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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

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 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.

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.

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.

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.