Abstract
Background: Although South Africa’s primary teacher education knowledge and practice standards establish clear literacy guidelines, an ‘enactment gap’ remains in initial teacher education (ITE). Components like oral reading fluency assessment and data-based instructional decision-making are often inadequately addressed, leaving pre-service teachers (PSTs) under-prepared to bridge theoretical knowledge and classroom application.
Objectives: This study first audits the extent to which Foundation Phase Bachelor of Education (BEd) language modules represent these standards, moving beyond superficial mention to provide authentic practice-based approximations. Second, it investigates how an integrated module, featuring a practice-based learning cycle facilitated by mixed reality simulation (MRS), enables PSTs to move beyond procedural compliance toward data-based instructional decision-making.
Method: Adopting a descriptive, instrumental case study design, this research unfolded in two phases. Phase one audited BEd language modules at a North West Province university using innovation configuration (IC) mapping. Phase two used purposive sampling to select a module integrating practice-based elements within a learning cycle facilitated by MRS. Data were gathered through IC mapping, video-recorded MRS sessions, and after-action review discussions, analysed via IC rating and a hybrid thematic analysis.
Results: The audit revealed that the enactment failures stem from missed opportunities rather than a lack of will, with modules often prioritising theory over practice-based reasoning. Conversely, the MRS-facilitated action learning cycle enabled PSTs to navigate a trajectory from procedural compliance to active diagnostic reasoning and collaborative sense-making.
Conclusion: While a practice-based learning cycle facilitated by MRS provides a vital environment for rehearsal and reflection, the transition to responsive decision-making is not instantaneous, requiring sustained, scaffolded support.
Contribution: This study offers an empirically grounded framework illustrating how integrating MRS with structured learning cycles can facilitate a shift in ITE from standard representation toward the development of diagnostic acuity and instructional agility in PSTs.
Keywords: reading fluency assessment; data-based instructional decision-making; initial teacher education; PrimTEd standards; mixed reality simulation; practice-based teacher education.
Introduction
Improving early grade reading outcomes remains a national priority in South Africa, with national and international assessments consistently indicating that many learners do not develop adequate foundational reading skills in the early grades (Department of Basic Education 2023; 2024; 2025). These outcomes have intensified scrutiny of how effectively initial teacher education (ITE) programmes prepare pre-service teachers (PSTs) to enact evidence-based, responsive reading instruction (Nel 2022; Spaull 2023; Taylor & Mawoyo 2022). The primary teacher education (PrimTEd) knowledge and practice standards provide a coherent framework for articulating what PSTs should know and be able to do in relation to language and literacy teaching including the integration of assessment into instructional design and the use of assessment evidence to support learner progress (Primary Teacher Education Project 2020).
The study engages selectively with this framework, focusing on standards related to oral reading fluency (ORF) assessment and data-based instructional decision-making. These standards emphasise that teachers should plan instruction that incorporates phase-appropriate assessment, gather sufficient evidence of learner performance, and use that evidence to guide instructional decision-making (Primary Teacher Education Project 2020). In this sense, assessment is positioned not as an endpoint but as a continuous process through which teaching is adapted in response to learners’ strengths and needs.
While the formulation of explicit standards represents an important step towards strengthening coherence in ITE, standards alone do not ensure changes in instructional practice (Shaukat & Chowhury 2020). Implementing these reforms is often hampered by ‘siloed’ curriculum structures, where theoretical knowledge is disconnected from the realities of practice (Zeichner 2010). Research on professional standards cautions that, without shared interpretation and structured opportunities for enactment, they risk remaining abstract or being used in a compliant fashion by teacher educators (Bourke, Ryna & Ould 2018; Taylor & Robinson 2016). Spillane, Reiser and Reimer (2002) argue that implementation challenges are rarely a failure of educator will, but rather a failure of opportunity, specifically an absence of structured environments that allow for the ‘cognitive sense-making’ required to translate standards into action. Teacher educators interpret standards through existing schemas, often assimilating novel reforms into established routines rather than fundamentally restructuring their practice. This is especially true for PSTs, who, while in the early stages of building their pedagogical knowledge, may inadvertently believe they are adopting new approaches while effectively reproducing traditional instructional practices. This gap is particularly evident in literacy education, where quality instruction depends on the ability to integrate knowledge and practice in real time, respond diagnostically to learner performance, and enact instructional routines with fidelity (Tortorelli, Lupo & Wheatley 2021).
In this study, ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making serve as a focal practice through which these challenges can be examined. Oral reading fluency assessment, which typically involves assessing accuracy, rate, and prosody during oral reading (Pikulski & Chard 2005; Van der Velde et al. 2024), provides insight into learners’ reading development and can inform decisions about instruction and support. When used formatively, such assessment enables teachers to identify patterns in learner performance, monitor progress, and adjust instruction accordingly. However, enacting ORF assessment as a data-informed practice requires more than conceptual knowledge; it requires the ability to administer assessments with fidelity, record learner responses systematically, and interpret assessment evidence in relation to instructional decision-making (Good et al. 2011).
Despite the recognised value of ORF assessment as a formative practice, research indicates that PSTs often have limited opportunities to enact assessment in ways that integrate administration, interpretation, and instructional response (Nel 2011). Within ITE, assessment is often addressed at a conceptual level, with less emphasis on the procedural and interpretive dimensions required to generate, analyse, and use assessment evidence to inform instruction (Oo, Alonzo & Asih 2022). As a result, PSTs may demonstrate knowledge of assessment principles without being able to apply them consistently in practice or use assessment evidence to inform instructional decisions.
Addressing this enactment gap requires pedagogical approaches that move beyond the representation of practice in coursework toward approximations of practice (Grossman et al. 2009a; Schutz, Danielson & Cohen 2019). This study emphasises that the efficacy of these approximations depends on the support provided within a practice-based learning cycle, which Kelley-Petersen et al. (2018) frame as the ‘into, through, and beyond’ approach. In this cycle, support is systematically structured: ‘into’ enactment, through representations such as video analysis and modelling; ‘through’ enactment, by leveraging mixed reality simulation (MRS) practice alongside structured observation tools (Schutz et al. 2019); and ‘beyond’ enactment, through after-action review (AAR), professional conversations and directive coaching (Cohen et al. 2020) that facilitate evidence-informed feedback, reflection, and the development of diagnostic reasoning.
By examining how these practice-based opportunities are structured within language modules within a Bachelor of Education (BEd; Foundation Phase) programme at a selected university in North West Province, this study examines the extent to which evidence-based reading practices and selected PrimTEd standards are represented within the modules, and investigates the potential for a practice-based learning cycle, facilitated by MRS, to bridge the enactment gap. By analysing the transition from theoretical ‘mentions’ to enacted approximations, the study addresses the following research questions:
- To what extent are ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making aligned with relevant PrimTEd standards and evidence-based reading practices, represented in selected language modules?
- To what extent does the practice-based learning cycle, facilitated by MRS, enable PSTs to bridge the gap between procedural assessment administration and responsive data-based instructional decision-making?
Literature review
Practice-based teacher education: A theoretical framework
The central challenge of ITE lies in what Kennedy (1999) terms the enactment gap. This gap represents the persistent disconnect between the conceptual knowledge of reading literacy that PSTs acquire and their ability to translate that knowledge into responsive classroom practice (Nel & Marais 2023). Research conducted by Tsakeni et al. (2026) indicates that, while PSTs often possess the intention to implement evidence-based practices, they frequently face structural and contextual barriers that prevent successful execution during the teaching practicum.
Practice-based teacher education (PBTE) has emerged as a prominent framework for addressing this disconnect. It shifts the focus of teacher learning from the acquisition of abstract theoretical knowledge to the performance of ‘core’ or ‘high-leverage’ teaching practices (Grossman & Fraefel 2024; Grossman, Hammerness & McDonald 2009b). Practice-based teacher education posits that teaching consists of skills that can be decomposed, practised, and refined. A central element is the use of approximations of practice: pedagogical tasks that enable PSTs to rehearse complex routines in reduced-complexity settings (Howell & Mikeska 2021; Schutz et al. 2019).
In the South African context, this shift is critical. Taylor and Robinson (2016) argue that the current ITE system remains isolated from the realities of the schooling cycle, resulting in a professional curriculum that lacks the diagnostic rigour required to disrupt systemic underperformance. To bridge this gap, ITE programmes must move beyond superficial representations of standards. The efficacy of this transition can be facilitated by the practice-based learning cycle framed by Kelley-Petersen et al. (2018) as the ‘into, through, and beyond’ approach. This cycle provides a structured move from theoretical representations (into) to high-leverage rehearsal within MRS (through), and finally to AAR and diagnostic reasoning (beyond) (Cohen, Yonas & Wilson 2025). The application of this structured rehearsal is particularly important in the domain of ORF assessment, where technical fidelity must be paired with data-based instructional decision-making.
Oral reading fluency assessment and data-informed instructional decision-making
Within the science of reading, ORF is recognised as a vital bridge between foundational word-level decoding and the cognitive resources required for deep text comprehension (Hudson, Lane & Pullen 2005). The inability to decode with automaticity forces a learner to expend excessive cognitive energy on word recognition, making meaning construction difficult, if not impossible (Hudson et al. 2005). Given this, the systematic assessment of ORF is not merely a monitoring tool, but it is a diagnostic imperative that should be regularly applied in the early years of schooling (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2016).
However, the efficacy of ORF assessment is entirely dependent on the teacher’s ability to engage in data-informed instructional decision-making. As argued by Nel (2018), making decisions about reading instruction is as core a component of teaching as the instruction itself. The International Literacy Association (ILA 2018) emphasises that assessment data should not be used merely for administrative compliance but should be treated as a ‘portrait’ of learners’ learning, a ‘highlighter’ of specific instructional needs, and a ‘springboard’ for targeted instructional intensification.
When teachers move toward fine-grained error analysis, they gain the capacity to identify whether a learner’s fluency struggle stems from phonemic, orthographic, or morphemic deficits (Toste et al. 2025). This diagnostic process allows for the implementation of differentiated and responsive instructional support.
However, a significant bottleneck in teacher preparation is that, while PSTs may understand the concept of ORF, they often lack the procedural proficiency to administer these assessments with fidelity and interpret the results to drive instructional change (Nel 2018; Uebele 2025). Without structured opportunities to apply data-informed instructional decision-making in supported environments, PSTs risk ‘mapping new labels onto old habits’, where they collect data without fundamentally changing their instructional response to the learner (Spillane et al. 2002).
Mixed reality simulation as an approximation of practice
To bridge the persistent enactment gap between pedagogical theory and the complexities of classroom application, ITE programmes are increasingly turning to MRS as a scaffolded ‘approximation of practice’. Cohen et al. (2025) define these approximations as reduced-complexity settings which provide PSTs with supported opportunities to rehearse instructional routines without the unpredictability or risk inherent in authentic classroom settings. By allowing PSTs to ‘learn to kayak on calm waters’ (Grossman et al. 2009a:2076), MRS environments, which involve a human simulation specialist operating virtual avatar learners, provide a safe and protected space to practise core literacy routines (Allen & Stecker 2023; Whitney & Ackerman 2026).
The empirical literature on MRS highlights its potential as a pedagogical environment rather than just a technical tool. Dalinger et al. (2020) found that MRS-based ‘strategic practice’ leads to increased teacher confidence when transitioning to authentic field experiences (i.e. teaching practicum). Similarly, Aguilar and Flores (2022) demonstrated that PSTs using MRS showed improvements in complex instructional skills, such as questioning and eliciting learner thoughts, compared to a control group without simulation access.
Crucially, the efficacy of MRS is not determined by the technology itself but by how it is strategically embedded within a practice-based learning cycle. Building upon the ‘into, through, and beyond’ framework (Cohen et al. 2025; Kelley-Petersen et al. 2018), this cyclical approach integrates targeted coaching (Cohen et al. 2020) and deliberate practice (Ericsson & Pool 2016). When MRS is paired with differentiated feedback, PSTs significantly increase their use of ‘high information’ feedback (Bondie et al. 2023). This aligns with the theory of deliberate practice, which posits that novices improve most when they receive immediate, iterative feedback within their zone of proximal development (Cohen et al. 2025; Ericsson & Pool 2016). By requiring PSTs to pause, reflect, and adjust their pedagogical strategy, the simulation environment remains demanding and growth-oriented, successfully transforming the approximation into a catalyst for professional diagnostic acuity.
Research methods and design
Research design
Utilising a descriptive, instrumental case study design (Stake 2005; Yin 2018), this study examines the representation of ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making within selected language modules in a BEd (Foundation Phase) programme, while simultaneously investigating how a practice-based learning cycle embedded in a MRS enables PSTs to bridge the enactment gap between assessment implementation and instructional decision-making. Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014:28) state that a case study is ‘a phenomenon of some sort in a bounded context’. This case study is defined by an institutional (a selected university in North West Province, South Africa), programme (BEd with a specialisation in Foundation Phase teaching, Grade R to Grade 3) and module boundary (language modules in Afrikaans, English, SeTswana, SeSotho, isiXhosa and isiZulu). This is an instrumental case in that the case itself (i.e. language modules) is examined to provide insights into the broader issue of an enactment gap, related to ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making, rather than for the case’s own sake.
Participants and participant selection
All teacher educators (N = 12, six permanent and six temporary) responsible for teaching language modules in the BEd Foundation Phase programme were purposefully selected to participate in the study. The permanently employed language teacher educators all attended a ‘mapping’ session as part of an internal programme evaluation in preparation for the forthcoming Council for Higher Education review of the BEd programmes in South Africa. The mapping process entailed analysing all the language modules (Afrikaans, English, SeTswana, SeSotho, isiXhosa and isiZulu), offered within the Foundation Phase programme, utilising an innovation configuration (IC) (cf. Appendix 1). For the purpose of this study, the six modules (i.e. each language) that address ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making in the third year of the BEd programme were included. Based on the analysis of the language modules during phase 1 of the study, the language module with the highest implementation score (i.e. an average of four on all components of the IC) was purposefully selected for inclusion during phase 2 of the study. One mentor teacher that usually fulfils the role of mentor teacher to PSTs at a primary school in North West Province during school-based teaching practicum volunteered to be part of the MRS sessions to ensure that all stakeholders (i.e. teacher educators, PSTs and mentor teacher) could provide input during phase 2. In addition, 129 third-year PSTs, enrolled for the language module with the highest implementation score in the BEd (Foundation Phase) programme, also participated in the study.
Researcher positionality and trustworthiness
In this study, I occupied a complex positionality, serving simultaneously as the researcher, MRS specialist, and co-developer of the data collection tools. This multifaceted role necessitated rigorous reflexive practice to manage the inherent tension between pedagogical advocacy and empirical observation. As Yip (2024) notes, researcher membership status, whether as an insider or an outsider, is an essential, ever-present aspect of qualitative investigation. To mitigate the risk of confirmation bias, I followed the guidance of Dwyer and Buckle (2009) by embracing the ‘space between’, recognising that my perspective is shaped by my roles, professional knowledge, and interactions with participants.
I enhanced trustworthiness through three mechanisms. First, I engaged an external ‘critical friend’ (Schuck & Russell 2005), a specialist in language teaching and learning, to audit 50% of the IC coding done by the teacher educators. The ‘critical friend’ provided input on data collection tools and interpretation to resolve potential subjectivities, ensuring findings were not merely a projection of my own expectations. Second, I maintained a rigid distinction between behavioural enactment data, participant discourse, and my own analytic inferences. This structural separation acknowledged that, while my ‘personhood’ (Dwyer & Buckle 2009) affects the analysis, the analysis simultaneously informs my developing professional identity. Third, I intentionally prioritised the reporting of disconfirming cases (Booth et al. 2013) to ensure findings reflect the complexities of the language modules rather than an idealised narrative (Yin 2018). By utilising the IC to create an objective audit trail, I ensured that my interpretations remained grounded in evidentiary markers, demonstrating that the findings are contextually situated, authentic, and empirically warranted.
Data generation and procedures
Data generation included two sequential phases: a macro-level self-evaluative audit of the language modules, followed by a micro-level analysis of pedagogical enactment within a MRS environment. The first phase involved a systematic audit of BEd Foundation Phase language modules to determine to what extent ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making were represented. An IC (cf. Appendix 1), a diagnostic tool for analysing variations in the enactment of complex practices, was used for this purpose (Hall & Hord 1987; Hord et al. 2013). The IC was developed through a desktop analysis of evidence-based reading instruction and assessment (Lane 2024) and relevant PrimTEd knowledge and practice standards (Primary Teacher Education Project 2020). By categorising implementation along a continuum from non-use to ideal practice, an IC can reveal both conceptual depth and potential gaps in opportunities for PST rehearsal (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality 2011).
To ensure module ownership and mitigate research bias, this audit was a collaborative professional exercise. Teacher educators assigned implementation codes (0–4) based on their module design and delivery. To ensure reliability, a ‘critical friend’ (i.e. a language education specialist) and I independently audited 50% of the modules. Initial inter-rater agreement was 85%, and through consensus-building meetings, where we clarified the criteria for code 3 (representations) and code 4 (approximations), we achieved 100% agreement. This verified audit process established an objective baseline for selecting the focal module for phase 2, purposively selected for its code 4 designation, which indicates the integration of practice through deliberate rehearsal.
The second phase examined the situated site of practice where PSTs engaged in ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making. Data generation was structured around a four-stage practice-based learning cycle: introduction, before-action review (BAR), enactment, and AAR. A practice-based observation and reasoning tool scaffolded both the PSTs’ enactment and the subsequent AAR (cf. Table 1). During the AARs, the tool facilitated situated coaching, grounded in the principles of deliberate practice (Ericsson 2002), focusing on reflective inquiry, coaching, and instructional planning.
| TABLE 1: Oral reading fluency assessment and instructional decision-making observation and reasoning tool. |
In total, 26 MRS sessions (20–30 min each) were conducted with PSTs working in groups of four or five. During the sessions each student had a role: assessment administration, qualitative note-taking, scoring and data-based instructional decision-making. Data generation encompassed the video recordings of the enactments and the recorded coaching, reflection and feedback dialogues, providing a comprehensive audit trail of how PSTs navigated the gap between pedagogical theory and practice.
Data analysis
During the first phase an IC was used to determine to what extent ORF assessment and data-based instructional decision-making are represented in language modules, aligned with relevant PrimTEd standards and evidence-based reading practices. The IC matrix consists of two dimensions: essential components (row headings) and degree of implementation (column headings, 0–4). The structure is hierarchical, where an increase in score represents greater complexity in the implementation of the core practice (Hall & Hord 1987).
To maintain analytical consistency, the scoring followed these systematic steps:
- Step 1 – Component mapping: After a thorough module review, the teacher educator for each module assigned a specific implementation code to each component descriptor, reflecting their explicit knowledge of the module’s design and delivery.
- Step 2 – Item rating: Each descriptor was assigned an overall rating based on the highest level of implementation achieved by the module.
- Step 3 – Ordinal interpretation: The ratings were treated as ordinal data. While a score of 4 indicates more thorough implementation than a score of 2, these intervals are not mathematically equidistant and thus do not represent a linear ratio.
- Step 4 – Gap identification: Finally, the results were used to map similarities, differences, and module gaps, providing the basis for identifying the focal module for phase 2.
For the second phase, the analysis focused on determining whether PSTs successfully moved beyond a purely ‘procedural’ focus on assessment administration toward a ‘pedagogical focus on diagnostic reasoning’. To this end, a hybrid thematic approach was used to analyse the data (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane 2006). This process employed deductive codes derived from the practice-based observation and reasoning tool (cf. Table 1) to capture expected pedagogical competences, alongside inductive codes to identify emergent reasoning patterns such as ‘procedural fixation’. This dual coding process ensures a visible audit trail from raw video and transcript data to analytic claims. By integrating these patterns into a final matrix, observed errors in the simulator were linked to the PSTs’ planned interventions, providing a direct audit trail from the simulation data to claims regarding PSTs’ development. To maintain analytical transparency, PST discourse and performance during the MRS enactment and AAR sessions were categorised according to the schema presented in Table 2.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the North-West University Education, Management and Economic Sciences, Law, Theology, Engineering and Natural Sciences Research Ethics Committee (NWU-EMELTEN-REC) on 16 May 2023. The ethical clearance number is NWU-00403-23-A2. The gatekeeper committee of the participating university also provided ethical clearance. All participants provided written informed consent before taking part in the mapping process and the MRS sessions.
Results and discussion
This section integrates the findings from the macro-level audit of the language modules and the micro-level analysis of the enactment within the MRS environment, presenting them sequentially through the study’s research questions to highlight the developmental trajectories of the PSTs.
Macro-level audit of language modules
The analysis of the language modules, using the IC, revealed one recurring theme, namely ‘theoretical abstraction’. While the module content and teaching and learning materials demonstrate alignment with conceptual standards, there is a marked discrepancy between the focus on theoretical knowledge and the design of structured opportunities for enactment.
Table 3 illustrates that, except for module C, which achieved a code 4 across all components, the remaining modules demonstrate limited evidence of practice-based learning. The data indicates that the enactment gap is reinforced by a lack of structured opportunities to perform the work of teaching. The average implementation rating of 1.75 for modules A, B, D and E reflects a module design that prioritises theoretical constructs over pedagogical diagnostic reasoning. For example, module D’s lecture slides state: ‘The primary goal of ORF is to reach the benchmark WCPM for the grade level.’ This emphasis on benchmark attainment, with the absence of guidance on diagnostic interpretation, encourages what Cohen et al. (2025) describe as the assimilation of novel reforms into established, performative routines.
| TABLE 3: Innovation configuration summary of language modules. |
Furthermore, the audit identifies a critical deficit in data-informed instructional decision-making. Modules A, B, D, and E received a rating of 0, indicating that the teaching and learning materials do not specify how assessment evidence should inform pedagogical adaptation. However, module C provides explicit directives: ‘using your recorded quantitative data (i.e. the WCPM) and your qualitative error analysis, justify your selection of one decoding intervention for your next lesson plan’ (Module C, MRS portfolio). This supports the argument by Spillane et al. (2002) that implementation challenges arise from cognitive sense-making (i.e. without explicit directives to link evidence to action, PSTs remain focused on the collection of data rather than its pedagogical application). As Grossman et al. (2009a) argue, ITE programmes must transition from providing representations of practice to facilitating approximations of practice. The current audit seems to indicate that where enactment is not explicitly scaffolded in course materials or practice-based opportunities, PSTs are left to navigate the enactment gap without guidance, leaving evidence-based reading practices and PrimTEd standards, related to ORF assessment and data-informed instructional decision-making, pedagogically inert.
Micro-level analysis of selected language module
To examine the PSTs’ developmental trajectory, this analysis maps the evidence against the ‘into, through and beyond’ framework (Kelley-Petersen et al. 2018), which mirrors the four-stage action learning cycle employed: introduction, BAR, enactment, and AAR. While the framework provides a structured lens to interpret the progression, three themes emerged inductively from the data: the compliance-procedural barrier, the diagnostic shift, and the synthesis challenge. Throughout the analysis, disconfirming cases were purposefully included to ensure that the findings reflect the complexities of the PST experience rather than a linear progression.
The compliance-procedural barrier: The ‘into’ phase
The ‘into’ phase comprised the introduction (i.e. video analysis) and the BAR, where the cognitive focus was on theoretical preparation (i.e. the how and why of ORF assessment). The data indicated that PSTs encounter a compliance barrier where the primary concern is mastering the technical assessment protocol. This tendency toward procedural fixation highlights a tension between compliance and competence. By prioritising the instrumental compliance of time and scoring over the pedagogical reasoning, PSTs struggled to transition from a teacher-as-technician role to a teacher-as-clinical role. This is consistent with cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988), which suggests that for novices, the extraneous load of learning a new procedural system can exhaust the working memory, leaving little capacity for meaningful pedagogical observation. As one group commented: ‘It seemed like the process was just about following the sequence correctly’ (PST Group 3, BAR transcript). Another group commented: ‘I didn’t realise that saying “well done” during the test would make the learner stop and look at me … it messed up the one-minute timing’ (PST Group 12). The teacher educator commented:
‘In our preparation session, we are focused on ensuring you understand the scoring criteria so that the technical administration is second nature before you even step into the simulation classroom.’ (Teacher educator, BAR coaching, female)
A disconfirming case emerged in group 4 where the PSTs utilised the introduction videos to develop a ‘pre-performance’ mental map that seemed to bypass procedural fixation.The transcript of their BAR discussion suggests a shift from ‘how do I do this?’ to ‘what will I see, and how will I react?’ The comment they made was:
‘[W]atching the video, I noticed how the learner hesitated at the consonant blends. If we see that happen in our classroom session, we need to focus on whether it’s a decoding issue or just a lack of confidence. Let’s make sure we have our observation tool ready to make notes on those types of errors.’ (PST Group 4, BAR transcript, females)
This shift toward anticipation suggests that rigorous engagement with representations of practice (Grossman et al. 2009b) can serve as an essential cognitive scaffold, allowing PSTs to anticipate the demands of enactment before they are immersed in the MRS environment.
The diagnostic shift: The ‘through’ phase
The ‘through’ phase is defined by the enactment stage within the MRS. This theme identifies the ‘diagnostic shift’, the moment of professional noticing, as an emergent capability during the act of teaching. This transition is framed by Van Es and Sherin (2002), who posit that learning to notice, involves a fundamental shift in how teachers ‘see’ the classroom (i.e. moving from a descriptive account of events to an analytical interpretation of the substance of learner thinking). The data indicates that when PSTs move from merely ‘checking’ the protocol to actively ‘attending to’ the specific decoding patterns of the learner, they begin to bridge the enactment gap.
For example, one PST commented that:
‘When I was in the middle of the assessment, I realised that the learner wasn’t just guessing, but he was consistently confusing the short /ĭ/ sound like in the word rid with long vowel /ī/ silent e, like in the word ride.’ (PST Group 3, females)
During the coaching session, the teacher educator commented:
‘You are identifying the decoding gap in real-time. That focus on the specific error pattern is what we mean by professional noticing. I don’t want you to tell me that it is just a decoding problem; you need to be specific, as you were, to ensure that your instruction can be adapted to address that specific issue.’ (Teacher educator, MRS session, female)
The mentor teacher commented on a realisation about her own practice:
‘I realise that by doing the assessments without using the same instructions and procedure for the children, I was actually doing them a disservice. I may have incorrectly identified problem areas. I don’t think I have ever paid attention to their prosody.’ (Mentor teacher, session 14, female)
Notably, not all PST groups achieved this shift. A disconfirming case in Group 17 persisted in labelling errors as ‘careless’ and ‘reading too slow’ rather than identifying decoding patterns during the enactment. This highlights that the ‘through’ phase demands a high-level practice-based focus that, as Ball and Forzani (2009) argue, requires structured opportunities to practise ‘high-leverage’ instructional activities. Van Es and Sherin (2002) suggest that this ability to notice is not an innate talent but a learned practice that must be explicitly coached, as seen in the variance between groups who were able to move past description and those who remained focused on the surface-level mechanics of assessment.
The synthesis challenge: The ‘beyond’ phase
The ‘beyond’ phase, defined by the AAR, is where PSTs grapple with translating diagnostic observations into targeted pedagogical design. Spillane et al. (2002) contend that implementation challenges are rooted in ‘sense-making’, the process by which practitioners interpret and apply new knowledge within their existing pedagogical frameworks. The PSTs commented that:
‘Now that I’m looking at the data we collected, I can see the pattern of struggling with multisyllabic words. The challenge is deciding how to turn that specific observation into a mini-lesson for tomorrow.’ (PST Group 11, AAR transcript, females)
‘In our coursework we learn about ORF assessments, like the EGRA, but I didn’t know what it was all about and how to determine what learners were struggling with. … We only have to design lesson plans.’ (PST Group 15, AAR transcript, females)
‘Assessing these learners was difficult. I didn’t realise that I had to be looking and doing so many things at the same time, and then having to figure out what the learner’s needs are. I also don’t know where to start to help them. I can write a test on this, but this is a whole different ball game.’ (PST Group 3, AAR transcript, females)
‘I can now “see” … that the learners are really very different which means that I will have to re-think how best to support these learners. I now know why Ms Thembi [adult avatar] told us that we need a whole toolbox of techniques.’ (PST Group 23, AAR transcript)
The teacher educator’s feedback and the adult avatar’s coaching in the AAR serves as a model of diagnostic reasoning, transforming raw scores into a scaffolded plan:
‘We have the data from the assessment, and we have determined that you accurately scored the learner and that he is reading below the benchmark set for Grade 2 (English). Now, let’s design a 5-minute targeted practice routine that addresses that specific vowel team error.’ (Teacher educator, AAR coaching transcript, female)
‘Let’s look beyond the score and focus on what the data is telling us about the learner’s reading processing. The oral reading fluency results give us three key indicators: accuracy, rate and prosody. In this case, the accuracy rate suggests that decoding is not yet fully consolidated. When we look more closely at the error patterns, we see substitutions that sometimes change the meaning of the text, which points to a need for more explicit phonics and word recognition instruction. The reading rate is below the expected benchmark, indicating that the learner is still allocating significant cognitive effort to word identification. In addition, the limited use of prosody, such as lack of phrasing, suggests that the learner is not yet reading in a way that supports meaning-making. Based on this evidence, our instructional decisions should prioritise targeted support in small groups. I would recommend explicit phoneme-grapheme mapping and high frequency word practice to strengthen accuracy, combined with repeated and guided oral reading to build rate and prosodic reading. Modelling fluent reading and providing opportunities for echo and choral reading can also support the development of expression and phrasing.’ (Adult avatar, AAR transcript, female)
While the majority struggled, a disconfirming case in Group 5 demonstrated an intuitive leap, immediately knowing how to design an intervention during the AAR without prompting or coaching. These exceptions seem to highlight that the transition from noticing to instructional decision-making is contingent on the PSTs’ existing content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Ultimately, the variation in how PSTs navigated this challenge demonstrates that the enactment gap is not merely a failure of procedural knowledge, but a complex challenge of pedagogical sense-making that requires the iterative, scaffolded environment that only deliberate practice, facilitated by MRS, can provide.
Conclusion
The enactment gap within ITE is not a failure of will, but a failure of opportunity, specifically an absence of structured opportunities that bridge the distance between theoretical knowledge and practical expertise. The findings, derived from both the language module audit and the micro-level analysis of the action learning cycle, reveal that bridging this gap requires more than module reform; it demands a fundamental shift in how we structure pedagogical enactment.
The audit process revealed that within the sampled language modules, there was a frequent misalignment regarding the enactment of evidence-based reading practices and standards, as the modules often functioned as silos that prioritised technical compliance over the development of pedagogical reasoning. Within this context, MRS emerges as a vital, practice-based pedagogical tool. By providing a controlled, low-complexity environment, MRS enables PSTs to move beyond procedural fixation, where assessment protocols are seen merely as tasks to be completed, to a state of disciplined professional noticing. The alignment between the MRS environment and the action learning cycle allows PSTs to master the technical demands of ORF assessment while simultaneously developing the judgement necessary for data-based instructional decision-making.
As the PSTs moved from the ‘into’ phase of preparation, ‘through’ the enactment of ORF assessment, and finally, into the ‘beyond’ phase of shared sense-making, they were afforded the opportunity to develop professional vision. This process highlights that when PSTs are supported by directed coaching, representations of practice, feedback, and structured observation tools, they can move beyond template compliance to bridge the enactment gap.
The limitations of this study include the reliance on a single cycle of action learning, which may constrain the observation of long-term development in professional noticing, and the fact that findings are specific to the participants within this particular MRS context.
Nevertheless, these results have implications for the broader landscape of teacher education. For ITE programmes seeking to move beyond superficial compliance, the operationalisation of practice-based learning cycles within an MRS environment may not be a luxury but a necessity to ensure that PSTs move from rote implementation to diagnostic agility. Syllabi should adopt an architecture that embeds representations, enactment, and reflection and coaching, utilising tools like MRS as non-negotiable components of every practice-based language module. By institutionalising these spaces, ITE providers can ensure that the next generation of educators does not merely learn about reading instruction and assessment, but develops the professional responsiveness and instructional agility required to respond to the nuanced realities of the literacy classroom, thereby potentially disrupting the systemic cycle of reading underperformance.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of all the teacher educators and the critical friend that participated in the IC mapping process and moderation.
Competing interests
The author reported that they received funding from Oppenheimer Memorial Trust which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The author has disclosed those interests fully and has implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
CRediT authorship contribution
Carisma Nel: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This work was supported by the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust (grant number: 2024-3695).
Data availability
Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the author, Carisma Nel, on reasonable request, and permission from the university gatekeeper.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author 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 author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Aguilar, J.J. & Flores, Y., 2022, ‘Analysing the effectiveness of using mixed-reality simulations to develop elementary pre-service teachers’ high-leverage practices in a mathematic methods course’, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 18(5), em2107. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12006
Allen, A.A. & Stecker, P.M., 2023, ‘Using mixed-reality simulation in teacher preparation in reading’, Intervention in School and Clinic 59(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221130077
Ball, D.L. & Forzani, F.M., 2009, ‘The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education’, Journal of Teacher Education 60(5), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479
Bondie, R., Zusho, A., Wiseman, E., Dede, C. & Rich, D., 2023, ‘Can differentiated and personalized mixed-reality simulations transform teacher learning?’, Technology, Mind and Behavior 4(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000098
Booth, A., Carroll, C., IIott, I., Low, L.L. & Cooper, K., 2013, ‘Desperately seeing dissonance: Identifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis’, Qualitative Health Research 23(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312466295
Bourke, T., Ryna, M. & Ould, M., 2018, ‘How do teacher educators use professional standards in their practice?’, Teaching and Teacher Education 75, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.005
Cohen, J., Wong, V.C., Krishnamachari, A. & Berlin, R., 2020, ‘Teacher coaching in a simulated environment’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 42(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720906217
Cohen, J., Yonas, A.M. & Wilson, K.E., 2025, ‘Approximating teaching: A systematic review of the research’, Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543251368383
Dalinger, T., Thomas, K.B., Stansberry, S. & Xiu, Y., 2020, ‘A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers’, Computers & Education 144, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103696
Department of Basic Education, 2023, PIRLS 2021: South African main report, Department of Basic Education, Pretoria.
Department of Basic Education, 2024, South African systemic evaluation 2022: Analysis of factors influencing learning outcomes, Department of Basic Education, Pretoria.
Department of Basic Education, 2025, Funda Uphumelele national survey: Technical report, Department of Basic Education, Pretoria.
Dwyer, S.C. & Buckle, J.L., 2009, ‘The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105
Ericsson, A. & Pool, R., 2016, Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, NY.
Ericsson, K.A., 2002, ‘Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance’, in M. Ferrari (ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education, pp. 21–55, Erlbaum, New York, NY.
Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E., 2006, ‘Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Good, H., Kaminski, R.A., Cummings, K.D., Dufour-Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powell-Smith, K.A. et al., 2011, Acadience reading K-6 assessment manual, Acadience Learning Inc.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E. & Williamson, P.W., 2009a, ‘Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective’, Teachers College Record 111(9), 2055–2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
Grossman, P. & Fraefel, U. (eds.), 2024, Core practices in teacher education: A global perspective, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. & McDonald, M., 2009b, ‘Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education’, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 15(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M., 1987, Changes in schools: Facilitating the process, State University of New York Press, New York, NY.
Hord, S.M., Stiegelbauer, S.M., Hall, G.E. & George, A.A., 2013, Measuring implementation in schools: Innovation configurations, SEDL, Austin, TX.
Howell, H. & Mikeska, J.N., 2021, ‘Approximations of practice as a framework for understanding authenticity in simulations of teaching’, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 53(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1809033
Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B. & Pullen, P.C., 2005, ‘Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how?’, The Reading Teacher 58(8), 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1
International Literacy Association (ILA), 2018, Beyond the numbers. Using data for instructional decision making, International Literacy Association, Newark, DE.
Kelley-Petersen, M., Davis, E.A., Ghousseini, H., Kloser, M. & Monte-Sano, C., 2018, ‘Rehearsals as examples of approximation’, in P. Grossman (ed.), Teaching core practices in teacher education, pp. 85–101, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kennedy, M., 1999, ‘The role of preservice teacher education’, in L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice, pp. 54–85, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lane, H.B., 2024, Evidence-based reading instruction for grades K-5 (Document No. IC-12b), University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, viewed 20 February 2026, from https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/K-5-Reading-IC.pdf.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. & Saldana, J., 2014, Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd edn., Sage, Washington, DC.
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2011, Innovation configurations: Guidelines for use in institutions of higher education and professional development evaluation, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Washington, DC.
Nel, C., 2011, ‘Linking reading literacy assessment and teaching: Rethinking preservice teacher training programmes in the Foundation Phase’, Journal for Language Teaching 45(2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v45i2.1
Nel, C., 2018, ‘A blueprint for data-based English reading literacy instructional decision-making’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 8(1), a528. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v8i1.528
Nel, C., 2022, ‘Bridging the reading instruction theory-practice divide through a mixed reality teaching environment’, paper presented at the SALALS Conference, Potchefstroom, 27–30th June.
Nel, C. & Marais, L.M., 2023, ‘Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of practice-based opportunities to elicit learners’ background knowledge within a mixed reality simulation environment’, Reading and Writing 14(1), a422. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v14i1.422
Oo, C.Z., Alonzo, D. & Asih, R., 2022, ‘Acquisition of teacher assessment literacy by pre-service teachers: A review of practices and program designs’, Issues in Educational Research 32(1), 352–372.
Pikulski, J.T. & Chard, D.J., 2005, ‘Fluency: Bridge between decoding and comprehension’, The Reading Teacher 58(6), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2
Primary Teacher Education Project, 2020, Knowledge and practice standards for primary teacher education graduates: Language and literacy, Department of Higher Education and Training, Primary Teacher Education Project, viewed 20 February 2026, from https://www.jet.org.za/clearinghouse/projects/primted/standards/literacy-teacher-standards.
Schuck, S. & Russell, T., 2005, ‘Self-study, critical friendship, and the complexities of teacher education’, Studying Teacher Education 1(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960500288291
Schutz, K.M., Danielson, K.A. & Cohen, J., 2019, ‘Approximations in English language arts: Scaffolding a shared teaching practice’, Teaching and Teacher Education 81, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.004
Shaukat, S. & Chowdhury, R., 2020, ‘Teacher educators’ perceptions of professional standards: Implementation challenges in Pakistan’, Issues in Educational Research 30(3), 1084–1104.
Spaull, N., 2023, 2023 Background report for the 2030 reading panel, Reading Panel, Cape Town.
Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J. & Reimer, T., 2002, ‘Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research’, Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
Stake, R.E., 2005, ‘Qualitative case studies’, in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn., pp. 443–466, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sweller, J., 1988, ‘Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning’, Cognitive Science 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Taylor, N. & Mawoyo, M., 2021, ‘Professionalising teaching: The case of language and literacy’, in N. Spaull & E Pretorius (eds.), Early grade reading in South Africa, pp. 164–178, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Taylor, N. & Robinson, N., 2016, Towards teacher professional knowledge and practice standards in South Africa, JET Education Services, Johannesburg, viewed 19 January 2026, from https://www.jet.org.za/resources/teacher-professional-standards-in-south-africa-final.pdf/@@download/file.
Tortorelli, L.S., Lupo, S.M. & Wheatley, B.C., 2021, ‘Examining teacher preparation for code-related reading instruction’, Reading Research Quarterly 56, S317–S337. https://doi.org/10.2307/48634406
Toste, J.R., Fluhler, S.K., Farris, E.A. & Chandler, B.W., 2025, ‘What’s in a word? Analysing students’ oral reading fluency to inform instructional decision-making’, Intervention in School and Clinic 60(5), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512251314361
Tsakeni, M., Mosia, M., Egara, F.O. & Nwafor, S.C., 2026, ‘Bridging the gap between intention and enactment: A Bayesian analysis of pre-service teachers’ implementation of inquiry-based practical work in STEM (science-led) classrooms’, Frontiers in Education 10, 1719693. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1719693
Uebele, T.J., 2025, ‘From assessment to action: The role of data in shaping tiered literacy instruction’, Culminating Experience Projects 651, viewed 20 April 2026, from https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gradprojects/651?utm_source=scholarworks.gvsu.edu%2Fgradprojects%2F651&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2016, Understanding what works in oral reading assessments. Recommendations from donors, implementers and practitioners, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal Canada.
Van der Velde, M., Molenaar, B., Veldkamp, B.P., Feskens, R. & Keuning, J., 2024, ‘What do they say? Assessment of oral reading fluency in early primary school children: A scoping review’, International Journal of Educational Research 128, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102444
Van Es, E.A. & Sherin, M.G., 2002, ‘Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions’, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 10(4), 571–596.
Whitney, T. & Ackerman, K.B., 2026, ‘Uniting to strengthen reading instruction through mixed-reality simulations’, Kentucky Teacher Education Journal: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Kentucky Council for Exceptional Children 12(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.61611/2995-5904.1074
Yin, R.K., 2018, Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yip, S.Y., 2024, ‘Positionality and reflexivity: Negotiating insider-outsider positions within and across cultures’, International Journal of Research & Method in Education 47(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2023.2266375
Zeichner, K., 2010, ‘Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education’, Journal of Teacher Education 61(1–2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
Appendix 1
| TABLE 1-A1: Oral reading fluency assessment innovation configuration. |
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
