Instructional Leadership in Literacy in the Foundation Phase of Primary Schools During COVID-19 Pandemic,Capricorn District,South Africa

Abstract

The study focused on the needs of principals as instructional leaders in the foundation phase in South Africa. This was done because unless instructional leaders are appropriately empowered by addressing their needs, they may not be able to play their role as agents that are a fulcrum to educational reforms especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The qualitative research approach was used. Methods used are interviews and field notes. The findings revealed that there is a need to include clarification of instructional leadership roles, mobile digital technological resources, adequate support from the Department of Basic Education, and parental involvement in education.

Keywords

instructional leadership foundation phase literacy primary schools education reform

Introduction

The role of instructional leadership in education reforms has been well documented (Brolund, 2016; Hotmire, 2018; Jita, 2010; Kruger, 2003; Munna, 2022; Naidoo, 2021). This happens at a time where principals as instructional leaders are expected to do more in schools than just to manage the day-to-day running of schools. Their roles as instructional leaders include supplying teachers with resources (Akinyi & Onyango, 2014); involvement in teacher professional development (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000); working closely with teachers (Brolund, 2016); actively promoting effective teaching and learning processing than serving as school managers (Geleta, 2015); motivating teachers to implement educational reforms (Hompashe, 2018); enhancing learner achievement (Mestry, 2017); and collaborate with school leaders (Sharif et al., 2020).

In the South African context, the expectations of principals as instructional leaders in educational reforms have gained momentum. This is due to the educational reform that was necessitated by the need to change from the education system based on apartheid ideology and ethos to the system that is aligned with the democratic ethos. In line with the agenda of educational reform, in 1996, after the new government came to power in 1994, the South African Schools Act was introduced. As Kruger (2003) indicates, that led to the decentralization of decision-making to school management teams and school governing bodies. Consequently, the roles of school principals had to change and align them with the new democratic arrangements. They were expected to play their role as instructional leaders.

It is also important to note that several studies have been conducted on instructional leadership in South Africa and other countries in the world. Their typology can be presented as studies that focused on the role of principals as instructional leaders in general (Gowpall, 2015; Mohale, 2014; Naidoo, 2021), those that focused on contributions to effective teaching and learning (Akinyi & Onyango, 2014; Buthelezi, 2021; Hompashe, 2018; Kruger, 2003; Maponya, 2015; Mestry, 2017; Moonsammy-Koopasammy, 2012), those that focused on their contributions to teacher professional development (Bredeson & Johansson, 2000; Sharif et al., 2020), and those that focused on their role in educational reforms (Fullan, 2000; Hotmire, 2018; Lingam et al., 2021). To our knowledge, there is no study that was done focusing on the role of Instructional leadership in literacy in the foundation phase of primary schools during COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, this study was done focusing on the needs of principals as instructional leaders in supporting teachers with regard to reading and writing in primary schools in South Africa within the educational reform frame work.

The focus on reading and writing was prompted by the fact that the problem is so severe to the extent that there is now a call for intervention strategies. The problem manifests itself in different ways one of which is when South African learners are compared with their counterparts in Africa and other countries in the world. They usually perform poorly, despite efforts that are being made to invest more in education (Taylor et al., 2013). Dysfunctional instructional leadership in numerous schools may be the reason for this poor performance (Merga et al., 2020). However, the importance of developing well-equipped and responsive instructional leadership seems to have been ignored (Meija, 2016). This is despite the fact that leadership is a critical factor in organizational effectiveness and key to success and improvement (Bush, 2016). Responsive instructional leadership is gradually acknowledged as an important component of successful schooling. Consequently, scholars such as Mestry (2017) give an advice that emerging economies and developing countries should make substantial investments in educational reform in general and the training of leadership in particular. This will help to develop leadership that is knowledgeable and skilled, thus contributing to the economic development of the country. Good leadership has been found to be indispensable in achieving efficiency in some organizations (Bush & Glover, 2014). It can be a powerful driver of improved organizational outcomes. As Mestry (2017) indicates, there is a need for schools to have instructional leadership that is well empowered to be able to create the best possible environment that is conducive for teaching and learning. Consequently, this study sought to focus on the needs of instructional leaders.

Statement of the Problem

In the context of educational reform in South Africa, various intervention programs on instructional leadership have been implemented. Programs implemented include Advanced Certificate in Education on leadership, Performance Solutions Africa—a KZN Initiative, Districts Development Programme, and Wits University Leadership Programme (Christie et al., 2011) to name a few. However, despite the intervention programs, the problem of dysfunctional instructional leadership persists (Rahman et al., 2020; Wieczorek & Manard, 2018). This affects different subjects in schools. For the purpose of this study, we focused on reading and writing due to increasing concerns about learners’ writing and reading ability in the Foundation Phase of South African schools. The evidence presented by researchers such as Msila (2014), Sibanda (2017), and Spaull (2013) support the fact that there is a need for a study of this nature. It is against this background that this study was done to explore the needs of principals as instructional leaders in three selected primary schools. This was done by raising questions as follows:

The main question of the study: What are the needs of principals as instructional leaders in reading and writing in the foundation phase?

Sub-questions:

What kind of needs do principals have in creating conducive environment for teaching reading and writing?

What kind of support do principals get in creating conducive environment for teaching reading and writing?

How do parents get involved in assisting principals as instructional leaders to create a conducive environment for teaching reading and writing?

Literature Review

Literature on instructional leadership covers different aspects. Consequently, the outline of literature in this section was done by using themes. Themes that emerged include roles of instructional leaders, instructional leaders’ literacy knowledge and skills, needs of instructional leaders, importance of instructional leadership, and the relationship between instructional leadership and school instructional leadership.

Roles of Instructional Leaders

Several studies have been conducted on instructional leaders’ impact on learners’ performance in schools, however, very few empirical studies explored the impact of instructional leaders on reading and writing, particularly in the foundation phase. Horner (2016) asserts that instructional leaders indirectly affect learners’ reading achievement through decisions they take to support reading. It is believed that the issue of leading reading and writing in classrooms rests on teachers, while in essence reading and writing could only be effective in classrooms if instructional leaders lead the process.

Several roles of instructional leaders have been proposed. Roles proposed are as follows: participating in sustained professional development in literacy along with staff, using standardized assessment in reading and writing to monitor achievement and identify specific needs, and working collaboratively alongside teachers and literacy specialists to cite a few.

According to Mestry (2017), most instructional leaders leading in schools lack a comprehensive understanding of their instructional leadership role. This is an issue that Mbhalati (2017) also raised by indicating that instructional leaders’ practices in primary schools to promote literacy instruction are a serious issue that needs attention. The concern shows that reading and writing are not adequately enhanced because instructional leaders fail to execute their roles effectively. The establishment of literacy programs was seen as the most instructional leaders’ role (Simmons, 2019). This was also confirmed by the study conducted by Fetters and Cheeks (2016). These authors found that highly literacy programs developed by instructional leaders enhanced learners’ literary skills in the foundation phase. Contrary to what has been discussed, the latest study conducted by Naidoo (2019) found that instructional leaders regard their roles as purely managerial with a strong emphasis on administration. Authors such as Mestry (2017) maintain that instructional leaders focused more on managing schools and often neglected curriculum management because they are not trained to become instructional leaders.

Instructional Leaders’ Literacy Knowledge and Skills

Department of Basic Education (2016) stresses the importance of learners’ ability to read and write. As such, it is imperative that instructional leaders develop strong literacy skills in order to exercise their instructional literacy appropriately in the foundation phase. This section of literature seeks to explore what the instructional leaders need to know and understand about literacy in schools. Jay (2015) mentions several indicators that instructional leaders need to display if they are to enhance literacy skills in their schools. Firstly, they need to be well versed with what literacy instructional practices work for learners, inclusive of struggling and gifted learners. Secondly, instructional leaders need to be familiar with theory and research that explains the complexities of literacy language. Furthermore, Jay (2015) maintains that they need to be able to translate their knowledge into instructional applications and are willing to share their expertise so that teachers can benefit. It is important that instructional leaders walk the talk by modeling the reading and writing processes in schools (International Literacy Association, 2019). This entails that for literacy programs to be effective in schools, principals need to lead the whole process of literacy. It is also imperative for instructional leaders to own literacy enhancement programs in their schools. Consequently, this study argues that instructional leaders could only do that if they have adequate knowledge and skills to enable them to lead the literacy programs. Thompson (2021) describes instructional leaders as the ones possessing knowledge of literacy curriculum, assessment and instruction.

Needs of Instructional Leaders

Needs analysis is a formal systematic process of identifying and evaluating training that should be done or specific needs of an individual or group of employees. Needs are often referred to as “gaps” or the difference between what is currently done and what should be performed (Koskei et al., 2020). This study provides an analysis of the current status of affairs on instructional leaders’ competencies in school. Corbett and Redding (2017) describe needs analysis as a systematic process that is used to determine strengths and weaknesses of a school. The main aim of needs analysis according to Corbett and Redding (2017) is to develop an improvement plan outlining changes considered most likely to reinforce or built on strength to remediate weaknesses. The South African Schools Act No. 84 (1996) calls for increased demands on instructional leaders to lead instructional improvement in schools. Therefore, these leaders require assistance in the arena of instructional practices and leadership. Garira (2017) identified three critical areas that required educational interventions in schools. These areas are leadership and administration, teaching and learning, and resources and infrastructure. All these areas are regarded as most important areas of schools’ functionality. Although this study focused on leadership, some of the crucial areas such as administration and resources were also assessed.

Looking at the training and support, instructional leaders need support in order to meet the challenges of their positions with ease (Meija, 2016). An abundance of literature suggests that support in a form of professional development and retraining of school leadership emphasize the need in order to ensure longevity in the position (Mbhalati, 2017; Meija, 2016; Mestry, 2017; Naidoo, 2019). Therefore, researchers are of the view that it is imperative for the district to provide the necessary support to instructional leaders, with specific focus on how they could carry out their leadership responsibilities in schools. Instructional leaders cannot work in isolation; they also need the team in place to support and create conditions needed to match strengths with needs, open-communication channels and align. Hence, having the right information about the principals' needs may create the conditions needed for continuous growth and improvement

Importance of Instructional Leadership

This section of the literature reviews the importance of instructional leadership with specific focus to literacy instructions in primary schools. The word instructional leadership in this context refers to teaching leadership. Plaatjies (2019) defines it as the knowledge of the literacy curriculum, supervision of the literacy instruction program, empowering of literacy teachers, the promotion of print-rich literacy classrooms, and the importance of instructional leaders having a vision and mission for literacy instruction. Based on this definition, the importance of instructional leadership is generated which among others, include the monitoring and supervision of literacy programs, empower teachers in a form of professional development and the creation of a sound vision and mission (Hallinger, 2018). Hallinger (2011) model of instructional leadership identifies three general importance of instructional leadership which are defining school goal, managing instructional program, and promoting school climate. In the context of this study, researchers focused on importance of instructional leadership with specific focus on the second importance, managing the instructional program. The emphasis of this dimension is on the supervision, coordination, monitoring of instruction, curriculum, and learner outcomes (Hallinger, 2011). The primary focus of instructional leadership according to Mora-Ruano et al. (2021) is the improvement of teaching and learning. The discussion above confirms the primary importance of instructional leadership which is the promotion of quality teaching and learning. This was also viewed by Day et al. (2016) who stress the primary functions of instructional leadership which are to enable clear educational goals, planning the curriculum, and evaluating teaching and learning.

The Difference Between Instructional Leadership and School Leadership

Boyce and Bowers (2018) describe instructional leadership as an educational leadership model in which school leaders are regularly and actively involved in a wide range of activities aiming to improve teaching and learning. While on the other hand, school leadership is described as the process of enlisting and guiding the talents and energies of teachers, learners, and parents towards achieving common educational aims (OECD, 2016). These definitions provide clarity on how these leaderships function. According to Boyce and Bowers (2018), instructional leaders put more emphasis on curriculum issues rather than managing a school as a whole.

Theoretical Framework

Kaufman (1994)'s Needs Assessment Audit Model was used as a lens for the study. The model was created to identifying needs that happen because of discrepancies in outcomes. According to Kaufman (1994), needs assessment identifies the disparities between present outcomes and intended outcomes and gives the basis for deciding which strategies to use to narrow those shortcomings. A needs assessment gives the fundamental information to ensure that we choose solutions that will produce outcomes. Poor literacy development in the foundation phase of primary schools in the Capricorn district is what prompted this study. Consistent with the assertions of Kaufman, instructional leaders in the foundation phase are entrusted with the role of leading teaching and learning mandate with outcomes to achieve. They seek to accomplish the intended outcomes as set by various stakeholders. For example, Goal 1 of the Department of Basic Education's Action Plan (2016) seeks to “increase the number of learners in Grade 3 who, by the end of the year, have mastered the minimum Language and numeracy competencies for Grade 3.” This envisaged result will be attained with the help of instructional leaders in the foundation phase. However, despite an outcome such as this, learners continue to perform poorly in literacy in the Capricorn district of the Limpopo Province in South Africa.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to explore the needs that instructional leaders in the foundation phase have within the education reform agenda and develop an intervention that would probably mitigate the needs using Kaufman (1994)'s model. This study employed a qualitative research approach. This methodology allowed researchers in building a robust understanding of the topic, thereby unpacking the meanings instructional leaders ascribe to their needs in the selected four schools. It is also important to note that there are different kinds of qualitative approaches. Creswell (2009) outlines them as ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, content analysis, and case study design. In line with the purpose of the study, the case study design was adopted for use. Stake (1995) outlines different kinds of case studies which include, instrumental case study, intrinsic case study, single case study, and multiple case study. For this study, we used an exploratory instrumental case study design which helped us to scrutinize the needs of foundation phase instructional leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic (Leavy, 2017) with the intention to develop an intervention.

The two methods of data generation used are interviews and field notes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three instructional leaders, one from each school. They helped to generate data on personal experiences, attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about the issue of interest (DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019). The study was done from March 2022 to August 2022.

Population and Sampling

The target population of this study was instructional leaders (principals and teachers) from urban, peri-urban, and rural schools. The study purposively sampled three instructional leaders in the foundation phase of each of the three public primary schools (one from urban, one from peri-urban, and one from rural) of the Capricorn District, Limpopo Province. The participants were coded as P1, P2, and P3. As Patton (2015) indicates, qualitative researchers typically rely on purposive sampling to select the participants. In this study, it assisted with the identification and selection of individuals that are proficient and well-informed about instructional leadership matters in schools (Creswell, 2014). Schools were chosen based on their locations and classifications as quintiles, a ranking aligned with a poverty index, indicating a poor or impoverished school according to the National and Standard for School Funding (Education Labour Relations Council, 2003).

Data Analysis

Thematic analysis approach was used to analyze the data. As Maguire and Delahunt (2017) indicate, the approach involves the iterative process in using steps that include familiarity with the data, using preliminary codes, searching for patterns and themes in the codes, the review of themes, and defining and naming themes which leads to the writing of the report. It is flexible and as Braun and Clarke (2014) indicate, the approach also helped us to describe issues in detail and ultimately developed themes. In this study, we started by transcribing the data that were generated through interviews. This was done by listening to the tape recordings and transcribing the recordings into texts by writing the conversations. As Coates et al. (2021) indicate, we developed codes which helped us to capture the salient features of the main thoughts expressed by the participants. This was done by identifying noteworthy statements and outlining the implications thereof. The process was captured by using codes. The formulated implications were arranged into categories and themes. This was followed by searching for patterns and themes where some of the themes were reviewed. Thereafter, we had to name the themes as reflected in these articles. Since our interviews took 30 minutes on average, the text produced for each recording was around seven to eight pages per interview session.

Quality Criteria

Guba (1981) recommends that qualitative researchers should pursue trustworthiness of the study. In this study, trustworthiness was enhanced by using quality criteria that are appropriate for a study that uses the qualitative approach. We therefore used quality criteria that include dependability (Stalh & King, 2020), credibility (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004), transferability (Yin, 2009), dependability (Polit et al., 2006), and confirmability (Gasson, 2004). Dependability was enhanced by giving contextual information of the settings, geographic location and the explanation of the methods used to generate the data. Credibility was enhanced by observing ethical issues, and the use of more than one method to generate the data. Transferability is usually a challenge in qualitative research (Stalh & King, 2020). In mitigating the challenge, we had to provide the thick description of the settings, the schools geographic locations and their classifications as quintiles, a ranking aligned with a poverty index, indicating a poor or impoverished school as reflected under sampling. Confirmability was done by avoiding bias so that the interpretation of data be based on the data and portray the participants’ responses as accurately as they responded to the interview questions.

Ethical Issues

In conducting qualitative research, it is vital that the researcher respects the rights, needs, values, and desires of the participants (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 1998). In this study, ethical issues were observed by getting a permission from the Limpopo Department of Education and the University of Limpopo's ethics committee granted the ethical clearance letters. The project number is TREC/51/2021. The participants had the right to withdraw from the study any time that they wished to do so, and confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed.

Findings

In this section, we present our findings concerning the needs of instructional leaders in each of the three schools using Kaufman (1994)'s model, in line with research ethics, the principles of confidentiality and anonymity were applied. The three participants were coded as P1, P2, and P3. In the data analysis phase from interviews and field notes, two main themes emerged. One of the two themes has three sub-themes. These themes are limited knowledge in the promotion of literacy development and the needs of instructional leaders with three sub-themes, namely as follows: mobile digital technological resources, inadequate support from the department of basic education, and parental involvement.

Theme 1: Limited Knowledge in Literacy Development

When analyzing the transcripts of instructional leaders, different views emerged from the participants on their role in literacy development in the foundation phase of their schools. P1 indicated that his role in the promotion of literacy development is to supply resources and encourage reading. On the other hand, P3 reported that the role as “call the meeting for the phase and guide each other on how to go around with reading and teaching, but you find that the work is too much on me because I am also having a class to teach.” P2 stated that the role is “to check whether educators are doing their work properly.” When a follow-up was made for P2 to explain in detail, the response laughingly was:

I do not think am well prepared to deal with literacy development because I am not trained to assist grade R learners. I cannot even identify learners who have difficulties because we do not do psychological assessments. We are not even familiar with teaching reading and writing in the foundation phase. Consequently, we are still doing typical things like picture reading and sounds not words, yes, not words.

The differences in terms of their understanding of their role might be reflective of the fact that there is a need for them to be trained. This is in line with the finding by Mestry (2017), who noted that principals’ lack of understanding of their role as instructional leaders is because of lack of training. There is therefore a need that they be trained through professional development programs and provide necessary support for them (Garira, 2017; Mbhalati, 2017; Meija, 2016).

Theme 2: The Needs of Instructional Leaders

Failure to articulate their role in literacy development in schools supported the necessity to find out what the needs of instructional leaders are. Instructional leaders in this study reported a variety of needs required in aiding literacy development in the foundation phase during the COVID-19 pandemic. These needs are divided into three sub-themes presented below as follows:

(1) Mobile digital technological resources

The need for mobile digital technological resources was seen as core for the functioning of instructional leaders during COVID-19 pandemic for literacy development. This need was emphasized by instructional leaders P1 and P2. P1 was more specific by succinctly stating that “there is a necessity for resources such as televisions at our schools. We need them so that we learn from other colleagues in the country and countries outside South Africa.” P2 was more concerned about the needs of parents than their needs as principals in playing their roles as instructional leaders. This emerged when P2 emphatically stated that “it was vital for parents to have internet-enabled gadgets such as phones and tablets. This will help us to be able to communicate with them on issues that affect learners.”

P3 was more emphatic on the technological needs that they have. With an agitated voice, it was succinctly expressed that:

We need a quite a number of things of course, we need resources, resourceful classrooms, we need secured classrooms so that we can put more resources in our classrooms like television sets like technological resources in our classrooms so that learners can view and hear some of the things that they are being taught. So, our problem is security all those things would be available only if our classrooms well secured so that, those are the extra resources that will need so that our learners would be able to read and write using the technological resources but otherwise the basics things are there.

The comment by P3 reveals the intention to create a conducive classroom environment that is necessary to enhance teaching reading and writing as an instructional leader. This is in line with the findings by Hallinger (2011) who indicates that instructional leadership should be able to promote a conducive classroom and school climate.

(2) Adequate support from the Department of Basic Education (DBE)

All instructional leaders highlighted that for literacy to be developed in their schools, the DBE should support them in various ways. This was expressed by P3 who angrily stated that:

We need support from the Depart of Basic Education. They do not support us but expect us to perform our role as instructional leaders. We need support which can be in the form of in-service training, provisioning of Learner Teacher Support Materials (LTSMs) and human resources (manageable classes).

However, contrary to what P3 said, P2 indicated that they do get support from the DBE even though it is not enough. P2 excitedly expressed it by stating that:

The programmes that I have mentioned earlier on, Egra, Dar, those programmes are from the department of education and in collaboration with the private sector like Molteno. All those programmes are from the department of education and they have trained our educators to implement in the foundation phase so that, they can teach learners how to read and write. Like Foundation for learning campaign is still there and we are encouraging teachers that, they must implement these programmes, it must not be an event but it be a continuous strategy because its working for us and it's not only happening in the foundation phase, itis happening in all phases so that it's like teaching a language across the curriculum. However, this is not enough.

The differences in their responses might be due to the fact that some schools do get support even though it might be to the level of their expectation. The lack of support of in some schools by the Department of Basic Education is in line with the findings by Mestry (2017) who noted that principals in some instance are unable to do their work because of lack of support from the Department.

(3) Parental involvement

Participants indicated the need for the involvement of parents in literacy development in schools. All participants demonstrated the need and desire to see parents more involved in the reading and writing of their learners. This was succinctly expressed by P2 stating:

Our parents are not involved. Even if we give learners homework, they don’t return with the homework. I have one learner in my class. She is repeating grade 3. She cannot even write her name and her parents are inaccessible. I can’t communicate with them. So, it's a challenge. How am I going to help these learners without their parents being involved? This assertion on lack of involvement is related to what P1 reported. P1 remarked that The problem that I am facing is that my learners are not all reading. I tried to group them according to their abilities. There are learners that are, even now in the fourth term can’t copy from the chalkboard, and then I have learners that are very fast. It is a mixed class. Then I used to call their parents and give them extra work. The problem is they just come with the work not done.

Complaints of poor parental involvement were also reported by P3 by stating that:

Other barriers are beyond our control where we need parents to help us but we can't find them. We tried to do parents consultations quarterly, only a few parents are coming and then when you ask they are just around. They are not working, they are just around. Then when you call them individually, they are not coming. We tried to send a message to the village chief and clinic, stating that on this day parents are wanted at school. However, only a few parents are coming and they are parents of learners who can cope. Those parents that we need are not coming.

However, P1 indicated that it is not all parents that are not involved. Some do get involved and cooperate with the school. This was aptly expressed by stating that:

Yes, the parents we do not have problems with the parents is just that other parents are not supporting their learners in terms of helping them with school work but I cannot blame them because most of them, some of them are illiterate and some are drop out the parent themselves so but the general support is there. When we call them to the meeting they come and then when we say do this and this some will do some will not do, some will help their learners, some will not help their learners but general we don’t have a problem with the community we can’t say the community is not supportive, the community is supporting us and maybe from us the school governance and management that we must look at some other strategies that will make the parent be actively involved bot otherwise we call them they come, and in our last meeting with the SGB we were planning to, because of this COVID-19 we are planning to call them in grades. Per grade, yes. They must come, we call grade 1 parents just to come and talk to them about the performance of their learners and all other things, resources that the learners do need like pencils. The department is supplying few pencils, so the parents must supplement.

This finding is in line with the observation by Munje and Mncube (2018) who found that some of the parents are not involved in the education of their children. This serves as a hindrance to the progress of schools.

Discussion

This study was meant to answer the question on the needs that principals as instructional have in creating a conducive environment in the teaching of reading and writing in the foundation phase especially during COVID-19 pandemic. This was done by using Kaufman (1994)'s Needs Assessment Audit Model that was used as a lens for the study. It helped us to identifying needs because of discrepancies in outcomes.

Findings emanating from the study revealed the extent to which instructional leaders are knowledgeable about their role in the promotion of reading in schools. In view of that, their knowledge appears to be limited. All instructional leaders in this study struggled to precisely, and convincingly, state their main roles in promoting literacy in the foundation phases in their schools. Of the roles mentioned by the participants, all were generic forms of teacher support and none of them mentioned practical examples of what they do to promote literacy. Worryingly, inadequate knowledge on the role of instructional leaders in curriculum matters such as literacy is undesirable as it may affect learning negatively.

One of participants understood the role as to make sure that reading material is available in each and every grade and that they have a budget for material. The participant saw the role as that of being a supplier of reading resources. Though the availability of resources is important for any literacy program to run successfully, the expertise of principals as instructional leaders in guiding teachers on how such resources should be used is inevitable. As such, principals should be at the forefront in making sure that the supplied resources are not just dumped to teachers, but are put to good use to develop literacy in schools. Furthermore, the study reveals that principals as instructional leaders have not been trained to assist in creating the environment that is conducive for teaching reading and writing. The lack of training makes principals unable to assist in the creation of conducive environment which leads to schools becoming dysfunctional which affects the leaners reading and writing abilities. This confirms the observation by Merga, Roni and Malpique (2021) who found that dysfunctional instructional leadership in schools may be the reason for learners performing poorly in schools, including reading and writing. Furthermore, the participants struggled to explain their roles as instructional leaders regarding reading and writing. In line with Naidoo (2019)'s findings, instructional leaders regard their roles as more managerial with more focus on administration than the creation of conducive environment for teaching and learning. The lack of training is a major concern because as Jay (2015) indicates, instructional leaders who are not well trained may not assist learners to gain skills in reading and writing because they need to lead the whole process. Other needs include TVs and internet-enabled gadgets such as phones and tablets. The need for the internet was put high on the agenda. This is because many schools around the globe had to switch to online teaching and learning (König et al., 2020).

Instructional leaders perceived mobile digital technological resources as key in making online teaching and learning work since learners and teachers were expected to work from home. Virtual working practices for instructional leaders and teachers include tasks like having to fill out booklets or worksheets, giving homework, generating lessons video clips, posting slides on websites, and offering live classes digitally (ECLAC-UNESCO, 2020). Instructional leaders had to address COVID-19 challenges and adopt fresh teaching and learning ways using a variety of mobile digital technological tools (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2020). Unfortunately, the sampled schools were not ready for online teaching and learning because of the lack of laptops, tablets, smartphones, and the internet. In order for literacy to be developed effectively in schools, instructional leaders should be supplied with digital technological tools such as laptops, the internet, and software programs to support teachers who in turn support learners.

It should also be noted that instructional leaders in this study indicated that they were not adequately supported by the DBE to champion literacy in their schools. There appeared to be a dearth of literacy-focused in-service training or professional development by DBE directly to instructional leaders. If literacy is to be developed in schools, the first support should go to the instructional leadership of the school. It is advisable that instructional leaders be exposed to both formal and informal literacy in-service training opportunities in order to effectively support their teachers. The lack of development of instructional leaders may be detrimental to the teaching and learning of literacy in schools. Instructional leaders should be trained because they serve as intermediaries of the literacy curriculum and its teachers.

Instructional leaders are expected to support teachers in their efforts to enhance their teaching methods, resulting in higher learning results. Teachers in their schools receive coaching and mentorship from instructional leaders. Instructionally coached teachers are more likely to practice new skills and put them into practice in their classrooms (Carraway & Young, 2014).

Instructional leaders in this study reported the need for parents to be involved in helping to develop the literacy levels of learners, especially since learners were learning remotely. It appeared that parents were not active in their children's learning of literacy. Research indicates that parents who involve themselves in their children's learning help such children to achieve (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). According to Bradley and Corwyn (2002), learners’ participation in academic activities, the quality of parent-child relationships, and the accessibility of educational tools are three major factors of the home learning environment that serve to promote a child's academic growth. Foundation phase learners may find it difficult to learn independently.

Conclusion and Implications

Instructional leaders are vital because they should set the stage for teaching and learning. They are in charge of ensuring that the school's curricular programs are implemented successfully. In many methods, an instructional leader should promote and support a culture of teaching and learning in the classroom. Traditionally, principals, deputy principals, and Heads of Departments (HoDs) are instructional leaders in schools. Despite these positions viewed as managerial, instructional leaders are teachers’ coaches mainly responsible for providing support and advisory services to teachers in curricular fields such as literacy, numeracy, and life skills in the foundation phases of schools.

This study has revealed that despite positions of instructional leaders being relevant and important, some principals are not fully aware of what their exact role is in literacy development in the foundation phase. The role of instructional leaders should be to support and guide teachers on-site in instruction areas such as literacy and create conducive environment for teaching and learning. In order to execute this role with success, instructional leaders should be resourced in various ways. This study found out that instructional leaders need mobile digital resources to support teaching and learning.

Based on the findings of this study, it is important that the knowledge of the roles of instructional leaders in literacy development be strengthened. Instructional leaders should also be supported as they are expected to support teachers and learners. There is a need to supply them with technological resources. Proper training on the implementation of various literacy development programs should be prioritized. Parents should participate in developing the reading and writing skills of their children. In instances where parents are illiterate, they should illicit the services of other community members and also communicate with teachers in schools. As such, learners should be encouraged to read at home by their parents, especially during pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that unless the needs of instructional leaders are appropriately identified and addressed, it will remain a challenge to empower them to play a significant role in educational reforms especially during pandemics such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Limitations

It should be noted that even though the study reflect on the detailed analysis of the needs of principals as instructional leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are some limitations. One of the limitations is that the study focused on principals only. It would have been ideal to hear the voices of teachers and learners as well. Furthermore, the study was done in South Africa, consequently, contextual factors and nuances might have affected the results of the study.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Layane Thomas Mabasa

Author Biographies

Dr ML Mahlatji is a head of department at one of the primary schools in Limpopo Province of South Africa. Her research interest includes school management and school leadership.

Mr MW Seshoka is a lecturer in one of the universities in Limpopo Province of South Africa. His research interest includes curriculum support, professional development, and assessment.

Prof. LT Mabasa is a professor at the University of Limpopo in South Africa. His research interests include research methodology, school safety, school governance, program evaluation, and articulation in higher education.

References

Akinyi

O. J.

Onyango

J. M.

(2014). Role of principals’ instructional leadership style in facilitating learning materials and co-ordination of personnel on students’ performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 3(3), 51–55.

Boyce

Bowers

A. J.

(2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064

Bradley

R. H.

Corwyn

R. F.

(2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233

Braun

Clarke

(2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1), 26152. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.26152

Bredeson

P. V.

Johansson

(2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(2), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580000200114

Brolund

(2016). Student success through instructional leadership. Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 8(2), 42–45.

Bush

(2016). School leadership and management in England: The paradox of simultaneous centralisation and decentralisation. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 1(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2016.1.1

Bush

Glover

(2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Buthelezi

S. R.

(2021). The role of principals in supporting effective teaching and learning in the uMkhanyakude Education District [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. University of KwaZulu-Natal.

10.

Carraway

J. H.

Young

(2014). Implementation of a districtwide policy to improve principals’ instructional leadership: Principals’ sensemaking of the skillfull observational and coaching laboratory. Educational Policy, 29(1), 230–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814564216

11.

Christie

Sullivan

Duku

Gallie

(2011). Researching the need: School leadership and quality of education in South Africa (Report prepared for bridge, South Africa and Ark), United Kingdom.

12.

Coates

W. C.

Jordan

Clarke

S. O.

(2021). A practical guide for conducting qualitative research in medical education: Part 2—coding and thematic analysis. AEM education and Training, 5(4), e10645. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10645

13.

Corbett

Redding

(2017). Using needs assessments for school and district improvement: A tactical guide. Council of Chief State School Officers.

14.

Creswell

(2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

17.

Day

Sammons

(2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leadership use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863

18.

DeJonckheere

Vaughn

L. M.

(2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: A balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057

19.

Department of Basic Education. (2016). Revised five-year strategic plan 2015/16–2019/20. Government printers.

20.

ECLAC-UNESCO. (2020). Education in the time of COVID-19: ECLAC-UNESCO.

21.

Education Labour Relation Council (ELRC). (2003). Integrated quality management system. ELRC.

22.

Eickelmann

Gerick

(2020). Learning with digital media: Objectives in times of corona and under special consideration of social inequities. Die Deutsche Schule, 16, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830992318.09

23.

Fetters

C. W.

Cheek

E. H.

Jr (2016). Effective leadership for literacy environment in an elementary school. Literacy Summit Yearbook, 38, 38–42.

24.

Fullan

(2000). The role of the principal in school reform. Bank Occasional Paper Series, 6(2), 11–26. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: University of Toronto. https://doi.org/10.58295/2375-3668.1254

25.

Garira

(2017). A process model for developing high quality educational interventions. The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 5(4), 105–115.

26.

Gasson

(2004). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In The handbook of information systems research (pp. 79–102). IGI Global.

27.

Geleta

M. W.

(2015). The role of school principal as instructional leader: The case of Shambu Primary School. Open Access Library Journal, 2(8), e1704. httpsss://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1101709

28.

Gowpall

(2015). School principals’ instructional practices: A case of two schools in the Pinetown District [Unpublished Masters Dissertation]. University of KwaZulu Natal.

29.

Graneheim

U. H.

Lundman

(2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

30.

Guba

E. G.

(1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777

31.

Hallinger

(2011). Leadership for learning lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699

32.

Hallinger

(2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652

33.

Hompashe

(2018). Instructional leadership and academic performance: Eastern Cape educators’ perceptions and quantitative evidence. Stellenbosch Economic Research . Accessed January 18, 2023, from https://www.ekon.sun.ac.za/wpapers/2018/wp132018

34.

Hornby

Lafaele

(2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049

35.

Horner

M. V.

(2016). Principals as instructional leaders in targeted reading intervention schools [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. University of North Carolina.

36.

Hotmire

J. A.

(2018). Principals’ role perception and implementation of educational reform [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Bowling Green State University.

37.

International Literacy Association. (2019). Principals as literacy leaders [Literacy leadership brief]. http://literacy–worldwide.org/docs/default-sourcewhere-westand/ila-principals-as-literacy-leaders

38.

Jay

A. B.

(2015). Literacy leadership: A perspective from higher education, article 6. The Reading Professor, 37(1), 1–7.

39.

Jita

L. C.

(2010). Instructional leadership for the improvement of science and mathematics in South Africa. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 851–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.247

40.

Kaufman

(1994). A needs assessment audit. Performance + Instruction, 33(2), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4160330205

41.

Koskei

J. K.

Sang

Ngeno

(2020). Relationship between headteachers’ communication competencies and effective school management in public primary schools in Narok County, Kenya. Global Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v19i1.13

42.

König

Jäger-Biela

D. J.

Glutsch

(2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

43.

Kruger

A. G.

(2003). Instructional leadership: The impact on the culture of teaching and learning in two effective secondary schools. South African Journal of Education, 23(3), 206–211.

44.

Leavy

(2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based and community-based participatory research approach. Guilford Press.

45.

Lingam

G. I.

Lingam

Singh

S. K.

(2021). Instructional leadership practices: Teacher perceptions of a rural school principal in Fiji. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(6), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n6.2

46.

Maguire

Delahunt

(2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–33514. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.105020

47.

Maponya

S. H.

(2015). The role of the principal as instructional leader in improving learner achievement [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis]. University of South Africa.

48.

Mbhalati

N. B.

(2017). Instructional guidance for literacy teaching in Limpopo, South Africa: A case study of the foundation phase policy and practice [Unpublished Doctoral thesis]. University of Free State.

49.

Meija

M. T.

(2016). The role of principals in creating a healthy environment for teachers and students. Capstone Projects and Master’s Theses. 36.

50.

Merga

M. K.

Roni

S. M.

Malpique

(2021). School leadership and whole-school support of struggling literacy learners in secondary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 534–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220905036

51.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

52.

Mestry

(2017). Principals’ perspectives and experiences of their instructional leadership functions to enhance learner achievement in public schools. Journal of Education, 69, 257–280.

53.

Mohale

A. B.

(2014). The role of the principal as an instructional leader: A case study of three schools in the Motupa Circuit, Limpopo [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of South Africa.

54.

Moonsammy-Koopasammy

L. I.

(2012). The role of principals as instructional leaders: Implications for effective teaching and learning [Unpublished Masters Dissertation]. University of Johannesburg.

55.

Mora-Ruano

J. G.

Schurig

Wittmann

(2021). Instructional leadership as a vehicle for teacher collaboration and student achievement. What the German PISA 2015 sample tells us. Frontiers in Education (6). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021582773

56.

Msila

(2014). Transforming society through quality primary education in South Africa: Lessons from two decades after apartheid. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(6), 339–339. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n6p339

57.

Munje

P. N.

Mncube

(2018). The lack of parent involvement as hindrance in selected public schools in South Africa. Pesrpectives in Education, 36(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v36i1.6

58.

Munna

A. S.

(2022). Instructional leadership and role of module leaders. International Journal of Educational Reform, 32(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879211042321

59.

Naidoo

(2019). Perceptions of teachers and school management teams of the leadership roles of public school principals. South African Journal of Education, 39(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1534

60.

Naidoo

R. R.

(2021). Instructional leadership roles of school management teams: An exploratory study of five township secondary schools [Unpublished Doctoral thesis]. University of Free State.

61.

OECD. (2016). School leadership for learning: Insights from TALIS 2015, TALIS OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258341-en.

62.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.

63.

Plaatjies

(2019). Investigating principal capacity in literacy instructional leadership at selected primary schools. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(3), 136–160.

64.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

Hungler

B. P.

(2006). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, Appraisal, and utilization (6th ed.). Lippinton.

65.

Rahman

A. R. A.

Tahir

L. M.

Anis

S. N. M.

Ali

M. F.

(2020). Exploring challenges in practicing instructional leadership: Insights form senior secondary principals. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082310

66.

Sharif

U. M.

Nanyangwe-Moyo

Moyo

Zheng

Guo

(2020). The role of the principal is developing an instructional leadership team in school. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(11), 662–667. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4057

67.

Sibanda

(2017). Understanding distributed leadership in South African schools: Challenges and prospects. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 567–581.

68.

Simmons

A. O. D.

(2019). The impact of instructional leadership on student reading success [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. University of West Alabama.

69.

South African Schools Act. Government Gazette, No. 17579, 15 November 1996.

70.

Spaull

(2013). South African’ education crisis: The quality of education in South Africa 1994–2011. Centre for Development and Enterprise.

71.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

72.

Stalh

N. A.

King

J. R.

(2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28.

73.

Taylor

Van der Berg

Mabogoane

(2013). Creating effective schools. Pearson.

74.

Thompson

(2021). A principal as literacy leader: Promoting literacy outcomes for third-grade students of color [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Georgia State University.

75.

Wieczorek

Manard

(2018). Instructional leadership challenges and practices of novice principals in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 34(2), 1–21.

76.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.