Collaborative Research between South Africa and China：An Overview of Literacy Development in Grade R Classes in South Africa

Norma Margaret Nel

（College of Education，University of South Africa，Pretoria 0003，South Africa）

中非教育交流研究

Collaborative Research between South Africa and China：An Overview of Literacy Development in Grade R Classes in South Africa

Norma Margaret Nel

（College of Education，University of South Africa，Pretoria 0003，South Africa）

The main aim is to give a synopsis of the articles which were the outcomes of the first of three phases of an international collaborative research project between a university in South Africa and a university in China．The overall theme of the project was：Literacy development in pri?mary schools．Firstly，an introduction，including the benefits and challenges of the international re?search project collaboration based on reports in literature，is discussed．Secondly，the background of the South Africa?China project and its three phases is described．Thirdly，the literacy development in primary schools in South Africa is discussed．Lastly，a synopsis of the South African team’s em?pirical findings providing overviews of literacy development within the early childhood sector in ur?ban and rural education in South Africa is presented．These overviews（together with two remaining overviews not included in this article） serve as a point of departure for the second phase in the re?search project．

international collaborative research project；South Africa；literacy；early childhood development；rural

1.Introduction

Assessment of research by national systems is emphasising international collaborations as it enables re?searchers from different countries to use their strengths to make contributions which would otherwise be diffi?cult to do locally．In addition，it also enables researchers who are in one location to tackle problems together instead of on their own，because of an inability to understand the context or to access the knowledge from lo?cals［1］95，103．Since collaborative research “offers higher productivity and has a greater impact than non?inter?national collaboration”，it requires researchers to make strategic decisions regarding their collaboration modes within their environments and to consider the costs and benefits involved．To encourage international collabo?rations，“ substantial financial and attentional resources， academic excellence， individual motivation， and active informal communication play significant roles”［2］520，529．Parties involved are located in different con?texts，having their own structures and constraints as well as different assumptions about the world，as they connect and work with one another on mutual matters［1］94which in this study is literacy development in pri?mary schools in South Africa and China．Most importantly，Parding，Hertting，Alerby，et al．mention learning“from and with each other．．．become communities of practices，with excellent results．”［3］291The common de?nominator in the literature regarding international research projects，is leadership，management and the com?plexity of administration［3］286．The author of this article also focussed on the backdrop of our specific contex?tual experiences which were reported in the resultant articles thus enabling us to glean the different themes from it and arrive at significant conclusions and implications for international collaborative research projects．

Hoadley reports that research on teaching and learning in South African primary schools results in con?sistency regarding what is happening in classrooms［4］187，198?199．Furthermore， specific features of classroom practice which affects learner learning are being identified based on classroom observations instead of inter?views and other methods．Hoadley postulates that although much is learnt from small scale studies，there is a need for large scale longitudinal studies of classrooms in South Africa［4］199．She emphasises that “ new avenues of research into pedagogy and its relation to subject?specific knowledge signal a deeper engagement in making sense of classrooms．” In the light of Hoadley’s assertions，it justifies the present international col?laborative research project which offers greater benefits as new and differentiated ideas come to the fore，de?rived from different cultural contexts．Kivrak，Arslan，Tuncan，et al．reveal from their research that national culture plays a major role in sharing knowledge with people from different cultures［5］642．Aspects such as dif?ficulties in language and communication， trust， motivation and personal relationships are barriers that influence multicultural project teams’ successful knowledge?sharing．Brewet al．a(chǎn)ssert that where there are major cultural and language differences，it often requires renegotiation of understandings［1］94．

In this study，the ability to speak the common language namely English，played an important role in knowledge?sharing．On the other hand，Gains and Graham realise that the design for parallel research need not be replicated in each of the settings，but rather that the researchers consider their own situations pertain?ing to their country and decide on a suitable design which is the case in this study［6］92．In this way the re?searchers could share the development of their designs，learn from one another and reflect on their own re?sponses and each other’s analysis．Jeonget al．explain that international collaboration not only helps to in?crease the productivity and the impact of the research but also encourages further international collaboration and academic excellence，which is the case in this project［2］530．

We first discuss the background of the collaborative research project between South Africa and China，followed by literacy development in primary education in South Africa，the South African methodology used during phase I and finally a synopsis of two resultant literacy overview articles．

2.South Africa?China collaborative research project

During the latter part of 2013，a collaborative research project titled：South Africa?China Collaborative Research on Teachers’Literacy Perceptions and Classroom Practices in Primary Schools，involving the Univer?sity of South Africa and the Zhejiang International Studies University，was initiated via email correspondence．Subsequently，in November 2013，four academics from the University of South Africa visited the Zhejiang In?ternational Studies University，Hangzhou to further discussions pertaining to the project．After three days of intensive discussions，the following phases were decided on．

This collaborative comparative research project comprises of three phases：

Phase I：Gaining an overview of current teacher attitudes and practices in primary school classrooms re?garding literacy development（2014—2015） in each respective country．Anticipated outcomes are：the publi?cation of three to four co?authored articles from each university，in the South African journal，Per Linguam．The South African articles are based on empirical findings and the Chinese articles are based on narratives．

Phase II：Training teachers to teach reading for meaning：a framework for in?service teacher training（2016—2017）．An alternative theme may be introduced as the need arises．This phase involves empirical research in both countries and will ultimately be recorded in articles for publication．

Phase III：Dissemination of information and institutional interaction will take place at conferences in South Africa and/or China （2016/2017）．

The main purpose of Phase I of the project is to produce an updated knowledge base that sheds light on how reading is currently being taught and developed in primary schools in South Africa and China．A special edition of the accredited journalPer Linguam（South Arica） in 2016 has been published，in which the three South African and three Chinese articles were published online in May 2016．

The exploratory comparative focus of Phase I will enable us to identify patterns and develop an under?standing of variations of global phenomenon like reading and the ways in which it is viewed，valued and ex?plicitly taught within the unique multilingual，multicultural，socio?economic and historical contexts in which literacy development takes place．Central themes that fall within this exploratory phase include Early Child?hood Development（ECD），Inclusive Education，normative cultural frameworks within which policy documents are formulated，poverty and literacy development （including urban/rural socioeconomic factors），teacher training，and capacity building．Literacy development during the Early Childhood Development stage，in urban and rural areas is reported and discussed here．

Producing an updated and reflective knowledge base of this nature will enable the researchers from both countries to discover what can contribute to improving literacy policy and practices．A better understanding of teacher attitudes and practices relating to reading will provide an informed platform for Phase II of the colla?borative research project．This study provides “pragmatic strategies at an action level”［2］521to facilitate inter?national collaboration as communities of practice．A memorandum of understanding（MOU） was drawn up，approved and signed by both parties in 2014．

3.Literacy development in primary education in South Africa

The present study is a parallel research project which was rooted in collaboration and aimed at cross?culturally （South Africa?China） examining children’s literacy development in primary schools．In both coun?tries teachers’ differences and similarities were identified．This collaboration led to a shared realisation that in both South Africa and China，literacy development during preschool years and primary years experience varied problems which are challenging and need to be addressed．

Educational reform has many advantages．However，concomitantly there are also many challenges．Nsa?menang explains that“the emancipatory potential of Anglo?American approaches visualized in the first Edu?cation For All（EFA） goals，though attractive，instead suppress goal?achievement by non?Westerners．Blind optimism in them stunts non?Western children．To empower most of the world’s children and enrich the field，we simply need to accept and respect differentness．”［7］

Despite great gains made in access for children in institutions of formal early education in South Africa，the issue is about providing acceptable quality schooling experiences which lays the“basis for future learning and enhanced life chances．” To date the learner performance in the early grades is very low and the majority of learners are unable to read，write，count and calculate on their grade level，which means the Grade R “has very little measureable impact on learners’ subsequent school performance．” The key sources of this under?performance are inter alia：children living in poverty；impoverished pedagogy；classes are too large；poor child?rearing practices and childrens’ inadequate social and physical readiness for school［8］72?74．Where centre and periphery schooling in the previous dispensation was based on race，it is capital which is now the barrier as learners from poor communities and the rural areas are marginalised，which means that black children conti?nue to receive poor schooling seeing that poverty is “overdetermined by race．”［9］9

Janks and Makalela postulate that in order to gain success in school，the language question needs to be linked to questions about literacy．“A bilingual or trilingual language?in?education policy should include bili?teracy be it mother?tongue or English based．Skills such as decoding，comprehension and meaning?making skills need to be developed and an approach should be designed to develop these skills．”［10］225?226Similarly，Luo，Zhang，Liu，et al．explain that “China has made impressive strides in education over the past several decades（and even more so in recent years）．” However，early childhood education （ECE） in the rural areas still has many problems such as limited quality ECE services，poorly trained teachers and facilities which do not meet minimum standards［11］60．Hence the rural children have fallen behind their peers in terms of physi?cal，cognitive and social development and consequently are not ready for the next stage in their education．Similar challenges are experienced in South Africa and this article will concentrate on the South African researchers’ outcomes of their empirical research．

Hoadley offers a knowledge base gleaned from research conducted regarding the reasons why South Afri?can schools are still failing the majority of our learners［4］187，198?199．She offers descriptive features of South Af?rican schools with regards to discourse：domination of oral discourse and opportunities to read and write are limited；chorusing as a classroom interaction pattern；there is limited feedback on learners’ responses；instead of learning being individualised it is communalised．Regarding knowledge，cognitive demand is low；limited use of textbooks and other reading material；emphasis on concrete meanings instead of abstract meanings；little or no focus on the written text， reading and writing； focussing on decoding of texts and neglecting reading of extended texts．Furthermore，the pace is slow and instructional time is eroded．Factors which will influence student gains are appropriate assessment and feedback to learners；a focus on reading and writing；teachers need to be proficient in the language of instruction；teachers need to adjust their pace to learners’ a?bility；more of the curriculum needs to be covered；more content needs to be exposed by cognitive de?mand［4］187，198?199．

During Phase I，the South African researchers examine the perceptions of teachers who teach learners literacy within inclusive classes during the early childhood education phase （reception year，age 5 years） and primary school in South African township and rural schools．

4.The South African methodology used in Phase I

In the South African component of Phase I，both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to col?lect，compare and analyse data related to various aspects of early literacy development and reading compre?hension instruction．A survey was undertaken by two colleagues from the Department of Linguistics and Mo?dern Languages at University of South Africa，to tap into primary school teachers’ attitudes to reading，their perceptions of themselves as readers，their reading habits and their reported classroom practices relating to reading comprehension．Besides the general focus on reading comprehension in the primary school phase，there are also specialist perspectives on reading comprehension in relation to ECD （Grade R）and Inclusive Education，and the urban/rural divide in literacy development，undertaken by colleagues in the College of Education．

The target population was primary school teachers of schools which include Grade R teachers．Four to 8 schools in each of the selected 3 provinces were purposively selected to participate in the research project．Research instruments and the data collection process included a questionnaire that probes teachers’attitudes and classroom practices with regard to comprehension instruction and was distributed to selected primary school teachers in schools across 4 provinces，viz．Western Cape，Eastern Cape，Mpumalanga and Gauteng．The questionnaire comprised both closed and open type questions．

Regarding ethical issues，permission to conduct the research was sought from the Department of Educa?tion in the provinces as well as from the school principals．Teachers who agreed to participate in the research project completed the questionnaires in their own time，and their anonymity and confidentiality were not com?promised．Any person who wished to withdraw could do so at any time．There was no payment for participa?tion and no risk was anticipated with the completion of the questionnaire．

At this stage of the research project，Phase I is completed amidst several challenges which we had to o?vercome，such as the management of co?authored articles．

5.Synopsis of two resultant literacy overview articles①

（1） Article 1：Research partnership between South Africa and China：Emergent literacy teaching and learning in early childhood education in South Africa（available online May 2016：Per Linguam32（1）②）

The first article offers an overview of emergent literacy teaching and learning in early childhood educa?tion in South Africa．The main aim of the research was to report on the quantitative data analysis （of the mixed method design employed） of teachers perceptions of literacy and classroom practices in Grade R，ob?tained from the questionnaires．By means of purposeful and convenient sampling strategies，10 schools with Grade R classes were selected in two cities in Gauteng province and 4 schools in a city in Mpumalanga prov?ince and 28 questionnaires （consisting of open and closed questions） were administered to teachers．Statisti?cal analysis was done using the SAS/STATS module of the SAS version 9.4 statistical package．

As an introduction to the article，the authors discuss the dire situation in both South Africa and China in terms of early literacy education．Common problems are shared by both countries as well as unique contextual problems of each country and thus there is a need for research in this area．With regard to the literacy levels in South Africa，they are on the lower end of the international systemic measure of performance in literacy（PIRLS③，2006 ＆ 2011）．Many factors can be provided to explain cross?cultural differences for example“cultural background for preschool education，the nature and role of preschool curriculum and the view and basic philosophy preschool teachers have for preschool education．”［12］217

The literature study furthers discussions．Regarding Second Language Acquisition，the authors acknowl?edge and discuss Krashan’s cognitivist Input?Interacting?Output approach， Atkinson’s socio?cognitive stance［13］13，143and Janks’ future?orientated socio?cultural literacy pedagogies［9］8，11．As an extension of these discussions，the authors expand on the problems that occur with teachers’ classroom practices．Gleaned from the literature，it was concluded that teachers must not only depend on practice but also have adequate content and pedagogic knowledge，conduct action research and thus be reflective and engage in a quest to become ex?perts in the field of literacy pedagogy and early childhood education［6］85［14］97［15］82．In doing so the South Afri?can Department of Basic Education has adopted an integrated approach where the Language programme has been integrated into all subject areas［16］10．However，the authors point out the gaps which exist in the Curriculum，Assessment，Policy Statement（CAPS） for Grade R （reception year） and non?articulation of policy ideals at teaching level．This is exacerbated by difficulties such as limited funds，lack of well trained teachers and in?adequate focus on emergent literacy teaching and literacy in ECD．More importantly，Grade R is formally，not yet part of primary education even though it is included in the CAPS document，which also provides guide?lines such as teaching instruction time，in this case for language as well as the skills such as listening，speak?ing，reading and writing that need to be mastered．Language and literacy teaching in Grade R focus on play?based learning and formal and informal teaching．

Summary of the findings：

An astounding 76.06%of participating teachers’ highest qualification was a Grade 10 certificate．The findings also indicate limited teaching experiences and resources and the lack of print?rich environments．Teachers’ rigid teaching methods，which include chorus teaching，repetition，completing of worksheets are still very much in use．

Only a small portion of the participating teachers were speakers of the home languages of their learners（Sepedi，isiZulu and siSwati）．On average there are 29 learners per Grade R class；9 languages were used by learners；consequently not all learners were taught in their home language．In the Gauteng sample，all South African languages were used and mixed and some learners even spoke foreign languages such as French．The majority of the parents，however，chose to have their children educated in English．

As much as 76.47%of teachers perceived themselves as reading literate，which is questionable，keeping in mind the social desirability aspect，which means that there is an absence of a reading culture in their schools where they teach．Teachers indicated that their learners reading readiness ranged from average to good and that a strong reading culture exists，yet low literacy levels exist，which indicates that teachers have misconceptions regarding these issues．Teachers’ reading practices are also in question as teachers lack sen?sitivity towards the developmental levels of the learners thus only teaching on one level and whole class read?ing is the order of the day．Asking literal questions about a text was most common．It was also found that ac?tivities to develop laterality were absent and that tracing and drawing pictures activities dominated．

In view of these findings，the researchers’ plea to the South African education authorities is to pay heed essentially，to the importance of quality literacy teaching in Grade R；to invest in the upgrading of teacher qualifications；the inclusion of theories such as child development，learning，language and ESL；providing op?portunities for teachers to conduct evidence based research；teachers to gain a sound knowledge and use of English （Language of Learning and Teaching，LoLT） and how learners acquire reading；and lastly，to gain a thorough understanding of ECD pedagogy．

（2）Article 2：Contextual challenges in early literacy teaching and learning in Grade R rural schools in South Africa（available online May 2016：Per Linguam32（1）④）

The second article offers an overview of the contextual challenges experienced during early literacy teaching and learning in Grade R rural schools in South Africa．The main aim of this research was to report on the qualitative data obtained from semi?structured interviews，questionnaires and classroom observations，challenges which hamper teachers in teaching literacy adequately and prevent learners from acquiring quality literacy in Grade R rural schools．

With the use of purposive sampling，3 rural schools（with 3 Grade R classes each） were selected in Jo?hannesburg，Gauteng Province．9 Grade R teachers and 3 Heads of Departments were selected．

Table 1 Contexts of the participating schools

Due to the context of the research，namely rural schools，the researchers deemed it necessary to give a detailed description of the participating schools．

In the introduction of the article，the authors emphasised the slow advancement of literacy skills in rural schools despite various policies and support programmes provided by the Department of Education．The South African government has acknowledged the need for increased access to quality ECD programmes and services；however，problems at the ECD level persist．There is thus an urgent need for research in the area of rural ECD in South Africa in an effort to improve the delivery of quality education in this area．

As part of the literature review，the authors discuss the education in the rural South African context．Ru?ral is defined differently based on people’s socioeconomic，geographical and personal perspectives．The chal?lenges faced in rural contexts are inter alia access to public transport，diverse leaner backgrounds，poor or no school attendance，poor infrastructure （water，electricity） and their impact on ECD education．This calls for curriculum delivery to be tailored for the rural contexts and unfortunately the teachers are not prepared for these diverse contexts．Early childhood education （birth to 6 years） where Grade R resides，serves as a guide for the implementation of universal access to Grade R and includes aspects such as ECD services，curriculum，and ECD practitioners，as discussed according to the Department of Education’s White Paper 5（2001）［17］．The Diagnostic Review of ECD draft report（2012） in which the priority areas such as a teacher development strategy for ECD and Grade R for improvement， are discussed［18］．Further discussions are around staffing and finances．

Considering the theme of the article，it necessitated a discussion on the Curriculum Assessment and Policy Statement（CAPS） for Grade R，published by the Department of Education （2011）．References such as the Catholic Institute of Education and SACE raise concerns regarding CAPS such as proper qualified teachers and the curriculum being too detailed and overwhelming［19］．

Summary of findings：

By means of manual thematic content analysis of the transcribed interview responses，the following themes were identified：infrastructure and provisioning，pedagogical challenges，and management and support．

The participating schools 2 and 3 and to a lesser degree school 1，are faced with many infrastructure and provisioning challenges，ranging from water and electricity shortages，lack of classroom space，inadequate re?sources（and where there were resources they were underutilised），lack of upkeep of buildings and school terrain；barriers learners face such as poverty，language difficulties，parental and home challenges which in?clude unemployment and lack of food and finances for school funds．

On pedagogical level，and in this case literacy teaching and learning for Grade R，teachers in the partici?pating schools displayed limited knowledge regarding the development of uniform lesson preparation and ex?perienced difficulty in adhering to set timetables and daily programmes．Ultimately，teachers experience CAPS implementation as demanding because it requires the attendance of frequent meetings for discussions on planning，preparation and assessment，receiving little or no support from the Department of Education offi?cials．As a result of inadequately qualified teachers，teachers do not prepare lessons properly and use rigid teaching methods and are unable to understand the teaching of literacy，reading and writing，consequently their classroom management also leaves much to be desired．Furthermore，teachers as well as learners use at least two languages（their home language and LoLT） during the teaching of English literacy which results in the con?tamination of the LoLT，for example the incorrect pronunciation of English words．Whilst some teachers were eager to receive further training to improve their qualifications，others were not motivated to do so．

The management and support in the development of literacy in Grade R classrooms also presents with many challenges．The Heads of Departments（HOD） indicated that they had many additional tasks over and above their HOD tasks such as dealing with problems with underqualified teachers，limited resources，lack of parental involvement and poverty．

It can thus be concluded that although South Africa has policies in place it is the implementation that is problematic，such as universal access to Grade R which has as yet not materialised．In addition，teachers are not adequately trained and qualified to teach the CAPS Grade R curriculum particularly in rural areas where one needs to involve the community and the good leadership and support of the HOD’s and the principal．Support and training for teachers and parents from District Offices is also imperative．Provision of resources，improving the infrastructure of rural schools，financial assistance and a strategic plan by the Department of Education，is desperately needed in order to offer a quality ECD education to young South African children．

6.Conclusion

This collaborative research project between South Africa and China has proved to benefit both universi?ties in terms of the MOU．The expected outcomes of Phase I have been reached namely，four South African articles，of which 3 have been published in the special edition ofPer Linguamjournal in 2016，and one in a later edition ofPer Linguamjournal and three Chinese articles in the special edition ofPer Linguamjournal in 2016．Subsequently，the Chinese university has also established a journal in which their articles will be published in China．This article gives a South African perspective of one of the identified themes namely Ear?ly Childhood Education （ECD），under the umbrella theme：Literacy．

From the findings reported in the two articles，the researchers were able to gain an understanding of ECD literacy teaching and learning in the South African education context，even though the research was only conducted in two provinces．Article 1 provided an overview of emergent literacy teaching and learning in early childhood education in South Africa motivated by the recognition of common literacy challenges experi?enced in both South Africa and China as well as their unique contextual challenges．The main challenges which repeatedly emerged throughout the research were the issue of underqualified teachers，rigid teaching practices，the difficulties experienced with the curriculum，CAPS，and the difficulties surrounding Language of Learning and Teaching （LoLT）．In addition to these challenges，article 2 expounded on the contextual chal?lenges in early literacy teaching and learning in Grade R rural schools in South Africa．Although rural schools have their own unique challenges such as poor infrastructure namely no electricity and water，dilapidated buildings，no transport，little or no parental involvement，poor socio?economic conditions and access to ECD education and services，some of these are also prevalent in the schools in article 1．Despite initiatives taken by the Department of Education to address these challenges，not enough has been undertaken to alleviate the problems experienced in rural areas，and the low literacy levels in South African schools．Both articles conclude with a plea to the Department of Education to increase their efforts in alleviating these challenges and to acceler?ate access to quality ECD education and services and to improve literacy levels in South African schools．

In terms of the research project itself，the participating South African researchers were able to make stra?tegic decisions and consider costs and benefits involved［2］．Good leadership，communication and collaboration skills were evident and team members were committed to the project and were fully co?operative．Regular meetings were held in a participatory fashion and excellent administration skills［3］particularly for the publi?cations of the articles were employed．Much has been gained by collaborating with the Chinese counterparts regarding the education in China，which brings us to the realization that both countries have common challen?ges yet unique strengths and together，through research，we are able to address the challenges and share the strengths for the benefit of all learners．Geoghegan，O’Neill and Petersen explain that there is a great deal of research being conducted regarding pedagogical change in order to improve the outcomes of literacy teaching as well as schoolwide approaches toward teaching and learning with the goal to improve schools［20］119．By means of preliminary investigations into possible research partners and mutual research topics will enable re?searchers to match potential partners and thus lead them to mutual exploration by means of collaborative re?search opportunities［2］530．In order to improve the current project performance，continued collaborations in Phase II and III are envisaged．

Notes：

①Three co?authored articles from the Chinese counterparts of the project were also published in the special edition （2016）Per Linguam32（1） journal on the following topics：teacher training；literacy education；reading instruction．

②Cf．Nel N，Krog S，Mohangi K，et al．Research partnership between South Africa and China：Emergent literacy teaching and learning in early childhood education in South Africa［J］．Per Linguam （Special edition），2016，32（1）：102?122．

③PIRLS（The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study） is run by International Association for the Evaluation of Edu?cational Achievement（IEA）．

④Cf．Mohangi K，Krog S，Stephens O，et al．Contextual challenges in early literacy teaching and learning in grade R rural schools in South Africa［J］．Per Linguam （Special edition），2016，32（1）：71?87．

［1］Brew A，Boud D，Lucas L，et al．Reflexive deliberation in international research collaboration：Minimising risk and maximis?ing opportunity［J］．High Education，2013，66（1）：93?104．

［2］Jeong S，Choi J Y，Kim Y．On the drivers of international collaboration：The impact of informal communication，motivation，and research resources［J］．Science and Public Policy，2014，41（4）：520?531．

［3］Parding K，Hertting K，Alerby E，et al．Bridges and barriers：Learning experiences from an international research project［J］．The International Journal of Learning，2012，18（8）：285?293．

［4］Hoadley U．What do we know about teaching and learning in South African primary schools？ ［J］．Education as Change，2012，16（2）：187?202．

［5］Kivrak S，Arslan G，Tuncan M，et al．Impact of national culture on knowledge sharing in international construction projects［J］．Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering，2014，41（7）：642?649．

［6］Gains P，Graham B．Making space for expressive and creative writing in African primary schools：A two?site action research study in Kenya and South Africa［J］．Reading and Writing，2011，2（1）：77?94．

［7］Nsamenang A B．Cultures in early childhood care and education：Background paper prepared for Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007?Strong Foundations：Early Childhood Care and Education［EB/OL］．［2015－05－15］．http：//unes?doc．unesco．org/images/0014/001474/147442e．pdf．

［8］Hoadley U．Building strong foundations：Improving the quality of early education［J］．South African Child Guage，2013：72?77．

［9］Janks H．Globalisation，diversity and education：A South African perspective［J］．The Educational Forum，2014，78：8?25．

［10］Janks H，Makalela L．Engaging a visionary：Horizons of the （im）possible［J］．Education as Change，2013，17（2）：219?228．

［11］Luo R，Zhang L，Liu C，et al．Behind before they begin：The challenge of early childhood education in rural China［J］．Australasian Journal of Early Childhood，2012，37（1）：55?64．

［12］Ojala M，Talts L．Preschool achievement in Finland and Estonia：Cross?cultural comparison between the cities of Helsinki and Tallinn［J］．Scandanavian Journal of Educational Research，2007，51（2）：205?221．

［13］Atkinson D．A sociocognitve approach to second language acquisition［C］//Atkinson D．Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition．London：Routledge，2011：i?190．

［14］Happo I，M??tt? K．Expertise of early childhood educators［J］．International Education Studies，2011，4（3）：91?99．

［15］Prinsloo M，Stein P．What’s inside the box？ Children’s early encounters with literacy in South Africanclassrooms［J］．Per?spectives in education，2004，22（2）：67?82．

［16］Department of Basic Education．Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement（CAPS）?Foundation Phase Home Language Grades R?3［M］．Pretoria：Government Press，2011．

［17］Department of Education （DoE）．White Paper 5?Early Childhood Development［M］．Pretoria：DOE，2001．

［18］Richter L，Biersteker L，Burns J，et al．Diagnostic Review of Early Childhood Development［M］．Pretoria：Human Sciences Research Council，2012．

［19］Catholic Institute of Education．Submission on the national curriculum and assessment policy statement for all subjects lis?ted in the national curriculum statement Grades R?12 （No．784 of 2010）［EB/OL］．Catholic Institute of Education．［2015－05－15］．http：//cie．org．za．

［20］Geoghegan D，O’Neill S，Petersen S．Metalangauge：The “teacher talk” of explicit literacy teaching in practice［J］．Impro?ving Schools，2013，16（2）：119?129.

G526.9

A

2095－2074（2016）06－0085－10

2016－06－27

Norma Margaret Nel，女，南非大學榮休教授、研究員，南非國家科研基金（NRF）在冊研究員，博士生導師，博士。