Original Research

Where reading and writing begin: Foundational practices in Grade R and post-COVID-19 implications for teacher education

Lerato Ramphele, Seipati L. Baloyi-Mothibeli

Received: 27 Feb. 2026; Accepted: 29 May 2026; Published: 17 Sept. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: Early reading and writing readiness begin before Grade 1. In Grade R, cognitive and motor skills support learners’ ability to listen, remember, follow instructions, recognise symbols, and engage in early writing activities.

Objectives: This study examined Grade R learners’ cognitive and motor skill development and considered their implications for early reading and writing readiness.

Method: A quantitative expost facto research design was used. Data were collected from Grade R learners and teachers using a Cognitive Development Scale or Test, a Motor Skills Development Scale, and a teacher questionnaire. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results: Learners were rated above average in overall cognitive and motor skills development. Cognitive skills such as memory, remembering details of a just-read story, following instructions, and alphabet recitation supported early literacy readiness. Motor skills such as tracing, drawing, name printing, letter spacing, and number spacing supported early writing readiness.

Conclusion: The study shows that cognitive and motor skill development forms part of the foundational practices that support early literacy readiness in Grade R. Strengthening memory, instruction-following, alphabet knowledge, tracing, drawing, and name printing can support learners’ transition into more formal reading and writing.

Contribution: The study shows that cognitive and motor skills development should be considered part of foundational literacy readiness in Grade R. It also highlights the value of the Primary Teacher Education Project’s language and literacy standards in preparing teachers to support early reading and writing.

Keywords: early literacy; foundational literacy; Grade R; reading and writing; teacher education.

Introduction

Reading and writing development begins before formal Grade 1 instruction because early oral language, phonological awareness, print awareness, and early writing behaviours support later reading and spelling development (Cabell et al. 2021:3; Puranik & Lonigan 2020:213; Snow & Matthews 2020:4). In emergent literacy, learners develop early reading and writing through listening, speaking, shared reading, storytelling, drawing, mark-making, symbol recognition, and early attempts to represent meaning through print (Cabell et al. 2021:3; Snow & Matthews 2020:4). Grade R is therefore an important instructional space because learners begin to build oral language, print knowledge, early writing confidence, and classroom participation before the more formal literacy demands of Grade 1 (PrimTEd 2023:7; Snow & Matthews 2020:6).

In South Africa, the need to strengthen early literacy remains urgent because reading-for-meaning difficulties are evident across the schooling system and are rooted in weak foundational literacy development (Spaull, Pretorius & Mohohlwane 2020:1). The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2021: South African Preliminary Highlights Report (PIRLS) reported that South African Grade 4 learners scored 288 points, far below the PIRLS centre point of 500, and that 81% of Grade 4 learners did not reach the lowest international benchmark for reading comprehension (PIRLS 2023:4, 7). These findings show that foundational literacy must be strengthened before learners reach the Intermediate Phase (PIRLS 2023:7; Spaull et al. 2020:4).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic intensified existing early literacy challenges by disrupting classroom routines, reducing instructional time and limiting learners’ access to structured literacy experiences (Ardington, Wills & Kotze 2021:1; Spaull & Van der Berg 2020:2). The issue is therefore not that COVID-19 created South Africa’s foundational literacy crisis but that it deepened existing inequalities in early learning opportunities, classroom interaction, and continuity of instruction (PIRLS 2023:8; Spaull & Van der Berg 2020:6). In Grade R, these disruptions matter because early reading and writing readiness depends on repeated exposure to oral language routines, shared reading, play-based literacy, fine-motor activities, mark-making, and teacher-guided interaction (Gerde et al. 2021:234; Snow & Matthews 2020:7).

Policy developments have also strengthened the formal position of Grade R. The Basic Education Laws Amendment Act 32 of 2024 (BELA Act) defines basic education as including Grade R to Grade 12 and provides for compulsory attendance from Grade R onwards (BELA Act 2024:6, 10). The Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement for Home Language (CAPS Home Language) Grade R to Grade 3 positions Foundation Phase Home Language learning around listening and speaking, reading and phonics, and writing and handwriting (CAPS Home Language 2011:8). The CAPS Life Skills Grades R–3 further emphasises play, movement, perceptual development, fine-motor activities, and child-friendly learning environments (CAPS Life Skills 2011:10–12). Together, these policy and curriculum documents support the view that Grade R should be treated as an instructional year where foundational learning is intentionally supported.

Teacher education frameworks reinforce this role. The Primary Teacher Education Project (PrimTEd) Language and Literacy standards state that graduate teachers should have knowledge of language and literacy and know how to teach learners to read and write (PrimTEd 2023:7). PrimTEd also expects graduate teachers to organise systematic language and literacy instruction with a focus on reading and writing, guided by curriculum requirements (PrimTEd 2023:9). Despite this alignment between policy, curriculum, and teacher education, Grade R is still often treated as a readiness or socialisation year rather than as a foundational literacy space (PrimTEd 2023:7, 9; Snow & Matthews 2020:6). This study addresses this gap by examining Grade R learners’ cognitive and motor skill development and considering how these developmental foundations support early reading and writing readiness. This article draws on data from a previously completed master’s study on the impact of COVID-19 on the cognitive and motor skill development of Grade R learners and reframes those findings in relation to early reading and writing readiness (Ramphele 2024:6–7, 57–68).

Aim of the study

This study aimed to examine Grade R learners’ cognitive and motor skill development in the post-COVID-19 context and to consider the implications of these developmental foundations for early reading and writing readiness and Foundation Phase teacher education.

Research questions

The following research questions guided the study:

• What is the level of cognitive skill development of Grade R learners in the post-COVID-19 context?
• What is the level of motor skill development of Grade R learners in the post-COVID-19 context?
• How do Grade R teachers perceive the impact of COVID-19 on learners’ cognitive and motor skill development?
• What do these cognitive and motor skill patterns imply for early reading and writing readiness in Grade R?

Objectives

The objectives of the study were to:

• Determine the level of cognitive skill development of Grade R learners.
• Determine the level of motor skill development of Grade R learners.
• Examine teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on learners’ cognitive and motor skill development.
• Consider the implications of cognitive and motor skill development for early reading and writing readiness in Grade R.

Literature review

Emergent literacy and early reading and writing development

Emergent literacy refers to the early language, print, and symbolic understandings that develop before learners read and write conventionally (Snow & Matthews 2020:4). It includes oral language, vocabulary, phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, concepts of print, and early writing behaviours, which support later decoding, spelling, comprehension, and written expression (Cabell et al. 2021:3). This perspective challenges the view that literacy begins only with formal reading instruction because learners begin developing literacy knowledge through interaction with spoken language, books, print, symbols, and writing materials before they enter Grade 1 (Puranik & Lonigan 2020:211).

Early reading development includes listening comprehension, vocabulary development, sound awareness, print awareness, and meaning making (Snow & Matthews 2020:4). Learners develop early literacy when they listen to stories, talk about pictures, recognise environmental print, notice sounds in spoken words, and understand that print carries meaning (Cabell et al. 2021:3; International Literacy Association 2020:1). Early writing also begins before conventional writing because drawing, scribbling, mark-making, letter-like forms, and invented spelling are early attempts to represent ideas through symbols (Gerde et al. 2021:234; Puranik & Lonigan 2020:213). These early writing behaviours support print directionality, phoneme-grapheme awareness, word awareness, and orthographic knowledge, which are linked to later reading and writing development (Gerde et al. 2021:236; Kim, Puranik & Al Otaiba 2022:78).

Cognitive and fine-motor skills are part of this developmental foundation. Attention, memory, listening comprehension, alphabet knowledge, and following instructions support learners’ participation in oral language, shared reading, and print-related activities (Cabell et al. 2021:3; Snow & Matthews 2020:4). Fine-motor indicators such as pencil control, hand-eye coordination, tracing, drawing, and early letter formation support learners’ ability to participate in mark-making and early writing (CAPS Home Language 2011:47; CAPS Life Skills 2011:11–12). These indicators do not measure full reading and writing achievement, but they help explain the foundations through which reading and writing readiness begins to develop in Grade R (Bingham & Gerde 2023:3; Gerde et al. 2021:234).

Foundational literacy practices in Grade R

In Grade R, foundational literacy is developed through daily routines, oral language activities, stories, picture reading, songs, rhymes, free play, teacher-guided activities, and classroom resources such as books, pictures, and posters (CAPS Home Language 2011:20–23). These practices allow learners to listen, speak, observe, respond, draw, make marks, and engage with symbols in meaningful classroom contexts (CAPS Home Language 2011:22–23; CAPS Life Skills 2011:10–11).

Oral language practices such as language rings, theme discussions, daily news, show-and-tell, poems, rhymes, songs, and story time create opportunities for learners to listen, speak, retell, sequence, and extend vocabulary (CAPS Home Language 2011:22–23). Storytelling, shared reading, and picture reading further support early literacy by helping learners engage with books, visual meaning, story sequence, characters, events, and print before they read independently (CAPS Home Language 2011:22–23; International Literacy Association 2020:1).

Early writing is supported through drawing, copying, tracing, role-play writing, and the use of writing materials during play and teacher-guided activities (CAPS Home Language 2011:47; CAPS Life Skills 2011:11). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement for Home Language states that Grade R learners should draw pictures to convey a message, understand that writing and drawing are different, copy letters and numerals from the classroom environment, and role-play writing in play situations (CAPS Home Language 2011:47). Fine-motor and perceptual activities such as play dough, threading beads, using scissors, copying patterns, puzzles, pencil grip activities, and writing areas support the visual-motor control needed for early writing (CAPS Home Language 2011:47; CAPS Life Skills 2011:11–12).

Teacher mediation remains important because Grade R teachers are expected to use routines, free play, teacher-guided activities, and teachable moments to support language and literacy throughout the day (CAPS Home Language 2011:20–21). This classroom-based view supports the present study because teacher-rated indicators such as memory, alphabet knowledge, following instructions, tracing, and early writing can be understood as part of the wider Grade R literacy environment (CAPS Home Language 2011:23, 47; CAPS Life Skills 2011:11–12).

South African early literacy challenges before and after COVID-19

Before COVID-19, South African early literacy research already showed persistent weaknesses in reading for meaning, especially where learners were still consolidating decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension in African languages (Spaull et al. 2020:4). The ‘comprehension iceberg’ pattern shows that learners may appear to decode words but still struggle to make meaning from what they read, suggesting that foundational literacy difficulty is also a problem of language comprehension (Spaull et al. 2020:8). Evidence from Sesotho reading research similarly shows fragile foundational reading development among Grade 4 learners, reinforcing the need to strengthen literacy before learners reach the Intermediate Phase (Vaz 2024:1).

During COVID-19, these weaknesses were intensified by disruptions to school attendance, classroom interaction, and instructional time (Spaull & Van der Berg 2020:2). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study explains that South African learners experienced significant loss of learning and teaching time because of lockdowns, school closures, and rotational attendance (PIRLS 2023:2). Ardington et al. (2021:1) also show that early-grade learners in no-fee school contexts lost substantial reading progress during pandemic disruptions. After COVID-19, PIRLS reported that South African Grade 4 learners scored 288 points in 2021, far below the PIRLS centre point of 500, and that 81% did not reach the lowest international benchmark (PIRLS 2023:4, 7).

These before, during, and after COVID-19 patterns show that South Africa’s early literacy problem must be understood as cumulative rather than pandemic-created (PIRLS 2023:8; Spaull et al. 2020:4). For Grade R, recovery must therefore focus on strengthening oral language, vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness, listening comprehension, and early writing readiness before learners encounter more formal literacy demands (CAPS Home Language 2011:22–23; Snow & Matthews 2020:4).

Sociocultural and multilingual classroom practices in Grade R

A sociocultural perspective is useful for understanding Grade R literacy because reading and writing develop through interaction, modelling, classroom routines, and participation in meaningful language practices (Bernard 2024:23). Learners do not develop literacy only through individual skill acquisition but also through shared activities where teachers, peers, language, texts, and classroom tools mediate meaning-making (Bernard 2024:23). This is especially relevant in Grade R because learners engage with stories, pictures, songs, rhymes, classroom talk, play, and teacher-guided activities before they produce conventional reading and writing (CAPS Home Language 2011:22–23).

Teacher-learner talk supports vocabulary development, listening comprehension, inference-making, and meaning construction during classroom literacy activities (Maree & Van der Westhuizen 2020:1). Dialogic classroom practices encourage learners to answer questions, explain ideas, predict events, respond to stories, and participate in shared meaning-making (Bernard 2024:23; Maree & Van der Westhuizen 2020:1). In multilingual South African classrooms, learners’ access to meaning also depends on how language is used, valued, and scaffolded during teaching and learning (Probyn 2024:2).

Teacher scaffolding is therefore central because teachers guide learners from everyday language use towards more deliberate engagement with books, print, symbols, and early writing (Bernard 2024:23; PrimTEd 2023:25). Scaffolding may include modelling vocabulary, asking open-ended questions, extending learners’ responses, linking pictures to spoken language, and supporting role-play writing (CAPS Home Language 2011:20–23; PrimTEd 2023:25). This perspective helps explain why teacher observations are valuable in this study because early literacy in Grade R is visible through participation, interaction, language use, and guided classroom practice before it appears as independent reading or conventional writing (Bernard 2024:23; PrimTEd 2023:25).

Teacher education and professional preparation for early literacy

Teacher education is central to early literacy development because Grade R and Foundation Phase teachers require specialised knowledge of how young learners develop language, reading, and writing (PrimTEd 2023:7). PrimTEd states that graduate teachers should have knowledge of language and literacy and should know how to teach learners to read and write (PrimTEd 2023:7). It also states that graduate teachers should organise systematic language and literacy instruction with a focus on reading and writing, guided by curriculum requirements (PrimTEd 2023:25).

In Grade R, systematic literacy instruction should remain developmentally appropriate because CAPS Home Language presents language learning through routines, stories, picture reading, discussions, songs, rhymes, teacher-guided activities, and free play (CAPS Home Language 2011:20–23). Teacher education should therefore prepare teachers to support oral language, early reading, fine-motor development, and early writing without reducing Grade R to formal Grade 1 instruction (CAPS Life Skills 2011:10–12; PrimTEd 2023:25).

Early writing is an important area for teacher education because research shows that it is sometimes reduced to handwriting and letter formation instead of being recognised as meaning-making (Bingham & Gerde 2023:3). Teachers need to understand that drawing, scribbling, invented spelling, letter-like forms, and role-play are part of early writing development (Gerde et al. 2021:234; Puranik & Lonigan 2020:213). This is especially important in post-COVID-19 recovery, where teachers may need to identify and respond to uneven development in oral language, print awareness, fine-motor readiness, and early writing participation (PIRLS 2023:9; PrimTEd 2023:7, 25).

Research methods and design

This study draws on data from the original quantitative research, which investigated the impact of COVID-19 on the cognitive and motor skills development of Grade R learners (Ramphele 2024:50–53). A quantitative research approach was used because the study measured learners’ cognitive and motor skill development using numerical data and examined teachers’ perceptions of how COVID-19 affected these developmental areas. The study used an ex post facto research design because it examined the perceived effects of COVID-19 after pandemic-related disruptions had occurred, without manipulating the independent variable.

The current study uses these data to examine cognitive and motor skill development as developmental foundations that support early reading and writing readiness in Grade R. The instruments are not presented as standardised reading or writing assessments. Instead, the findings are interpreted in relation to foundational literacy readiness, as cognitive and motor skills contribute to learners’ ability to listen, remember, follow instructions, recognise symbols, trace, draw, print names, and participate in early writing activities.

Research setting and participants

The original study was conducted in the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality, Free State Province, South Africa (Ramphele 2024:51–52). The sample consisted of Grade R learners and Grade R teachers. The intended learner sample was 150 Grade R learners, with 10 Grade R teachers also participating in the study. However, 143 learner-rating instruments were returned and were complete enough for analysis, resulting in a final analysed learner sample of 143 (Ramphele 2024:57–59). The difference between the intended sample and the final analysed sample was therefore due to non-returned or unusable learner-rating instruments. This produced a learner-response rate of 95.3%, which was sufficient for the descriptive analysis.

The Grade R teachers completed the learner-rating scales and the questionnaire because they had direct classroom knowledge of learners’ cognitive and motor skill development. The demographic section of the questionnaire captured information on gender, race, school location, language of teaching and learning, number of learners in the class, number of teachers in the class, and years of teaching experience.

Instruments for data collection

Data were collected using three researcher-developed instruments: a Cognitive Development Scale or Test, a Motor Skills Development Scale, and a teacher questionnaire (Ramphele 2024:52, 111–114). The instruments were face-validated by experts in measurement and evaluation as well as early childhood education. They were also pilot tested with a sample not part of the main study. Reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha, with reported coefficients of 0.82, 0.87, 0.79, and 0.88 for the four instrument clusters (Ramphele 2024:52).

The Cognitive Development Scale or Test is a five-point developmental rating scale with the following response categories: 1 - significantly below average, 2 - below average, 3 - average, 4 - above average, and 5 - significantly above average (Ramphele 2024:111–113). The midpoint of the scale was 3, representing average cognitive skill development. The scale contained 10 items: remembering names, remembering basic facts, remembering information learned for testing purposes, doing what the learner was asked to do, remembering details of a story that was just read, carrying out instructions correctly, writing numbers from 1 to 10, reciting the alphabet, adding simple numbers, and counting objects correctly.

The Motor Skills Development Scale used the same five-point developmental rating scale: 1 - significantly below average, 2 - below average, 3 - average, 4 - above average, and 5 - significantly above average (Ramphele 2024:112–113). The midpoint of the scale was also 3, which represented average motor skill development. The scale contained 10 items: tracing within the lines when colouring, drawing simple designs, differentiating right from left, printing a name, using appropriate size and spacing of letters when writing, using appropriate size and spacing of numbers when writing, standing on one foot for 10 s, running around obstacles, catching a small ball with both hands, and walking along a line.

The teacher questionnaire contained a demographic section and two COVID-19 impact sections. The demographic section collected information on the teachers and Grade R classrooms. The COVID-19 cognitive skill development section asked teachers to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with seven statements about the impact of COVID-19 on learners’ cognitive skill development. The COVID-19 motor skill development section asked teachers to respond to seven statements about the impact of COVID-19 on learners’ motor skill development. These two COVID-19 sections used a four-point Likert-type agreement scale with the response categories 1 - strongly disagree, 2 - disagree, 3 - agree, and 4 - strongly agree (Ramphele 2024:114).

The learner-rating scales and the Likert-type questionnaire served different purposes. The Cognitive Development Scale or Test and the Motor Skills Development Scale were five-point developmental rating scales used to rate learners’ cognitive and motor skills. By contrast, the COVID-19 sections of the teacher questionnaire used a four-point Likert-type agreement scale to capture teachers’ perceptions of pandemic-related disruption. This distinction is important because the study interprets cognitive and motor skill data as developmental foundations for early literacy readiness rather than as direct measures of reading or writing achievement.

Relevance of the instruments to early reading and writing readiness

The original instruments measured cognitive and motor skill development rather than direct reading and writing achievement (Ramphele 2024:52, 111–114). However, these developmental areas are relevant to early reading and writing readiness because they support learners’ participation in Grade R literacy activities. Cognitive skills such as memory, story recall, instruction-following, alphabet recitation, simple reasoning, and task completion support learners’ ability to engage in oral language activities, shared reading, classroom routines, symbol recognition, and teacher-guided literacy tasks. Motor skills such as tracing, drawing, gripping, name printing, letter spacing, number spacing, balance, and hand-eye coordination support learners’ participation in mark-making, early writing, movement-based learning, and classroom activities that prepare them for formal writing.

The findings are therefore interpreted as evidence of developmental foundations that support early literacy readiness rather than as direct measures of learners’ reading comprehension, decoding, spelling, or conventional writing achievement. This distinction is important because it keeps the analysis aligned with the original instruments while allowing the study to discuss the implications of cognitive and motor development for early reading and writing in Grade R.

Data analysis

The quantitative data were analysed using frequencies, means, standard deviations, and independent-samples t-tests (Ramphele 2024:53, 59–67). Frequencies were used to describe demographic information. Means and standard deviations were used to describe learners’ cognitive and motor skill development and teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on these developmental areas. Independent-samples t-tests were used in the original analysis to test for differences at the 0.05 significance level.

In this article, the results are reported descriptively to foreground cognitive and motor skill patterns that are relevant to foundational literacy readiness. The five-point developmental rating scale was interpreted as follows: 1 - significantly below average, 2 - below average, 3 - average, 4 - above average, and 5 - significantly above average. The four-point Likert-type agreement scale was interpreted according to teachers’ agreement or disagreement with statements about COVID-19 related disruption.

Attention was given to items linked to early literacy readiness, including remembering details of a just-read story, instruction-following, alphabet recitation, number writing, tracing, drawing, name printing, and letter and number spacing. These items are discussed as developmental foundations for early reading and writing readiness rather than as direct measures of conventional literacy achievement.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance for the original data collection was obtained from the General or Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of the Free State under reference number UFS-HSD2023/0439 (25 July 2023). The original study adhered to institutional ethical requirements regarding informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and anonymity. The present study involved an analysis of anonymised data within the scope of the original ethical approval. No identifying information is reported, and the analysis posed minimal risk to participants, as the data were analysed in aggregate and used solely for scholarly purposes.

Results

Demographic characteristics of teacher respondents

The demographic characteristics of the teacher respondents are presented in Table 1. The table reports gender, school location, race, and years of teaching experience.

Table 1 shows that all teacher respondents were female. Seven teachers were from urban schools, and three were from rural schools. Six teachers were African, and four were white people. The teachers had varied teaching experience, with 6 of the 10 reporting 11–25 years of experience. This suggests that most respondents had substantial classroom experience, which is relevant because they rated learners’ cognitive and motor skill development based on classroom observation.

Cognitive skill development of Grade R learners

Learners’ cognitive skill development was measured using a five-point developmental rating scale. The scale ranged from 1 - significantly below average to 5 - significantly above average, with 3 - average as the mid point. The results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that learners were rated above average in overall cognitive skill development, with a cluster mean of 3.86 and a standard deviation of 0.85. The highest-rated item was learners’ ability to remember their names (mean = 4.73; SD = 0.63), which was rated significantly above average. Other items with strong mean scores included counting objects correctly (mean = 3.96; SD = 1.03), writing numbers from 1 to 10 correctly (mean = 3.90; SD = 1.07), and remembering other basic facts (mean = 3.89; SD = 0.94).

Items that are particularly relevant to early literacy readiness were also rated above average. These include remembering details of a story that was just read (mean = 3.65; SD = 1.10), carrying out instructions correctly (mean = 3.59; SD = 1.09), and reciting the alphabet correctly (mean = 3.64; SD = 1.16). These findings suggest that the learners demonstrated cognitive foundations that can support classroom language participation, story recall, instruction-following, symbol recognition, and early reading and writing readiness (Ramphele 2024:60).

Motor skill development of Grade R learners

Learners’ motor skill development was measured using the same five-point developmental rating scale used for the cognitive scale. The scale ranged from 1 - significantly below average to 5 - significantly above average, with 3 - average as the mid point. The results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 shows that learners were rated above average in overall motor skill development, with a cluster mean of 3.69 and a standard deviation of 0.75. The highest-rated item was walking along a line (mean = 3.91; SD = 0.94), followed by differentiating right from left (mean = 3.84; SD = 0.92), running around obstacles (mean = 3.83; SD = 0.91), and printing name (mean = 3.82; SD = 1.06). These results suggest that learners demonstrated generally positive motor skill development.

The items most closely related to early writing readiness showed a more moderate pattern. Tracing within the lines when colouring was rated above average (mean = 3.72; SD = 0.98), and drawing simple designs was also rated above average (mean = 3.50; SD = 0.99). However, using appropriate letter size and spacing when writing (mean = 3.41; SD = 0.95) and appropriate number size and spacing when writing (mean = 3.38; SD = 0.91), were rated average. This indicates that, while learners generally showed positive motor development, more precise writing-related motor skills were less developed than broader motor skills (Ramphele 2024:61).

Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on cognitive skill development

Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on learners’ cognitive skill development were measured using a four-point Likert-type agreement scale. In the original analysis, a mean score of 2.50 and above was interpreted as agreement, while a mean score below 2.50 was interpreted as disagreement. The results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 shows that teachers generally agreed that COVID-19 affected learners’ cognitive skill development, with a cluster mean of 2.91 and a standard deviation of 0.31. The highest mean score was recorded for the item stating that learners had acquired new barriers to the acquisition of cognitive skills due to COVID-19 (mean = 3.40; SD = 0.51). Teachers also agreed that the learning environment was not conducive to learners’ cognitive skill development and application during the pandemic (mean = 3.30; SD = 0.48) and that the pandemic caused a significant change in how they taught cognitive skills (mean = 3.20; SD = 0.42).

However, teachers disagreed with the statement that learners were unable to use cognitive skills independently during activities and play because of COVID-19 (mean = 2.40; SD = 0.51). This suggests that although teachers perceived COVID-19 as disruptive to cognitive skill development, they did not indicate that learners had completely lost the ability to use cognitive skills independently during classroom activities and play. For this study, these findings are important because cognitive skills such as memory, recall, instruction-following, and task engagement support learners’ participation in early reading and writing activities (Ramphele 2024:62–63).

Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on motor skill development

Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on learners’ motor skill development were measured using a four-point Likert-type agreement scale. In the original analysis, a mean score of 2.50 and above was interpreted as agreement, while a mean score below 2.50 was interpreted as disagreement. The results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 shows that teachers generally agreed that COVID-19 affected learners’ motor skill development, with a cluster mean of 2.88 and a standard deviation of 0.34. The highest mean score was recorded for the item stating that social distancing limited how learners could play with their peers outside (mean = 3.60; SD = 0.51). Teachers also agreed that reduced social interaction negatively affected learners’ motor skills (mean = 3.50; SD = 0.52) and that only certain motor skills could be developed during the pandemic (mean = 3.30; SD = 0.48).

However, teachers disagreed with the statements that playgrounds could not freely be used to develop gross motor skills (mean = 2.30; SD = 0.48), that class activities were insufficient to develop fine-motor skills (mean = 2.20; SD = 0.42), and that learners’ motor abilities were not satisfactory for Grade 1 readiness (mean = 2.30; SD = 0.48). This suggests that teachers viewed COVID-19 as disruptive to motor skill development, especially due to reduced social interaction and restricted outdoor play, but did not indicate that all motor development opportunities were absent. For this study, these findings are important because motor skills such as tracing, drawing, name printing, letter spacing, number spacing, balance, and hand-eye coordination support learners’ readiness for early writing and classroom participation (Ramphele 2024:63–64).

Summary of findings in relation to the research questions

The results show that Grade R learners were rated above average in both cognitive and motor skill development (Ramphele 2024:60–61). The cognitive development cluster mean was 3.86, while the motor skill development cluster mean was 3.69. These findings suggest that learners demonstrated generally positive developmental foundations, particularly in memory, counting, number writing, task completion, tracing, name printing, balance, and general motor coordination.

Regarding early reading and writing readiness, the results show that several cognitive and motor skills were relevant to foundational literacy development. Cognitive items such as remembering details of a story, following instructions, reciting the alphabet, and doing what learners were asked to do, were rated above average. These skills are important because they support story recall, classroom language comprehension, alphabet knowledge, and participation in teacher-guided literacy activities. Motor items such as tracing, drawing and printing a name, as well as using appropriate letter and number size and spacing, were also relevant to early writing readiness. However, the results showed that letter and number spacing was rated only average, suggesting that more precise writing-related motor skills may require continued support.

The findings also show that teachers perceived COVID-19 as having affected both cognitive and motor skill development (Ramphele 2024:62–64). The COVID-19 cognitive impact cluster mean was 2.91, while the COVID-19 motor impact cluster mean was 2.88. Teachers agreed that COVID-19 created new barriers to cognitive skill development, changed how they taught cognitive skills and affected the learning environment. They also agreed that social distancing limited outdoor play and that reduced social interaction negatively affected learners’ motor skill development.

Overall, the findings suggest that Grade R learners had developed important cognitive and motor foundations for early learning, but that COVID-19 disrupted the learning conditions needed to strengthen these skills consistently (Ramphele 2024:60–64). For this study, the results are interpreted as evidence of developmental foundations supporting early reading and writing readiness rather than as direct measures of learners’ reading and writing achievement. The findings therefore highlight the importance of intentional Grade R teaching practices that support memory, story recall, instruction-following, alphabet knowledge, tracing, drawing, name printing, and fine-motor control as part of early literacy readiness.

Discussion

Cognitive and motor foundations for early literacy readiness

The findings showed that Grade R learners were rated above average in overall cognitive and motor skill development (Ramphele 2024:60–61). These findings are important because early literacy readiness depends on learners’ ability to listen, remember, follow instructions, recognise symbols, engage with stories, and participate in teacher-guided classroom activities (Cabell et al. 2021:3; Snow & Matthews 2020:4). Cognitive items such as remembering details of a story that was just read, carrying out instructions correctly, remembering learned information, and reciting the alphabet are therefore relevant to early literacy readiness, even though they are not direct measures of reading and writing achievement.

The motor skill findings also have implications for early writing readiness. Learners were rated positively in tracing, drawing, printing their names, and broader motor activities (Ramphele 2024:61). These skills matter because early writing requires visual attention, hand-eye coordination, pencil control, spatial awareness, and symbolic representation (CAPS Home Language 2011:47; Gerde et al. 2021:234). However, learners were rated only average in the appropriate size and spacing of letters and numbers (Ramphele 2024:61). This suggests that, while general motor development was positive, more precise writing-related skills may need further support through developmentally appropriate fine-motor and early writing activities (Bingham & Gerde 2023:3; CAPS Life Skills 2011:11–12).

These findings support the view that early literacy readiness in Grade R should be understood in terms of both cognitive and motor development. Early reading depends on oral language, memory, attention, alphabet knowledge, and comprehension-related participation, while early writing depends on mark-making, drawing, tracing, name printing, spatial control, and fine motor coordination (Kim et al. 2022:78; Puranik & Lonigan 2020:213). The results therefore show that cognitive and motor skills are not separate from early literacy readiness, but form part of the developmental foundation through which learners prepare for more formal reading and writing.

COVID-19 disruption and developmental foundations

Teachers perceived that COVID-19 had affected both cognitive and motor skill development (Ramphele 2024:62–64). In relation to cognitive development, teachers agreed that the pandemic changed how cognitive skills were taught, created new barriers to learning, and affected the learning environment (Ramphele 2024:62–63). These findings align with South African evidence showing that COVID-19 disrupted instructional time, school attendance, and classroom routines, especially in already vulnerable learning contexts (PIRLS 2023:2; Spaull & Van der Berg 2020:2).

The findings also show that teachers did not view learners as having completely lost cognitive independence during activities and play (Ramphele 2024:63). This is important because it supports a balanced interpretation of the results. Coronavirus disease 2019 disrupted the conditions necessary for consistent cognitive development, yet the learner ratings still showed above-average cognitive skill development (Ramphele 2024:60, 62–63). The findings therefore suggest disruption and unevenness rather than total developmental loss.

Teachers also perceived that COVID-19 affected motor skill development, especially through reduced social interaction and limited outdoor play (Ramphele 2024:63–64). This matters because Grade R learners require movement, play, peer interaction, and physical exploration to develop gross-motor, fine-motor, and perceptual skills (CAPS Life Skills 2011:10–12). However, teachers disagreed that all opportunities for fine motor development were absent (Ramphele 2024:64). This again suggests that the pandemic disrupted learning conditions but did not completely prevent motor skill development. The findings therefore support a recovery-focused interpretation rather than a deficit-only interpretation.

Implications for Grade R practice and teacher education

The findings have implications for Grade R classroom practice. Teachers should intentionally support early literacy readiness through oral language activities, stories, picture reading, songs, rhymes, drawing, tracing, name writing, fine-motor activities, and teacher-guided discussion (CAPS Home Language 2011:20–23, 47). These practices are important because Grade R learners develop early literacy through repeated opportunities to connect spoken language, visual representation, movement, symbols, and print (Gerde et al. 2021:234; Puranik & Lonigan 2020:213).

The average ratings for letter and number spacing suggest that early writing readiness needs particular attention (Ramphele 2024:61). Grade R classrooms should provide regular opportunities for learners to strengthen hand-eye coordination, pencil control, visual-motor integration, and spatial organisation through play dough, threading, tracing, drawing, copying, pattern work, name writing, and role-play writing (CAPS Home Language 2011:47; CAPS Life Skills 2011:11–12). These activities should not be treated as separate from literacy because they prepare learners for the early writing demands of Grade 1.

The findings also have implications for teacher education. The PrimTEd (2023:7, 25) Project language and literacy standards emphasise that graduate teachers should know how to teach language and literacy and organise systematic instruction with a focus on reading and writing. The findings suggest that teacher preparation should include stronger attention to how cognitive and motor development support early literacy readiness in Grade R (Ramphele 2024:60–64). Teachers need to understand that memory, remembering details of a story that was just read, instruction-following, alphabet knowledge, tracing, drawing, name printing, and spacing skills are part of the foundation that enables learners to participate in early reading and writing activities.

Teacher education should also prepare teachers for multilingual and contextually diverse Grade R classrooms. Early literacy development depends on oral language, classroom talk, familiar meanings, teacher scaffolding, and learners’ opportunities to participate in stories and discussions (CAPS Home Language 2011:22–23; Probyn 2024:2). This aligns with a sociocultural understanding of literacy, where reading and writing develop through interaction, modelling, participation, and meaningful classroom practices (Bernard 2024:23).

Synthesis

Overall, the findings show that Grade R learners had developed important cognitive and motor foundations, while teachers also perceived COVID-19 as disrupting the conditions needed to strengthen these skills consistently (Ramphele 2024:60–64). The study must therefore be interpreted cautiously. The instruments measured cognitive and motor skill development, not direct reading comprehension, decoding, spelling, or conventional writing achievement (Ramphele 2024:52, 111–114). However, these developmental skills are closely connected to early literacy readiness and provide a useful basis for understanding how Grade R learners are prepared for later reading and writing demands. The study therefore supports the argument that Grade R is a key space for strengthening cognitive, motor, oral language, and symbolic foundations before learners enter Grade 1.

Conclusion

The evidence presented in this study confirms that Grade R should be understood as more than a preparatory year (Ramphele 2024:76–77). It is a foundational learning space where cognitive and motor development create important conditions for early reading and writing readiness. The study therefore supports a broader understanding of foundational literacy, one that recognises memory, instruction-following, alphabet knowledge, tracing, drawing, and name printing as part of the developmental base that learners need before formal literacy instruction becomes more demanding.

The study also shows that post-COVID-19 recovery in the early years cannot focus only on later reading remediation. Recovery must begin in Grade R by strengthening the developmental foundations that enable literacy participation. This requires intentional, playful, and teacher-guided support that responds to learners’ cognitive and motor needs without turning Grade R into a formal Grade 1 classroom.

The study is limited by its reliance on teacher-rated data and descriptive analysis. It did not directly assess reading comprehension, decoding, spelling, or conventional writing achievement (Ramphele 2024:77–78). Future research should include direct measures of emergent reading, emergent writing, oral language, and fine-motor writing readiness to deepen understanding of how Grade R supports later literacy development.

This study contributes to early literacy scholarship by showing that Grade R literacy readiness can be understood through learners’ cognitive and motor development rather than solely through direct reading and writing outcomes (Ramphele 2024:60–64, 76–77). It strengthens the argument that skills such as memory, instruction-following, alphabet recitation, tracing, drawing, name printing, and letter and number spacing are part of the developmental foundation that supports later reading and writing.

The study also contributes to post-pandemic learning recovery debates by shifting attention to the foundational skills that need strengthening before formal literacy difficulties become visible in later grades. In this way, the study positions Grade R as an important site for early intervention rather than treating literacy recovery as beginning only once learners struggle with formal reading and writing.

Finally, the study contributes to teacher education by highlighting the value of the PrimTEd Project language and literacy standards in preparing teachers to recognise and support the cognitive, motor, and early literacy foundations of Grade R learning. This contribution is important for strengthening developmentally appropriate teacher preparation for early reading and writing readiness.

Acknowledgements

This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Lerato Ramphele’s master’s thesis titled ‘Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of cognitive and motor skills of Grade R learners’, submitted to the Department of Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, University of the Free State, in 2024. The thesis was supervised by C.I. Okeke and T. Akobi. The supervisors were not involved in the preparation of this article and were not listed as co-authors. Portions of the data, analysis, and discussion have been revised, updated, and adapted for publication as a journal article. The original thesis is publicly available at: https://scholar.ufs.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/5f68ad50-36c9-49fa-8431-1bf19801f588/content. The author affirms that this article complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Lerato Ramphele: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – original draft. Seipati L. Baloyi –Mothibeli: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Both authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The dataset analysed in this study was derived from a previously approved empirical investigation conducted in Grade R classrooms. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions related to participant confidentiality. Access to the dataset may be considered by the corresponding author, Lerato Ramphele, upon reasonable request and subject to institutional ethical approval.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References