Fieldworker training was conducted on the administration of the instruments with the specific purpose of standardising data collection so as to ensure consistency across all fieldworkers.

3.5 School Visits

The COS was conducted over two weeks from 4 to 15 September 2017. The lesson observations fell within Week 7 and Week 8 of Term 3, which was a 10-week term. At that stage of the year, teachers had been part of the EGRS II programme for 31 weeks.

Six fieldworkers were tasked to visit 10 schools each and except for one fieldworker who visited more intervention 1 schools, given the oversampling of this treatment arm in the field, all fieldworkers visited each treatment arm at least twice. When visiting schools, fieldworkers were instructed to randomly select one of the Grade 1 classes at the school and ask to visit that specific classroom. Fieldworkers were instructed to observe one EFAL lesson of the selected class, conduct an interview with the Grade 1 teacher, and randomly select one learner’s exercise book and workbook to review. In order to ensure that fieldworkers had enough time to complete the data collection at each school in one day, teachers were asked to reschedule their EFAL lesson to the first lesson of the morning if it was not already scheduled as such in the school timetable. Each fieldworker was expected to visit all 10 schools allocated to them for one day.

The EFAL classes were expected to be structured differently depending on the day of the week observed, especially in control schools which would not have been following a structured daily routine as the interventions schools were required to. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all the intervention schools would have been observed doing the same activities for the same length of time, as the day of the observation, in theory, would have corresponded with certain kinds of activities. For example, Thursday schools would have been observed doing more written and independent seatwork than schools observed on other days.

3.6 Data Collection Quality Assurance

The project associate visited three schools in the first week of the data collection period to monitor the consistency of fieldworkers’ data collection. These visits also allowed the fieldworkers the opportunity to ask questions of clarification if necessary. The project associate identified some inconsistencies (especially in selecting the learners’ books for the document review) on these three days and reminders about how to administer the instruments were sent via instant messaging to all the fieldworkers. If the visited fieldworkers had any questions, the questions and answers were also sent to all fieldworkers. The project associate then regularly ‘checked in’ with fieldworkers via instant messaging to establish how the fieldwork was progressing.


3.7 Data Capture

Data was captured by the Research Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate (RCME) in the DBE. Two interns assisted in capturing data collected via the three different instruments using a data capturing template in Excel. The project associate quality assured 10% of the captured data to ensure that the quality of the data captured was of an acceptable standard.

3.8 Limitations

Despite the close quality assurance and verification of data collected, the following limitations were observed both in the field and during analysis:

• While the sampling of the COS intended to observe 20 schools from each intervention group and the control group, after data collection was completed, however, it was found that 21 intervention 1 schools had been visited and only 19 control schools had been visited. This mistake occurred due to a name confusion, as two schools had exactly the same name except that one is defined as a combined school and the other as a primary school.

• Secondary data quality assurance, a few months later, revealed errors in the data capturing process on a subsection of items

(two question items in total) over and above what was observed and rectified by the initial assurance manager. The items were identified in the original observation schedules and recaptured to form part of the reanalysis dataset.

• Multiple instrument sheets had missing, incomplete and at times unclear data for various observation questions though not an uncommon feature of any data collection. For the purposes of the COS, where observations were left blank or incomplete they were coded as missing and omitted from the analysis. For items that were unclear but captured some sort of response, the hard copy schedules were consulted for verification and inclusion where possible.

Thus, the reader is cautioned to take note specifically of the total observation column in the frequency tables at the end to understand the items in question and more broadly to keep in mind that while the findings have illuminated much about the intervention and control schools in the EGRS II, these findings cannot be generalised to the full EGRS cohort in full. To understand the full differences and impact of the intervention groups, these findings will be triangulated with the results of the learner assessments and other evaluation reports as the intervention matures.

Table 6: Days of the week on which lessons were observed

Number Percentage of total school visits

Percentage per intervention arm

C T1 T2

Monday 12 20% 11% 29% 20%

Tuesday 12 20% 21% 24% 15%

Wednesday 12 20% 37% 10% 15%

Thursday 13 22% 26% 14% 25%

Friday 11 18% 5% 24% 25%


This section presents findings from the COS and describes in detail trends observed under the following themes: teacher characteristics; the teaching and learning environment; instructional practices; planning and curriculum coverage; as well as the teachers’ own views on the support and training they received in 2017.

4.1 Teacher characteristics

The teachers in the COS sample have an average age of 49 years, with 79% of teachers being 45 years or older (Figure 1). This is similar to the teacher age profile for the total 180 school sample and emphasises that a large number of teachers will be aged out of service in the not so distant future, as the retirement age for teachers is set at 60 years old.

All teachers indicated that they have formal training in education (Figure 2): 49 of 60 (82%) teachers indicated that they have formal training in the FP and this situation was similar across groups. Six teachers (10%) trained for the Intermediate Phase and four teachers (7%) trained for the Senior Phase. The average teaching experience was 15 years of teaching in the FP, and specifically 12 years on average of teaching Grade 1. Given the age of the teachers, the changes expected to their instructional practice would mean changing habits learned over many years.

4.2 Teaching and Learning Environment

The findings presented emerge from data collected through the use of the Lesson Observation Instrument. Although the focus of this instrument was on capturing elements of the teachers’ lesson, certain questions asked fieldworkers to capture information on the physical appearance of classrooms. These questions were to be completed before or after the lesson observation. The ‘teaching and learning environment’ relates to how the space in the classroom is organised for successful

learning and covers aspects such as the teacher being able to move around the room with ease, the visibility of the chalkboard for learners, the existence of print material on walls, and the availability of books.

Younger than 45 45-55 years old Older than 55

21%19%

60%

Figure 1: Teacher age profile

82%6%

2%

10%

Foundation Phase

Intermediate Phase

Senior Phase

PGCE

Figure 2: Teacher qualifications

4 Findings/


Number of Learners in the Classroom The number of learners in a classroom has implications for certain teaching practices, such as whether a reading carpet or corner can be set up in the classroom – because of space constraints – or the number of times learners are able to participate individually during a lesson. This can also impact on the extent a teacher is able to move around the room and interact with learners on an individual basis. Bearing in mind large class sizes are unfortunately out of the school and teachers’ control, as part of the core methodologies, teachers in the intervention groups are guided to help manage the size in a way that looks to reduce negative implications. It is important to note that while some international studies have found inconclusive results on whether decreasing class sizes does, in fact, impact learner performance, there is evidence to suggest that where teacher instructional practice and accountability systems are weak, class sizes can be an even larger barrier to learning (Kremer, et al., 2013). Thus, in an intervention where the instructional practice foundation is the focus for development, it remains important to closely investigate class sizes.

In the lesson observation sample, teachers were requested to report on the number of learners in their classes. The number of learners observed to be in the classroom during the school visit was also recorded and was for the most part quite similar to what was reported by teachers. What emerged is that class sizes were quite large. The number of learners to one teacher tended to be 40 or more (Figure 3): 23 schools had class sizes ranging from 40 learners to 49, but nine of the schools (five of which belonged to the control schools) had over 50 learners to a single teacher. The largest number of learners reported and counted was at an intervention 1 school (face-to-face coaching) with 90 learners from three different classes that had been collapsed into one due to school renovations. Though the class continued at a community hall not far from the actual location of the school, the class size did interrupt the ability to continue with normal routines. While coping strategies are a common feature of the intervention 1 methodology, the extent to which such a large contextual factor can ever be managed, given the associated constraint of a lack of available and viable teaching space, remains a key challenge for schools in the EGRS programme and for similar schools in the province.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Control T1 T2

1-29 learners 30-39 learners 40-49 learners 50+ learners

Figure 3: Reported class sizes by intervention group


Physical Conditions in the ClassroomThe physical conditions of a school and classroom are important contextual factors in creating conducive learning environments. These are often more important in the early grades, where the safety of young learners is an added concern. Classroom management and facilitated conversations on how to improve these conditions with the resources available occur regularly in the central training and coaching activities of the EGRS schools.

Most classes in all three sample groups had the necessary basic infrastructure for teaching and learning to take place (Figure 4). Only one lesson did not take place in a classroom. The venue, in this case, was a community hall. It seems that large class sizes did not restrict the teaching and learning environment: learners in all the classrooms were easily able to see the teacher, and teachers in 56 (93.3%) classrooms were easily able to move around the room. There was adequate seating for learners in 57 (95%) classrooms and adequate desk space in 56 (93.3%) classrooms. All the classrooms had chalkboards which were in a usable condition and fieldworkers noted that 52 (86.7%) of the classrooms were clean. Generally only half of the schools had

notice boards in a good usable state but when data on the various groups were compared, differences were evident: control schools had the least notice boards in good usable condition (eight classes ~ 42%), whereas 12 (57%) of the intervention 1 and 13 (65%) of the intervention 2 classrooms had notice boards in good condition.

Another noticeable difference between schools was the existence and availability of space for reading carpets and reading corners.

Another contextual factor to pay attention to in a classroom is the extent to which a conducive reading environment exists. An initial indicator in an early grade classroom is the existence of a well-defined reading corner, or in its absence a reading mat, where the class is arranged to accommodate Shared Reading as a weekly routine. In the lesson observation and document review instrument, fieldworkers were asked to complete two questions about the availability of reading carpets and the existence of reading corners in the observed classrooms. The rationale was that where a reading corner exists, or a reading space is provided, more reading would be observed happening on the day of observation, or would at least provide a suggestive indication that reading did occur regularly.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Clean Classroom

Sufficient desk space

Adequate seating

Can teacher move around

Chalkboard

Learners can see the teacher

Notice boards in good condition

Figure 4: Physical conditions in classrooms (N = 60)


Table 7: Availability of reading carpets and reading corners

Total C T1 T2

Classes that have a reading mat 12 2 7 3

Classes that have a reading corner 21 7 6 8

Classes that have both reading mat and corner 9 2 4 3

Classes that potentially have space for either* 7 2 1 4

Teacher observed reading stories to learners 39 9 15 15

*Frequencies are the lowest number in the range of classes that could have accommodated either a mat or reading corner but neither was available.

4 Percentages for each group are reported in greater detail in Table 15.

Looking at Table 7, however, it is evident that very few of the classes overall have reading corners or mats available: approximately 21 (35%) of the 60 schools, with no significant differences between the groups. Interestingly though is that of the schools with reading spaces, these tend to be actual reading corners and not just readers stacked on shelves. It is also important to note that conclusions cannot be made about one treatment group having higher incidents over another as large class sizes are in all likelihood driving these results. Another possible explanation is that reading carpets were available but were not evident. Some fieldworkers noted that some teachers stored blankets which served as reading carpets in their classroom cupboards and only took them out when necessary.

When comparing the reading that actually did take place, encouragingly higher incidents are observed with 65% of the sample engaged in activities where a teacher was reading an extended text to learners. The intervention group learners were seen being read to at a higher rate than control learners, suggesting that while classrooms may not have reading spaces diligently laid out this has not stopped reading from taking place. Ideally, all classrooms should have been observed reading to learners at least once.

Print-richness of the ClassroomResearch on teaching and learning in South Africa has consistently shown that South African classrooms have a lack of print material in them (Hoadley, 2012) in spite of the fact that research has shown that print-richness

is linked to literacy acquisition. However, Kremer et al. (2013), in their review of existing research on the provision of LTSM, note that increases in the provision of LTSM may only be beneficial when accompanied by a shift in teachers’ pedagogy. As already discussed, the provision of learning resources underpins the EGRS theory of change, and as such, it was anticipated that the provision of these resources to teachers would lead to their usage in classrooms, resulting in more print-rich classrooms with more relevant information. The extent to which print-richness is existent in control classrooms was also of interest to the COS.

In order to quantify the concept of print-richness in classrooms in our study, fieldworkers were required to identify the number of commercial posters (in Home Language and English) as well as flash cards or other words associated with previous lessons on display in each classroom. They also had to try to establish details about the availability of books such as storybooks in the room and to note whether the classroom timetable was on display on the classroom wall.4

The lesson observation data showed that, in general, the sampled schools all had text on display in the classrooms. Although the observation instrument focused on English print material, fieldworkers were also required to note the presence of Home Language (isiZulu or Siswati) posters or materials.

The majority of the classrooms included additional English material such as flash cards and books and only 11 and nine of the 60 classrooms did not have any commercial posters in English and isiZulu or Siswati


respectively. As regards just the English content on the walls, Figure 5 shows that ‘theme vocabulary’ and ‘phonics’ were the preferred displayed content across all the sampled schools.

With regard to the display of posters on walls, fieldworkers were required to provide information about the display of both Home Language only and English or bilingual posters (Table 8). They noted that about three-quarters of all the classrooms had Home Language posters on the walls. More classrooms at intervention schools had English or bilingual posters on the walls as compared to control schools. Intervention classrooms were more likely to have English or bilingual commercial posters, high-frequency word charts, phonics charts, and words matched to pictures, as compared to the control schools. The differences between intervention and control schools can probably be attributed to increased resources in English supplied by EGRS II: the difference between groups is evident only in terms of the availability of English materials (which were supplied by the project) and not for Home Language material.

Thus, findings suggest that the provision of resources to intervention schools is reflected in the print-richness of intervention classrooms. The above also shows, perhaps more importantly, that the use of print either in Home Language or in English is common practice in Grade 1 classrooms in the province, though to varying degrees. Secondly, it seems that the face-to-face coaching in particular (intervention 1) shows a larger use of print materials in the classroom. For example, about 60% of intervention 1 teachers used English labels on objects in their classrooms as compared to 20% of control and intervention 2 classrooms. This is an example of one of the benefits of having an on-site coach observing lessons, and making suggestions to teachers such as placing English labels on objects. This type of tailored interaction is not possible through the virtual coaching model where the virtual coach has access to the classroom only via photos sent by the teacher.

5 See Table 16 for group frequencies. It should however be noted that learners could have been on their best behaviour due the external observation and thus daily incidents of ill-discipline were not captured.

4.3 Use of Time and Engagement in the Lesson

Bruns, Costa and Cunha (2017), in their randomised control trial on the use of classroom observations to provide feedback to teachers, found that their intervention resulted in teachers spending significantly more time on instruction than the control schools. Time on instruction was increased in intervention schools because of decreases in time spent on classroom management, and more time spent in the classroom. With a similar focus on improving teachers’ efficiency in the classroom, the EGRS II coaching and training emphasises the need for teachers to fully engage learners in their lessons and minimise time wastage through the preparation of the lesson beforehand. The lesson observation instrument included items which attempted to evaluate the use of time in the classroom as well as learners’ engagement during the observed lesson.

Learner Discipline and EngagementDetermining whether boys or girls are more engaged during lessons is a fairly subjective judgement. Nevertheless, studies in South Africa have pointed to female primacy in higher education (van Broekhuizen & Spaull, 2017), at the intermediate phase (Howie, et al., 2017) and at FP level (Department of Basic Education, 2017a). The PIRLS 2016 found that girls performed significantly better on the measure of comprehension than boys and in the EGRS I in North West Province, boys were found to be almost an entire year of learning behind girls by the end of Grade 2.

Given this context, nevertheless, we found learner discipline was not deemed to be a problem in any of the classrooms visited, nor were there any observable learner discipline differences across intervention and control schools. In 54 (90%) of the classrooms, fieldworkers rated learners as adequately to very well disciplined. This finding was similar for all three groups of schools.5 Engagement in the lesson by gender points to a female advantage: in half of the schools, boys and girls were judged to be equally engaged during the lesson, and in 24 (40%) of the schools the girls were deemed to be more engaged than the boys in class (Figure 6). In only five (8.3%) classrooms were boys assessed to be more engaged than girls. Intervention 2 classrooms differed slightly from the other two groups in that there were more classes where girls and boys were equally engaged.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Theme vocabulary on display

Sight words on display

Phonics on display

Writing frame on displayEnglish word wall on display

English labels on objects

English commercial posters

C T1 T2

Figure 5: English poster and wall chart content in classrooms

Table 8: Availability of charts and posters

Available in HL English or bilingual

C T16 T2 C T17 T2

Commercial posters 74% 65% 75% 63% 90% 80%

Days of the week 58% 65% 65% 58% 50% 55%

Months 42% 65% 55% 47% 45% 55%

High frequency words 74% 80% 85% 53% 90% 95%

Words matched to pictures

74% 85% 75% 63% 100% 90%

Phonics charts 68% 80% 80% 58% 95% 85%

6 n = 20 due to missing data for one school7 n = 20 due to missing data for one school


Attention rates by sex were also observed: most learners paid attention most or all of the time in 68.3% (41) of the classes. However, learners in one classroom did not pay attention at all, and in a third of all the classrooms learners paid attention only some of the time. This lack of attention during lessons, whether by the whole class or by boys specifically is considered problematic for teaching EFAL where lessons generally focus on oral development and mainly entail listening and speaking. The implication of this is that learners (especially the boys in 24 of the classes) could be losing out on teaching time due to inattention.

Lost Teaching TimeHoadley (2012), remarks that lost teaching time is especially problematic in schools of a low socioeconomic status because there are fewer opportunities for learners to gain knowledge outside of the school and there is less support at home. Thus, school becomes essential for transferring the knowledge and skills that children need for scholastic success. Lost teaching time can be attributed to the slow pacing of learners and time wastage in class. The EGRS II structured lesson plans aim to address this concern by providing daily lessons that give suggested time allocations for routines to ensure better pacing of learning. Ultimately, more coverage of the curriculum in the allotted time is expected to occur. Additionally, because of the lesson plans and supplied integrated LTSM, teachers need to spend less time preparing lessons and other administrative tasks during teaching hours.

Delays in Starting TeachingTime management is an aspect covered in the training for intervention schools and delays in starting lessons often compounds the problem. Fieldworkers noted that 70% of the lessons (42 teachers) started on time in line with the school timetable (Figure 7). Starting on time varied according to the sampled intervention group. Data showed that more intervention teachers started their EFAL lesson on time and that intervention 2 teachers were most likely to start on time. As teachers in the intervention are often supported with strategies to start lessons on time, the observation of those teachers doing so is encouraging; arguably, even more so with intervention 1 teachers who might be held accountable by the presence of an on-site coach.

In cases where there was a delay in starting lessons (15 classes in total), fieldworkers answered an open-ended question describing the delay. The most frequent

reason provided was that the teachers were unprepared for the lesson. This reason was cited in three control, three intervention 1 and one intervention 2 classrooms. Teachers who were unprepared were observed looking for or still preparing from lessons plans and assembling other materials needed for the planned lesson (such as cutting out flash cards). Another cited reason was that teachers waited for learners to arrive from the bus transport and only started their lesson once everyone was present. Figure 7 thus seems to suggest that the availability of the tablet already preloaded with lesson plans in intervention 2 classrooms might be achieving the purpose of reducing teacher time spent on lesson preparation. Other reasons provided for being delayed with the lesson start time included the teacher needing to attend to a sick learner, Home Language subject administrative commitments (such as assessments), and the teacher being involved in non-teaching activities. Fieldworkers were also asked to observe what the learners were doing while there was a delay, to establish whether or not they were productively engaged while the teacher was busy. Of those classes, learners sat idle or were engaged in moving furniture or were observed ‘fighting with each other’.

Disruptions to TeachingFieldworkers were tasked to observe various factors that were anticipated to cause disruptions to teaching. These included toilet breaks and toilet usage by learners during teaching time, arranging of furniture, the handing out of books (or learner retrieval of books), and the extent to which teachers consulted lessons plans (or other preparation material) while teaching.

Though intermittent with negligible differences, toilet usage was observed as an interruption to teaching time. More intervention 2 teachers gave toilet breaks to the whole class (eight classes) as compared to the other groups, but all of these breaks lasted less than five minutes.

Looking at Figure 8, the most noticeable difference between the control and intervention groups is the time taken to consult paper-based lesson plans, to write activities on the chalkboard and – interestingly – the efficiency of the intervention schools in handing out books better than the control schools. Writing on the board was observed to slow down teaching to some or a large extent in about 32% of control schools, as opposed to 15% of intervention 2 schools and 24% of intervention 1 schools.


0 10 20 30 40

No difference

Girls more engaged

Boys more engaged

Figure 6: Sex differences observed in paying attention to the teacher (n = 60)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

C T1 T2

Delay On time

Figure 7: Proportion of teachers starting the lesson on time


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Handing out books

Teacher consulting paper based lesson plans

Teacher consulting tablet based lesson plans

Learners re-arranging the furniture

Learners do not have the necessary stationery

Teacher writing activities on the chalkboard

T2T1C

Figure 8: Factors that slow down teaching

8 See Table 16 for frequencies.

The largest factor was teachers consulting paper-based lesson plans while teaching. Consulting lesson plans in such a way that it interfered with teaching and learning time occurred in 37% (7) of the control schools and 29% (6) of the intervention 1 schools. Interestingly, intervention 2 teachers did not consult lesson plans during observed lessons in ways that slowed down teaching, though one teacher was seen to refer to the plan on her tablet in such a way that it disrupted teaching and learning.

In general, the findings show that while the control and intervention teachers referred to lesson plans, this seemed to disrupt the flow of the lesson in ways that weren’t observed as frequently in intervention 2 classes. The data provide additional evidence that the tablet-based lesson plans appeared to reduce time spent on preparation while in the classroom, as opposed to the hard-copy lesson plans consulted by the other intervention group.

Pace-setting and MonitoringIt is well understood that teachers can maximise teaching and learning time by pacing learners as they work, and monitoring their progress as they work (Hoadley, 2012). The lesson observation instrument included questions which focused on identifying whether learners stayed

on task in class, and on what teachers did to ensure that they remained on task when independent work was completed.

Overall, the evident trend is that out of the 35 classrooms that were given seatwork (which depended on the day of observation, as treatment schools follow structured lesson plans that allocate seatwork activities on certain days of the week), roughly six (17%) of the classrooms in each group saw teachers constantly monitoring learners; even fewer teachers supervised learners less capable than others. Furthermore, less than half of these teachers paced learners as they worked: a total of 15 out of 35 (42%) were observed pacing learners to some extent. Very few teachers gave extra work to learners who finished ahead of the others nor were learners observed to actively seek out more work or take books from the reading corner once finished. While it is hard to draw conclusions as to why these practices are not yet engendered in classrooms (whether treatment or control), it is worth noting that hardly any classrooms were observed to have learners who finished ahead of others. Of the 12 classrooms where some learners did finish activities before others (six control, two intervention 1 and four intervention 2), these learners were reported as sitting idle for the remainder of the task.8


4.4 Instructional Practices

The COS attempted to quantify teacher instructional practices and the extent to which trained fieldworkers could identify their presence and habitual behaviour by both teachers and learners. The following themes guided the kinds of behaviour and practices the fieldworkers could expect to find. Some of these techniques (such as routines to guide a specific activity, the preferred use of certain books or materials over others available, and even the rapport between teacher and learners during exercises) were expected because they emanated from the structured programme pedagogy. Other behaviours are well known and established strategies often used in successful FP language teaching. The themes included the use of learning and teaching support material; the language of instruction; listening and speaking in class; teacher questioning and feedback; literacy, language and vocabulary development; opportunities to write; levels of cognitive demand; and learner assessment.

Learning and Teaching Support MaterialsAs already explained, the Grade 1 EFAL curriculum places a focus on Shared Reading (where the teacher models reading along with learners) and on listening and speaking activities. However, these activities also necessitate the use of resources to facilitate learners’ understanding.

When looking at the kinds of books teachers used to support reading, listening and speaking activities, more teachers in control schools made use of the DBE workbook during the lessons observed than teachers in the intervention schools. This difference was probably because all the intervention school teachers used other print material beside DBE workbooks during their lesson as was provided by the programme (Figure 9). Only 13 of the 19 (68%) teachers in control schools used print materials other than workbooks to support instruction.

It is important, though, to note that the presence of the EGRS II materials did not stop the use of the DBE workbooks as some lesson activities call on its use. Furthermore, only two control teachers, one intervention 1 teacher and 11 intervention 2 teachers used non-print material such as real objects and tablets during the observed lessons.

Of the teachers who made use of additional print materials; the use of flash cards and posters were seen the most. Table 9 presents the proportion of classes

where each type of print material was used during lessons. Generally, learners were given the opportunity to handle print material themselves in fewer classrooms, but more intervention 1 teachers gave learners this opportunity especially when it came to handling flash cards and posters.

When the data from Figure 9 and Table 9 are viewed in conjunction, it can be seen that teachers in the intervention groups generally made use of additional print material but control teachers relied more heavily on the DBE workbook. Hence posters and charts were used less during lessons in control schools but more in lessons in intervention schools. Although learners handled print materials in fewer than half of the lessons, learners in intervention 1 schools had more opportunities to handle print materials (other than workbooks) themselves and to see teachers using them.

It is important, however, to note that the use of LTSM is largely dependent on the availability of LTSM for a teacher. During the teacher interview, teachers were asked whether there was any additional LTSM they required since teachers often cite the lack of LTSM as a reason for not covering the curriculum. The provision of resources in intervention schools seems to have had an effect on teachers’ perception of a lack of resources. Intervention teachers requested fewer types of additional resources compared to control teachers. Intervention teachers requested 1.7 types of additional resources whereas this request was almost double for control teachers at 3.29. In addition, 14 intervention teachers indicated that they needed no additional LTSM, whereas only two control teachers said they needed nothing extra. The most frequently asked for items by control teachers were posters or charts (10 teachers), storybooks (10 teachers), and flash cards (seven teachers). Intervention 1 teachers indicated that they would like additional storybooks (seven teachers), as well as tablets to play the correct pronunciation of English words to the learners (three teachers). Intervention 2 teachers’ most requested item was the sentence strips (four teachers).

Use of TabletsLooking specifically at the presence and use of tablets preloaded with the EGRS II application as an LTSM for all intervention 2 teachers, the following was noted. Of the 20 teachers expected to make use of tablets, only 13 were observed making use of them, with one teacher observed as having a tablet present but not making use of it, as the ‘lesson was known to the learners’, suggesting that the habitual use of the lesson plans allowed the teacher and class time to internalise the lesson routines.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DBE workbook used byteacher only

DBE workbook used bylearners

DBE workbook notused at all

Other print material isused

Non-print materialused

T2T1C

Figure 9: Use of workbooks and other materials to support reading, listening and speaking activities

Table 9: Frequency of use of print material

Used by learner Used by teacher

C T1 T2 C T1 T2

N 13 20 19 13 20 19

Big books 8% 10% 0% 38% 45% 37%

Flash cards 31% 40% 21% 85% 80% 68%

Picture cards 23% 20% 11% 31% 35% 47%

Posters or charts 23% 30% 16% 23% 55% 47%

Pictures with no words 8% 25% 21% 38% 45% 37%

Phonics charts 15% 20% 5% 31% 25% 21%

Alphabet frieze 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0%

Sentence strips 0% 5% 0% 8% 5% 5%

Other enlarged texts 15% 10% 0% 15% 15% 11%


Keeping in mind missing data, we see most teachers tended to make use of the tablets to mainly consult the lesson plans despite the tablets being preloaded with a variety of other audiovisual resources (eight of the 14). Only five of the 14 teachers observed made use of the tablets for accessing the preloaded songs and stories, phonics demonstrations, and only one teacher used it to demonstrate pronunciation. It should be noted however

that the resources on the tablets are designed to be resources for teachers and not for the learners. The sound on the tablets are not appropriate for the resources to be played to the full class, so the effectiveness of using the tablets as a strategy for exposing learners to pronunciation, for example, cannot be fully assessed. Furthermore, the use of the tablets indicates that some teachers value the EGRS II application as an additional resource within the classroom while others seem to shy away from using the other loaded material. Of greater concern, though, were the seven teachers not seen to use their tablets, considering these were core resources needed for teaching. Interestingly, as will be seen below under curriculum coverage, despite this inconsistency with having tablets present, all the intervention 2 teachers were observed as having mostly or completely taught lessons that matched exactly with their planned lessons.

Exposure To and Use of English in the ClassroomIdeally, teachers should mainly use English during their EFAL lessons so that learners are exposed to it as much as possible in class and so that they become used to the sound of the language and are comfortable practising speaking it. However, since English is an additional language for learners in the schools studied, ‘translanguaging’ may be used in the pre-reading of a story so that teachers can ensure that learners understand the content of the story. Nevertheless, EGRS II teachers are encouraged to explain new words using simple English phrases already familiar to the learners, or gestures, or pictures, or real objects in order to boost learners’ English acquisition, rather than use the learners’ first language.

All teachers in the sample began their EFAL lessons by greeting learners in English indicating that this activity is a routine that all intervention and control teachers used. Another similarity between intervention and control classes was that teachers’ English proficiency was rated similarly for all three groups of teachers:9 56 teachers


were rated as having an adequate or excellent command of English and this rating did not differ markedly between groups. With the exception of these findings, there were clear differences by group in teachers’ and learners’ use of English in the classroom. More intervention teachers than control teachers used only English during the observations, and learners in more intervention classes used and had an opportunity to use English during the lessons observed than in the control classes (Figure 11).

More intervention teachers were observed using English as the main language of instruction in EFAL lessons than in control lessons. For teachers in the intervention 1 lessons, all except one were observed using mainly English to conduct the lesson, with lower levels of code-switching and higher opportunities for learners to use English. Intervention 2 classes also had a higher incidence of English use (18 classes) with equal minimal code-switching by the teacher witnessed. The control schools, however, showed slightly lower levels of English use in classrooms with only 12 observed as such. Code-switching was also more frequently observed, with less than five teachers observed as avoiding code-switching.

In addition, more intervention teachers were observed giving learners easy-to-follow English instructions (100% of classes in intervention 1 and 85% of classes in intervention 2), whereas this was the case in just over half the lessons at control schools (58%). In other words, the data indicate that in EGRS II classrooms, both teachers and learners are using more English than their control school counterparts with less reliance on code-switching to lead the lesson.

Learners in the majority of intervention schools also responded to teachers’ questions using mainly English. They mostly responded in English in 15 intervention 1 (71%) and 18 intervention 2 classes (90%), whereas this was deemed to be the case in only nine (47%) lessons at control schools. In six of the control classes, learners mostly respond in isiZulu or Siswati, probably because the teachers themselves did not use English exclusively in the lessons. In over half (10) of the lessons at control schools less than a quarter of the class had opportunities to speak using simple English phrases. In comparison, in over half of intervention 1 (13 classes ~ 62%) and intervention 2 schools (11 classes ~ 55%), slightly more than a quarter of the class, had opportunities to speak using simple English phrases. This also indicates that EGRS II classrooms are also providing more observable chances for language use for learners at higher rates than control schools.


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Lesson plans

Play English phonics sounds

Play English songs

Play sounds for correct pronunciation

Show learners pictures

Figure 10: Teachers’ uses of the tablets during lessons

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

More than three quarters of learners use simple English

phrases

Learners use mostly English in class

Teacher uses motsly English in class

Teacher code-switches not at all/minimally

Teacher uses English to give simple instructions

mostly/awlays

T2T1C

Figure 11: Use of English by teachers and learners


Listening and SpeakingResearch has found that, in South Africa, chorusing responses is a very common method used for learners to respond to teachers’ questioning (Hoadley, 2012). This chorusing of responses is not the most effective way of engaging learners as individuals in learning. Significantly, fieldworkers did not observe much chorusing of responses in the majority of the lessons observed across all three groups of schools. Learners did not respond at all individually in only one lesson at a control school and in one lesson at an intervention 2 school.

Rather, fieldworkers reported that learners were sometimes provided with opportunities to give individual responses to teachers in 35 (58%) of the lessons observed and were mostly provided with opportunities to give individual responses in 19 (32%) of the lessons.

It also seemed that teachers across all three groups gave a number of different learners the opportunity to respond rather than only calling on the same learners or on learners who raised their hands to answer. In 38 (63%) of the lessons teachers selected different learners

to answer their questions, and in only 15 (25%) of the lessons were the same learners called upon to answer questions. In 25 (42%) of the lessons the teachers mostly or always actively engaged learners who did not put their hands up to answer questions. Teachers in only nine (15%) of the observed lessons never asked different learners to respond. The findings thus suggest that teachers are more aware of the need to engage individual learners across all three treatment groups in answering questions in their lesson and of the need to get them to respond, even if they do not self-select.

Learners in the lessons observed should also have had opportunities to practise English through the use of songs, rhymes and finger plays. Figure 12 shows that English songs and rhymes were most commonly used in the intervention 1 lessons, but overall English songs were used by more than half of all three groups. Finger plays were least commonly used as a method. Daily activities, which include the use of a song, are scheduled in the EGRS II lesson plans every day. It seems that the on-site coaching has helped more of the intervention 1 teachers to embrace this song or rhyme practice.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Rhymes/poems

Songs

Finger plays

T2T1C

Figure 12: Frequency of English rhymes, songs and finger plays


Questioning and FeedbackFieldworkers observed teachers’ use of questioning and feedback during lessons.10

Providing evaluative feedback to learners’ responses has been linked with increased learner performance (Hoadley, 2017). The data show that intervention teachers were more likely to use questioning and feedback in an instructive manner as compared to controls schools during their lessons which could be as a result of their coaching. The feedback included indicating to learners whether their answers were correct or not and using the mistakes learners made as points of departure for improving understanding for the rest of the class. Correcting learners’ pronunciation was also an important factor to measure: 12 (57%) intervention 1 and 13 (65%) intervention 2 teachers corrected learners’ mispronunciations by repeating the correct form, whereas only six (31%) control teachers were seen to do this.

Language and Literacy DevelopmentBecause learners in the schools studied will be switching from learning all their subjects in isiZulu or Siswati to learning all subjects in English in Grade 4, it is very important that teachers develop learners’ English vocabulary, and tie this development to written words so as to build up a sight vocabulary. Learners also need to develop phonological awareness, and to practice English phonics so that they are able to start reading English words and sentences fluently.

With regard to reading activities covered in class, the focus on vowels, letters and syllables appeared more frequently in lessons, along with activities involving words and the use of short sentences and phrases. Across all the treatment groups, rhyming word activities were the least presented to learners. For word usage, more than half of the intervention schools introduced three to five English words in their lessons, as compared to the one control school. However, eight control teachers (42%) introduced more words (5–10), while only four (19%) intervention 1 teachers introduced the same. No intervention 2 teachers introduced as many words.

Looking closely at the word and sentence activities, intervention schools read fewer words during lessons but were more likely to incorporate the words into sentences to enhance understanding, whereas control teachers gave more individual words to learners to


read but were less likely to incorporate the words into sentence activities. Thus, while control teachers were challenging their learners more than intervention schools by learning more words a day, the observations show that those words were not consolidated in depth through opportunities for learners to use and engage with their meaning.

Another factor the classroom observation looked for was the extent to which certain types of strategies were used by teachers to help learners develop phonemic awareness and phonics while also developing the learners’ understanding of the new words. It was expected that intervention teachers (having been exposed more to these strategies through their coaching) would have a stronger grasp of such strategies and this would be widely evident in their practice.

While unfortunately much of the data had missing values, limiting the potential to draw out whether teachers used multiple strategies or relied on one main strategy, about 45 (77%) of the teachers who did manage to introduce new vocabulary focused on the meaning of the words they introduced at just about even rates across the three groups. Of the 43 teachers who made use of pictures to explain new vocabulary taught, rates across the three groups hardly differed between the two intervention groups but intervention 2 teachers were observed using the cards more than the control schools.

The largest difference witnessed, however, was the control school teachers’ reliance on using Home Language to explain new vocabulary: 44% (15) out of 34 teachers in control classrooms observed used Siswati or isiZulu to explain new English vocabulary, as opposed to 38% (13) of those in intervention 1 and 17% (six) of those in intervention 2 schools. More of the intervention 2 teachers got learners to use new words by asking them to respond to a question using the word in English. Of the 27 classrooms where this strategy was used, 13 belonged to intervention 2 teachers, as opposed to seven belonging to intervention 1 and control teachers.

It would appear that while no significant teaching strategies were more evident in one intervention or the other, the intervention 2 teachers appeared to use more strategies to enhance the acquisition of new vocabulary at consistently higher rates than the control teachers. However, these teachers spent less time explaining the meaning of words, opting to rather show pictures or gestures to communicate.


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Mostly/always indicates an answer is incorrect

Mostly/always mistakes are used to improve understanding

Mostly/always repeating mistakes in correct form

T2T1C

Figure 13: Teachers’ use of evaluative feedback

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%vowels, letters, syllables

one or two english words

three to five english words

five to ten english wordsmore than 11 words

short phrases/sentences

rhyming words

C T1 T2

Figure 14: Reading activities covered in class


Use of Extended TextsShared Reading, listening and speaking are prioritised in the EFAL CAPS for Grade 1. Shared Reading is a practice where the teacher scaffolds the close reading of a text with learners. For this scaffolding to be successful, teachers need to make use of extended texts. Teachers can then model fluent reading for learners. Shared Reading also allows learners to develop awareness of print conventions and to develop vocabulary in the context of a story with a view to improving comprehension. Lastly, Shared Reading serves to encourage a positive attitude toward stories and reading.

Since individual reading is not yet a skill required in EFAL in the CAPS Grade 1 curriculum, posters are often used for the Shared Reading activity. Fieldworkers were, therefore, requested to consider the poster stories as ‘extended texts’ if posters were used for the Shared Reading activity.

The majority of intervention schools and over half of the control schools used an extended text during the lessons observed: 18 (90%) intervention 2 teachers and 16 (76%) intervention 1 teachers used extended texts during their lessons, but an extended text was used in only 12 of the 19 (63%) control schools. Additionally, intervention teachers were more likely to develop print awareness during lessons by pointing out the front cover and title of the story. A small number of intervention teachers showed the ‘direction’ of reading text and of page turning but even fewer control schools did so. The number of intervention teachers who showed the direction of reading is expected to be low since most intervention teachers used a poster story in the weeks of data collection.

About three-quarters of all teachers who read an extended text did so in a way that engaged learners reading with intonation and expression and using gestures or real objects to enhance understanding. Teachers’ use of Home Language to help explain the story after it was read in English was not a common strategy across the three groups. Three control teachers, seven intervention 1 and six intervention 2 teachers used this strategy.

A large difference was seen in the Shared Reading practices of intervention 1 teachers where fewer of these teachers used chorusing or reading aloud together with learners: 38% of intervention 1 teachers read aloud together with learners, whereas this number was much higher for the control (75%) and intervention 2 (76%) lessons. More intervention 1 teachers were thus modelling fluent reading for learners as recommended in the EGRS II Shared Reading methodology. Nevertheless, the majority of teachers in all groups made the whole class repeat the text together after the teacher, and just more than half of the teachers in all groups got learners to respond to pictures.

Shared Reading should also be accompanied by teachers asking learners questions about the story as they read so that they engage with the text. More intervention 2 teachers (83%) asked learners comprehension questions based on the story as compared to either intervention 1 (63%) and control teachers (67%). About three-quarters of the teachers got learners to respond to the text’s pictures. Differences in groups arose with reference to getting learners to retell, act out or draw in response to the story. More intervention 2 teachers (67%) were seen getting learners involved in the retelling, acting out or drawing responses to stories than control (33%) or intervention 1 (44%) teachers.

Opportunities to WriteEFAL in Grade 1 mostly has an oral focus but the CAPS also states that learners should be involved in simple writing activities from Term 3 onwards over and above drawing a picture and labelling it or completing a sentence frame. The CAPS states that this type of writing should be taught once or twice a week as learners’ progress through the year. Learners in about half of the lessons in the sample completed written work during the observations. Again it is important to note which days individual intervention schools were visited since, according to the EGRS II weekly routine, written activities are planned on Thursdays, and optionally on Fridays (as a response to that week’s shared story). Eight intervention 1 classes and 10 intervention 2 classes were scheduled to have writing on the day of the observation at their schools. Data suggest that for the most part,


intervention teachers are following the routine in their lesson plans. Only one intervention 1 teacher included a written activity in her lesson on a day when it was not scheduled.

According to fieldworkers, learners wrote the date in their exercise books or workbooks in the majority of intervention 2 classes but only in half of intervention 1 and control schools on the day of the observation.11

Most or all learners in all three groups had the necessary stationery for writing in the lessons observed. Where learners were engaged in seatwork tasks during the lessons observed, learners in intervention classes either wrote in their exercise books or on loose sheets of paper, whereas in the control group learners wrote in their DBE workbooks or in exercise books. The most common written activity that occurred was that of drawing a picture. This activity occurred in six of 12 (50%) of the control lessons, eight of nine (89%) of the intervention 1 lessons and eight of 10 (80%) of the intervention 2 lessons. In the majority of lessons, written work was not differentiated for learners: most or all learners completed the same written tasks in nine (75%) control, six (67%) intervention 1 and nine (90%) intervention 2 lessons. Lastly, half of the teachers in each group checked learners’ work in class, and half of the teachers collected learners’ books to mark later. Learners were never required to mark their or their peers work in class in any of the lessons observed.

The document review showed that learners used the DBE workbook and only one other exercise book for EFAL in 52 of the 60 schools sampled. In the document review, fieldworkers were required to record which book (the DBE workbook or the exercise book) was most used by learners in each class. The data collected show that an equal number of teachers (8 ~ 40%) in each of the three groups used both the DBE workbook and an additional exercise book equally for written tasks in lessons (Figure 15). Differences arose in that more control teachers (10 ~ 53%) made more use of the DBE workbook as compared to intervention 1 (5 ~ 33%) and intervention 2 (4 ~ 25%) teachers.


The review of learners’ books also showed that the amount of writing in each type of book also differed slightly by the group. Learners in the control schools completed more written activities in their DBE workbooks, and intervention learners completed more written activities in their exercise books. Nevertheless, the data show that written work took place in both sets of books in the classes at all of the schools.

The average number of completed written activities in the DBE workbook in control schools was 29, with intervention schools having completed slightly less. A similar number of activities were completed in the DBE workbooks by each group (Tables 10 and 11). A bigger difference can be seen in the amount of writing in learners’ exercise books, with 26 and 28 activities completed on average in intervention 1 and 2 classes, and 17 activities completed on average in control classes. This is evidenced by a fieldworker’s observation comment, ‘The teacher allow[s] learners who have finished work in their exercise books to work on their DBE workbooks.’ Hence, although the data show that a similar number of written activities were completed in all the classes, the nature and quantity of the written activities tended to differ.

The teacher allow[s] learners who have finished work in their exercise books to work

on their DBE workbooks

- Fieldworker commenting on

intervention 2 lesson observation

In the review, fieldworkers also checked whether workbooks and exercise books were marked by the teachers. Findings showed that exercise books tended to be marked more often than the DBE workbook: slightly more than half of all the teachers mostly or always marked the DBE workbooks (41 out of 60), but almost all of the teachers (52 out of 60) mostly or always marked the exercise books. There were no large differences among the three groups in this respect.


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Use DBE Workbooks more

Use Exercise books more

Use both books equally

T2T1C

Figure 15: Books most written in

Table 10: Average number of completed written activities per book

C T1 T2

DBE workbook (Term 3 only) 29 22 23

Exercise book (year to date) 17 26 28

Table 11: Pages completed in DBE workbook

C T1 T2

Page 3 19 16 15

Page 17 16 21 19

Page 27 13 15 13

Page 30 8 0 6

Page 40 1 3 3

Table 12: Formal assessment records made available to fieldworkers

Total C T1 T2

Record of formal assessment: Term 1 38 53% 62% 75%



All records for Terms 1–3 20 21% 33% 45%


AssessmentIn the interviews, teachers were asked how they usually assess learners. There were clear differences between responses from teachers in intervention and control schools.12 Three-quarters of the intervention teachers said they used the assessment tasks provided by the EGRS II programme and only a few said they used assessment plans devised by themselves whereas, three-quarters of the teachers in the control schools said they used assessments created by themselves. Thus teachers’ responses in the interviews clearly suggest that a large burden of the assessment development feel directly on teachers themselves. It would seem the integrated assessment tasks in the EGRS II lesson plans have helped teacher instructional practice in the area of assessment by reducing this burden of development.

For the document review, teachers were asked to provide fieldworkers with their assessment records for the year to date (Table 12): 38 of the 60 teachers were able to show their assessment records for Term 1; 42 teachers were able to provide assessment records for Term 2; and 33 teachers provided their records for Term 3. The trend in the data was that more teachers in the intervention 2 group were able to provide their assessment records than teachers in the other two groups, and the teachers in the control group were the least able to provide their assessment records. Nine intervention 2, seven intervention 1 and four control teachers were able to provide assessment records for all three terms, further confirming this trend. Fieldworkers noted that a number of intervention 1 teachers said they could not provide Term 3 records as they had given their Term 3 assessment tasks to their EGRS II coach to check.

Fieldworkers also recorded the number of assessment marks recorded for Phonics, Reading, Writing, and Listening and Speaking for Term 2. Teachers in control schools had one mark per ‘content’ area (i.e. four marks). By contrast, teachers at intervention schools had two marks for Phonics and for Writing (i.e. six marks in all).

Cognitive DemandResearch in South Africa has shown that faster pacing of the curriculum at a higher level of cognitive demand correlates with improved learner performance (Hoadley, 2012). In the classroom observation fieldworkers were asked to assess the level of cognitive demand placed on learners through oral questioning and written tasks.13 Unfortunately, due to the types of response options

12 See Table 23 for frequencies.13 See Table 21 for frequencies.

fieldworkers could choose, these results suffer from a lack of consistency (e.g. a fieldworker notes that the oral questions are both familiar to the class and too difficult). Generally, the classes were characterised by a low level of cognitive demand for oral questions and written work but these results cannot be relied on too heavily.

4.5 Planning and Curriculum Coverage

Research in South African classrooms has highlighted the slow pace of classroom activities which leads to a low rate of coverage of the curriculum (Hoadley, 2012). Given the importance of covering the curriculum, the teacher interview focused on asking teachers about their planning practices and gauging the teachers’ perceptions of their curriculum coverage, whereas the document review focused on examining the details of teachers’ plans and on looking for documentary evidence relating to curriculum pacing and coverage.

Lesson Planning All teachers in the two interventions indicated that they used EGRS II lesson plans. Surprisingly, so did two of the control teachers. The latter indicates that there may have been some contamination in the sample. Of the 60 teachers, 39 were able to show fieldworkers their work plan for Term 3; 14 could only show the plan for part of the term, and seven teachers did not make their plans available to fieldworkers. No differences were discernible among the groups in terms of teachers not being able to show their work plan. As far as the control teachers were concerned, only three teachers could not make their work plans available. The remaining 16 control teachers all provided fieldworkers with their term plans which included lesson plans. For the most part, the control teachers’ lesson plans were deemed to provide a moderate amount of detail on the content to be covered each day (nine plans), and five plans were deemed to provide the content in extensive detail.

Figure 16 presents the activities that were specified in the control teachers’ lesson plans. Figures are reported as a percentage of the 16 control teachers who made lesson plans available. A large number of the lesson plans specified daily activities in at least some of the core skills of the EFAL curriculum. Only 10 teachers’ lesson plans had integrated assessment tasks. Thus it would seem that generally, control teachers did have access


to lesson plans that were moderately specified, but that assessment in half of the sample was more ad hoc and not integrated into the planning. As the core curriculum activities are included and specified in the EGRS II plans provided, the intervention learners should have provided more a ‘holistic’ or balanced EFAL instruction.

In the interviews, teachers were asked which documents they mainly used to plan their lessons (Figure 17). They could provide two answers. Most control teachers stated that they made use of the CAPS and DBE workbook, with a few control teachers saying that they used their own lesson plans or plans developed by the province. On the other hand, almost all intervention teachers said they made use of the EGRS II lesson plans, and a quarter to half of the intervention teachers said they also used the CAPS or the DBE workbook. The EGRS II lesson plans are not meant to replace official resources available to the teachers but to provide a clear step by step guide as to how to implement the curriculum. Data collected show that intervention teachers are using available resources in the CAPS and the DBE workbooks alongside the EGRS II lesson plans.

ImplementationIn addition to lesson plans specifying daily activities for all EFAL outcomes in Grade 1, teachers also need to keep track of whether they are covering their curriculum.14 Indications are that the intervention 1 teachers were doing the best in this regard. The majority of intervention teachers – 17 (81%) in intervention 1 and 14 (70%) in intervention 2 – were able to show that they were tracking their implementation of the curriculum, whereas less than half of control teachers (8 ~ 42%) could show that they tracked their curriculum implementation. This difference could be attributed to the curriculum tracker and perhaps the monitoring and encouragement from the coaches provided by the EGRS II programme.

In the lessons observed, almost all (19 ~ 95%) of the intervention 2 teachers observed and almost three-quarters (15 ~ 71%) of the intervention 1 teachers mostly or entirely followed the lesson plan for the day, whereas this was the case with only six (32%) of the control teachers (Figure 18). This ability of intervention teachers to follow the lesson plans more closely can


to a large extent be attributed to the coaching that the intervention teachers received as opposed to the provision of daily lesson plans per se, as most control teachers also had lesson plans which for the most part were detailed. It can, therefore, be concluded that coaching may be playing an important role in ensuring the implementation of the lesson plans. The data collection instrument provided fieldworkers with the opportunity to explain why a lesson observed might not have matched the plan as intended when this was the case. Very few fieldworkers provided a reason. According to the fieldworkers’ reports, four teachers said they were catching up with a previous lesson, one teacher made additions to the lesson planned, four teachers did not cover all the activities specified in the lesson plan and omitted some activities, and one intervention 1 teacher said she had received her EGRS II lesson plans too late to implement the plan for the day.

If teachers do not follow their lesson plans closely, they are likely to spend more or less time on the various activities than intended. The presence of an observer in a lesson can lead to the Hawthorne effect where teachers may act in ways that are not a true reflection of their daily teaching (see fieldworker quote in accompanying box). Indeed, data from the lesson observations revealed that more than half of teachers went over the scheduled time for EFAL in the lessons and that intervention 1 teachers were most likely to do this. Lessons were shorter than scheduled in only nine of the lesson observations and teachers in control schools were most likely to shorten their lessons.

Evidence provided by observation dictates that the teacher might have extended the lesson

because there was an external observer

- Fieldworker

More than half the time the reason given by fieldworkers in intervention schools for teachers’ going over the timetabled time for EFAL was that the teacher was following the EGRS II daily time allocation for EFAL


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Specific reference to vocabulary development

Specify daily Phonics

Specify daily Reading

Specify daily Writing

Specify daily Listening & Speaking

Specify daily vocabulary words

Assessment plan integrated with workplan

Figure 16: Activities specified in control school lesson plans

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CAPS

DBE Workbooks

Own plan

Plans compiled by EGRS

Plan compiled by Province

Teacher's Guide

T2T1C

Figure 17: Documents most used to plan lessons

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

C

T1

T2

Loose or no match to lesson plan Mostly or completely matched lesson plan

Figure 18: Match between lesson plan and lesson observed


lessons rather than the school’s schedule. Other reasons provided for lessons going on for longer than timetabled included the teacher working according to the pace of the learners, or teachers repeating parts of lessons so as to ensure the all learners understood the work covered. In other cases, the reason provided was that the teacher was unprepared or did not have plans to follow. Fieldworkers also reported that teachers conducted two EFAL lessons in a row to catch up after missing a previous lesson. Some teachers were observed going over class time because time had been lost to the handing out of books in class.

Table 13 shows some trends that are evident in relation to the role of the interventions in following lesson plan timing. Firstly, the interventions appear to have ensured that teachers spent at least the required amount of time on EFAL. Teachers cutting lessons short was evident in a third of the lessons in the control schools, whereas this was the case in only three of the lessons at the intervention schools. Secondly, face-to-face coaching where teachers received feedback on their teaching seems to have led to teachers spending more time than scheduled for EFAL lessons because they wanted to get their teaching ‘just right’. However, the danger of spending more time on EFAL could ‘crowd out’ other subjects meaning less time is spent on the instruction of other crucial learning areas. This effect was not evident in intervention 2 schools where the same proportion of lessons went over time as in the control schools, though the high incidence of teaching above the allocated time should pose a concern across all treatment groups.

Furthermore, teachers were asked to say whether they were happy with their progress and whether they believed they would manage to cover the whole Grade 1 EFAL curriculum in 2017 (Figure 19). The data collected suggest that face-to-face coaching led to teachers feeling more satisfied with their progress in 2017. Almost all of the intervention 1 teachers said that they were very satisfied with their progress (86%), whereas only half of

the control teachers (53%) and less than three-quarters of the intervention 2 teachers (65%) said they were very satisfied. All intervention 2 teachers, 89% of control and 81% of intervention 1 teachers said they believed they would successfully complete the curriculum by the end of the year.

The teacher tried very hard to impress the observer and as a result went over the

scheduled time

- Fieldworker

Three-quarters of the intervention teachers said that EGRS II support had helped them cover the curriculum so far. Control teachers highlighted the role of extra lessons and provincial and school support in helping them cover the curriculum. Interestingly, of the teachers who taught EFAL in Grade 1 in the previous year, more control teachers (11 of 14 ~ 79%) stated that they completed the curriculum in 2016 – as compared to 11 of 20 (55%) intervention 1 and eight of 15 (53%) intervention 2 teachers – although the control teachers were the least satisfied group with their progress in 2017.

Teachers were asked to provide the reasons for their not covering the curriculum in the previous year or why they were not happy with their progress in the current year. Most teachers indicated that they were happy with their progress (and therefore did not give reasons for being unhappy with their progress). However, of those who responded 10 intervention teachers and two control teachers indicated that a lack of monitoring and support had hampered them in the previous year, whereas none of the teachers gave this as a reason for not covering the curriculum in 2017. Other reasons that were cited but that did not differ across years or groups was that of not having enough time, or that the curriculum was too ambitious or that time was lost due to external factors.

Table 13: Differences between planned and actual time spent on lesson

Total C T1 T2

Cut lesson short 9 32% 5% 10%

Exceeded scheduled time 36 53% 71% 55%

Time difference due to following EGRS plan 18 0% 48% 40%


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Are very satisfied with progress in 2017

Will finish by the end of 2017

Finished curriculum in 2016

T2T1C

Figure 19: Teachers’ perceptions of completing the curriculum

Monitoring ProgressIn the interviews, teachers were asked who had checked that they were covering the curriculum in 2017. It is important to note that these findings are based on self-report data and only apply to those teachers who could actually remember who had checked their work. About three-quarters of all three groups indicated that a school management team member had checked that they were covering the curriculum (Figure 20). About half of control teachers reported that their coverage had been monitored by a district official (such as a Curriculum Implementer or other district official). Fewer intervention teachers than control teachers said that they had been visited by a Department of Education (DoE) official. Most intervention 1 (18 ~ 86%) teachers said they had been monitored by an EGRS II representative, whereas about half of intervention 2 (11 ~ 55%) teachers said so. This self-report data suggest that the EGRS II face-to-face coaching served to encourage and monitor coverage. In contrast, half of the intervention 2 teachers did not perceive virtual coaching as playing this role. Indeed, teacher’s coverage of the curriculum in intervention 2 was only checked at cluster training which occurred at the start of the following term, while the face-to-face coaches were able to intervene earlier on because they checked on teachers when they were visited during each term.

When teachers were asked how those who had monitored them had checked their curriculum coverage, teachers reported that district officials check curriculum coverage by examining learners’ books and by checking the teachers’ assessment plans. With regard to the EGRS II support provided for this aspect, intervention 1 teachers indicated that they had been observed teaching a lesson (15 ~ 71%), their learners’ work had been checked (5 ~ 24%) and their work schedules checked (5 ~ 21%). On the other hand, nine (45%) intervention 2 teachers reported that they had been monitored via Short Message Service (SMS) or WhatsApp. Considering that all intervention 2 teachers received virtual coaching every second week, this finding suggests that teachers do not perceive virtual coaching as having a monitoring role. Finally, teachers also reported that SMT members monitored curriculum coverage by examining learners’ books, checking their assessment tasks, and looking at their work plans. Five of the control teachers, six intervention 1 teachers and 10 intervention 2 teachers reported that lesson observations were used as a method of checking by SMT members.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No one DoE Officials SMT EGRS NGO

T2T1C

Figure 20: Monitoring of curriculum coverage

Another method of supporting and monitoring teachers is for others to observe them teaching a lesson. When asked if anyone had observed them teaching in 2017, 20 (95%) of the intervention 1 teachers, 16 (80%) of the intervention 2 teachers and 11 (58%) of the control teachers said that they had been observed teaching. This tended to be mostly SMT members as was reported consistently across all three groups, but only one teacher per group had been observed by their district representative. A large number of schools that did not indicate having a district representative observe their teaching evidence the growing concern that districts do not have the requisite capacity to provide ongoing support to teachers as intended.

4.6 Support and training

As a final component to the classroom observations, teachers were interviewed about changes they had perceived to the level of support and training they received in that year. Though early in the intervention to see notable changes, a few responses are worth highlighting. The majority of teachers in both intervention groups indicated that training workshops were most

beneficial, compared to less than half of the teachers in control schools who responded similarly. Three-quarters of the intervention 2 teachers indicated that the provision of tablets had most helped them in 2017. More teachers in intervention 1 and control teachers than teachers in intervention 2 schools indicated that training on how to use the DBE workbook had helped them the most. Unexpectedly, though, only seven intervention 1 and three intervention 2 teachers indicated that coaches had been the most helpful, though this low attribution is likely caused by the few teachers (only 11 out of 41) who opted to answer the question. Unfortunately, at least six control teachers said they had not felt supported at all, and two control teachers said they had received support that they did not feel was helpful.


The 60 classroom observation seeks to measure and observe the extent to which successful instructional practices were evident in the teaching of EFAL after only one year of the EGRS II intervention. This was done by observing one EFAL lesson of a single teacher from a 60 classroom sample drawn from the larger 180 schools participating in the EGRS II RCT. From the control group, 19 schools were selected; 21 schools from the intervention 1 group (also referred to as the face-to-face coaching group); and 20 from the intervention 2 group, which received virtual coaching. The COS also included learner document reviews and interviews with the teachers.

The results reported are suggestive of possible changes to teachers’ instructional practice due to the EGRS II interventions but moreover, have illuminated the kinds of barriers and strategies teachers navigate when instructing EFAL in the FP. Though limited in its scope given the challenges faced in standardising fieldworker observations, the attempt at deep diving into the classroom perspective allows a closer look at what other types of change are possible for an RCT intervention of this size. Ultimately, the COS findings will be triangulated with the learner assessment data from the larger 180 school sample.

The main findings of the study are summarised below.

5.1 Teaching and Learning Environment

Some differences in teachers’ use of learning and teaching support material in classrooms were evident. More intervention classes had English print material visible in their classrooms though no difference was evident with regard to the Home Language print material on display. The trend was that while incidents of reading carpets and or reading mats on hand were low throughout the treatment groups, this did not seem to relate to, nor hinder, reading aloud activities observed in classes. It should however be noted that having the space for a reading corner or mat was largely determined by

the class size. Face-to-face coaching was found to have played a role in encouraging the placement of English labels on objects in classrooms: more intervention 1 teachers had done this in their classroom than either of the control or intervention 2 teachers.

In summary, as far as the classroom environment was concerned, more intervention classrooms had English print material visible to learners corroborating that when teachers have access to quality print-rich materials they make more use of it in their classrooms. Face-to-face coaching also seems to have driven the teachers’ use of English labels on objects in classrooms.

5.2 Use of Time and Engagement in the Lesson

There were noticeable differences in the use of time in lessons. Teachers in intervention schools appeared to make more efficient use of the instructional time available. Findings showed that teachers in the intervention schools were more likely to start their EFAL lessons on time, though this was mostly observed in intervention 2 classrooms. This difference could very well be linked to the lesson plans provided preloaded and pre-prepared for teachers which reduced the need for teachers who might otherwise have completed their lesson preparation in class.

In the majority of lessons observed teaching time was not lost due to learners having to do classrooms chores or sitting idle while the teacher did administrative work or learner discipline, as interruptions to time on task did not appear to be a problem in the majority of the classes. However, engagement in the lesson seemed to differ by learners’ sex, with girls observed to be paying attention more than boys.

Furthermore, intervention teachers seemed to be better able to manage their classrooms so that activities not directly related to teaching and learning did not affect teaching time. Neither the provision of printed lesson plans in intervention 1 nor the provision of tablet-based

5 Conclusion/


lesson plans in intervention 2 appeared to slow down teaching.

As far as teachers’ management of learners’ time on task is concerned, intervention 1 teachers were more likely to monitor and supervise less capable learners, to pace learners as they worked and to give extra work to learners who had completed their work than teachers in the other two groups. Teachers in both interventions were better than the control teachers at reducing time lost to handing out books to learners and to writing work on the chalkboard during class where these activities were observed to reduce time in the control classes. Overall more time was spent on teaching and learning in lessons in the intervention schools compared to the control schools.

5.3 Instructional Practices

The interventions appear to have impacted on the use of LTSM in the intervention classes: all the intervention teachers used additional print material such as posters or Big Books during the observed lessons whereas only 13 control school lessons made use of additional print material. More control classes only made use of the DBE workbooks in their lesson.

Visible differences also appeared in the teachers’ use of English (but not necessarily proficiency) during EFAL lessons. Intervention teachers mainly used English as the language of instruction in the lessons observed and code-switched less than teachers in control classes, which meant that their learners had a larger exposure to English than those in the control classes. These findings indicate evidence that the intervention teachers were following the EFAL methodology explained to them by their coaches. Furthermore, more learners in the intervention schools had opportunities to use English to speak to the teacher in class, and there were more intervention classes than control classes where learners responded to questions only in English.

More intervention 2 teachers provided feedback to learners on their responses thereby making the evaluative criteria explicit. This form of evaluative comment happened to a lesser extent in intervention 1 and control schools indicating that intervention 2 has had a greater effect on teachers’ provision of evaluative comments. This effect may be a consequence of the virtual coaching, where because of decreased context due to text messaging or phone calls, the virtual coach had to provide clearer evaluative feedback to the

teachers she coached. Teachers may have learned from this modelling and applied it in their own classes.

With reference to vocabulary development, the intervention has led to teachers introducing three to five vocabulary words in their EFAL lessons and teachers or learners have used these words in sentences, whereas the practice in lessons in control schools was to introduce more vocabulary words, but not necessarily place these words in the context of a sentence. Due to the structured lesson plans, intervention teachers also made more use of extended texts in their lesson. This was largely an outcome of using the activities in the EGRS II structured lesson plans along with the provided LTSM. Due to greater exposure to vocabulary and the language of instruction and extended texts, one could expect learners in intervention schools to be better able to comprehend English texts.

The intervention does not appear to have had an effect on the amount of written work that learners completed in Grade 1, but it does appear to have had an effect on the type of writing done. While most schools in the study made use of both the DBE workbook and an exercise book for writing activities, intervention classes had a different distribution of work in these books compared to control schools. Control school learners had completed more writing tasks in the DBE workbook than their exercise book, and the intervention schools had more writing in their exercise book than in their DBE workbook. When both aspects are considered together, the amount of writing was similar for all groups, but because of the higher use of exercise books, intervention learners had more opportunities to write creatively.

5.4 Planning and Curriculum Coverage

Factors related to planning and curriculum coverage focused on understanding which documents teachers used for lesson preparation, how the lesson plans were implemented in a lesson and whether teachers tracked their curriculum coverage.

The interventions seem to have had an effect on teachers’ ability to track their own implementation of the curriculum. More of the intervention teachers knew where they were in the curriculum and were able to produce their implementation trackers, suggesting at the very least they had an awareness of their curriculum coverage rates. Control schools, not having been


provided with similar resources, had lower rates of this awareness. Teachers in 30% of the classes did not stick to the time allocated for the lesson. Intervention teachers were also able to cover more of the work specified in their lesson plan than control teachers. However, intervention teachers were less likely (and in some instances less able) to cut a lesson short resulting in longer EFAL lessons than required. Thus, although the lesson plans and coaching did not appear to help teachers adhere to the time allocated for their lessons, the interventions do seem to have enabled teachers to cover the work as planned suggesting that intervention learners received more exposure to the EFAL curriculum.

Table 14 summarises the key differences that emerged between the intervention and control schools against Hoadley’s success factors as discussed earlier. The table highlights that the intervention classrooms, on average, were observed to provide learners with more assessment tasks and evaluative feedback, though this was observed more in intervention 2 (virtual coaching). Learners and teachers were observed using more English during the EFAL lessons and intervention learners were provided with more opportunities to speak individually. The knowledge instructional practices observed included intervention teachers engaging learners in extended texts more than control schools – but these rates were

still disappointingly low. More writing opportunities, the introduction of new vocabulary and print visibility were among the other knowledge practices observed more in the intervention schools than in the control. Finally, the positive time factors evident in the intervention teachers’ instructional practice included pacing their learners, ensuring lessons started on time – though they struggled to ensure lessons stayed within the allocated time – and paying more attention to understanding how to plan and cover the content of the lesson plan.

In conclusion, the observation study helped to deep dive into the more nuanced practices of teachers involved in the EGRS II study. Though early in the intervention to ascertain tangible evidence of change in these practices, the findings have provided an indication as to what is ‘working’ to create changes in teachers’ practices. As to whether face-to-face or virtual coaching has been more successful in this regard, it is not possible to determine this based on the findings presented in this report. Overall, both interventions seem to have had similar effects on teachers’ instructional practice with just a few aspects being influenced only by one intervention or the other. Nevertheless, the study provides a closer look at the sorts of changes that the EGRS interventions are capable of bringing about in Grade 1 EFAL classrooms after just one year of implementation.

Table 14: Suggestive effects of the interventions on teachers’ instructional practices

Discourse

• More assessment tasks

• Use of evaluative feedback (intervention 2 mostly)

• Predominant use of English by teachers and learners (intervention 2 advantage)

• More opportunities for learners to speak English individually

Knowledge

• Reading extended texts

• More opportunities to write creative or longer texts in exercise books

• Introduction of vocabulary in context

• More English print visible (posters, charts, books etc.)

Time

• Starting lessons on time (intervention 2 advantage)

• Covering the content of the lesson plan mostly (leading to greater curriculum coverage)

• Less wasted time in class due to handing out books, teacher writing on board etc.

• Adjusting pace to learners (intervention 1 mostly)

• Extra work given to learners who finish first (intervention 1 mostly)


A number of recommendations are made based on the findings of the report.

The following recommendations are made with regard to the training and coaching of teachers:

• Provide additional support on time management within a lesson so that lessons end on time and reduce the crowding-out of other subjects.

• Model the differentiation of activities so that learners who finish work early are not left to sit idle but are employed in cognitively demanding activities.

• Rectify technological problems timeously for intervention 2 teachers.

Additional information is needed to understand some of the findings in this report. It is recommended that more research be conducted on:

• Understanding the mechanism that leads to intervention 2 teachers starting on time in more classes than intervention 1. What is it about the tablet-based and paper-based lesson plans that makes this the case?

• Linking specific teacher instructional practices to specific learner performance.

• Examining teachers’ content knowledge and how it contributes to changes in teachers’ instructional practices.

The following recommendations are made with regard to the replication of the COS:

• Balance the school visits so that control and intervention schools are visited on an equal number of days of the week. This avoids the situation where a large number of intervention schools are visited on days when there is no seatwork.

• Incorporate ‘skip’ sections in the questionnaires or schedules so that fieldworkers can skip a section if it does not apply. This reduces inconsistency in the responses.

• Dedicate additional time to train fieldworkers on the importance of accurately and thoroughly capturing observations in the questionnaires or schedules and the consequences of incomplete observations to the integrity of the data.

• Include a simulation day if feasible where fieldworkers are able to practise using the instruments in a real-life scenario. This ensures consistency in the data collection. Alternatively, provide more practice on marking the activities in a taped lesson.

• Provide examples of all the documents, reading carpets and reading corners that fieldworkers will encounter in the field. This ensures that all fieldworkers understand the data collection in the same way.

• Alert the EGRS II coaches in advance so that they do not take in teachers’ assessment and planning documents for their own verification in the duration of the COS.

• Ensure that assessment activities are not scheduled during the data collection period.

6 Recommendations/


Table 15: Learning and teaching environment

Total

observed15 Percentage16C

(n = 19)

I1

(n = 21)

I2

(n = 20)

Classroom environment

Clean classroom 52 87% 89% 86% 85%

Sufficient desk space 56 93% 100% 90% 90%

Adequate seating 57 95% 100% 90% 95%

Teacher can move around easily 56 93% 89% 100% 90%

Learners can see teacher and chalkboard 60 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notice boards in good condition 33 55% 42% 57% 65%

Print-richness

There is a reading carpet 12 20% 11% 33% 15%

There is a reading corner 21 35% 37% 29% 40%

Theme vocabulary on display 50 83% 63% 95% 90%

Sight words on display 45 75% 58% 95% 70%

Phonics on display 52 87% 74% 90% 95%

Writing frame on display 33 55% 32% 57% 75%

Commercial HL posters: none 11 19% 21% 20% 15%

Commercial HL posters: 1–2 11 19% 11% 25% 20%



Commercial HL posters: >10 4 7% 11% 5% 5%

15 How to read the following frequency tables: missing or incomplete observations, which could not be accounted for, have been omitted. Thus, while 60 classrooms represent the total sample size, the values are calculated from the Total Observed classrooms of the item in question.

16 The Percentage column represents the percentage of classrooms where observations of the item occurred out of the total sample size. That is, where 52 classrooms were observed being clean, this accounts for 87% of classrooms in the entire COS sample. Of those 52, 89% out of all the control schools were observed as clean, along with 86% out of all intervention 1 and 85% out of all intervention 2 schools.

7 Additional Tables/


Total

observed15 Percentage16C

(n = 19)

I1

(n = 21)

I2

(n = 20)

Print-richness

Commercial English or bilingual posters: None 9 15% 32% 0% 15%

Commercial English or bilingual posters: 1 or 2 13 22% 11% 40% 15%

Commercial English or bilingual posters: 3–5 17 29% 26% 30% 30%

Commercial English or bilingual posters: 6–10 11 19% 21% 10% 25%

Commercial English or bilingual posters: >10 5 8% 5% 10% 10%

HL poster: Days of the week 37 63% 58% 65% 65%

HL poster: Months 32 54% 42% 65% 55%

HL poster: High frequency words 47 80% 74% 80% 85%

HL poster: Words matched to pictures 46 78% 74% 85% 75%

HL poster: Phonics charts 45 76% 68% 80% 80%

English poster: Days of the week 32 54% 58% 50% 55%

English poster: Months 29 49% 47% 45% 55%

English poster: High frequency words 47 80% 53% 90% 95%

English poster: Words matched to pictures 50 85% 63% 100% 90%

English poster: Phonics charts 47 80% 58% 95% 85%

English Word wall is systematically organised 42 70% 37% 86% 85%

English labels on objects: none 28 47% 53% 33% 55%

English labels on objects: 1–4 21 35% 32% 43% 30%

English labels on objects: 5–10 7 12% 11% 19% 5%

English labels on objects: >10 1 2% 0% 0% 5%

EFAL workbooks: Very organised 33 55% 58% 48% 60%

EFAL workbooks: Fairly organised 20 33% 32% 29% 40%

EFAL workbooks: Very disorganised 3 5% 11% 5% 0%


Table 16: Discipline and time

Total

observedPercentage C I1 I2

Discipline

Teacher mostly/always gets learners to pay attention

41 68% 74% 62% 70%

Teacher mostly/always refers to individual learners by their names

53 88% 84% 86% 95%

Overall discipline is good/very good 42 70% 74% 67% 70%

Boys more engaged in lesson 5 8% 11% 14% 0%

Girls more engaged in lesson 24 40% 42% 38% 40%

No difference between boy/girl engagement in lesson

30 50% 47% 43% 60%

Factors that slow down teaching to some/a large extent

Handing out books 9 15% 32% 10% 5%

Consulting paper-based lesson plan 14 23% 37% 29% 5%

Consulting tablet computer lesson plans 2 3% 5% 0% 5%

Learners rearranging furniture 4 7% 0% 14% 5%

Handing out stationery 5 8% 16% 5% 5%

Writing activities on the board 16 27% 42% 24% 15%

No time lost

No outside interruptions 45 75% 74% 76% 75%

Learners do not leave class for toilet breaks

44 73% 84% 67% 70%

No time lost to non-teaching activities e.g. cleaning

56 93% 89% 90% 100%

No time lost to learners being idle while teacher is busy

50 83% 84% 76% 90%


Table 17: Teachers’ instructional practices – use of learning and teaching support materials

Total


Use of DBE workbook

DBE workbook used by teacher only 14 24% 32% 25% 16%

DBE workbook used by learners 12 21% 42% 0% 21%

DBE workbook not used at all 32 55% 26% 75% 63%

Other materialOther print material used 52 90% 68% 100% 100%

Non-print material used 14 24% 11% 5% 58%

Print LTSM used by learner

Big books 3 6% 8% 10% 0%

Flash cards 16 31% 31% 40% 21%

Picture cards 9 17% 23% 20% 11%

Posters/charts 12 23% 23% 30% 16%

Pictures with no words 10 19% 8% 25% 21%

Phonics charts 7 13% 15% 20% 5%

Alphabet frieze 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Sentence strips 1 2% 0% 5% 0%

Other enlarged texts 4 8% 15% 10% 0%

Print LTSM used by teacher

Big books 21 40% 38% 45% 37%

Flash cards 40 77% 85% 80% 68%

Picture cards 20 38% 31% 35% 47%

Posters/charts 23 44% 23% 55% 47%

Pictures with no words 21 40% 38% 45% 37%

Phonics charts 13 25% 31% 25% 21%

Alphabet frieze 2 4% 15% 0% 0%

Sentence strips 3 6% 8% 5% 5%

Other enlarged texts 7 13% 15% 15% 11%

Learners mainly write in

DBE workbooks 14 24% 32% 25% 16%

Exercise books 12 21% 42% 0% 21%

Use both equally 32 55% 26% 75% 63%

Other books for writing

Have a book/file for classwork 58 100% 95% 100% 95%

Separate phonics book 1 2% 0% 5% 0%

Separate vocabulary book 1 2% 0% 5% 0%

Separate assessment book 16 28% 26% 19% 35%

A personal dictionary 6 10% 11% 10% 10%


Table 18: Teachers’ instructional practices – language use by teachers and learners

Total


Teacher interaction

Teacher greets class in English 60 100% 100% 100% 100%

Teacher gives English instructions for learners to follow mostly/always

49 82% 58% 100% 85%

Code-switching

Teacher code-switches not at all/minimally

38 63% 26% 81% 80%

Teacher code-switches moderately/extensively

20 33% 68% 19% 15%

Main language used by teacher

Mostly English 50 83% 63% 95% 90%

Mostly isiZulu/Siswati 2 3% 11% 0% 0%

English and isiZulu/Siswati used equally 7 12% 26% 5% 5%

More than two languages used equally 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Main language used by learners

Mostly English 42 70% 47% 71% 90%

Mostly isiZulu/Siswati 7 12% 32% 5% 0%

English and isiZulu/Siswati used equally 9 15% 21% 19% 5%

More than two languages used equally 1 2% 0% 5% 0%

Teacher English proficiency

Excellent 28 47% 42% 43% 55%

Adequate 28 47% 53% 57% 30%

Inadequate 2 3% 5% 0% 5%

Number of learners who speak to teacher using short English phrases

None 3 5% 11% 5% 0%

One or two 7 12% 11% 19% 5%

Less than a quarter of class 18 30% 53% 14% 25%

More than a quarter of class 28 47% 21% 62% 55%


Table 19: Teachers’ instructional practice – listening and speaking

Total


Responses to questions aimed at individuals

Learners never respond individually 2 3% 5% 0% 5%

Learners sometimes respond individually

35 58% 63% 57% 55%

Learners mostly respond individually 19 32% 32% 33% 30%

Learners always respond individually 2 3% 0% 5% 5%

The same learners always asked to respond

15 25% 16% 33% 25%

Different learners asked to respond to questions

38 63% 63% 57% 70%

Individual questions not asked 4 7% 16% 5% 0%

Active involvement of learners who do not raise hands

Never 9 15% 26% 10% 10%

Seldom 9 15% 11% 14% 20%

Sometimes 15 25% 21% 33% 20%

Mostly 17 28% 26% 24% 35%

Always 8 13% 16% 14% 10%

English activities learners involved in

Rhymes/poems 37 62% 53% 76% 55%

Songs 43 72% 63% 86% 65%

Finger plays 12 20% 21% 14% 25%


Table 20: Teachers’ instructional practice – questioning and feedback

Total


Teacher clearly indicates a learner answer is correct/incorrect

Never 5 8% 21% 5% 0%

Hardly ever 5 8% 11% 10% 5%

Sometimes 12 20% 26% 24% 10%

Mostly 13 22% 11% 29% 25%

Always 24 40% 32% 33% 55%

Teacher uses mistakes to improve learner understanding

Never 6 10% 21% 5% 5%

Hardly ever 8 13% 11% 19% 10%

Sometimes 11 18% 26% 24% 5%

Mostly 16 27% 16% 24% 40%

Always 16 27% 21% 24% 35%

Teacher corrects learners’ mistakes

Never 5 8% 11% 5% 10%

Hardly ever 8 13% 16% 19% 5%

Sometimes 12 20% 26% 19% 15%

Mostly 17 28% 11% 38% 35%

Always 14 23% 21% 19% 30%


Table 21: Literacy and language development

Total


Use of extended texts

Extended text used 46 77% 63% 76% 90%

Intonation and expression used 35 76% 83% 69% 78%

Gestures/real objects used to some/large extent

34 74% 67% 69% 83%

Teacher reads in English then retells in HL 16 35% 25% 44% 33%

Learners can see text 30 65% 58% 75% 61%

Teacher reads story aloud together 29 63% 75% 38% 78%

Class repeats after teacher 38 83% 83% 75% 89%

Teacher uses pointer to help learners follow 30 65% 50% 69% 72%

Learners retell/act out/draw story 23 50% 33% 44% 67%

Learners respond to pictures 33 72% 67% 69% 78%

Development of print awareness

Teacher identifies front cover 28 61% 42% 75% 61%

Teacher identifies title 31 67% 42% 88% 67%

Teacher demonstrates turning pages from left to right

11 24% 17% 25% 28%

Teacher shows that reading is from left to right

11 24% 17% 31% 22%

Teacher shows that reading is from top to bottom

10 22% 8% 31% 22%

Comprehension questions

Teacher asks oral comprehension questions

33 72% 67% 63% 83%

Learners respond first in HL then English moderately to extensively17 13 39% 50% 40% 33%

Literacy skills

Teacher explains how to identify individual letter sounds some/most of the time

27 45% 58% 48% 30%

Teacher develops phoneme awareness and/or phonics some/most of the time

20 33% 37% 29% 35%

Teacher demonstrates English word recognition some/most of the time

21 35% 37% 33% 35%

17 Figuresareapercentageofcaseswheretheteacheraskedoralcomprehensionquestions.


Total


Reading

Read vowels, letters, syllables 28 47% 58% 33% 50%

Read one or two English words 10 17% 11% 14% 25%

Read three to five English words 19 32% 5% 43% 45%

Read five to 10 English words 12 20% 42% 19% 0%

Read more than 11 words 12 20% 21% 10% 30%

Read short phrases/sentences 24 40% 26% 48% 45%

Read rhyming words 9 15% 11% 19% 15%

Teacher pronunciation

Pronunciation of English phonics is excellent

21 35% 26% 33% 45%

Pronunciation of English phonics is adequate

28 47% 63% 52% 25%

Pronunciation of English phonics is inadequate

2 3% 0% 0% 10%

Pronunciation of English words is excellent 27 45% 26% 52% 55%

Pronunciation of English words is adequate 27 45% 68% 43% 25%

Pronunciation of English words is inadequate

3 5% 0% 5% 10%

Vocabulary development

Learners encouraged to sound out difficult words

46 77% 84% 62% 85%

New words are taught 45 75% 68% 76% 80%

Teacher focuses on the meaning of new words

41 68% 79% 57% 70%

Teacher points at picture to help with vocabulary

43 72% 63% 67% 85%

Teacher gives HL explanation of new English word

34 57% 79% 62% 30%

Teacher uses gestures/real objects to explain new word

36 60% 53% 52% 75%

Teacher uses simple English explanations to explain new word

29 48% 47% 38% 60%

Learners use new words in a sentence 27 45% 42% 38% 55%

Learners answer a question in English to help understand new word

27 45% 37% 33% 65%

Learners learn about English plurals 20 33% 47% 29% 25%

Conceptual vocabulary taught 47 78% 74% 76% 85%


Table 22: Opportunities to write

Total


Writing

Learners complete a written activity 31 52% 63% 43% 50%

Date written in workbook 21 68% 50% 67% 90%

Teacher checks that learners hold pencils correctly

10 32% 25% 22% 50%

Written tasks completed in the lesson

All or most learners colour or copy drawings

5 16% 17% 22% 10%

All or most learners draw 22 71% 50% 89% 80%

All or most learners copy letters 7 12% 25% 22% 20%

All or more learners write one or two words

6 19% 17% 22% 20%

All or most learners write three to five words

6 19% 8% 33% 20%

All or most learners write more than five words

3 10% 8% 11% 10%

All or most learners write one or two short phrases

8 26% 25% 33% 20%

All or most learners write three to five short phrases

2 6% 0% 11% 10%

All or most learners write more than five phrases

0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Learners complete the same tasks mostly/always

24 77% 75% 67% 90%


Table 23: Assessment

Total


Marking

Teacher checks written work during lesson 15 25% 32% 24% 20%

Learners mark own work during the lesson 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Learners mark each other’s work during lesson

0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Teacher collects work to mark later 22 37% 37% 29% 45%

Assessment records

Record of formal assessment: Term 1 38 63% 53% 62% 75%

Record of formal assessment: Term 2 42 70% 63% 67% 80%

Record of formal assessment: Term 3* 33 55% 37% 62% 65%

Presents all records for Terms 1–3 20 33% 21% 33% 45%

Teacher tracks learner progress 18 30% 26% 38% 25%

Average number of assessments

Total marks recorded (EFAL 2017) 17.57 4.73 5.71 7.12

For Phonics Term 2 5.20 1.375 2 1.82

For Reading Term 2 2.64 0.87 0.78 1

For Writing Term 2 4.80 1.12 1.86 1.82

For Listening and Speaking Term 2 2.50 1 0.5 1


Table 24: Planning and curriculum coverage

Total


Curriculum coverage

Very satisfied with progress 41 68% 53% 86% 65%

Will finish by the end of the year 54 90% 89% 81% 100%

Planning: two documents used most

None 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

CAPS 35 58% 89% 48% 40%

DBE workbooks 30 50% 63% 33% 55%

Own plan 5 8% 21% 5% 0%

Plan compiled with other teachers 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Plans compiled by EGRS 41 68% 11% 90% 100%

Plans compiled by NGO 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Plan compiled by province 3 5% 16% 0% 0%

Teacher’s Guide 4 7% 0% 5% 15%

Work plans

Can produce work plan for some of Term 3 14 23% 21% 24% 25%

Can produce work plan for all of Term 3 39 65% 63% 67% 65%

No work plan available 7 12% 16% 10% 10%

Term plan includes lesson plans 29 48% 84% 24% 40%

Lesson plan includes specific reference to vocabulary development

31 52% 74% 29% 55%

Lesson plan specifies daily phonics 34 57% 74% 38% 60%

Lesson plan specifies daily reading 30 50% 58% 33% 60%

Lesson plan specifies daily writing 30 50% 63% 33% 55%

Lesson plan specifies daily listening and speaking

33 55% 68% 38% 60%

Lesson plan specifies daily vocabulary words 31 52% 58% 33% 65%

Assessment plan integrated with work plan 30 50% 53% 38% 60%

Teacher tracks implementation of work plan 39 65% 42% 81% 70%

Content of lesson mostly/completely matched lesson plan

40 67% 32% 71% 95%

Duration of lesson matched timetable 19 32% 37% 33% 25%

Timetable operates on a five-day cycle 60 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 25: Teachers’ approach to literacy and teaching

Total


Teaching of reading and writing EFAL

Teacher taught EFAL the previous year18 51 85% 79% 95% 80%

If taught EFAL in 2016: N 15 20 16

Teaching of reading and writing has changed

48 80% 87% 95% 100%

What teachers say has changed

Made EFAL more interesting 18 30% 40% 20% 50%

More time on EFAL 9 15% 13% 10% 31%

Guidance from lesson plans 21 35% 13% 60% 44%

Covering more of curriculum 9 15% 13% 15% 25%

More English phonics 5 8% 7% 5% 19%

More English vocabulary 7 12% 0% 25% 13%

More Shared Reading 10 17% 20% 25% 13%

More written activities 11 18% 13% 20% 31%

Better use of LTSM 15 25% 20% 35% 31%

Better assessment tasks 7 12% 7% 15% 19%

More regular assessment 5 8% 13% 5% 13%

Other 10 17% 20% 25% 13%

18 Items after this question were only asked of teachers who responded that they had taught EFAL in 2016.


Table 26: Teaching support received for EFAL as reported by teachers

Total


Teacher report on training and support

Received support/training this year 52 87% 58% 100% 100%

Support from SMT has increased 52 87% 84% 90% 85%

Someone observed teaching 47 78% 58% 95% 80%

If observed: N = 11 20 16

Observed by DoE officials 6 10% 9% 10% 19%

Observed by SMT 37 62% 91% 65% 88%

Observed by EGRS coach 22 37% 0% 90% 25%

Observed by another NGO 1 2% 0% 5% 0%

Received very useful feedback 44 73% 100% 100% 81%

Teacher reports on three types of training that helped the most

Nothing helped 2 3% 11% 0% 0%

Workshops/training sessions 42 70% 42% 86% 80%

Daily lesson plans 12 20% 0% 29% 30%

Support for pacing 4 7% 0% 19% 0%

Tablet computers 17 28% 5% 5% 75%

SMS/WhatsApp messages 9 15% 5% 5% 35%

Coaches/mentors 12 20% 5% 33% 20%

DBE workbooks 1 2% 0% 0% 5%

Training to use DBE workbook 39 65% 74% 86% 35%

Provided LTSM 1 2% 0% 5% 0%

Provision of assessment tasks 2 3% 0% 5% 5%

Support with assessment 2 3% 11% 0% 0%

Teacher networks 4 7% 5% 10% 5%

Other 4 7% 5% 14% 0%

Teacher report on changes in support from SMT

Helps set, check, review assessment 12 20% 16% 19% 25%

Checks class books 24 40% 37% 48% 35%

Monitors curriculum coverage 10 17% 11% 14% 25%

Observes lessons 21 35% 32% 38% 35%

Provides model lessons 5 8% 16% 10% 0%

Provides motivation and encouragement 16 27% 16% 38% 25%

Purchasing LTSM 16 27% 16% 33% 30%

Other 3 5% 0% 10% 5%


References

Bruns, B., Costa, L., & Cunha, N. (2017). Through the looking glass: Can classroom observation and coaching improve teacher performance in Brazil? Policy Research working paper; no. WPS 8156; Impact Evaluation series. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/551861501523958003/Through-the-looking-glass-can-classroom-observation-and-coaching-improve-teacher-performance-in-Brazil.

Department of Basic Education. (2017a). Summary Report: Results of Year 2 Impact Evaluation – The Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS). Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

Department of Basic Education. (2017b). Classroom Observation Study: The Early Grade Reading Study (EGRS). Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

Douglas, K. (2009). Sharpening our focus in measuring classroom instruction. Educational Researcher, p. 518–521.

Draper, K., & Spaull, N. (2015). Examining oral reading fluency among rural Grade 5 English Second Language (ESL) learners in South Africa: An Analysis of NEEDU 2013. South African Journal of Childhood Education, p. 44–77.

Hill, H. C., Charalambos, C., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, p. 56–64.

Hoadley, U. (2012). What do we know about teaching and learning in South African primary schools? Education as Change, p. 187-202.

Hoadley, U. (2016). A review of the research literature on teaching and learning in the foundation phase in South Africa. Stellenbosch: Research on Socioeconomic Policy, Department of Economics, Stellenbosch University.

Hoadley, U. (2017). Learning to fly: pedagogy in the Foundation Phase in the context of the CAPS reform. Journal and Education, p. 13-38.

Howie, S., Combrinck, C., Tshele, M., McLeod Palane, N., & Mokoena, G. (2017). PIRLS 2016: South African Highlights Report. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Kremer, M., Brannen, C., & Glennerster, R. (2013). The challenge of education and learning in the developing world. Science, p. 297-300.

McDonald Connor, C., Morrison, F., Fishman, B. J., Ponitz, C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P., et al. (2009). The ISI Classroom Observation System: Examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educational Researcher, p. 85–99.

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Manual K-3. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Raudenbosch, S. W. (2005). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: the contribution of methodological diversity. Educational Researcher, p. 25–31.

Van Broekhuizen, H., & Spaull, N. (2017). The “Martha Effect”: the compounding female disadvantage in South African higher education. Stellenbosch Economic Working Papers: WP14/2017.

Van der Berg, S., Spaull, N., Wills, G., Gustaffson, M., & Kotze, J. (2016). Identifying Binding Constraints in Education: Synthesis Report for the Programme to Support Pro-poor Policy Development (PSPPD). Stellenbosch: Research on Socioeconomic Policy, Department of Economics, Stellenbosch University.

World Bank Group. (2015). User Guide: Conducting Classroom Observations. Retrieved 15 February 2018, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28339.


Tel: (021) 486 7000

Fax: (021) 461 8110

Call Centre: 0800 202 933

222 Struben Street, Pretoria, 0001

Private Bag X985, Pretoria, 0001

Private Bag X9035, Cape Town, 8000

www.education.gov.za

www.facebook.com/BasicEd

www.twitter.com/dbe_sa

Classroom Observation Study - Education · Classroom Observation Study: Grade 1 05. Given the...

Documents

Transcript of Classroom Observation Study - Education · Classroom Observation Study: Grade 1 05. Given the...