10971_The academic language proficiency of primary school teacher education students at a South African university

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION
o
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if
changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
o
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
o
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.
How to cite this thesis
Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/
M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved
from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed:
Date).
i

University of Johannesburg
Faculty of Education

The academic language proficiency of primary school teacher education
students at a South African university

Dean van der Merwe
201070402

Dissertation submitted for the degree
Magister Educationis
in
Childhood Education
at the
University of Johannesburg

Supervisor: Professor Elizabeth Henning
Co-supervisor: Professor Nadine Petersen
Date: July 2018

ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this is my original research for the purpose of the dissertation, The
academic language proficiency of primary school teacher education students at a
South African university.
…………………………………………………..
Dean van der Merwe
28 June 2018
iii

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the financial assistance from the National Research
Foundation (NRF). A bursary for this study was awarded by the NRF-DST SARChI
Chair: Integrated Studies of Learning Language, Mathematics and Science in the
Primary School. Chair holder: Prof Elizabeth Henning
Grant number: R2GHL76

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals and groups who have contributed
to the completion of this dissertation:
I would first like to thank my research supervisors, Professor Elbie Henning and
Professor Nadine Petersen. I have learnt so much from you as my mentors and I
cannot thank you enough for your invaluable guidance and insight. You have allowed
this study to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever I needed
it.
To the teacher education students who formed sample of my study: Thank you very
much. Your participation is greatly valued and contributions are appreciated as they
lay the foundation for this research.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents for providing me with
unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study. This
accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.

v

SUMMARY

Keywords: academic language proficiency, teacher education, core academic
language skills, higher education, pre-service teachers

As a teacher educator I have observed that many students struggle to read academic
texts for understanding, and to write academic texts appropriate at a university-level.
I initiated the current study to determine with what academic language proficiencies
teacher education students enter university, also to determine if their academic
language proficencies improve after three years of study at a university and to what
extent it changes. To this end, I utilised a core academic language skills (CALS) test
designed and standardised by Uccelli, Dobbs and Scott (2013) to test students’ core
academic language proficiencies (according to this specific instrument).
Many authors on the topic of academic language and academic language proficiency
argue for the importance of teaching academic language to learners intentionally and
explicitly. In order for teachers to do this, they have to know what academic language
is and the appropriate pedagogies for teaching it (Scarcella, 2003; Schleppegrell,
2012; Snow, 2010). In this study, I argue that student teachers do not have the
appropriate academic language proficiencies in order to effectively teach it when they
enter classrooms. I further argue that student teachers have to be taught academic
language across the curriculum in order for them to take this up in their own teaching
once they graduate. I also posit that they may have underdeveloped strategic- and
word recognition reading skills, which could be due to many educational as well as
social factors, and which could be one source of their underdeveloped academic
writing competence
In this study, the unit of analysis is the academic language proficiency of teacher
education students, according to a specific metric. The unit of sampling is 695 teacher
education students, comprising students in their first-, second-, and third year of study
on two campuses that implement a University-accredited teacher education
qualification. Students’ scores on the CALS test were analysed using descriptive and
inferential statistical analyses, first to capture their performance, second to determine
vi

whether students’ academic language proficiency improved, and third to determine if
home language is a factor that influences students’ academic language proficiency.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE………………………………………………………………………………i
DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………………….ii
FUNDING ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………iv
SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………….v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………..x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………xii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY…………………………………………..…1
1.1
Introduction……………………………………………………………..……1
1.2
Background…………………………………………………………….…… 1
1.3
Motivation……………………………………………………………….……5
1.4
Theoretical framework…………………………………………….…………7
1.5
Methods……………………………………………………………………..11
1.6
Research ethics clearance………………………………………………..12
1.7
The structure of the study………………………………………………….13
1.8
Summary…………………………………………………………………….13
CHAPTER 2: ACADEMIC LANGUAGE FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENT
TEACHERS…………………………………………………………………………………14
2.1
Introduction…………………………………………………………….……14
2.2
Academic language proficiency……………………………………………15
2.3
Academic language proficiency and initial teacher education………….20
2.3.1
Entry into an academy…………………………………..……………………..21
2.4
Academic language for information extraction…………………………..28
2.5
Academic language for ‘getting things done at school’….………….…..30
2.6
Academic language requires explicit instruction…………………………31
2.7
Pedagogies for teaching academic language……………………………34
2.8
Core academic language skills, strategic reading, and CALP………….39
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN………………………………………………..…….40
3.1
Introduction……………………………………………………………..……40
viii

3.2
Use of descriptive statistical analysis in the study………………………40
3.3
Criteria for rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis………………..42
3.4
Context of the study…………………………………………………………43
3.5
Choosing participants………………………………………………………44
3.6
Data generation: participants write the CALS test………………………45
3.7
The CALS-I……………………………………………………………….…47
3.7.1
How was CALS identified across content areas?…………………………………….48
3.7.2
How was the CALS-I developed?………………………………………………………….48
3.7.3
The purpose of the CALS-I……………………………………………………….49
3.7.4
CALS operational definition………………………………………………………49
3.7.5
Reliability and validity of the CALS-I…………………………………………….51
3.7.6
Piloting the CALS-I in South Africa………………………………………………52
3.7.7
Potential uses of the CALS-I……………………………………………………..52
CHAPTER 4: THE DATA OF THE STUDY………………………………………………54
4.1
Introduction……………………………………………………………..……54
4.2
Students’ academic language proficiency………………………………..56
4.2.1
Comparison across foundation phase cohorts on Campus A…………………57
4.2.2
Comparison across foundation phase cohorts on Campus B…………………59
4.2.3
Comparison across intermediate phase cohorts on Campus A……………….61
4.3
CALS test item analysis……………………………………………………62
4.4
Test for normality of CALS score distribution…………………………….67
4.5
Does academic language improve after three years?………………………75
4.6
Does English language order affect academic language proficiency?..80
4.7
Test for homogeneity of variances………………………………………..81
4.8
Post-hoc multiple comparisons……………………………………………82
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION………………………………………86
5.1
Introduction……………………………………………………………..…..86
5.2
Discussion…………………………………………………………………..87
5.3
CALS test item difference………………………………………………….92
5.4
Conclusion: academic language is more than the sum of its words….100
5.5
Limitations of the study……………………………………………………….102
5.6
Implications and recommendations………………………………….….103
REFERENCE LIST…………………………………………………………………….…104
ix

ADDENDUM A: CALS TEST
ADDENDUM B: ETHICS CLEARANCE
ADDENDUM C: CALS INSTRUCTION MANUAL
ADDENDUM D: CALS-I TASK DESCRIPTIONS
ADDENDUM E: CALS-I MEMORANDUM

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.5.1: Participants……………………………………………………….…45
Table 3.6.1:
Modes of administration and timing for CALS-I………………….46
Table 3.7.4.1:
CALS-I: Domains and skills measured……………………………50
Table 4.1.1:
Example of how scores were entered……………………………55
Table 4.1.2:
Total marks for each CALS task……………………………….….55
Table 4.1.3:
Example of how scores were converted to a percentage………55
Table 4.1.4:
Raw scores database………………………………………………56
Table 4.2.1.1:
First year FP students’ test scores on campus A……………….57
Table 4.2.1.2:
Second year FP students’ test scores on campus A……………57
Table 4.2.1.3:
Third year FP students’ test scores on campus A………………58
Table 4.2.2.1:
First year FP students’ test scores on campus B……………….59
Table 4.2.2.2:
Second year FP students’ test scores on campus B……………59
Table 4.2.2.3:
Third year FP students’ test scores on campus B………………60
Table 4.2.3.1:
First year IP students’ test scores on campus A………………..61
Table 4.2.3.2:
Second year IP students’ test scores on campus A……………62
Table 4.3.1:
Students’ CALS item analysis…………………………………….67
Table 4.4.1:
FP students’ score distribution on campus A……………………68
Table 4.4.2:
IP students’ score distribution on campus A…………………….68
Table 4.4.3:
FP students’ score distribution on campus B……………………68
Table 4.5.1:
Difference in FP students’ scores (Campus A)…………………76
Table 4.5.2:
Mean test scores for FP students on Campus A……………….76
Table 4.5.3:
Difference in FP students’ scores (Campus B)…………………77
Table 4.5.4:
Mean test scores for FP students on Campus B……………….77
Table 4.5.5:
Correlation between IP 1st & 2nd year students’ test scores…78
Table 4.5.6:
Comparison of IP first and second year students’ test scores..79
Table 4.5.7:
Mean test scores for IP students on Campus A………………..80
Table 4.6.1:
Students’ English language order………………………………..80
xi

Table 4.7.1:
Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances…………………….81
Table 4.7.2:
Comparing students’ ELO and their test scores………………..82
Table 4.8.1:
Students’ ELO compared in relation to their test scores………83
Table 4.8.2:
Descriptive analysis of CALS test scores in relation to ELO….84
Table 5.2.1:
FP students on campus A test scores……………………………87
Table 5.2.2:
FP students on campus B test scores……………………………88
Table 5.2.3:
IP students on campus A test scores……………………………88
Table 5.2.4:
ELO and academic language proficiency……………………….89
Table 5.4.1:
CALS items that test grammar and syntax…………………….101
Table 5.4.2:
CALS item that tests morphological structure…………………101

xii

LIST OF FIRGURES

Figure 1.4.1:
The academic language challenge primary school ITE…………..8
Figure 2.2.1:
The “Iceberg” representation of language proficiency…………..15
Figure 2.3.1.1:
Scarborough’s model of the components of reading……………22
Figure 2.3.1.2:
Core academic language skills and reading progression………23
Figure 2.8.1:
Development of academic discourse……………………………..39
Figure 3.7.2.1:
The CALS-I development phases…………………………………49
Figure 4.3.1:
FP first-year students’ average scores on campus A……………63
Figure 4.3.2:
FP second-year students’ average scores on campus A….……63
Figure 4.3.3:
FP third-year students’ average scores on campus A…….….…64
Figure 4.3.4:
IP first-year students’ average scores on campus A….…………64
Figure 4.3.5:
IP second-year students’ average scores on campus A….…….65
Figure 4.3.6:
FP first-year students’ average scores on campus B…..….……65
Figure 4.3.7:
FP second-year students’ average scores on campus B…..…..66
Figure 4.3.8:
FP third-year students’ average scores on campus B…..….…..66
Figure 4.4.1:
Distribution of FP first-year test scores on Campus A……..……69
Figure 4.4.2:
Distribution of FP second-year test scores on Campus A………70
Figure 4.4.3:
Distribution of FP third-year test scores on Campus A………… 70
Figure 4.4.4:
Distribution of IP first-year test scores on Campus A……………71
Figure 4.4.5:
Distribution of IP second-year test scores on Campus A………71
Figure 4.4.6:
Distribution of FP first-year test scores on Campus B……….…72
Figure 4.4.7:
Distribution of FP second-year test scores on Campus B………72
Figure 4.4.8:
Distribution of FP third-year test scores on Campus B….………73
Figure 4.8.1:
Difference in mean CALS test scores in relation to ELO……….85
Figure 5.2.1:
Mean scores of Campus A FP students……………………….…90
Figure 5.2.2:
Mean scores of Campus B FP students……………………….…90
Figure 5.2.3:
Mean scores of Campus A IP students……………………….…..91
Figure 5.3.1:
CALS test item analysis……………………………………………92
xiii

Figure 5.3.2:
Students ELO and mean CALS test scores……………………..99

1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

1.1
Introduction
In the last three years of lecturing in a primary school teacher education programme I
have two observations: 1) students at university need to be proficient in academic
language in order to be academically successful; and 2) academic language should
be explicitly taught in schools and in higher education. I am of the view that if primary
school teacher education students do not learn academic language in school, or in
university, they themselves will become teachers who do not know how to teach
academic language to their learners. This study was motivated by my own
observations of how students struggle to use academic language in their writing and
in extracting information from academic texts.
The investigation of student teachers’ core academic language skills is located within
a key research focus of two entities: The SARCHi Chair (Integrated Studies of
Learning Language, Mathematics and Science in the Primary School) and within the
University Research Niche Area on academic language development. As part of this
integrated research focus, I explored the academic language proficiency of a cross-
sectional sample of teacher education students, with the aim of identifying and to see
if students’ academic language proficiencies change within three years of study.
The overall argument I forward is that the research may reveal a picture of students’
academic language competence that can be used to address reading and writing – as
well as oral communication in the programme of teacher education in all of its
components.
1.2
Background
bell hooks1 said, “(l)anguage is a place of struggle” (1984: 204). This study originated
from my experience as a lecturer in a primary school teacher education programme
where I have witnessed students’ struggle with the English language. The students I
refer to not only have difficulty with using everyday English, they also struggle with

1 bell hooks is an American author, feminist and social activist.
2

utilising academic language for extracting information from academic texts and to
produce such texts. With this realisation, I decided to embark on this study of students’
core academic language skills (CALS), as defined by Uccelli, Dobbs and Scott (2013).
I studied several sources of literature to first find my feet in this body of knowledge.
An initial study of the literature highlighted several definitions of academic language
proficiency. For the purpose of this study, I refer to the early work of Cummins (1981)
to define the term. He first introduced the distinction between basic interpersonal
communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP).2
According to Cummins (2008), BICS refers to conversational fluency and it is the
informal language, which people use to communicate. On the other hand, CALP refers
to the extent to which a person has access to and command of the academic language
used for schooling/education and is the language a learner/student needs to use
effectively in order to progress successfully through school/university. Aukerman
(2007) refers to this type of language as decontextualized language, because there is
no shared social context that learners can rely on to figure out the meaning of texts. It
is assumed that students at university, and learners in schools, will learn academic
discourses by exposure. Although that happens to students who have had the
advantage of effective schooling in a language that they use consistently, most
students in the primary school teacher education programme at the university where
this study took place are not ready to read academic texts fluently and are also not
able to use academic discourse for writing successfully. This is evident from comments
made by their lecturers and in the written assignments that they submit.
By and large, learners need to become proficient in academic language in order to
successfully engage optimally with tasks at school. Scarcella (2003) argues that it is
important for learners to learn academic language as early as possible. In the South
African environment the main academic language is English, which is not a home
language for the majority of school goers; such learners begin their English CALP
journey later than those who learn in a home language from the beginning to the end
of their school careers. All learners, from grade 4 onwards, use English as medium to
engage with text and to participate in conversation in class, except the ones who study
through medium of Afrikaans.

2 CALP refers to cognitive academic language proficiency, whereas CALS refers to core academic language skills
3

The reading and writing of language texts, and the tasks and assessments used to
evaluate learning in schools, become increasingly difficult as a child progresses, with
the later grades of schooling relying more heavily on written discourse (Scarcella,
2003). This is also the view of Snow (2015).
Similarly, Schleppegrell (2012) argues that in order for learners to be successful in
school they need to be able to use academic language across disciplines. She says
that academic language is used for ‘getting things done at school’ and that all learners
need opportunities to develop awareness about academic language and to practice
using it. The vocabulary across the curriculum, furthermore, requires that all learners
become familiar with the vocabulary and the language structures of different school
subjects. Snow and colleagues (Lawrence, Capotosto, Branum-Martin & Snow, 2011)
report on a project for development of academic proficiency in middle schools in
Massachusetts, in which word-building is seen as a tool for building academic
language – coming to the conclusion that the skills have to be taught intentionally as
discourse conventions. In the schools I know in South Africa, little attention is paid to
learning the discourses across the curriculum, so that learners learn that all disciplines
do not share the same conventions. For example, the textbooks in the social sciences
and mathematics are written in a different style. There are not only vocabulary
differences, but register and even genre differences (Morgan & Henning, 2013).
Fillmore and Snow (2000), as cited in Scarcella (2003), and Snow, Griffin and Burns
(2005) are of the view that learners’ language and literacy ‘deficiencies’ stem from
their difficulties with academic English instead of difficulty with decoding single words
when they read or encode when they write. One possible reason for this is that many
public school teachers do not know what academic language is, let alone how to
effectively teach it. This is precisely why teacher education students, particularly those
for the primary school need to be explicitly taught about academic language and
provided with sufficient opportunities to develop their own proficiency in academic
language. This, I argue, would cultivate a raised awareness about the link between
conceptual understanding and the conventions of language to represent abstract
concepts. It is also part of the reasoning for this study, in which I tried to find evidence
of student competence in the use of academic language, as measured in a
standardised CALP test (known as the core academic language skills test, CALS
[Uccelli et al., 2015) (See addendum A).
4

In the research literature (Bailey, Burkett & Freeman, 2008; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994;
Schleppegrell, 2012; Uccelli et al., 2013) there is evidence that suggests teachers
need to teach academic language intentionally and explicitly. In order for teachers to
do this, they themselves need knowledge of academic language and its features, how
it is taught, and how teachers and learners use it across disciplines. They also need
to be able to use it themselves. Research advocates for more attention to be paid in
teacher education to prepare teachers to support the development of the academic
language of their learners (Lucas, Villegas & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008, as cited in
Schleppegrell, 2012). In the case of the study that I undertook, the idea was to find
where students’ (N=695) competence lies.
Samson and Collins (2012) highlight some important things that teacher education
students need to know in order to become effective teachers of English language
learners (ELLs, or, in the South African context, the students who are English First
Additional Language Learners – EFAL). The mentioned authors propose that teachers
of ELLs need the appropriate training to be able to meet their learners’ language and
learning needs and to facilitate academic growth including academic language
competence. One of the things they highlight is that teachers must have a working
knowledge of academic language conventions and of the particular type of language
used for instruction as well as for the cognitively demanding tasks typically found in
textbooks, classroom assessments, and those necessary for engagement in
discipline-specific areas. They also propose that teachers of ELLs should be able to
teach academic language explicitly – much as Snow (2010) has argued. The teachers
they refer to are, in my view, similar to the student teachers we teach in primary school
teacher education programmes where I work as a lecturer. Finding out what student
teachers’ competence was may be a step in the right direction to making them aware
of the language that they will teach across the curriculum when they teach the children
in the foundation phase and intermediate phase of the primary school. It may also
point the way to gaps in the teacher education programmes of which they are a part.
In this brief discussion of some of the literature, it was evident to me that more attention
should be paid in primary school teacher education to improve future teachers’
academic language. First, I had to find out what their proficiency was before I could
venture into suggesting how it could be improved. I had thus, in my mind formulated a
research problem, namely to assess their proficiency. I came across Uccelli et al.’s
5

(2015) test and realised that this was one way of assessing their core academic
language skills. In South Africa as yet, we do not have sufficient evidence about future
primary school teachers’ academic language competence. Hence, I set out to examine
eight cohorts of teacher education students’ academic language proficiency according
to a standardised instrument, asking the research question:
What are the academic language proficiencies of eight cohorts of primary school
teacher education students according to a specific CALS (Core Academic
Language Skills) instrument, which was developed by Uccelli, Barr, Dobbs,
Galloway, Meneses, and Sanchez (2015)?
Subsidiary questions:
–
How do students’ academic language proficiencies change within three years
of study at university?
–
How does students’ home language affect their academic language
proficiency?
Although I did not pose it as a research question, I had an idea that one source of the
lack of academic language would not only be lack of this type of discourse itself, but
also lack of strategic reading and lack of vocabulary and syntax knowledge of English.

1.3
Motivation
When students enter university they need to use academic language to engage with
content across disciplines (Boughey, 2002; Case, 2013; Henning, Mamiane & Pheme,
2001; Lamberti, 2013). South African students’ competence in academic language has
been a topic of research and discussion for a long time. While some students are able
to apply academic language conventions to read/study and write academic texts, other
students struggle to do so, often because they have not learned to do this in school.
In many schools, insufficient attention is paid to the development of academic reading
skills and to the habits of reading purposefully for educational and recreational
purposes (Lamberti, 2013). Also, many students in South African universities use
English as a second or third language and, in addition to having to learn academic
discourse conventions in the various disciplines, they also have to improve their use
of the grammar and syntax conventions of the English language. Academic
6

development departments and postgraduate divisions have increasingly been giving
attention to students’ learning of English for academic purposes. Various versions of
assistance have been tried at universities, ranging from specialised academic writing
tutoring to writing workshops and writing retreats (Mashaba, 2018). Much of this
development work is generic and includes students from different disciplines in one
group. This makes it hard for students to receive specific guidance, because the
discourse and writing conventions in university are often discipline-specific. There are
however, examples of discipline-specific studies conducted at the university where I
work as a lecturer, such as those by Lamberti (2013), who studied third year students
in Development Studies and Seligmann (2009), who studied high school teacher
education students.
There has been no study to examine the academic language of the student teachers
in the new courses in primary school teacher education at the university where this
study took place. Identifying this as a gap in the body of knowledge pertaining to
students’ academic language development, the management of the Department of
Childhood Education initiated the testing of students’ language, specifically their use
of vocabulary that is regarded as essential for writing in an academic fashion. It is at
this juncture that my study originated.
The study examined the relationship between the academic language proficiencies of
a cross-sectional sample of teacher education students, focusing specifically on their
use of high frequency terms, as defined by Uccelli et al. (2013), and linguistic
structures that could enhance understanding of typical academic texts. The findings
of this research was useful in determining with which academic language proficiencies
students enter university, as well as in determining if students’ academic language
proficiencies improve during three years of engaging with academic texts at a
university. This information could also be useful for university curriculum development
specialists, who wish to emphasise embedded academic language usage, specifically
as they pertain to the disciplinary knowledge. Students who I studied had to be
proficient in the use of terminology and discourse conventions of curriculum studies,
child development, reading education, mathematics learning, and so forth.
Aims and objectives
7

The aim of this study was to examine the academic language proficiency of a cross-
sectional sample of teacher education students who had had limited targeted
academic development in this regard.
The objectives were:
–
To identify the pattern of how the students’ academic language proficiencies
appear to change within three years of study at university.
–
To identify whether or not students’ home language affects their academic
language.
–
To suggest further research with pilot studies of interventions

1.4
Theoretical framework: Language development and pragmatic
socialisation
This study was informed by a sociocultural, pragmatics-based view of language
development (including literacy development). This view holds that language is not
separated from an individual’s social context and that language is learnt in tandem
with an individual’s socialisation (Halliday, 1994; Snow & Uccelli, 2009) and the needs
that arise from various contexts throughout life. From the view of epistemic positioning,
as described by Ribiero (2006), language can then be seen as continuously
developing and adapting to different situations. Throughout the lifespan, an individual
constantly learns new language skills and structures and vocabulary, while crafting
new discourses in order to cope in different social contexts. One such context is the
academic context (Berman & Ravid, 2009 as cited in Uccelli et al., 2015). Figure 1.4.1
presents a framework of linguistic skills development as utilised for this study. I discuss
the progression of linguistic skills according to the diagram.

8

Figure 1.4.1: The academic language challenge in primary school initial teacher education (ITE)
9

1.4.1.1 Students start their schooling journey
When students start their schooling journey, up until grade 12, they are assumed to
have become proficient in academic language as explained by Uccelli and Galloway
(2016).
However, the structure of language has to be mastered first. Components of linguistic
structure include phonemic awareness, morphemic awareness, lexical awareness,
knowledge of syntax, grammar, semantics and pragmatics. I argue that proficiency in
these components will assist students with linguistic conceptualisation, (Dowker &
Nuerk, 2016). In other words, students should utilise their knowledge of these
components in order to form new ideas. Students also start their reading journey – first
in their home language, and then switching to English. An underlying awareness in
this study is that academic language is closely related to advanced reading skills (see
Figure 2.3.1.1 on page 22).
1.4.1.2 Michael Halliday’s socio-cultural, pragmatics-based view of language
development (Halliday, 2004)
This framework suggests that if a person is a proficient user of language in one social
context this does not guarantee that s/he will be a proficient user of language in all
social contexts. Actually, many individuals who are well prepared for face-to-face
social interactions, as Cummins (1981) explained with his theory of BICS and CALP,
struggle engaging with academic discourse successfully because they have not had
opportunities to prepare to do so (Cummins, 2000 as cited in Uccelli et al., 2015:8).
This could be one possible reason why there may be much variance in students’
academic language proficiencies. Some students simply never had the opportunity to
experience this form of (linguistic) socialisation (Henning, et al., 2001; Henning 1999).
It is my view, based on my experience of working with some of the students that the
majority of them in the sample that I studied may never have had the opportunity to
develop academic English, or may have had it only marginally.
I argue that this is why many students struggle with reading and writing for academic
purposes at university and why their reading itself may not progress. I also draw on
the work of Halliday and Matthiessen (2013) and Halliday (2004) who explain the
10

systemic functional linguistics (SFL) model of language, focusing on the function of
language in its various components. I thus argue that the students who took part in
this study do not know enough about the language structure itself and that this
impedes their use of the parts of language to build argument and coherence. In the
book about preparing teachers for teaching reading, Snow et al. 2005:108) comment
on how style features in a pragmatic view of language, specifically with regard to the
preparation of teachers. They forward the view that “Style is a matter of pragmatics
that appears in teacher preparation. In fact, it has several different uses”. The authors
propose that pragmatics involves an understanding of a “collection of syntactic, lexical
and figurative devises” that impact instruction. The performance of students that I
studied in pilots on the CALS type test items, showed their lack of these
understandings of text. They often did not recognise the role of punctuation,
specifically the function of commas in syntactical meaning making. Snow et al. (2005)
propose levels of development of teachers during their career – learning to teach the
pragmatics of language. My point on this matter is that students will not be able to do
this teaching if they do not know these meaning making devices. I regard this as an
important and often neglected part of student preparation at university, as STEM texts
especially make much use of punctuation, of syntax that is very different to narrative
sentences and are often dense, but short. In the items of the test that I used in the
study there are a number of items that include these pragmatic cues for understanding
style, which in turn also teaches the reading of different genres and build different
discourses. Put briefly – the students I studied and whom I teach at university, have
not advanced far enough in strategic reading to be able to use academic discourse
competently – neither in reading nor in writing such texts.
1.4.1.3 Student teachers and core academic language skills
In order for students to participate in the academic community, they must first become
literate in academic language. Students’ success is dependent on many variables but
becoming literate in unfamiliar discourses is one way in which they can be empowered
to succeed. As already mentioned, South African students’ competence in academic
language has been a topic of research and discussion for a long time. While some
students are able to apply academic language conventions to read/study and write
academic texts, other students struggle to do so, often because they have not learned
to do this in school.
11

1.4.1.4 Future teachers using core academic language skills
When teacher education students enter schools as novice teachers they need to be
reasonably competent in teaching and need to be able to facilitate and guide learning
in such a way that their learners will become proficient in academic language too and
also learn to read at higher levels of understanding. In order for new teachers to do
this, they themselves need to become proficient in academic language.

1.5
Methods
The methodological approach for this study was quantitative, then, in line with this
approach, I used quantitative methods of data analysis, specifically descriptive
statistical analysis. The design of this research was a comparative cross-sectional
survey.
I designed the study with one main data collection instrument in mind, which is a US-
based standardised test. This test was first used in a South African pilot with two
groups of grade five learners in a local public school to see what its viability is. After
having studied the test and piloted it for usability on this group of school learners, it
was decided that it could be a viable option for assessing South African learners and
teacher education students as the content is not culturally strange (Meiring, Van de
Vijver, Nel, & Hill, 2015), probably because American culture is not strange to urban
South African youth. The reason for using a test intended for upper primary grades is
that I wished to see what the students’ competence is at this level – which is where
they were going to teach.
Data was collected to examine the academic language proficiency of a cross-sectional
sample of teacher education students. The sample comprised first-, second- and third
year students on two campuses that implement a university-accredited teacher
education qualification. The research instrument that was used to collect data was a
CALS (core academic language skills) test, designed and standardised in the United
States by Uccelli et al. (2015). The CALS-I was designed at Harvard University by
Uccelli et al. (2013) and it is described as an instrument to “chart school-relevant
language proficiency”. For the purpose of this study “school-relevant language” was
considered to be the academic language required to engage successfully in academic