Teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of reading: Can they perpetuate inequalities in reading?

References

• Almasi JF. 2003. Teaching strategic process in reading. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Almasi JF, Hart SJ. 2011. Best practices in comprehension instruction. In: Morrow LM, Gambrell LB (eds), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th edn). New York: Guilford Press. pp. 250–275.
   Google Scholar
• Anders PL. 2002. Toward an understanding of the development of reading comprehension instruction across the grade levels. In: Roller CM (ed.), Comprehensive reading instruction across the grade levels: A collection of papers from the Reading Research 2001 Conference. Chicago: International Reading Association. pp. 111–132.
   Google Scholar
• Applegate AJ, Applegate MD. 2004. The Peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher 57(6): 554–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ardington C, Wills G, Pretorius E, Deghaye N, Mohohlwane N, Menendez A, Mtsatse N, Van der Berg S. 2020. Summary Report: Benchmarking early grade reading skills in Nguni languages. Stellenbosch: ReSEP, Stellenbosch University, and Cape Town: SALDRU, University of Cape.
   Google Scholar
• Benevides T, Peterson SS. 2010. Literacy attitudes, habits and achievements of future teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching 36(3): 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.497375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block CC, Pressley M. 2007. Best practices in teaching comprehension. In: Gambrell LB, Morrow LM, Pressley M (eds), Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 220–242.
   Google Scholar
• Buckingham J, Wheldall K, Beaman-Wheldall R. 2013. Why Jaydon can’t read: The triumph of ideology over evidence in teaching reading. Policy 29(3): 21–32.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright KB. 2017. Executive skills and reading comprehension: A guide for educators. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castles A, Rastle K, Nation K. 2018. Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 19(1): 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong S, Ho P. 2009. Quality teaching and learning: a quality assurance framework for initial teacher preparation programmes. International Journal of Management in Education 3(3/4): 302–314. doi: 10.1504/IJMIE.2009.027352
   Google Scholar
• Day RR, Bamford J. 1998. Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900211
   Google Scholar
• Draper K, Spaull N. 2015. Examining oral reading fluency among rural Grade 5 English second language (ESL) learners in South Africa: An analysis of NEEDE 2013. The South African Journal of Childhood Education 5(2): 44–77. doi: 10.4102/sajce.v5i2.382
   Google Scholar
• Duke N, Pearson PD. 2002. Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In: Farstrup AE, Samuels SJ (eds), What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd edn. Newark: International Reading Association. pp. 205–242. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.10
   Google Scholar
• Evans DK, Acosta MA. 2020. Education in Africa: What are we learning? Centre for Global Development Working Paper 542. Washington DC: Center for Global Development.
   Google Scholar
• February PJ. 2018. Teaching and learning to read in Afrikaans: Teacher competence and computerassisted support. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Hosp MK, Jenkins JR. 2001. Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading 5(3): 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
   Google Scholar
• Grabe W. 2010. Fluency in reading: Thirty-five years later. Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1): 71–83.
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie JT, Knowles KT. 2001. Promoting reading motivation. In: Verhoeven L, Snow CE (eds), Literacy and motivation, reading engagement in individuals and groups. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 159–176.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek EA, Rivkin SG. 2006. Teacher quality. In: Hanushek E, Welch F (eds), Handbook of the Economics of Education. Philadelphia: Elsevier. pp. 1051–1078.
   Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck J, Tindal GA. 2006. Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher 59(7): 636–644. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattie JAC. 2009. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kim YSG, Boyle HN, Zuilkowski SS, Nakamura P. 2016. Landscape report on early grade literacy. Washington DC: USAID.
   Google Scholar
• Klapwijk N, van der Walt C. 2011. Measuring reading strategy knowledge transfer: Motivation for teachers to implement reading strategy instruction. Per Linguam 27(2): 25–40.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn MR, Stahl SA. 2003. Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(1): 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitan J. 2015. The difference between educational equality, equity, and justice … and why it matters. American Journal of Education Forum. Available at http://www.ajeforum.com/the-differencebetween-educational-equality-equity-and-justice-and-why-it-matters-by-joseph-levitan/
   Google Scholar
• Liswaniso BL. 2021. The design and effects of a catch-up reading intervention for Grade 5 teachers and learners in Namibia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Liswaniso BL, Pretorius EJ. 2022. The effects of a ‘catch-up’ reading intervention for Grade 5 learners and teachers. Per Linguam 38(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5785/38-1-1010
   Google Scholar
• McCormick S. 1995. Instructing students who have literacy problems. Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture. 2015. English Second Language Syllabus (Grades 4 – 7). Okahandja: NIED.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture. 2017. Education Management Information System: Education statistics 2016. Windhoek: Education Management Information System.
   Google Scholar
• National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, reports of the subgroups. Rockville: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
   Google Scholar
• Nghikembua T. 2020. Learning to read and spell in Oshikwanyama language: Precursors, dynamics and teacher knowledge of early literacy instruction. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Ogle D, Lang L. 2011. Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction. In: Morrow LMM, Gambrell LB (eds), Best practices in literacy instruction, 4th edn. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Padgett, R. 1997. Creative reading: What it is, how to do it, and why. Champaign: National Council of Teachers.
   Google Scholar
• Pikulski JJ, Chard DJ. 2005. Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher 58(6): 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piper B, Korda M. 2011. EGRA Plus: Liberia. Overview of a sustainable reading intervention. Research Triangle Park: RTI International.
   Google Scholar
• Pretorius EJ. 2002. Reading ability and academic performance in South Africa: Are we fiddling while Rome is burning? Language Matters 33: 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10228190208566183
   Google Scholar
• Pretorius EJ. 2012. Butterfly effects in reading? The relationship between decoding and comprehension in Grade 6 high poverty schools. Journal for Language Teaching 46(2): 74–95.
   Google Scholar
• Pretorius EJ. 2014. Supporting transition or playing catch-up in Grade 4?: Implication for standards in education and training. Perspectives in Education 32(1): 51–76.
   Google Scholar
• Pretorius EJ, Lephalala M. 2011. Reading comprehension in high-poverty schools: How should it be taught and how well does it work? Per Linguam 27(2): 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Pretorius EJ, Murray S. 2019. Teaching reading comprehension. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.
   Google Scholar
• RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Reyhner J. 2008. The reading wars: Phonics versus whole language. [blog]. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/reading_wars.html
   Google Scholar
• Seidenberg MS. 2013. The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and Development 9(4): 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seidenberg M. 2017. Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Seymour PHK, Aro M, Erskine JM. 2003. Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology 94: 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shalem Y, De Clercq F. 2019. Teacher development and inequality in schools: Do we now have a theory of change? In: Spaull N, Jansen JD (eds), South African schooling: The enigma of inequality – A study of the present situation and future possibilities. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 243–261.
   Google Scholar
• Shigwedha AN, Nakashole L, Auala H, Amakutuwa H, Ailonga I. 2017. The SACMEQ IV project in Namibia: A study of the conditions of schooling and the quality of primary education in Namibia (SACMEQ Policy Research: Report no. 4). Windhoek: Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman L. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15(2): 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
   Google Scholar
• Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality. 2005. The SACMEQ II project in Namibia: A study of the conditions of schooling and quality of education. Compiled by D. Makuwa. Harare: SACMEQ.
   Google Scholar
• Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ). 2010. SACMEQ III project results: Pupil achievement levels in reading and mathematics. (Working document no. 1). Harare: SACMEQ.
   Google Scholar
• Spaull N. 2011. A preliminary analysis of SACMEQ III South Africa. Stellenbosch Economic Working Papers: 11/11. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosh University. Available at https://resep.sun.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/wp-11-2011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Spaull N. 2013. Poverty & privilege: Primary school inequality in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development 33(5): 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spear-Swerling L. 2006. Children’s reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy text. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 19: 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-4114-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer M, Wagner RK. 2017. The comprehension problems for second language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading 40(2): 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor BM. 2011. Catching readers, grades 4/5. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor N. 2019. Inequalities in teacher knowledge in South Africa. In: Spaull N, Jansen JD (eds), South African schooling: The enigma of inequality – A study of the present situation and future possibilities. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18811-5_14
   Google Scholar
• UNICEF. 2015. School-dropout and out-of-school children in Namibia: A National Review. https://www.unicef.org/namibia/na.Creative_OOSR_Booklet_Final(1).pdf
   Google Scholar
• University of Oregon. 2022. DIBELS® 8th Edition. Percentiles 2021-2022 (Technical Report 2201). Eugene: University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Wang H. 2014. On the constructivist teaching of extensive reading for English majors. International Journal of Education and Pedagogical Sciences 8(3): 797–799.
   Google Scholar
• Wills G, Ardington C, Pretorius EJ, Sebaeng L. 2022. Benchmarking Early Grade Reading Skills: English First Additional Language. Summary Report. Johannesburg: Khulisa Management Services, and USAID.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2017. Does fiscal policy benefit the poor and reduce inequality in Namibia? The distributional impact of fiscal policy in Namibia. Washington DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2018. World Development Report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. Washington DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Wren S. 2001. The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
   Google Scholar