Abstract
South Africa continues to face a persistent literacy crisis, with recent international assessments indicating that 81% of Grade 4 learners cannot read for meaning in any language (PIRLS 2021). Despite ongoing interventions, the national curriculum (CAPS) continues to promote a balanced approach to literacy instruction, which research shows to be insufficient in addressing foundational reading challenges. This article presents a conceptual literature review of reading instruction approaches while critically examining the CAPS framework in the light of international evidence. The findings suggest that the balanced approach to literacy instruction, rooted in whole-language pedagogies, is ill-suited to South Africa’s context. Instead, we argue for the adoption of a structured yet systematic approach to literacy instruction, rooted in explicit teaching and research-based approaches aligned with the science of reading. Recommendations include reforming teacher education, revising curriculum design, investing in multilingual resources, and pursuing empirical research on structured literacy in South African schools.
Literacy is the foundation of education and a cornerstone of social development. However, South Africa records some of the lowest literacy outcomes globally, with projections suggesting that only 5% of Grade 4 learners may achieve reading comprehension within the next 80 years (Spaull 2022). PIRLS (2021) confirmed this trend, ranking South Africa last among 57 countries, with 81% of Grade 4 learners failing to meet the minimum international benchmark. This literacy crisis undermines learners’ ability to transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”, a shift expected by Grade 4.
The persistence of low literacy outcomes is attributable to multiple systemic challenges, such as teacher preparation, with many teachers reporting that they are inadequately prepared in literacy pedagogy (Howie 2023). Limited resources present another challenge as the country is disabled by a lack of diverse, levelled reading texts in and for all official languages, which undermines effective curriculum implementation (Dippenaar et al. 2018). In addition, we cannot ignore the socio-economic inequalities. Poverty limits learners’ access to early literacy experiences, weakening the efficacy of meaning-based strategies.
Curriculum misalignment is another systemic challenge, as reliance (of CAPS) on contextual guesswork contradicts international evidence on effective literacy instruction. In addition, while the government has attempted various interventions, the CAPS curriculum continues to endorse a balanced approach to reading instruction despite evidence showing that this approach is not addressing the low reading levels in the country. This article critically reviews that approach, contrasts it with the structured literacy approach that is informed by the science of reading, and considers the implications for South African education.
Debates on reading instruction have long also revolved around phonics-based methods versus whole-language approaches. Proponents of phonics argue for systematic and explicit teaching of sound-letter correspondences, while whole-language advocates emphasise meaning-making as a natural process akin to speech development (Hempenstall 2006; Weaver 1998). Balanced literacy, therefore, emerged as a compromise, incorporating both elements (Riley 2020).
However, despite its widespread adoption, balanced literacy has been criticised for lacking systematic, evidence-based foundations (Blachman 2000). Research consistently demonstrates that structured, phonics-based instruction yields superior outcomes in reading development (Adams 1990; Snow, Burns and Griffin 1998).
In order to reach the goals of teaching reading in the foundation phase, the CAPS curriculum promotes daily language-rich activities such as shared, guided, and independent reading (South Africa 2011). However, its emphasis on reading strategies (predicting, cueing, use of prior knowledge) rather than foundational skills such as phonemic awareness and decoding is problematic. The curriculum relies heavily on the three-cueing system (semantic, syntactic, and visual clues), which misrepresents the processes proficient readers use (Riley 2020). Furthermore, formal phonics and spelling instruction are delayed until Grade 3, leaving learners ill-prepared for Grade 4, where independent reading comprehension is required. Thus, implementing the balanced approach to literacy instruction is especially problematic in South Africa.
We argue, therefore, for the adoption of a structured, yet systematic approach to literacy instruction, rooted in explicit teaching and research-based approaches aligned with the science of reading. Science of reading refers to an interdisciplinary body of research grounded in cognitive psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience (International Literacy Association 2018). The National Reading Panel (2000) identified five critical components of effective instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Evidence underscores the importance of early, systematic, and explicit phonics instruction for developing reading fluency and comprehension (Moats 2020; Petscher et al. 2020). Structured literacy embodies these principles and emphasises instruction that is science-based, drawing on empirical evidence rather than ideology. It also proposes an approach where teachers model and scaffold new skills while systematically teaching literacy skills cumulatively from simple to complex. This is because instruction that is carefully scaffolded (Archer and Hughes 2011) enables learners to progress from guided practice to independent mastery.
In summary, this conceptual review highlights critical shortcomings of balanced literacy in South Africa. We argue that learning to read is not a natural process but a learned skill that requires an approach that scaffolds instruction. The overemphasis CAPS places on contextual cues and delayed phonics instruction directly contributes to learners’ inability to achieve functional literacy, as evidenced by PIRLS outcomes.
South Africa’s literacy crisis cannot be resolved through balanced literacy, which has proven ineffective in both international and local contexts. Instead, structured literacy, grounded in the science of reading, presents a robust, research-based approach capable of addressing foundational learning deficits. However, the successful implementation of structured literacy will depend on systemic reforms in teacher education, curriculum design, and resource provision. While this study is conceptual and thus limited in empirical scope, it underscores the urgent need for future research that tests structured literacy interventions in South African classrooms. Transforming literacy outcomes is possible, but only through an unequivocal commitment to scientific, systematic, and explicit reading instruction.
Keywords: approaches to teaching reading; CAPS curriculum; explicit instruction; reading and literacy instruction; reading instruction
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
Die beperkings van ’n gebalanseerde benadering tot geletterdheid – ’n normatiewe perspektief
Kommentaar
Dit herinner my aan 1975-6. Ons het op die platteland grootgeword, maar met boeke. In 1975 (ek was in Gr 1), het my ouers vir ons ‘n krytbord gekoop. Teen die tyd dat my kleinsus in 1977 skool toe is, het ek haar geleer wat ek in die skool geleer het (met geen idee van enige formele leesbenadering nie) en sy kon lees. Ek het wonderlike onderwyseresse gehad.