IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 7 July 2020

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.19 No.7

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 19, No. 7 (July 2020)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 19, No. 7
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the July 2020 Issue

VOLUME 19 NUMBER 7 July 2020
Table of Contents
Perceptions of Foundation Phase Teachers on Principals as Literacy Leaders in Selected Primary Schools .............1
Bernadictus Plaatjies
The Challenges Faced by Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers during their Teaching Practice in the UAE:
Implications for Teacher Education Programs.................................................................................................................. 23
Adeeb M. Jarrah
Incorporating Academic Writing Phrases into EFL Students’ Research Proposals ..................................................... 35
Anselmus Sudirman, Adria Vitalya Gemilang and Hendrikus Male
Digital Literacy Development Trends in the Professional Environment.......................................................................55
Andriushchenko Kateryna, Rozhko Oleksandr, Tepliuk Mariia, Semenyshyna Iryna, Kartashov Evgen and Liezina
Anastasiia
The Extent to which Knowledge-based Economy Skills are Included in the Secondary Level Curriculum in Qatar
.................................................................................................................................................................................................80
Mamduh Ashraah and Ahmad Yousef
Perceptions of Students towards the Postgraduate Biology Practical Demonstrators at Sefako Makgatho Health
Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa..................................................................................................................... 101
Liziwe L. Mugivhisa, Caswell Mavimbela and Joshua O. Olowoyo
Enhancing Students’ Mental Models of Chemical Equilibrium Through Argumentation within Model-based
Learning ............................................................................................................................................................................... 121
Anupong Praisri and Chatree Faikhamta
Researching the Impact of the Economic Crisis on Student Life in Greece.................................................................143
Maria Kouroutsidou, Nikolaos Raptis and Konstantinos Karampelas
Game Framework Analysis and Cognitive Learning Theory Providing a Theoretical Foundation for Efficacy in
Learning in Educational Gaming...................................................................................................................................... 159
Jason Stratton Davis
Teaching Vocational with Technology: A Study of Teaching Aids Applied in Malaysian Vocational
Classroom…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...176
Anesman B. W. Abdul Rahman, Mohd Azlan Mohammad Hussain and Rafeizah Mohd Zulkifli
Effect of Small Private Online Course (SPOC) on Students’ Achievement in Pre-University Chemistry............... 189
Husna Izzati Muhamad Shahbani, Salleh Abd Rashid, Muhamad Shahbani Abu Bakar, Jastini Mohd Jamil and Izwan Nizal
Mohd Shaharanee
Enhancing Higher-Order Thinking Skills among Home Science Students: The Effect of Cooperative Learning
Student Teams- Achievement Divisions (STAD) Module............................................................................................. 204
Misra Takko, Rahimah Jamaluddin, Suhaida Abdul Kadir, Normala Ismail, Arnida Abdullah and Arasinah Khamis

The Effects of Children’s Friendship Training on Social Skills and Quality of Play among Children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder.............................................................................................................................................................. 225
Horng Shen Ellipse Goh, Samsilah Roslan, Ezza Mad Baguri, Sing Yee Ong and Siaw Yan Li
Impact of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Module Based on the Cognitive Apprenticeship Model (CAM)
on Student’s Performance.................................................................................................................................................. 246
Noorashikim Noor Ibrahim, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub and Aida Suraya Md. Yunus
The Impact of the Lack of ICT Resources on Teaching and Learning in Selected South African Primary Schools .....
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 263
Paul Nwati Munje and Thuthukile Jita
The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and the Malaysian University English Test (MUET)
Performance among Technical Students.......................................................................................................................... 280
Nor Lailatul Azilah Hamdzah, Indra Devi Subramaniam, Nadiah Zainal Abidin and Ruslan Hassan
Blended Learning Approach to Mathematics Education Modules: An Analysis of Pre-Service Teachers’
Perceptions........................................................................................................................................................................... 298
Ifunanya Julie Adaobi Ubah, Erica D. Spangenberg and Viren Ramdhany
Economics Teachers’ Topic Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model for teaching Market Dynamics..... 320
Ijeoma C. Ogbonnaya, Andile Mji, Olivia N. Mafa-Theledi and Beatrice Ngulube

1
©2020 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 1-22, July 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.1
Perceptions of Foundation Phase Teachers on
Principals as Literacy Leaders in Selected
Primary Schools
Bernadictus Plaatjies*
Department of Education Management and Leadership
University of the Free State, South Africa
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7900-7843
Abstract. The bleak picture of South Africa’s poor learner performance in
international tests is perceived to be linked to ineffective literacy
leadership in primary schools. This paper therefore explores the
perceptions of foundation phase teachers on principals’ capacities as
literacy leaders. For this paper, literacy leadership is limited to two facets:
instruction and assessment. As such, the study explored teachers’
perceptions on principals as leaders in these two aspects. As custodians
of the literacy curriculum, teachers possess a wealth of knowledge on
instruction and assessment practices. It seems that this rich knowledge
and classroom experiences are sometimes untapped into or ignored,
which would seem strange and unfortunate. If utilised to the maximum,
teachers’ knowledge and expertise could contribute immensely to
improve literacy practices. This exploratory qualitative study employed
a multiple-case study design and was conducted with 35 teachers from
four schools in the Mangaung district of Bloemfontein’s Free State
Department of Education (FSDOE). The study sample was purposefully
selected and data were collected through open-ended questionnaires.
Thematic analysis was employed to make sense of the data, and the
findings disclose that teachers hold conflicting views regarding their
principals as literacy leaders. Although some noble leadership practices
were underscored, especially regarding internal moderation processes,
the general impression was that principals’ literacy leadership skills are
lacking. This study has highlighted the need for a greater focus on
subject-specific leadership in general, but more so for literacy specifically.
Keywords: instructional leadership; leadership; literacy; reading; writing
1. Introduction
Studies report that the significance of literacy skills (reading and writing) is
undisputed. Robust evidence demonstrates that rigorous literacy skills are
* Corresponding author: Bernadictus Plaatjies, Email: plaatjiesbo@ufs.ac.za

2
required right from the beginning of school education, through to employment
and citizenship (Howie et al., 2017; Spaul, 2012; Gunning, 2014). Bryant and
Bradley (1985, cited in Pretorius, 2001) summarised the importance of reading and
writing abilities for learners. The authors opined that reading and writing are
crucial communicative competencies in the early years of learners. Therefore,
paying close attention to learners who experience literacy difficulties is thus vital,
as consequences appear to be dreadful. According to Gunning (2014, p. 9),
“[r]eading and writing problems, especially when they are severe, affect all aspects
of a student’s life.” To this end, the Department of Education and Training (2018,
p. 6) in Australia pointed out in a report that “todays’ students need a strong
foundation in literacy to be innovative, adaptable and responsive”.
Numerous definitions exist for literacy. For De Lange, Dippenaar and Anker
(2018), literacy includes the components of reading and viewing, thinking,
reasoning and writing. The focus in this paper will only be on reading and writing
as literacy components. According to the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP, 2019, p. 3), “reading is a dynamic, active and complex process
that involves the understanding of written text, developing and interpreting
meaning and using meaning as appropriate to the type of text, purpose and
situation.” Writing, on the other hand, is regarded by Durga and Rao (2018, p. 1)
as “an extremely complex cognitive activity in which the writer is required to
demonstrate control of variables simultaneously”. At the sentence level, these
include control of contents, format, sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling and
letter formation. Beyond the sentence, the writer must be able to structure and
integrate information into cohesive and coherent paragraph and text. The problem
in South Africa, though, is that learner performance in literacy is substandard, as
confirmed by assessment data from local tests over the last decade. For example,
results of the Annual National Assessments in literacy, which are administrated
by the country’s Department of Basic Education (DBE), concretely demonstrate
this poor performance (Spaul, 2012).
South African learners’ performance in international tests paints an equally bleak
picture. In fact, data from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
[PIRLS] of 2016 show that South African learners were placed last out of all 50
countries who participated in the PIRLS assessment (Howie et al., 2017). “Even
more alarming is the fact that South Africa may be six years behind the top
performing countries, and that around 78% of learners do not reach the
international benchmarks and therefore do not have basic reading skills by the end
of the gr.4 school year, in contrast to only 4% of learners internationally,” as Howie
et al. (2017, p. 11) explained. Besides, the country’s scores in both reading and
mathematics are lower than many much poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa
(Spaul & Taylor, 2015, cited in Taylor & Hoadley, 2018). South African Minister of
Education, Ms. Angie Motshekga, confirmed the challenges associated with
literacy by stating that: “Our greatest challenge in this administration has been to
tackle the literacy outcomes highlighted in all international, regional and national
assessments” (Republic of South Africa [RSA]. DBE, 2013, p. 2).
It appears that school principals have limited capacity to provide direction with
teaching and learning. To this end, Hoadley (cited in Bush & Glover, 2009) and

3
Mestry (2017) claimed that many principals lack an extensive understanding of
their instructional leadership roles. Although considerable research has been done
to address the problems with literacy – especially with regard to classroom
practices – less is known on how to approach the challenges from a leadership
perspective. It appears that research is particularly scanty regarding principals’
knowledge of the literacy curriculum, instruction and assessment and how they
should provide support through instructional leadership to teachers.
This is particularly evident in the South African context, characterised as it is by
the stark realities of poverty and inequalities. Houck and Novak (2017, p. 30) stated
that “[v]ery little has been done to examine the specific knowledge that principals
require in terms of literacy leadership”. Plaatjies (2019, p. 137) contended that
“very little is known about how principals should influence literacy instruction
through Instructional leadership”. Similarly, Hoadley (2018) concurred that the
South African research base in this area is very small. These gaps in research are
considered against the appeal from scholars in the field of literacy leadership, such
as Townsend, Bayetto, Dempster, Johnson and Stevens (2018), who pointed out
that principals should play a far more prominent role as literacy instructional
leaders. Hence, an in-depth understanding of this role seems to be vital for
improved literacy leadership practices. This study aims to close this gap in
research by obtaining teacher perceptions on their observations of principals’
leadership practices considering literacy instruction and assessment.
Being at the forefront as drivers and custodians of the literacy curriculum, teachers
possess a comprehensive understanding of related challenges. For this reason,
tapping into this knowledge can provide rich notions on what leaders can do to
strengthen instructional practices.
2. Research Questions
The following research questions frame this paper: (1) What are foundation phase
teachers’ perceptions on principals’ knowledge of the skills to be taught in the
literacy curriculum? (2) What are the perceptions on principals’ understanding of
literacy assessment requirements? and (3) What are the perceptions on how
principals provide support to teachers in literacy instruction and assessment?
3. Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
This paper is guided by the guidelines provided by Ravitch and Riggan (2017).
They proposed in the guidelines that a conceptual framework “should not only
include the relevant theoretical literature, but also the empirical findings of prior
research and the researcher’s own experiential knowledge, beliefs, commitments
and values” (Ravitch & Riggan, 2017, p. 12). As a starting point, my conceptual
framework was informed by relevant and legally binding educational policy
documents like the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) (DBE, 2015) and
the Standard for Principal-ship (DBE, 2016) that outline the leadership roles of
South African school principals. These documents are in no way specific as to what
principals’ leadership roles regarding literacy are. As my study focuses
predominantly on the instruction and assessment components of literacy
leadership, my conceptual framework was informed by the work of instructional

4
leadership expert Phillip Hallinger (2005). The main domains of instructional
leadership are quite extensive in scope, and overlapping, in most cases. I therefore
demarcated this paper to one aspect of Hallinger’s Instructional Leadership
Model: the leadership of the (literacy) instructional programme. Focusing on
literacy as such, the study is also informed by the Literacy Leadership Model of
Taylor and Collins (2003), though focusing only on diligence, instruction and
assessment.
4. The School Principal as Leader of Instruction
Leadership is next only to instruction amongst school-related impacts on pupil
attainment (Manna, 2015). Substantive evidence confirms that instructional
leadership in particular is associated with positive student outcomes. Vogel (2018,
p. 1) described instructional leadership as “a critical, if not primary task of school
leaders”, whilst a meta-analysis conducted by Marzano, Walters and McNulty
(cited in Vogel, 2018, p. 1) revealed that “principals who were instructional leaders
were also found to have a stronger positive impact on student achievement”.
Regarding the value of subject-specific instructional leadership, Anderson (cited
in Bouchamma, 2012, p. 2) declared that “the best outcomes in mathematics and
language were linked to instructional leadership”. It is not, however, easy to fulfil
this role. As recent research from a study on time allocation to instructional
leadership indicates: “Principals spent considerable time on running the building
and considerably less time on instruction related activities” (Sebastian, Camburn
& Spillane, 2018, p. 90).
Before locating the study in the broader scholarship that exists in literacy
leadership, a brief overview of literacy skills, according to the South African
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) or CAPS curriculum, is
presented below. To perform their roles as respected instructional leaders in
literacy instruction and assessment, principals should have a sound
understanding of the literacy skills to be taught, as stipulated in this curriculum.
4.1 Overview of literacy skills to be taught in the CAPS curriculum
The main requirements in the curriculum for the reading component are as
follows: Joint reading and writing, group/guided reading, paired/independent
reading, and phonics awareness. Emphasis is also placed on the five components
of reading instruction, which, according to most reading experts, include:
“Phonemic awareness, word recognition (sight words and phonics),
comprehension, vocabulary and fluency” (DBE, 2011, pp. 11-13). This list is merely
a summary; the policy document contains an exhaustive outline of many other
related content and skills. Dole and Nelson (cited in Bean & Dagen, 2012) declared
that knowledgeable literacy leaders know that literacy does not involve only these
five parts, and that a firm literacy curriculum needs to be broad. Phonological
awareness, letter-sound knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency and oral
composition are referred to as the Big 6 by Townsend et al. (2018), and these are
seen as pivotal for reading acquisition. Principals need to safeguard that each
element is given satisfactory time, care, and means to allow pupils to study well.
In addition, both time and emphasis should be delivered for teachers to permit
each element to be debated, advanced, employed, and evaluated in means that

5
support educators to see just how fine their learners are succeeding (Townsend et
al., 2018). Assessment activities for reading are, in most cases, preceded by
informal assessment activities related to phonics (spoken and/or applied/written
activities). Other reading skills that require formal assessment activities are
developing reading skills, shared reading and group and directed reading (DBE,
2011).
Requirements related to writing for Grade 1 learners include handwriting
(including pre-writing programme), shift to a joint script or cursive writing, and
materials for scripts. For Grades 2 and 3, the curriculum includes shared writing,
writing messages and sentences, writing in present and past tenses, spelling,
paragraphs, diaries, punctuation and writing about personal experiences (DBE,
2011). As is the case with reading, CAPS demands that formal writing tasks should
be preceded by informal assessments. This also includes a wide array of
competencies related to assessing handwriting skills, the development of letter
formation, and shared, group and independent writing (DBE, 2011).
4.2 Principals’ commitment to literacy instruction and understanding of the
literacy curriculum
Taylor and Collins (2003, p. 2) argued that “current literacy leadership commences
with a commitment from the school leader”. He/she should take leadership,
otherwise learners will not become skilled readers and writers. Another
prerequisite for understanding effective literacy instruction and assessment
requires a solid understanding of the tenets of the literacy curriculum. Without an
understanding of the literacy content, skills and knowledge, principals will
struggle to provide sufficient instructional support to teachers (Alig-Mielcarek,
2003; Taylor & Collins, 2003). Louis, Leithwood, Anderson and Wahlstroom (2010)
warned that lack of familiarity of the curriculum will hamper sound monitoring
and support for teacher growth. It is, after all, the principal as the instructional
front-runner’s responsibility to ensure the application of the core syllabus in the
school (Botha, 2013, p. 200). Furthermore, Bouchama (2012, p. 3) stated “that
leaders in effective schools distinguish their commitment and expertise by their
personal involvement in planning, coordinating and evaluation of the
curriculum”. In line with this argument, Zimmerman (2017, p. 47) claimed that
“[f]or effective school-wide literacy development, school management teams,
including principals, heads of department, subject area leaders and all teachers
in every subject, need to be actively involved in goal setting, monitoring and
implementation”.
Scholars agree on the importance and value of sound curriculum knowledge by
principals. Plaatjies (2019), for example, linked curriculum knowledge to
improvement in instruction, with Munroe (2011, p. 9) positing that “an
understanding of each aspect of literacy will enable leadership on where and how
to target problem areas”. At the same time, Botha (2013, p. 199) opined that
“principals need to know about the changing conceptions of the curriculum,
educational philosophies and beliefs, knowledge specialisation and
fragmentation, curricular sources and conflict, and curriculum evaluation and
improvement”.

6
4.3 Knowledge and understanding of subject content, instruction and
assessment
One standpoint of instructional leadership proposes that leaders must understand
the content of subjects (Stein & D’Amico, 2000, and Stein & Nelson, 2003, cited in
Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). A basic understanding of subject content appears
to be necessary to provide well-grounded support in literacy instruction. Pinello
(2015) averred that literacy leaders should possess knowledge of literacy
instruction, and be able to align curriculum, instruction and assessment (Taylor &
Collins, 2003). Principals in particular should possess a pure and profound
understanding of teaching, learning and assessment (Mestry, 2017). A basic
understanding of subject knowledge, instruction and assessment and the
curriculum will, in turn, empower principals to provide attentive backing
connected to lesson planning, structure and content regarding reading and
writing, and monitoring and moderation processes. Emanating from the thorough
scrutiny of literacy instruction, principals will gain a solid understanding of
teachers‘ expertise. This will, in turn, help principals to provide support in targeted
areas where teachers are lacking. This means, in other words, that “the
instructional leader needs to have up-to-date knowledge on three areas of
(literacy) education namely; curriculum, instruction and assessment” (Du Four,
2002, cited in Kubicek, 2015, p. 704).
4.4 Assisting teachers through classroom supervision of instruction
According to Dole and Nelson (cited in Bean & Dagen, 2012, p. 152), “[l]iteracy
leaders know that the instructional delivery of the curriculum is one of the most
critically important elements of teaching.” Assistance to teachers is therefore vital,
and principals may enhance teaching through collaboration in classrooms with
teachers or by improving teacher capabilities (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
Many studies provide direction on how principals may provide assistance,
overseeing the curriculum across the school. Clear expectations to staff and setting
a firm literacy basis for each schoolroom are important (Taylor & Collins, 2003).
Supervision of instruction as instructional leadership duty, for example, may
include evaluating the teaching and learning process, teachers’ subject knowledge
and their lesson planning. Principals should make sure that teachers plan
sufficiently by checking their lesson plans (International Literacy Association
[ILA], 2019; Klar & Brewer, 2013). Obliged by the PAM and Standard for
Principal-ship policies (DBE, 2015, 2016), principals should ensure that heads of
department (HODs) monitor the work of teachers in their subjects (Mestry, 2017).
Herrera (2010, p. 32) claimed that principals should “know what is taking place in
the classrooms … through frequent visits and making suggestions and meaningful
feedback on the improvement of quality teaching and learning” (see also Alig-
Mielcarek, 2003; Mestry 2017). Classroom observations should be purposefully
conducted, focusing on a set of pre-identified and negotiated criteria. The ILA
(2019, p. 5), for example, stated that “when principals enter classrooms, they
should see and hear students in small groups, working purposefully and
collaboratively to solve problems or negotiating the meaning of a text”. As part of
this purposeful engagement and close monitoring of the instructional programme,

7
the process should be accompanied by asking questions about how and why, and
supporting innovative attempts to support student learning (Klar & Brewer, 2013).
This process should be accomplished through a persistent emphasis through
official and casual consultations with instructors, mentorship, and expert
education. Principals should claim the confidence and necessary skills to conduct
respectful and productive professional conversations. These should rotate around
the improvement of instructional quality (Hoy & Hoy, 2009, cited in Mestry, 2017).
Apart from conducting class visits, principals need to be accessible and visible and
provide instructional support by conducting informal walk-throughs (Klar &
Brewer, 2013).
4.5 Professional development to improve literacy instruction
Quint, Akey, Rappaport and Willner (2007) (cited in Matsumara, Satoris, Di Prima
& Garnier, 2009) found that enhanced participation of principals in developmental
sessions for teachers, with an emphasis on focusing directly on teaching practices,
is connected with better execution in the classroom. This leads to improved
performance in reading. Sheppard (1996) and Blasé and Blasé (1998) (cited in
Kgatle, 2013) likewise opined that instructional leaders must inspire presence at
work-related meetings, assemblies and seminars, building a culture of
cooperation, knowledge and individual growth. Improved levels of teacher
teamwork is related to better learner performance in reading (Spillane & Hopkins,
2013), whilst in-service training has been meaningfully associated with productive
changes in approaches to subjects (Parise & Spillane, cited in Spillane & Hopkins,
2013). Pinello (2015, p. 49) asserted that “literacy leaders should establish a team
with a coach, build capacity for literacy and provide time for professional
development and establish accountability standards”. Within these forums,
principals should direct the attention to definite tasks of instruction rather than
nonconcrete deliberations, exact instructional methods and how to teach specific
kinds of content to teachers (Townsend et al., 2018).
5. Methodology
An interpretivist paradigm was adopted for this study, which constructs meaning
through the participants’ own understanding and reflections on their experiences
(Adom, Ankrah & Yeboah, 2018). This qualitative multiple-case study was
conducted in four large primary schools (1000+ learners each), involving 35
foundation phase (Grades 1-3) teachers. At School 1, eight teachers completed the
questionnaire, at School 2 six, at School 3 eleven and at School 4 ten.
The qualitative approach was deemed appropriate, as I wanted to make sense of
participants’ perceptions regarding literacy leadership (Marshall & Rossman,
2011) the researcher opted for the multiple-case-study design, which, according to
Creswell and Poth (2018), aims to examine numerous cases to gain insight into an
essential phenomenon – in this study, literacy leadership.
To manage the complex process of analysing and interpreting the qualitative data,
the researcher used several activities. These included “immersion in the data,
organizing these data into chunks (analysis), and bringing meaning to these
chunks (interpretation)” (Rossman & Rallis, 2017, pp. 227-228). McMillan and

8
Schumacher (2006) stated that to ensure reliability and honesty, the data should
relate with participant responses. The first step during the breakdown of the
information was to analyse the unique context of the school, since taking context
into consideration is important in multiple-case studies (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
“Contextual features and their influences on the participants’ experiences are
important for qualitative researchers” (see Maxwell, 2013, p. 30). Data were first
presented thematically case by case, followed by cross-case analysis within
themes.
As the aim was to offer details as to “how” and “why” heads exhibit leadership in
literacy, this researcher also utilised the exploratory and descriptive case study
design, as proposed by Yin (2011). The data collection process was supported with
the observational method (Appendix 1). Information was collected, described and
analysed within the context of each school. This included information about:
• the socio-economic position of the neighbourhood in which the school is
located;
• the quality of the school buildings and classes;
• the management of the school with regard to good order; and
• a brief observation about the classroom environment.
Information about the quintile status of the school and years of experience of each
principal was obtained from the principals of each school.
The study sample – foundation phase teachers – was selected purposefully as they
were, as Creswell (2009, p. 178) concluded, “best suited to address the research
problem.” Data were collected during the third school quarter of 2019 by means of
open-ended questionnaires, a method which, according to Cohen, Manion and
Morrison (2018), hooks the truthfulness, fullness, profundity and honesty of
responses, trademarks of the qualitative approach. Prior to the distribution phase
of the questionnaires, participants were sensitised around the purposes of the
research. The questionnaire (Appendix 2) consisted of three broad questions only,
and aimed to elicit participants’ broad perceptions on principals’ knowledge on
literacy instruction and assessment:
1. Describe your principal’s knowledge of the skills to be taught in the literacy
curriculum (reading, writing and assessment).
2. Describe your principal’s knowledge of literacy assessment requirements.
3. How does your principal provide support to teachers in literacy instruction
and assessment?
6. Ethical Considerations
The trustworthiness of the paper was ensured by considering issues of credibility,
dependability, conformability and transferability. Credibility was ensured
through the process of member-checking and prolonged engagement with the
participants. To further guarantee that the responses remained a correct reflection
of the data provided in the questionnaires, participants had to be given the
opportunity to read the interpreted data. Findings were verified with the help of a
colleague to ensure that they are consistent with the data collected. This ensured
the dependability of the research. Conformability of the research was ensured by

9
adhering to what Gasson (2004, p. 93) proposed: “… findings should represent, as
far as is (humanly) possible, the situation being researched rather than the beliefs,
pet theories, or biases of the researcher.” Transferability was safeguarded through
providing sufficient information about the researcher, the research context and
processes to allow the reader to select in what way the outcomes can be transferred
(Morrow, 2005).
Ethical clearance was granted by the University of the Free State (ethics approval
number UFS-HSD 2019/0087/1808), whilst authorization to conduct the study was
gained from the Free State Department of Education (FSDOE). Informed approval
was attained from all the participants of the four participating schools prior to the
start of the study. Ethical issues considered were drawn from the advice of Cohen
et al. (2018). These included participants’ rights to pull out at any phase or not to
complete specific items in the questionnaire; an agreement that the research will
not harm them (the principle of non-maleficence); and the guarantees of
confidentiality, anonymity and non-traceability in the research. To ensure
namelessness, acronyms were used to classify the partakers. Under the discussion
of each respective school, T is used for teacher, with the number of the relevant
participant for that school (e.g. T1–T8 for School 1, T1–T6 for School 2; etc.).
7. The Role of the Researcher
This researcher, see himself as a social constructivist in the research environment.
He seek what Creswell (2013, p. 24) described as an approach of individuals
(researchers) who seek “an understanding of the world in which they live and
work” and to “develop subjective meanings of their experiences”. His research
focus centres on the core business of the schooling enterprise, teaching and
learning in the classroom, but mainly from a leadership approach regarding
instruction. Classrooms are dynamic and complex spaces. Harvard professor
Richard Elmore (cited in Schmoker, 2006, p. 14) described classrooms as an area
protected by a buffer, “… a protective barrier that discourages and even punishes
close, constructive scrutiny of instruction … the buffer ensures that we know very
little about what teachers teach, or how well they teach.” Principals, as
instructional leaders, may thus sometimes find it difficult to gain deep knowledge
and experiences of instructional practices in the classroom. With the approach of
providing open-ended questionnaires, the aim was to not pressurise participants
by intruding on their buffers. Through the use of open-ended questionnaires, “the
researcher can listen carefully to what people say and do in the life setting”
(Creswell, 2013, p. 25).
8. Presentation of the Findings
With referral to the contextual aspect, South African government schools are
subjected to a quintile system, where all schools are allocated into one of five
categories. This categorisation is due to the country’s wide economic disparity, the
issue of socio-economic status and the disparity between rich and poor schools.
The schools in the most economically deprived (poorest) geographic parts are
categorised as quintile 1, 2 and 3 schools, and those in the greatest economically
privileged (wealthiest) environmental areas as quintile 4 and 5 schools. Schools in
quintiles 1 to 3 are non-fee-paying schools and receive more funding per learner

10
from the government than schools in quintiles 4 and 5 (Ogbonnaya & Awuah,
2019). Below follows a discussion on each participating school, it’s context and the
related findings.
8.1 School 1
Contextual description
This quintile 3 school is located in a neighbourhood characterised by
mixed-income housing. Although the reality of poverty and low economic status
is evident in the neighbourhood, the infrastructure of the school is sound, and
classes are neat with colourful decorations. The dedicated principal has more than
20 years’ experience in this position. The school appeared to be well managed.
Eight literacy teachers completed the questionnaire.
Theme 1: Perceptions on the principal’s knowledge of the skills to be taught in the literacy
curriculum
The findings on this theme indicate that the participants of this orderly school
perceived their principal to have a good understanding of the CAPS literacy
curriculum. According to them, this dedicated principal is well informed about the
subject content to be taught in literacy. Furthermore, she is well aware of the skills
to be taught related to reading and writing. This understanding of the literacy
curriculum is interestingly enough contributed to her experience as a language
teacher:
“Fortunately my principal was a language teacher, she therefore
understand the curriculum.” (T1)
Theme 2: Perceptions on the principal’s knowledge of literacy assessment requirements
On the question of how the participants would describe their principal’s
understanding of literacy assessment requirements, the feedback demonstrates
that the principal possesses a good understanding of the requirements. She knows
the prescribed amount of assessment tasks to be conducted and ensures their
completion according to the CAPS guidelines. According to one of the
participants, her knowledge of assessment can also be attributed to her being a
language teacher:
“She understand the assessments because she was a teacher herself.” (T3)
Theme 3: Perceptions on how the principal provides support in literacy instruction and
assessment
Good support is provided to teachers in the form of professional learning
communities and development, workshops and subject meetings. The following
excerpts are evidence of the types of support that the principal provides:
T1 and T3: “We participate in professional learning committees (PLC).”
“She also makes educators aware of opportunities of professional
development.” (T4)
“She encourages us to have subject meetings regularly, and attend
workshops.” (T3)
Participants also revealed that internal moderation processes and supervision
form part of the support strategy to improve literacy instruction and assessment.
T4 proclaimed that these processes are performed mainly by the HODs and grade

11
heads. This is confirmed by T5, who explained that the HOD conducts pre- and
post-moderation of all the work done, including assessment activities. The literacy
instructional programme is further monitored by HODs via the Integrated Quality
Management System (IQMS), class visits and the inspection of learners’
workbooks. According to one of the participants (T6), the principal follows up with
HODs and intervenes where needed.
8.2 School 2
This school is located in a low-income area with visible signs of severe poverty.
Because of this factor, the school has a quintile 2 status. The school building is
brand new, and classes are spacious and well furnished. The learning environment
in classes is bare, though, with very few classes that have evidence of print-rich
literacy environments. The principal has five years’ leadership experience. Six
questionnaires were completed at this school.
curriculum
The data on this question show that participants viewed their principal’s
knowledge of the literacy curriculum as unsatisfactory. Participants who held this
opinion criticised him because of un-involvement and lack of commitment in the
foundation phase. They regarded the attention to literacy instruction as
insufficient. Others opined that the principal is a former mathematics teacher,
which they regard as the main reason for his lack of knowledge and commitment
to provide leadership in literacy. The issue of an inadequate understanding of the
literacy curriculum because of subject experience and involvement as a teacher is
evident in this case. One of the participants (T2) asserted:
“The principal is not much involved with language as a whole, since he
was mathematics educator for 27 years, he normally says that his
understanding about language is little.”
In response to the question on the principal’s knowledge of literacy assessment
requirements, the findings display that this principal lacks a respectable
understanding. The principal’s insufficient understanding of literacy assessment
is revealed by comments such as: “he need guidelines regarding assessments
related to literacy curriculum” (T1) and “does not have knowledge of the
foundation phase” (T3). These comments by participants refer once again to the
issue of how not being a language or literacy teacher impacts principals’
knowledge in this regard. Concerning this, T4 openly stated:
“His knowledge regarding the requirements in reading and writing can be
limited because he specialise in another subject area.”
assessment
This theme elicited very little feedback from the participants. They merely
indicated “good” or “not so good” or had poor responses on the question of how
they would describe the principal’s support to teachers. Participants viewed the

12
principal as uninvolved in supporting teachers in the teaching and learning of
literacy.
8.3 School 3
This neat and well-organised school is located in the same neighbourhood as
School 2 and falls under the same quintile (2). The principal at this school has more
than 30 years of experience. Although the school building is old, it is well looked
after and the classes appear also to be conducive for literacy learning. Eleven
literacy teachers completed the questionnaires at this school.
curriculum
Most of the participants from this school felt that the principal displays adequate
knowledge of the literacy curriculum. They ascribed the principal’s knowledge to
her years of experience. Their responses to this question indicate that the principal
places much emphasis on the reading component of the literacy curriculum. T4
mentioned:
“She would come during class visits and motivates learners to engage in
reading activities. She asks them to explain with which reading activities
they are busy with.”
This principal scrutinises relevant literacy policy documents which empower her
to have an enhanced understanding of assessment requirements. It is also apparent
that the principal and the school management teams (SMTs) have sound planning
systems in place. This includes an approach where the assessment programme is
provided to learners and parents at the commencement of every school year. The
aim is to guarantee awareness of when formal assessment tasks will be conducted.
In language departmental meetings, the emphasis is on informal activities. The
good practices by the principal regarding the implementation of the literacy
assessment policy are supported by the following remark by one of the
participants:
“She makes sure activities are well coordinated, and that the school have a
Programme of Assessment as well as School assessment Plan. Formal tasks
for all grades and subjects which is shared with the parents and
guardians.” (T8)
The feedback by participants points out that the principal has a solid
understanding of the promotional requirements regarding the literacy curriculum.
Being a language teacher herself, she is attuned to a good understanding of
assessment as well. This point is reflected in the following statement:
“She has taught English, I believe that she has the knowledge regarding
everything in English.” (T7)
assessment
On the question of how the principal assists teachers in literacy teaching, findings
reveal that the principal employs various strategies for additional literacy

13
instruction opportunities. For example, T4 alluded to the fact that their principal
implements marathon classes, whereas T6 opined that the principal supports each
phase’s initiative plans. T8 and T7 said that their principal provides feedback to all
phases and offers support wherever she is able, within the IQMS setup. Support
to teachers also entails internal moderation processes by the HOD and grade
heads, who conduct pre- and post-moderation. These SMT members also conduct
moderation of assessment activities and supervise instruction on behalf of the
principal, as mentioned by T9.
8.4 School 4
This school also has a quintile 2 status. The principal is newly appointed, with only
one month’s experience in this role. The school buildings are solid, but very filthy.
The school appeared to be noisy and overcrowded. The classes are also not very
neat and, in some places, have graffiti on the walls. Ten teachers filled in the
questionnaires at this school.
curriculum
The participants from this school also opined that their principal has a solid
understanding of the skills within the literacy curriculum. This knowledge is
linked to his experience as a language teacher. This argument is reflected by the
following two participants’ responses:
“The principal is a language teacher and have a broad knowledge of
literacy.” (T2)
“Our principal was a former language teacher. He is very much aware of
the requirements because he is himself a language teacher.” (T8)
Participant replies regarding their principal’s understanding of literacy
assessment reveal that the principal lacks a respectable understanding of this
aspect. This led to the “principal provide sometimes [sometimes providing]
contradicting commands” (T4). The principal’s insufficient understanding of
assessment was further revealed by comments such as “he need guidelines
regarding assessments related to literacy curriculum” (T6).
assessment
Feedback on this question indicates that the principal, other members of the SMT,
and teachers do not attend training opportunities provided by the Department of
Education. This lack of dedication and commitment is evident in the following
comments:
“We attend training, but not all teachers were involved in the training.
Subject coordinators and HODs does [sic] not always go to trainings.”
(T10)
“Also important is the fact that principals themselves do not attend these
workshops and training, and some are not even involved in the foundation
phase: He is more involved at gr. 4-7.” (T9).

14
Quarterly subject meetings appeared to be a popular way to address literacy
challenges. “HOD’S and principals keep teachers informed about recent
developments in literacy instruction,” T8 mentioned. Interestingly enough,
though, is that participants pointed out the existence of reading, poetry, speech
and spelling competitions at their school.
9. Discussion and Analysis of the Findings Across Cases
Context
The data reveal that all participating schools are located in communities with high
poverty rates, with School 1 exposed to a lesser degree to contextual challenges
than the other three schools, due to the mixed-income factor. Research
demonstrates that providing instructional leadership in such disadvantaged
environments can be a daunting exercise. Consequently, it may be difficult to
provide rich learning opportunities to vulnerable and at-risk learners (Scott, 2017).
Despite the locations of the schools, the infrastructure and general neatness of the
schools were sound, except for School 4. This can probably be attributed to the lack
of experience and low commitment levels of the principal. Only School 3 displayed
evidence of a print-rich literacy environment, which is a sign of what Manna (2015)
regarded as vital for effectiveness for serving children with the fewest advantages
in life. Schools appeared to be in good order, except for School 4.
The findings are discussed below based on the research questions, themes
presented and in conjunction with the literature review.
Research Question 1:
Perceptions on principals’ knowledge of the skills to be taught in the literacy
curriculum
The views of the participating foundation phase teachers across the participating
schools indicate contradicting findings on this theme. Participants at Schools 1
and 3 opined that their principals have a firm grounding of literacy instruction and
the literacy curriculum. These excellent principals’ sound knowledge is attributed
to their subject-teaching experience. Both these leaders also have many years of
experience as principals. These factors enable them to provide sound direction
with respect to literacy instruction. Manna (2015) declared that excellent principals
can have a powerful impact on teachers.
The participants from Schools 2 and 4, though, felt that their principals’ knowledge
base with respect to literacy is wanting. This finding is in line with previous
research, which indicates that curriculum and instructional knowledge is lacking
amongst some South African principals (Kgatla, 2013; Taylor & Hoadley, 2018;
Plaatjies, 2019). It is also clear from the data that the principals of School 2 (a former
mathematics teacher) and School 4 (a newly appointed principal) lack commitment
and experience. It is furthermore possible that work overload, inadequate time,
contextual challenges and the new position of principalship might be
overwhelming. This finding is in line with what Mestry (2017) determined
regarding principals who experience countless problems in matching varied
organisational obligations with their curriculum headship tasks. This therefore

15
questions whether principals have the capability to take on all the responsibilities
by themselves.
The lack of sufficient curriculum and instructional knowledge amongst principals
may have enormous repercussions. It can complicate matters to provide strong
curriculum coordination and instructional support, and it hampers trust and
respect towards principals (Taylor & Hoadley, 2018). Teachers expect their leaders
to possess expertise as instructional and curriculum leaders (see Dempster et al.,
2017) and smart principals are aware of this. Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and
Wahlstroom (2004, p. 11) even went so far as to argue that “the curricular
knowledge of successful elementary principals frequently rivals the curricular
knowledge of their teachers”.
Not surprising, though, is that where principals display a lack of knowledge of the
literacy curriculum, it is ascribed to them not teaching the subject (as is the case
with School 2). This finding is consistent with what Key (cited in Pinello, 2015,
p. 46) found: “… principals with reading instruction backgrounds were found to
be more attentive to literacy instruction and also have a better overall knowledge
of literacy”. Strangely enough, this finding is partially in contrast to what is
expected from principals as instructional leaders. As Townsend et al. (2018, p. 207)
put it: “there is a need for principals to have good content knowledge about
literacy.” According to this viewpoint, it is a prerequisite for principals to have
sound knowledge, irrespective of being a subject teacher or not in literacy.
Perceptions on principals’ knowledge of literacy assessment requirements
The data demonstrate that the principals from Schools 1 and 3 are knowledgeable
regarding literacy assessment requirements. This is in line with what Lear (2017)
proposed, that principals should have a have a deep understanding of the various
components of literacy learning, including assessment-based instruction. Their
knowledge is ascribed to possessing teaching experience in literacy and languages,
whereas the lack of knowledge of the principals of Schools 2 and 4 is once again
ascribed to not having this kind of teaching experience. Very little feedback was
given on this aspect, especially by the participants of School 2. This gave the
impression of a lack of leadership and management attention by principals.
Zimmerman (2017) confirmed that many South African primary schools do not
have management and planning structures and strategies.
A pleasant finding is the emphasis that the two principals of Schools 1 and 3 put
on internal moderation processes to evaluate assessment practices. The question
remains unanswered, however, whether these promising efforts are sufficient to
meticulously adhere to the monitoring and moderation of assessment
requirements. Dole and Nelson (cited in Bean & Dagen, 2012, p. 149) stated in this
regard that “literacy leaders need to be effective leaders in assisting teachers to
monitor carefully what is taught in literacy”. The data did not conclude, though,
whether a well-coordinated internal moderation plan was present to rigorously
attend to every aspect of literacy instruction and assessment. Zimmerman (2017)
warned that in these non-privileged settings, such managerial ineffectiveness

16
could lead to a lack of coordination of teaching practices across grades and phases.
Townsend et al. (2018, p. 207) were of the view that such an approach should be
encouraged by solid evidence of learners’ abilities, so that what they need to do
subsequent is well aground. This should be supported by subject meetings
conducted at least twice per quarter.
Perceptions on how principals provide support in literacy instruction and
assessment
The data reveal that Schools 1 and 3 displayed some noteworthy practices
regarding the assistance that principals provide to teachers in literacy instruction
and assessment. The orderly environments and many actions in support of
teachers are evidence of these principals’ commitment. This finding confirms the
association between principals’ actions and dedication and improvement in
instruction and assessment. Manna (2015) raised this issue by claiming that
principals can, through their engagements, be influential multipliers of active
instruction and guidance practices in schools. Similarly, Zimmerman (2017, p. 39)
pointed out that “high performing schools serving low-income learners need a
safe, orderly and positive environment, strong leaders, excellent teachers,
competent, committed, caring, collaborative teachers with a sense of pride,
competence and purpose of the school”.
The lack of involvement by the principals of Schools 2 and 4 is also evident under
this theme. According to Hoadley (2018), a neglected aspect with respect to literacy
leadership is the attention to the management of reading activities. This may be
because of principals’ lack of subject knowledge and experience. This view is
supported by Pinello (2015), who claimed that several managers lack the essential
information and abilities to successfully upkeep literacy development. Superville
(2019) warned, however, that it might be unrealistic and unfair to expect principals
to possess deep content knowledge of all the subjects taught, including subjects
that they may not have taken when they were students. Given the lack of attention
to the issue, it is quite interesting to note that Schools 1 and 4 hold regular subject
meetings as part of a support strategy.
Participants did not elaborate in detail on what the assistance from principals
entails, giving the impression that sufficient planning and monitoring are lacking.
For Zimmerman (2017), planning and monitoring of literacy teaching and learning
are key activities which lead to high levels of accountability in the school
management structure. In almost all the responses, participants indicated only one
or another form of support, and not varied forms of support. This ranged from the
popular subject meeting to professional learning development. For example,
participants did not indicate how professional learning groups address
improvement in specific components of literacy instruction and assessment.
Neither did they provide details on how committees, workshops and training deal
with challenging aspects related to literacy instruction. These findings seem to be
consistent with Mbhalati (2017) and Bomer and Maloch’s (2019) work, in which
they claimed that professional development strategies in literacy instruction are
lacking. A possible explanation for this might be the difficulties associated to get

17
everyone involved in professional development activities, as this can be a tricky
exercise (Bomer & Maloch, 2019).
These forms of teacher supervision are supported by Bouchamma (2012, p. 3) “as
part of a committed principal’s PD [professional development]-strategy” and by
Townsend et al. (2018, p. 207), who preferred “a commitment to focused
professional conversations, or disciplined dialogue”. The participants’ vague
explanations on what professional development activities entail provide the
impression that neither the participants as teachers nor the principals really
possess an in-depth understanding of what professional development activities for
literacy entail. This finding appears to indicate a possible lack of intellectual
engagement on literacy instruction, and is confirmed by Mestry (2017), who
claimed that principals hardly offer knowledgeable direction for progress on
instructional matters.
It is interesting to note that the role of HODs as instructional leaders were
highlighted overwhelmingly, especially in Schools 1, 3 and 4. This in line with the
desired approach of shared leadership as by Guth and Pettingull (cited in Pinello,
2015). Principals cannot make the essential inroads alone toward a fruitful literacy
programme which includes supporting classroom instruction (Pinello, 2015).
HODs’ involvement as literacy leaders can be ascribed to principals’ heavy
workloads, a distributed leadership approach by principals and/or adhering to
the related policy requirements, which require involvement of the entire SMT. The
Standard for Principal-ship document, for instance, places a responsibility on
principals to “empower staff to become instructional leaders who share the
responsibility for achieving the mission, vision and goals that have been set” (DBE,
2016, p. 21). The PAM document (DBE, 2016, p. 27), on the other hand, requires
that the “Departmental Head should co-ordinate evaluation/assessment, written
assignments, etc. of all the subjects in that department”. Interestingly enough, only
participants from School 4 referred to support including specific content-related
strategies.
A rather disappointing finding in the study is that there is little evidence of
classroom visits, observation of lessons and visibility of principals. None of the
participants alluded to this aspect of instructional leadership. Hallinger (2011)
stated that this direct oversight and maintaining of instructional oversight do pay
off. Also absent from the participants’ feedback is how principals address
instructional challenges through formal and informal discussions with teachers,
classroom visits and observations, and other forms of targeted professional
development activities. Superville (2019) pointed out that a firm grounding by the
principal in the classroom environment is necessary to have educated
conversations with teachers about strengths and weaknesses. It seems that
principals possibly do not have the expertise, motivation or enough time to
perform these crucial functions. Mestry (2017) concurred that most principals
devote little periods in classrooms and even fewer time analysing syllabus delivery
with educators.

18
10. Conclusion
This paper set out to determine the perceptions of foundation phase teachers on
principals as literacy leaders in selected primary schools. Focusing only on the
components of instruction and assessment, this study extended knowledge of
principals’ leadership abilities in this regard.
The findings suggest that some principals have a sound knowledge of the literacy
curriculum. Those who lack knowledge will be unable to provide strong
instructional leadership, which can hamper teachers in developing deep, engaging
literacy lessons for foundation phase learners. On the other hand, sound
knowledge of the curriculum and instruction may ground principals to provide
educated support to teachers. This is especially vital in the challenging high-
poverty contexts. To address the deficiency on literacy curriculum knowledge
amongst principals, it is recommended that the four schools engage in a
collaborative professional development strategy.
With regard to the second research question, the findings indicate almost similar
outcomes on the competency and commitment levels of the respective principals.
The implication of this finding is that principals will struggle to provide in-depth
support to teachers in assessment practices. They should therefore undergo
training to obtain a basic understanding of the literacy assessment framework.
The data suggest that principals utilise a variety of strategies to support teachers
with instruction. However, the data also show less support with respect to
assessment. Consequently, teachers’ understanding regarding assessment may not
be up to standard. To this end, continuous professional development and training
sessions should be comprehensive in addressing the needs of teachers with regard
to support.
Any research project has its limitations and this one is no exception. With regard
to the methodology employed, a mixed methods approach may have provided
more clarity on principals’ knowledge of subject content, assessment and
instruction. The quantitative aspect of a mixed methods design might have
classified the frequency of principals’ engagement in instructional leadership
duties such as supervision and classroom observation.
11. References
Adom, D., Ankrah, A., & Yeboah, A. (2018). Constructivism philosophical paradigm:
Implication for research, teaching and learning. [online] Eajournals.org. Retrieved
from http://www.eajournals.org/ wp-content/uploads/Constructivism-
Philosophical-Paradigm-Implication-for-Research-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf
Alig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press,
and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio.
Bean, R. M., & Dagen, S.W. (2012). Best practices of literacy as leaders. Keys to school
improvement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bomer, R., & Maloch, B. (2019). Lessons for leaders on the preparation of literacy educators.
Journal of Literacy Research, 51(2), 259-264.

19
Botha, R. J. (2013). The effective management of the school: Towards quality outcomes. Pretoria:
Van Schaik.
Bouchamma, Y. (2012). Leadership practices in effective schools in disadvantaged areas of
Canada. Educational Research International, 2012(2). doi:101155/2012/712149
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge; Oxon.
Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Lange, M., Dippenaar, H., & Anker, J. (2018). Shared writing as first phase in writing
instruction of Intermediate Phase Afrikaans Home Language learners. Per Linguam
34(1), 33-46. doi:10.5785/34-1-704
Dempster, N., Townsend, T., Johnson, G., Bayetto, A., Lovett, S., & Stevens, E. (2017).
Leadership and literacy: Principals, partnerships and pathways to improvement (e-book).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.10007/978-3-319-54298-0
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011). National Curriculum Statement (NCS).
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. English Home Language. Foundation
Phase Grades R-3. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2015). Policy on the South African Standard for
Principalship. Enhancing the professional image and competencies of school principals.
Retrieved from https://www.sapanational.com/files/POLICY-ON-THE-SASP--
2-.pdf
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2016). Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM).
Retrieved from https://www.naptosa.org.za/doc-manager/30-labour-
matter/archived/920-pam/file
Department of Education and Training. (2018). Literacy and numeracy strategy phase 2.
Achieving excellence and equity in literacy and numeracy. The Education State.
Retrieved from:
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/teachingresou
rces/literacynumeracy/Literacy_and_Numeracy_Strategy_Phase_2.pdf
Durga, V. S. S., & Rao, C. S. (2018). Developing students’ writing skills in English: A process
approach. Journal for Research Scholars and Professional English Language Learning,
6(2), 1-5.
Gasson, S. (2004). Rigor in Grounded Theory research: An interpretive perspective on
generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M.E. Whitman &
A.B. Woszczynski (Eds.), The handbook of information systems research (pp. 79-102).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Gunning, T. (2014). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 1-20.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
Herrera, R. (2010). Principal leadership and school effectiveness: Perspectives from principals and
teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
Michigan). Dissertations. 568. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/568

20
Hoadley, U. (2018). RESEP working paper. Leading for literacy: A Review of the research.
Stellenbosch working paper (No. WP 19/2018). Stellenbosch: University of
Stellenbosch.
Houck, B., & Novak, S. (2017). Leading the way in literacy: Classroom visits offer a
comprehensive view of teaching on learning. The Learning Professional, 38(5), 30-34.
Howie, S. J., Combrinck, C., Roux, K., Tshele, M., Mokoena, G. M., & McLeod Palane, N.
(2017). PIRLS Literacy 2016. Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2016:
South African Children’s Literacy Achievement. Pretoria: Centre for Evaluation and
Assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/164/ZP_Files/pirls-literacy-2016_grade-
4_15-dec-2017_low-quality.zp137684.pdf
International Literacy Association (ILA). (2019). Principals as literacy leaders [Literacy
leadership brief]. Newark, DE: ILA.
Kgatla, M. E. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of their instructional leadership role in the
improvement of numeracy and literacy in primary schools (Master’s dissertation).
University of Pretoria.
Klar, H. W., & Brewer, C. A. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An
examination of core leadership practices enacted in challenging contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 768-808.
Kubicek, M. R., (2015). Principals’ use of classroom walkthrough observations to improve
instruction: a grounded theory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, Nebraska). Retrieved from Lear, M.L. (2017). Principal perceptions as
literacy leaders at high-need elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Denver, Denver, Colorado). Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2244&context=etd
Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstroom, K. (2004). Review of research:
leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from
http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/20135/1/CAREI%Revie
wofResearch%2%20Leadership%20Influences.pdf
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstroom, K. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning: Final report of research findings. University of Minnesota:
Wallace Foundation.
Manna, P. (2015). Developing excellent school principals to advance teaching and learning:
Considerations for state policy. The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from
https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/Developing-Excellent-School-Principals.pdf
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). California: Sage.
Matsumara, L. C., Satoris, M., Di Prima, B., & Garnier, H. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy
coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655-693. doi:10.1177/0013161X09347341
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mbhalathi, N. B. (2017). Instructional guidance for literacy teaching in Limpopo, South Africa: A
case study of the foundation phase policy and practice (PhD thesis). University of the
Free State, Bloemfontein.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry.
Boston: Pearson.
Mestry, R. (2017). Empowering principals to lead and manage public schools effectively in
the 21st century. South African Journal of Education. 37(1), 1-11.

21
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counselling
psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology. 52(2), 250-260. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.52.2.250
Munroe, J. (2011). Principals as leaders in literacy: A strategy for literacy improvement in primary
schools. What Works. The Work Program: Core Issues 11. Retrieved from
http://www.whatworks.edu.au/upload/1348031338415_file_CoreIssues11.pdf
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2019). Reading framework for the
2019 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: National
Assessment Governing Board: US Department of Education.
Ogbonnaya, U. I., & Awuah, F.K. (2019). Quintile ranking of schools in South Africa and
learners’ achievement in probability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 18(1),
106-119.
Pinello, G. S. (2015). A regression study: Middle school literacy leadership practices in Virginia.
(Doctoral dissertation). George Washington University, Washington D.C.
Plaatjies, B. O. (2019). Investigating principal capacity in literacy instructional leadership
at selected primary schools. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(3),
136-160.
Pretorius, U. (2001). ’n Geletterdheidsgereedmakingsprogram en die implikasies daarvan vir
skoolgereedheid: ’n Sielkundig-opvoedkundige perspektief [A literacy preparation program
and its implications for school readiness: A psychological-educational perspective] (PhD
thesis). Unisa, Pretoria.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2017). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the
field (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching
and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Scott, M. R. (2017). Challenges of Instructional leadership in Manitoba First Nation Schools: An
exploration of what principals have to say (PhD thesis). University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Canada.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
doi:10.1177/0013161X11436273
Sebastian, J., Camburn, E. M., & Spillane, J.P. (2018). Portraits of principal practice: Time
allocation and school principal work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1),
47-84. doi:10.1177/0013161X17720978
Spaul, N. (2012). The inequalities that lead to pupils’ poor performance. The University of the
Free State, Bloemfontein: SA Media.
Spaul, N. (2014). Education quality in South Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa: An economic
approach (PhD thesis). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and
school organizations: How the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6),
721-747. doi:10.1080/00220272.2013.810783
Superville, D. R. (2019). How deeply principals should know content areas and how much
it matters for helping teachers in an active debate. Education Week, 39(9), 14-16.
Taylor, N., & Hoadley, U. (2018). Leadership for literacy: Exploring leadership practices in
township and rural primary schools serving poor communities in South Africa. Final
report on the case study schools. University of Stellenbosch, Department of
Economics: RESEP.
Taylor, R., & Collins, V.D. (2003). Literacy leadership for Grades 5-12. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

22
Townsend, T., Bayetto, A., Dempster, N., Johnson, G., & Stevens, E. (2018). Leadership with
a purpose: Nine case studies of schools in Tasmania and Victoria where the
principal had undertaken the Principals as Literacy Leaders (PALL) Program.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(2), 204-237. doi:10.1080/15700763.2016.1278245.
Vogel, L. R. (2018). Learning outside the classroom: How principals define and prepare to
be instructional leaders. Education Research International, Article ID 8034270, 1-14.
doi:10.1155/2018/8034270
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, L. (2017). Learning from the best: Reading literacy development practices at
a high-performing primary school. Per Linguam, 33(2), 36-50. doi:10.5785/33-2-740

23
Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 23-34, July 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.2
The Challenges Faced by Pre-Service Mathematics
Teachers during their Teaching Practice in the UAE:
Implications for Teacher Education Programs
Adeeb M. Jarrah
United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8216-8848
Abstract. Teaching practice is a fundamental component of teacher
education programs, not only because it provides student teachers with
first-hand experience, but also because it is an opportunity for them to
put into action everything they have learned about education and their
subject matter. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the
challenges that encounter pre-service mathematics teachers during their
teaching practice in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A qualitative
phenomenological approach was used. Data for this research were
collected through semi-structured interviews with fourteen participants
at the end of their teacher education program. A thematic content analysis
was performed on the content of interview transcripts to identify
common themes. The emerging themes revealed that participants had
serious concerns and they encountered various difficulties during
teaching practice. Notable findings included participants’ difficulties
transferring theoretical knowledge into practice, lack of availability of
manipulatives, challenges with student discipline and classroom
management, difficulty experimenting with innovative pedagogical
practices, and concerns regarding the structure and the timing of the
student teaching program. For student teachers to emerge at the end of
their teaching practice as qualified and confident professional teachers, it
is imperative that teacher preparation programs and school
administrators reflect on the findings of this study. The study concluded
with recommendations to direct future research.
Keywords: Teaching Challenges; Student Teacher; Classroom
Management; Student Discipline; Teacher Training
1. Introduction
The teaching of mathematics, or any subject, for that matter, is a multifaceted task.
To do this successfully, students need and deserve knowledgeable teachers, who
are willing to learn about their students as learners of mathematics, and to acquire
the skills, disposition, and instructional strategies needed to teach the subject
(Kilpatrick & Swafford, 2001). To achieve this goal, teacher training has become a

24
top priority in many countries, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where
the preparation of well-qualified teachers is one of the eight pillars of the UAE’s
educational development vision (Vision 2021, 2017). Specifically, the vision for
2021 is to ensure that all of the UAE’s private and public schools have highly
qualified teachers who are sensitive to the needs of a diverse student population,
dedicated to high-quality learning experiences for all students, and committed to
life-long professional learning and growth (Vision 2021, 2017). Thus, teacher
education programs must examine the process of preparing pre-service
mathematics teachers, including their readiness, attitudes, competency, and
teaching practice.
Teaching practice is a fundamental component of teacher education programs, not
only because it provides student teachers with first-hand experience, but also
because it is an opportunity for them to put into action everything they have
learned about education and their subject matter (Maphosa, Shumba & Shumba,
2007; Abdullah, Omar, Embong & Bakar, 2015; Trent, 2013). Teaching practice
exposes student teachers to the real world of teaching and acquaints them with
the complexity of classroom practice, thus contributing to their future orientation
towards the teaching profession (Fajardo & Miranda, 2015). However, teaching
practice is also a challenging experience (Ferrier-Kerr, 2009; Trent, 2013), and for
this reason it is important to ensure that student teachers are supported as well as
possible. Therefore, the focus of this study is to uncover the challenges faced by
pre-service mathematics teachers during their teaching practice in the UAE.
Thus, this research adds knowledge to the literature on the challenges student
teachers encounter during their teaching practice in Emirati elementary schools,
since no such study was found upon reviewing the related literature. The research
may benefit those dealing with teacher preparation programs, and may also
provide school administrators with a better understanding of student teachers’
needs during this essential phase of their teacher preparation.
2. Literature Review
A review of the literature was conducted concerning the challenges encountered
by pre-service teachers during their student teaching. It is worth noting that the
terms teaching practice, practicum, or student teaching are often used
interchangeably in the literature (Grootenboer, 2006).
2.1 Teaching practice
As is generally true, teaching practice in the United Arab Emirates University
(UAEU) context is one of the most important elements of a teacher education
program, and it is expected that a student teacher will gain valuable experience
from it. Once student teachers complete their coursework, composed of 126 credit
hours, they practice teaching in schools for one semester of 16 weeks. During this
teaching practice period, student teachers must demonstrate mastery of all
standards for beginner teachers accepted by the teacher education program in the
College of Education. Students are expected to spend a full semester of practice
teaching in an elementary school. During this time, they are expected to gather
experience of certain duties and roles as part of their induction to teaching, and it

25
is also intended that they develop and understand the knowledge and skills
required in more depth. However, little is known about what transpires during
this essential period of a UAEU student teacher’s life because of a lack of research
within the UAE context (Ibrahim, 2013).
2.2 Challenges of Pre-service Teachers
The literature reports several challenges experienced by pre-service teachers. One
of these relates to theoretical knowledge to teaching practice in real classroom
settings, and this problem has been reported as a major concern (Gan, 2013;
Peercy, 2012). For example, Gan (2013) reported that pre-service teachers voiced
difficulties about applying the theory studied in their coursework to their
classroom practice. According to Peercy (2012), pre-service teachers do not use the
theories they learn on training programs, and face difficulty bridging the gap
between theory and practice. A second issue reported in the literature by pre-
service teachers concerns the availability and use of manipulatives. Educators
believe physical objects help students enjoy learning, keep them engaged, and
narrow the gap between abstract and concrete concepts (Furner & Worrell 2017;
Cockett & Kilgour; 2015; Larbi & Mavis, 2016). As a learning resource, the use of
manipulatives encourages students to engage with learning in concrete ways.
However, in a study in the Philippines, Ulla (2016) indicated that a lack of teaching
resources prompted pre-service teachers to recycle strategies and methods. In
another study on teachers’ beliefs and teaching mathematics with manipulatives,
Golafshani (2013) recommended that schools provide teachers with resources to
increase the use of manipulatives, to provide teachers with a greater range of
teaching strategies in their classroom situations.
A third issue which has emerged in the literature as a challenge for pre-service
teachers is classroom management, since student teachers only have a theoretical
rather than practical knowledge of this area. This issue tends to be compounded
by a lack of guidance and cooperation by schools on classroom management for
pre-service teachers (Moussaid & Zerhouni, 2017). In a study conducted by Han
and Ye (2015), it was suggested that pre-service teachers encounter many
difficulties in China regarding classroom management, when teaching students
learning English for university. These very problematic experiences in the
classroom may be ascribed to the fact that the pre-service teacher’s authority is
lower than fully trained and experienced teachers (Foncha, Abongdia & Adu,
2015). Furthermore, student teachers can experience a great deal of anxiety about
managing the classroom, and this may cause serious problems with their post-
training classroom management (Foncha, Abongdia & Adu, 2015).
A fourth concern seen in the previous research relates to pedagogic challenges. In
a study by Moussaid and Zerhouni (2017), pre-service teachers encountered
various difficulties, one of which was teaching methodology. Under this umbrella,
they included lesson planning and delivery, lack of teaching experience,
managing lesson pace and transitions, contextualization and modelling, and lack
of pedagogical content knowledge. In another study, Gökçek (2018) investigated
sixty-one pre-service teachers who had enrolled in a compulsory six-hour
teaching practicum. The study concluded that the pre-service teachers faced

26
several challenges, including the use of activities, materials, methods, and
techniques, and instilling an affection for mathematics. In a study on the impact
of a school-based practicum on pre-service teachers’ affective development in
mathematics, although forty per cent of the participants had positive views of
their experience after practicum, fifty per cent were neutral Grootenboer (2006).
These studies indicate that student teachers’ general experience of pre-service
teaching could be improved.
In this regard, student teaching programs must be structured to provide trainees
with experiences that help them to develop and grow into professional teachers
(Johnson, 2015). Various researchers have described what an effective structure
for student teaching should necessitate. First, long training duration is preferred
in many different countries such as Jordan and China (Han & Ye, 2015; Hamidi,
Al-Shara, Arouri & Abu Awwad, 2014). In Jordan, this preference might be
because pre-service teachers first need to become acquainted with the school
system, and then with the teaching systems and styles (Hamidi, Al-Shara, Arouri
& Abu Awwad, 2014). In China, pre-service teachers lamented how short training
programs are insufficient, since by the time they become familiar with a school,
the program has ended (Han & Ye, 2015). In a comparative study of practicum
experiences in ten universities, Manzar-Abbas and Lu (2013) notably reported that
the duration of the practicum is short and its timing inappropriate. They therefore
recommended increasing the duration and sending student teachers into schools
much earlier.
The above summary and discussion of the literature indicate that teaching
practice is crucial for the personal and professional development and growth of
pre-service teachers (Azhar & Kayani, 2017). Therefore, the need to investigate
and improve the impact of their experience is key. The main purpose of the
present study is thus to investigate the challenges that encounter pre-service
mathematics teachers during their teaching practice in the UAE.
2.3 Research Question
The study sought to answer the following question:
What challenges do pre-service mathematics teachers encounter during their
teaching practice?
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design
The purpose was to explore the lived experiences and challenges of a group of
pre-service mathematics teachers during teaching practice. To this end, the
phenomenological approach was considered appropriate since it would allow
participants to describe their lived experiences freely, and thus provide specific
insights. The phenomenological approach would also contribute to a more
profound understanding of these challenges. According to Creswell (2013: 76),
“phenomenological study describes the common meaning for several individuals
of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon”. Phenomenological
research is typically conducted through in-depth interviews, in which

27
participants have the freedom to express their views in their own terms (Creswell,
2007). For this reason, the study used semi-structured interviews for the data
collection.
3.2 Participants
The fourteen female participants of this study were all senior students enrolled in
their final semester of the elementary education program in the College of
Education at the UAEU. The rationale for focusing on just fourteen pre-service
teachers was because they were the only available students in their final two
years. Participants were therefore chosen based on purposive sampling.
3.3 Data collection
The researcher conducted individual interviews in Arabic as participants were
native Arabic speakers, and the interview time was approximately 45–60 minutes
each. Participants were briefed about the purpose of the interviews and the nature
of the research, and given assurances about ethical considerations such as
confidentiality; they were also told that they could terminate the interview at any
time. All interviews were audio-recorded for later use, after consent forms had
been given. To protect the identities of the participants, the researcher abbreviated
each participant by the code PMT plus a number, i.e. PMT1–PMT14.
3.4 The Research Instrument
To gather detailed information about the lived experience of the participants, it
was essential to construct questions that covered different dimensions of teaching
practice, and which would provide descriptive answers. Two general questions
were developed based on a review of the relevant literature and the researcher’s
experience in teaching and learning mathematics. Thus, open-ended questions
were constructed to encourage participants to share concerns and views.
Specifically, the following two questions were used as a general outline:
- What challenges did you encounter during your teaching practice?
- What strategies did you use to overcome the challenges you encountered?
Additionally, participants’ answers were often explored further with follow-up
questions, to obtain more information, further clarification, or specific examples.
3.5 Data Analysis
Prior to analysis, the collected data were transcribed from the audio recording,
and then analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) to identify the
emergent themes (Anderson, 2007). With TCA, similar patterns and views found
in the data are gathered and put into categories, and these are then placed under
specific themes. It is worth mentioning that the researcher completed the data
analysis process independently before the same process was repeated by another
colleague to improve the quality and credibility of the findings.
4. Results
Table 1 illustrates the results for the first research question on the challenges faced
by pre-service mathematics teachers during their teaching practice. Participants’
perspectives formed five important themes.

28
Table 1. Themes & Samples of Quotations by Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers
Theme PMT Samples of Quotations by Participants
1. Relating Theory
to Practice
PMT1
PMT5
“I feel that there are a number of courses that talked
about many theories and I did not benefit from during
my student teaching.”
“I had very limited exposure to actual classrooms
during my training to relate the theories studies to the
reality of teaching.”
2. Availability of
Manipulatives
PMT3
PMT4
PMT9
“The school where I was placed to do my student
teaching did not have enough manipulatives to
demonstrate mathematical concepts to students.”
“Lack of Support in Terms of Materials and
Equipment.”
“My professor taught us how to teach mathematical
concepts with concrete objects …but what I needed was
not available.”
3. Student
Discipline and
Classroom
Management
PMT7
PMT9
PMT11
PMT13
“My students thought I was there to visit or play, not to
teach …that is why they did not listen and they were
misbehaving.”
“Students did not keep quiet and I spent a lot of time
trying to make them quiet…because of that I did not
finish my lessons.”
“It was very difficult to manage my class because my
students did not think of me as a real teacher.”
“I tried to apply what I learned from courses to manage
students...I felt I need more strategies to control them.”
4. Pedagogical
Challenges
PMT8
PMT10
PMT13
PMT14
“I felt like the students were not engaged because I was
afraid to suggest innovative teaching methods to my
cooperative teacher.”
“Students struggle with some mathematical terms
because of their lack of language.”
“I had one student with special needs…I was not sure
if I was doing the right thing dealing with him.”
“I struggled with lesson planning because we were
trained in English but we had to teach in Arabic.”
5. Student
teaching
structure
PMT8
PMT9
PMT2
“I was scared and I felt I was not part of the school at
the beginning of the experience.”
“One semester is not enough. We should be exposed to
teaching much earlier in our program.”
“I did not gain much experience regarding what
happens in staff meetings because I was excluded from
such meetings.”
Theme 1. Relating Theory to Practice
Two participants thought that several university courses they completed during
their undergraduate program were too theoretical, and failed to provide them
with the means to cope with the realities of the classroom. As one participant
stated, “I feel that there are a number of courses that talked about many theories and I did
not benefit from these during my student teaching” (PMT1). Another participant stated
that some university courses were about theory without any connection to actual

29
classroom practice. PMT5 believed that she “…had very limited exposure to actual
classrooms during training to relate the theories studies to the reality of teaching.”
Theme 2. The Availability of Manipulatives
Participants stated how they had learned that the use of manipulatives is very
effective for enhancing student understanding. However, three participants
believed that the lack of these manipulatives had hindered their performance as
mathematics teachers. PMT3 stated that, “The school where I was placed to do my
student teaching did not have enough manipulatives to demonstrate mathematical
concepts to students.” Similarly, the availability of manipulatives as a challenge was
echoed by PMT 9, who said “My professor taught us how to teach mathematical
concepts with concrete objects …but what I needed was not available.”
Theme 3. Student Discipline and Classroom Management
Student discipline and classroom management was the most frequently
mentioned challenge by participants. They highlighted their lack of management
skills and how difficult it was to teach disruptive students. Participants’
comments regarding this challenge were as follows:
“My students thought I was there to visit or play, not to teach …that is
why they did not listen and they were misbehaving.” (PMT7)
“Students did not keep quiet and I spent a lot of time trying to make them
quiet…because of that I did not finish my lessons.” (PMT9)
“It was very difficult to manage my class because my students did not
think of me as a real teacher.” (PMT11)
“I tried to apply what I had learned from courses to manage students...I
felt I need more strategies to control them.” (PMT13)
Theme 4. Pedagogical Challenges
Regarding pedagogical challenges, participants felt that they were not
comfortable suggesting or trying a different teaching methodology than the one
used by the cooperative teacher. As one participant explained, “I felt like the
students were not engaged because I was afraid to suggest innovative teaching methods to
my cooperative teacher” (PMT8). Another participant thought the students’ limited
English proficiency had negative effects on her pedagogical practices. One
participant pointed out, “Students struggle with some mathematical terms because of
their lack of language” (PMT10). Another participant lacked confidence when she
was interacting with a special needs student, and commented, “I was not sure if I
was doing the right thing dealing with him” (PMT13).
A fourth participant noted that she faced difficulty planning and delivering a
quality lesson because she was trained in a different language to the one she was
using for teaching. Participant PMT14 thus explained, “I struggled with lesson
planning because we were trained in English, but we had to teach in Arabic.”
Theme 5. Student teaching structure
The interviewed teachers reflected on the structure of how student teachers were
allowed to practice teaching, and pointed out several issues with its current

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 7 July 2020

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 7 July 2020

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 7 July 2020

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 7 July 2020 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 19 No 7 July 2020