Editorial

A reflection of the articles in Reading & Writing in 2024

Janet L. Condy

Copyright: © 2024. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

At this point, in our 2024 issue of Reading & Writing (RW) we present 12 interesting well-structured and skilfully written articles on local and international literacy research projects, all making for interesting reading. We are excited to publish two international articles: from Thailand (Writing pedagogy in higher education) (Peungcharoenkun & Waluyo 2024) and Germany (The acquisition of grammar in the native language) (Wright et al 2024). We encourage international universities to publish their research articles on reading and writing with us. In this issue of Reading & Writing we feature 10 articles from the following South African universities and institutions: University of South Africa (UNISA), University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), University of Johannesburg (UJ), North-West University (NWU), Rhodes University (RU), Cape Peninsula University of Techonology (CPUT), Stellenbosch University (SU), Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) and the National Reading Barometer.

For many years there have been concerns about the lack of well-qualified teachers, specifically in literacy, in our higher education institutions (HEIs). It is pleasing to note that in this issue, all our articles are situated in both schools and HEIs and in the training of teachers from foundation phase to high school, particularly in literacy issues. A wide variety of research topics are covered, such as investigating literacy policies, pedagogical contributions for reading and writing, juxtaposing literacy and technology in classrooms, using artificial intelegence (AI) in research, and the complexities of English First Additional Language (EFAL). Two articles ask the following questions: what is a reading culture and what is a reading identity?

In the article ‘Using mobile reading devices to encourage positive leisure reading practices amongst adolescents – A case study from Zimbabwe’ (Hugo & Bachisi 2024), the authors discuss how using technology, particularly mobile devices, can lead to encouraging and improving adolescent learners’ leisure practices. They recommend that differentiated groups would further support their learners’ reading abilities using mobile devices. Similarly, the article ‘Writing pedagogy in higher education: The efficacy of mediating feedback with technology’ (Peungcharoenkun & Waluyo 2024) argues that first-year students from an international veterinary programme, who received technology-mediated feedback from their lecturers, demonstrated better writing skills. These students found the process more efficient and precise, yet experienced language proficiency challenges and would have preferred more personalised interactions, compared to the control group with conventional teaching. This article recommends balanced feedback accommodating all the needs of all learners.

The PIRLS 2006–2021 (IEA TIMS and PIRLS n.d.) results show us how South African Grade 4 literacy results have consistently been the lowest in the world. It is not surprising that many articles in this issue of Reading & Writing are attempting to bridge this research, policy, and practice gap. The article ‘Motor development: A precursor to support Grade R literacy learning – Lessons from BuddingQ’ (Talbot & Barends 2024) provides insights into effective early literacy interventions and offers practical recommendations for policymakers, educators, and researchers to reshape literacy education and foster progress. The authors, in the article ‘Teachers as change agents: Teaching English First Additional Language in schools in Gauteng’ (Venketsamy & Hu 2024) request more professional development support. They contend that teachers are no longer mediators of learning but agents of change in teaching and learning in their EFAL classrooms and need more support to implement the literacy curriculum. Their teachers see themselves as developers, specifically with the use of technology in their classrooms, mediators of critical thinking, decision-makers, and communicators. Shifting the focus to creative writing, the article on ‘Challenges experienced by teachers in implementing the creative writing curriculum’ (Jansen & Ngema 2024) reveals that the intended curriculum for teaching writing skills is not necessarily the curriculum that is implemented in schools and they suggest that opinion writing genres are neglected.

Empirical research on a variety of literacy pedagogical skills is included in this issue. The article ‘Playwriting as an emergent pedagogical tool for primary school student teachers’ (Khasu & Henning 2024) explores student teachers’ uses of playwriting skills in the teaching of vocabulary and the use of AI in Sesotho or isiZulu. Using a large sample of 386 participants, the authors of ‘Whose reading translates into mastery in EFAL at Intermediate Phase?’ (Mokgadi & Hove 2024) promote that these Grade 4–7 teachers do have the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) which is strengthened by subject matter knowledge in the teaching of reading in EFAL, while there is a necessity for enhancing the imparting of knowledge of reading for meaning. The five authors from the Friedrich-Alexander Universität, Germany, examine ‘The acquisition of constructions: Does modality matter?’ (Wright et al. 2024). They assert that language ability is important for grammar and reading comprehension development. Their contribution is that this study adds to the growing body of evidence emphasising the role of language analytic skills in native language grammar acquisition and they advocate for the importance of adequate print exposure in explicit grammar acquisition and the development of reading comprehension skills. In an attempt to make English lecturers more aware of their students’ reading self-concepts, in their article ‘Students’ reading self-concepts at an institution of higher learning in South Africa’, (Cekiso 2024) using 65 university students, these authors found that their students defined themselves as reading in different ways and their reading self-concepts were based on their reading behaviours. They described themselves as readers who enjoyed reading, analytical readers, or reluctant readers with poor and slow reading abilities and admitted they only read for academic purposes, including tests and exams. The authors of the article ‘The teacher’s role in teaching reading comprehension skills to Grade 9 English Home Language learners’ (Sibanda, Dippenaar & Swart 2024) provide valuable insights into the current teaching practices of Grade 9 comprehension skills, to support learners academic success.

Using a survey and statistical tools, the authors of ‘Reading cultures – Towards a clearer, more inclusive description’ (Morse, Ngwato & Huston 2024) explore the question of what constitutes a reading culture. They posit that the National Reading Barometer and the National Reading Survey assisted them to redefine the debated reading cultures. They believe that this article contributes to a pluralistic, Afrocentric and more modernised understanding of reading cultures. The authors of ‘Reading habits of student teachers studying at a distance-learning institution in South Africa’ (Le Roux 2024) ask the question as to what constitutes a reading identity. Continuing with the discourse of preservice teacher training in literacy, these authors suggest that although the teachers perceived themselves as readers, they rejected the monolithic definition of a reading identity. The teachers were aware of the benefits of reading, yet their actions to improve their students’ reading abilities were inadequate. They emphasise the important role of teachers as reading role models.

References