Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 78

EXPLORING LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE AMONGST EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNERS IN SOUTH

AFRICA AND SPAIN: COMPARATIVE STUDY

Annalene Van Staden & Nemize Jeftha Psychology of Education, Faculty of Education

University of the Free State, South Africa vanstadena@ufs.ac.za

nemizejeftha@gmail.com

Francisca Serrano Faculty of Psychology

University of Granada, Spain fdserran@ugr.es

ABSTRACT

The current paper and research project form part of a broader literacy project, funded by the South African National Research Foundation (NRF) (grant number: 87728), entitled “Cognitive linguistic processing and literacy development of L1 and L2 children with typical and atypical patterns of development”i. Employing a multi-method exploratory research design, this paper will, inter alia, report the findings of the administration of the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) tool, field notes, and individual interviews with early childhood teachers at the sample schools in South Africa and Spain. The project involved twelve schools in the Free State Province, South Africa, and twelve schools in Granada, Spain. Individual interviews were conducted with early childhood teachers (Pre-K and Kindergarten) (n = 24; one educator per school). The ELLCO results reported in this paper will pertain to the classroom structure, the literacy curriculum, the language environment, books and reading, and print and writing opportunities of English as a second language. In addition, the paper will report the main challenges and highlight the positive experiences of the teachers in their quest to create classroom environments that encourage the early language and literacy development of English second language learners (L2). Preliminary results emphasize the importance of factors affecting the teacher and the classroom – specifically the quantity and quality of language instruction for learners learning a second language; over-crowded classrooms and the lack of parental support for children learning a second language. Focusing on English language teaching and literacy development, this research also highlights the effect of the limited English proficiency among English language teachers and its influence on language learning and the development of literacy of L2 children.

Field of Research: Language and literacy development in English as a second language; English second language learners (L2); Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO); Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT); Pre-K and kindergarten (early childhood); South Africa; Spain.

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 79

1. Introduction

Research has demonstrated that early literacy skills acquired prior to school and at the beginning of schooling can have a positive influence on a child’s future educational outcomes (Stancel-Piatak, Mirazchiyski & Desa, 2013). These skills encourage learning and influence the overall outcomes of education in the early grades, avert learning difficulties, and language impairments, and provide the fundamentals for future educational success. Children enter school with different degrees of literacy. Those who experience early difficulties are likely to lag behind their peers. This may evidently later hamper the transition from learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. The above have even more severe complications for children learning a second- or third language, since research findings have shown that first language (L1) literacy skills may transfer to second language (L2) literacy development (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, Humbach & Javorsky, 2008). Against this background, the current study investigated the quality of language and literacy amongst South African and Spanish children learning English as a second language, and it includes a comparison of the results of this investigation in the two countries.

2. Theoretical Framework

In exploring the quality of language development and literacy of South African and Spanish children, the authors in the present study draw on several related theories, including the ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and the work of social-constructivist theorists such as Vygotsky (1978), thus acknowledging the interrelatedness of both extrinsic and intrinsic factors that may contribute and/or hamper adequate exposure to language and the development of literacy. Vygotsky (1978) viewed knowledge not as information that is passively received and absorbed (in isolation) but rather as learning that has been built up by the individual, through active participation in the learning process with significant others from the wider community and peers from different social backgrounds (Van Staden & Griessel, 2011).

3. Problem Statement and Aims

Recent studies have indicated that there has been an annual decrease in the quality of literacy education internationally (Justice, McGinty, Cabell, Kilday, Knighton & Huffman, 2010). With the aim of exploring the above-mentioned statement, early language and literacy development have become a sought-after investigative focus (McCormick & Haak, 2010). Especially within the South African education context numerous concerns have been raised about the quality of early language and literacy development, pertaining to both first- and second language literacy environments. According to Fleisch (2008) the current literacy crisis in South Africa is a direct consequence of the vast majority of learners in socio-economically deprived schools and communities being educated in only their second or additional language. Furthermore, second language learners (L2) from socio-economically challenged communities “face a double-edged sword” – due to the interplay of various extrinsic factors during their formative years, they experience numerous challenges with regard to delayed emergent literacy skills development and are most likely to be misdiagnosed as “learners with specific cognitive impairments” when entering the formal school system (Van Staden & Griessel, 2011).

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 80

This intended research project will also add to the body of scholarly research into the possible relationship between first, or home-language (L1) skills and the next language to be learned, for example in South Africa, where the majority of learners receive their instruction in English (as a second language). Evidence indicates that learners’ facility with reading and spelling in the first language is related to their learning to read and spell in a second language, demonstrating the possible cross-linguistic transfer of cognitive-linguistic skills (see, Sparks et al., 2008). The above clearly illustrates the necessity of also exploring the quality of language and literacy instruction when English is taught and learned in the classroom (L2). In the current study (and article) the research team will explore the quality of English language and literacy development amongst South African and Spanish children. In our quest to achieve this goal, the following objectives guided the present study, namely:

to assess the quality of programs to stimulate English language and literacy development (L2) in foundation phase classes1 in the Free State Province, South Africa and Granada, Spain via multiple methods of data-gathering (cf. 4.1);

to determine the main challenges that educators experience in their quest to create classroom environments that are conducive to the development of early language and literacy skills in English; and

to identify positive classroom practices that encourage the development of English as a second language.

4. Methodology

4.1 Design, sampling and data collection method

Two complementary research methodologies were implemented in this study, namely a quantitative descriptive and a qualitative interpretive research design. A non-probability sampling strategy was used in which 12 foundation phase classes in the Free State province, South Africa, and 12 kindergarten classes in Granada, Spain, were purposively drawn for this study (N = 24). We administered the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Tool (ELLCO) (K-3) to determine the quality of early language and literacy stimulation in selected foundation phase classes in South Africa and Spain. The ELLCO entails both quantitative (Likert-scale scores: 1-5) as well as qualitative data-gathering procedures, via the recording of field notes, observations and teacher interviews. Data were collected from November 2013 to March 2014.

4.2 Instrumentation

The ELLCO comprises five different test sections which is grouped into two rating subscales, namely the General classroom Environment Subscale and the Language and literacy subscale, illustrated in Figure 1.

1 In South Africa we use the terminology “foundation phase” which is equivalent to “kindergarten” in Spain

and other countries and in the present study it refers to children from Grade 1 to Grade 3.

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 81

General Classroom Environment Rating Subscale

Language and Literacy Subscale

Classroom structure: Organization in the classroom; Contents of the classroom; Classroom management; Professional focus.

Language Environment: Discourse climate; Opportunities for extended conversations; Efforts to build vocabulary.

Curriculum: Integration of language and literacy; Opportunities for independent learning; Recognizing diversity in the classroom.

Books and Reading: Characteristics of books; Development of reading fluency; Sounds to print; Strategies to build reading vocabulary; Strategies to build reading comprehension.

Print and Writing: Writing Environment; Focused writing instruction; Students’ writing products.

Figure 1: ELLCO test items with rating scales in five different areas

The ELLCO is used internationally to evaluate the quality of early language and literacy development in classrooms and has shown adequate validity, demonstrating moderate to high correlations with other measures of the same construct (Smith & Dickinson, 2002). With regard to reliability, Cronbach’s alpha for the General Classroom Environment subscale is 0.864 and for the Language and Literacy subscale it is 0.922, demonstrating good internal consistency. Cronbach’s alphas for the five sections were all high, ranging from .723 to .894 (Smith, Brady & Anastasopoulos, 2012).

5.Findings and Discussion

5.1 Observation ratings as measured by the ELLCO K- Grade 3 measuring instrument

The quality of the classroom environment and teachers’ instructional practices were rated using a 1 to 5 (deficient to exemplary) rating scale in the five areas. Comparative rating results with regard to General Classroom environment and the Language and literacy subscales for the South African and Spanish samples are depicted in Figure 2 (below). Results show that the average rating for General Classroom Environment for the Spanish and South African samples were 4.28 and 3.43 respectively. The average rating for the Language and Literacy subscale was 3.52 for the Spanish sample, and 3.36 for the South African sample. In Tables 1 and 2, we further illustrate how the different sample schools in Spain and South Africa were rated with regard to each of the five levels (deficient to exemplary) on the five test items of the ELLCO. Moreover, from the results illustrated in Figure 2, it is evident that the Spanish schools were rated higher than the South African schools with regard to both subscales, including the total average ELLCO score.

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 82

Figure 2: Comparison of the average ratings for South African and Spanish classes on the subscales of the ELLCO K-3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5A

vera

ge S

ub

scal

e R

atin

gs

General Classroom Environment Language and literacy Total Average ELLCO

South Africa

Spain

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 83

When examining the five sections separately for the two counties, the lowest score for the Spanish sample was in the areas related to the Books and Reading with the majority of the participants (75%) rated as “basic or inadequate”. Further breakdown of this section revealed that the lowest average scores (2.9) were obtained with regard to development of reading fluency and strategies to build reading comprehension. The lowest score for the South African sample was in the area related Print and writing where 75% of the participants scored a “basic score or below” (Basic = 41.6%; Inadequate = 25%; Deficient = 8.3%). The lowest average score of 2.9 was recorded for the test item that deal with student’s writing products.

The section that rated highest in quality for both the Spanish and South African samples was Classroom Structure with an average rating of 4.89 for the Spanish sample, whilst an average score of 3.56 was recorded for the South African sample. The total average scores with regard to all five test items of the ELLCO is reflected separately for the two countries in Tables 1 and 2. In the discussion that follows, the authors will triangulate the main findings of the ELLCO with the observers’ field-notes and data gathered through the informal discussions or interviews with the teachers. These integrated discussions will evolve around the key items being identified as challenges (basic to deficient), and those items which received the highest observer ratings.

5.2 Discussion

In terms of the current study, the first difference between the two countries is that the Spanish sample scored higher on all the ELLCO test items than the South African schools. In the subsequent

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 84

discussion the authors will reflect on the main areas of concern that have been recorded for the South African and Spanish schools respectively, namely print and writing; and books and reading.

Research confirms the importance of the print environment and writing as strong predictors of language and literacy development (Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013). Print knowledge is vital for the development of effective word decoding abilities, reading comprehension, and spelling, as well as oral language and later literacy skills (Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013). The ELLCO specifically measures whether the writing environment (and the teacher) supports students’ writing development and engages them in the authentic use of writing as part of their daily experiences (during planned and spontaneous activities); it also measures writing instruction, and whether it promotes students’ understanding of the writing process, including any opportunities to develop as confident writers; it also measures the teacher’s feedback on the children’s writing. Finally it measures the products of students’ writing and whether there is any system in place that organizes and displays (evidence) both the students’ and the teacher’s written work. These include opportunities for review, editing, publishing or sharing previous work. Written work should be varied and displayed to demonstrate the numerous purposes of writing and communication (among these are children’s writing; both teacher assigned and student-selected work; teachers’ own writing; class-generated books, covering a variety of genres, such as poetry, memoir, exposition, fantasy, etc.). As noted before, the majority (75%) of South African schools achieved the lowest score with regard to the print and writing environment (i.e. basic/inadequate/deficient). These findings are further supported by field notes and observations that report that, in most cases, the print and writing environments do not meet the basic requirements of the ELLCO; that many teachers’ roles are rather rigid and focus only on the “end-products” and not on the processes involved in writing. One observer recorded the following:

“The teacher only assigns work and monitors its completion. Her feedback focuses on corrections rather than interactions about ideas in learners’ writing. There are only few examples of learners’ written work”. This was corroborated by other field notes where observers recorded very few opportunities for interaction and sharing of ideas and limited examples of learners’ work on display. It was frequently noted that many teachers’ feedback only focused on the mechanics and grammar of writing and that any interaction with learners about their writing was limited. In cases where work was displayed, it showed little variety, and “leaners’ written work seemed restricted and prescribed by the teacher – every product in a specific prescribed teacher format”.

Focusing on the Spanish data, the researchers observed that the majority of the participants (75%) received lower scores (basic/inadequate) for the section dealing with books and reading. This specific ELLCO section measures the characteristics of books; the development of reading fluency, sounds to print; strategies to build reading vocabulary and reading comprehension, with more challenges being recorded for the Spanish sample with regard to the final four items listed above (i.e. fluency, phonological awareness, vocabulary and comprehension). From existing research, the inter-relatedness and possible transfer of these four skills are evident. Firstly, phonological awareness is considered as one of the most significant predictors of learning to read, reading fluency and word decoding abilities of children as well as spelling proficiency, irrespective of whether children are L1 and L2 learners (Chiappe, Siegel & Wade-Woolley, 2002). Reflecting on the observers’ field notes, it seems as if the Spanish learners’ have numerous challenges with regard to phonological awareness. For example they have difficulty in identifying and pronouncing English vowels and consonants (for example, “journey” was pronounced as “gourney”). Most learners are able to identify and read sight words, such as “is, as, are, were, was” as well as to complete syllable segmentation and blending activities, yet they fail to phonologically blend and break up simple English words, (for example, spelling the word HOUSE as “h-o-u-s-e” instead of “h-ou-s” ). In addition Spanish teachers’ mispronunciation of English words, especially the mispronunciation of vowels may further contribute to phonological challenges for Spanish children trying to learn English and also has

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 85

a negative impact on children’s spelling performance (for example, ice-cream is pronounced as “ies-cream” and this resulted in misspellings amongst some of the learner participants). Second, research confirms the importance of reading fluency and how this may affect reading comprehension. It has been noted that a lack of fluency leads to lower-level processing skills and that this in turn has a negative effect on reading comprehension. Research investigating the possible relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension has demonstrated that accuracy in word-level decoding strongly predicts comprehension in early elementary grades. This confirms the importance of including strategies to develop word reading fluency in foundation phase L1 and L2 learners. In doing so, more cognitive capacity is “available/freed – up” to interpret the text, which in turn may lead to improved reading comprehension (Justice et al., 2010). Observation field notes have further indicated that Spanish learners battle with reading fluency because many lack the confidence to engage with the text, in addition to having poor L2 vocabulary. Their inadequate levels of English and the rate at which L2 is taught have influenced their acquisition. As a result, many learners become discouraged when they have to participate in reading. Third, a large vocabulary has shown a high correlation with phonological awareness skills and is an important precursor to reading fluency and reading comprehension for both L1 and L2 learners. It also facilitates the performance of other linguistic skills, such as grammatical and morphological knowledge, whilst insufficient vocabulary impedes growth in reading comprehension outcomes (Shanahan & Lonigan, 2013). This illustrates the importance of storybook reading (from an early age) because this allows children to partake in vocabulary-rich interactions, promoting new vocabulary and linguistic structures, and facilitating the focus of attention to shift to more complex language functions (Justice et al., 2010). One of the most interesting observations concerned the extent of the Spanish learners’ vocabulary, and that learners are seldom encouraged to expand their vocabularies (beyond the reading lesson), nor to integrate new vocabulary into other language and classroom activities. Few teachers were seen to introduce new vocabulary or explain other meanings of the words. Children were not encouraged to formulate their own definitions and understanding of words (i.e. student experimentation and independent learning were hardly encouraged). They mainly resorted to the repetition of English vocabulary to ensure the optimal comprehension of the specific reading lesson of the day/week. Fourth, from the discussion the interrelatedness of book-reading; reading fluency, phonological awareness, vocabulary and the effect thereof on reading comprehension is evident, whilst it also draws attention to the importance of introducing effective strategies to develop these aspects of literacy. Focusing on the Spanish results of the ELLCO, with regard to the availability of English books and reading material, field notes have shown that most Spanish classes have insufficient to no English reading books in the classroom. Most reading corner bookshelves contain only Spanish graded readers and recreational reading books. Due to the limited time provided within the school structure (school period), learners are not given ample time to engage with their text. Reading passages and comprehension questions have mean minimized to accommodate their low level of reading comprehension in English. Many books contain text and images in a “comic or speech bubble format”. The teacher reads the text and learners are required to follow story. Once the story has been read, the teacher addresses the comprehension questions. Many teachers use of L1/Spanish to explain the text and related questions, thereby making learners less inclined to interact independently in English.

Focusing on the highest recordings of the ELLCO (both countries), observational field-notes support the ELLCO findings (basic to strong), and provide information about the classroom structure, the physical environment and classroom materials. Some observers remarked that the physical environments and classroom materials were well organized, appealing, and accessible although it was noted that the learning materials were not always integrated with other content-leaning areas.

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 86

With regard to the Spanish sample, field notes highlight that almost all classrooms are well equipped with various educational and technological teaching aids, such as interactive whiteboards with surround sound, black and white boards, CD players, laptops or computers. Classrooms are well organized in terms of how the desks are arranged and the learners have easy access to all resources. Many of the classrooms use either “pigeon-holes” or large plastic containers for the storage of each individual learner’s stationary and text books. The classroom walls are also used to display various learning themes, which include work done by both the teachers and the learners. Regarding teachers’ demeanor, all are professional and well prepared as the English program used includes a teacher’s manual, CDs, games and graded-reading books. Teachers are mostly only required to present the “worked-out” lessons – this in turn, however, can disempower and discourage both the teachers’ and the learners’ creativity and independence and negatively impact on the discourse climate in class.

With regard to the South African sample, average ELLCO scores were basic to strong, which was supported by the researchers’ field notes. Examples include the following: “ … classroom was well organized … learners had adequate resources which are in good condition … traffic flow is well planned … but the teacher can [sic] supply more materials for independent use”. “The classroom layout does promote both group and independent learning but is geared more towards group learning as five learners sit together at each table”. “Classroom was very well organized … there is sufficient space for children to move between work stations, this includes a specific area where the teacher works with small groups of leaners and an area where children can work independently …[the] classroom has an inviting atmosphere that promotes learning and literacy development”. In contrast, however, in some schools, especially in more rural schools, specific concerns have been noted with regard to overcrowded classrooms and how this has a negative impact on students’ learning and the “traffic flow” in the classroom. Limited space prohibited independent learning in many schools and opportunities for small group activities were very limited or non-existent. One observer remarked: “The classroom was poorly structured. The space was not well organized. The children could not move freely from one activity to another because of over-crowdedness of learners’ tables … set in rows, which make it difficult for the teacher to have an opportunity to attend to individuals according to their needs”. With regard to teachers’ professional focus, the majority of the South African teachers were rated as professional, but numerous concerns have been noted about the teachers’ limited knowledge of the pedagogy of teaching English, as many teachers are not fluent in English and this affects the teaching and learning environment negatively. More general concerns that were noted included limited opportunities to engage in authentic reading and literacy activities at home and a lack of parental support. One observer recorded the following: “Nearly all the children in the class are taught in their second or third language …. with very little exposure to English at home…” One of the teachers remarked: “Children do not hear stories at home anymore because parents spend less time reading to them. Parents also do not model a love for [sic] reading themselves, and this poses a challenge for the teacher to create a love for reading and to promote early literacy development”

5.4 Conclusion and Future Research

This research project/study investigated the quality of English second language literacy environments in South Africa and Spain via multiple methods of data gathering (i.e. the administration of the ELLCO; recording of field notes and individual interviews with teachers). In addition, it identified both the positive experiences and challenges teachers experience in their

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 87

quest to develop English as a second language in their classrooms. With regard to the Spanish sample, the ELLCO scores did not vary significantly between the different schools and observational field-notes and information obtained via teachers’ interviews verified the ELLCO scores, with teachers reporting that they experience similar challenges in this regard. The Spanish schools scored highest on items pertaining to classroom structure, and lowest on the Book and Reading subsection. Challenges were recorded with regard to the availability of English books and reading material; strategies to build reading vocabulary; and the development of phonological awareness skills in English. With regard to the South African sample, the quality of English language and literacy development varied meaningfully between rural and urban schools. Classrooms rated as being of higher quality, in general scored higher with regard to all the ELLCO test sections. Similarly to the Spanish sample, South African schools obtained the highest ratings with regard to classroom structure. Nevertheless, it should be noted that major concerns have been raised about over-crowded classrooms and how this might affect all learning in the classroom, as well as the teachers’ limited proficiency to teach English, especially in rural schools. A lack of parental support and many learners’ being deprived of quality home-literacy experiences (both in L1 and L2) were general concerns of all teachers teaching at South African schools – rural and urban schools. The ELLCO test item that was recorded as most challenging for South African schools was the test section that deals with print and writing. Numerous concerns have been recorded about the limited opportunities available for learners to engage in authentic writing activities, and that few opportunities are being created for interaction with learners’ written products – this includes the limited display of children’s written products. Comparing the results of the two countries, it is evident that the Spanish schools scored higher on all the ELLCO test items, than the South African sample. This is a very interesting finding, since most of South Africa’s leaners are being instructed in English as the language of teaching and learning, and, according to National Language Policy of South Africa, in schools where English is not the LOLT, English is being introduced as the first additional language. Thus these results from this NRF-funded research project have again confirmed the need for urgent policies and strategies to improve the quality of language and literacy instruction in South Africa (both L1 and L2). In addition, further research is needed to extend the findings of this study and which will investigate the specific role and importance (including the inter-relatedness) of emergent literacy and cognitive-linguistic skills in the home language (L1) and the possible transfer of these skills in L1 to L2, for example to English. In this sense, forthcoming research could play a significant role with regard to supporting L1 and L2 teachers, and also strengthen our theoretical explanations for the development of reading and literacy in both L1 and L2, whilst also making significant, empirically validated recommendations for designing effective prevention and early intervention programs for learners who experience literacy barriers to learning (in both L1 and L2).

Acknowledgement

This research is funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF) (Grant number: 87728).

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Proceeding of the Global Conference On Language Practice & Information Technology (GLIT 2014) (e-ISBN 978-967-11768-6-3). 9-10 June 2014, Kota Kinabalu,Sabah, MALAYSIA. Organized by http://WorldConferences.net 88

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400. Fleisch, B. 2008. Primary Education in crisis. Cape Town: Juta & Co. Ltd. Justice, L.M., McGinty, A.S., Cabell, S.Q., Kilday, C.R., Knighton, K. & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: a feasibility study. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 161–178. McCormick, C.E. & Haak, R. (2010). Early literacy individual growth and development indicators as predictors of reading skills in kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Psychology: A Bio-psychosocial Approach, 7, 29-40. Shanahan, T. & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). Early Childhood Literacy: The National Early Literacy Panel and Beyond. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Smith, M. W. & Dickinson, D. (2002). Early Language & Literacy Classroom Observation Toolkit, Research Edition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2012). 2012 Addendum to the Technical Appendix: User’s Guide to the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co. Sparks, R.L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L. & Humbach, N. & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 162-174. Stancel-Piatak, A., Mirazchiyski, P., & Desa , D. (2013). Promotion of Reading and Early Literacy Skills in Schools: a comparison of three European countries. European Journal of Education, 48(4), 498-510. Van Staden, A. & Griessel, D. (2011). Turning the tide on illiteracy: a search for early childhood language stimulation, Journal of Education, 52, 59-90. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

i This research has been approved and funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF). The ethics protocol was also approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education, University of the Free State (Ethical clearance number: UFS-EDU-2013-0074), the Free State Department of Education and the University of Granada.