International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
The Impact of Gender, Socioeconomic Status and
Home Language on Primary School Children’s
Reading Comprehension in KwaZulu-Natal
Gabriela Völkel, Joseph Seabi *, Kate Cockcroft and Paul Goldschagg
Department of Psychology, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag X3, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa;
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +27-11-717-8331; Fax: +27-86-553-4926
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou
Received: 30 November 2015; Accepted: 4 March 2016; Published: 15 March 2016
Abstract:
The current study constituted part of a larger, longitudinal, South African-based study,
namely, The Road and Aircraft Noise Exposure on Children’s Cognition and Health (RANCH—South
Africa). In the context of a multicultural South Africa and varying demographic variables thereof,
this study sought to investigate and describe the effects of gender, socioeconomic status and home
language on primary school children’s reading comprehension in KwaZulu-Natal. In total, 834
learners across 5 public schools in the KwaZulu-Natal province participated in the study. A
biographical questionnaire was used to obtain biographical data relevant to this study, and the Suffolk
Reading Scale 2 (SRS2) was used to obtain reading comprehension scores. The findings revealed
that there was no statistical difference between males and females on reading comprehension scores.
In terms of socioeconomic status (SES), learners from a low socioeconomic background performed
significantly better than those from a high socioeconomic background. English as a First Language
(EL1) speakers had a higher mean reading comprehension score than speakers who spoke English as
an Additional Language (EAL). Reading comprehension is indeed affected by a variety of variables,
most notably that of language proficiency. The tool to measure reading comprehension needs to be
standardized and administered in more than one language, which will ensure increased reliability
and validity of reading comprehension scores.
Keywords: reading comprehension; gender; socioeconomic status; language; South Africa
1. Introduction
Seabi and his colleagues [
1
] considered the dearth of research on the detrimental effects of extreme
noise levels on children’s cognitive processing and scholastic performance in South Africa. They
conducted a longitudinal study of aircraft noise and its effects on primary school teaching and learning
in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, based on the premise of the European Road Traffic and Aircraft Noise
Exposure and Children’s Cognition and Health (RANCH) project. The results thereof indicated that
aircraft noise exposure does indeed negatively impact on children’s school activities, which affects
how they cope, and confirmed that high levels of environmental noise are inversely related to reading
abilities in primary school children. This being said, it is important to consider how, if at all, other
variables affect a child’s scholastic performance.
Demographic information obtained in the aforementioned study [
1
] included gender,
socioeconomic status and home language. Further exploration into these variables and whether they
have an effect on reading comprehension would provide valuable insight into teacher’s instruction,
potential interventions as well as general knowledge of the effects of noise on learning.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322; doi:10.3390/ijerph13030322 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 2 of 11
1.1. Reading Comprehension and Literacy in the South African Context
Reading comprehension is dependent on a range of basic language and cognitive skills [
2
].
Although South Africa lies third highest of the developing countries in Africa in terms of literacy rates,
the country has been found to be lower than that of most other countries worldwide [
3
], and it is
important to consider the factors as to why this is. According to the Department of Basic Education
of South Africa, literacy is introduced in Grade R (children generally aged 5 years turning 6 years of
age in that year), which can be considered the first year of formal schooling. South Africa is faced
with a plethora of challenges, and education level and employment are among these. Literacy rates
are lower in poor communities, and parents are often unable to read and write themselves. Literate
parents have higher expectations for their child’s academic performance and, because of this, are more
motivated to assist their child, see their child’s reports, and ensure that they read to their child [
4
].
Thus, a child who is part of a less privileged household has very little chance of being taught, assisted
or even stimulated using books and shared reading by his or her parents, thereby placing them at risk
for academic difficulties such as reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is a skill heavily
dependent on language.
1.2. The Role of Language in Reading Comprehension
In terms of the effect of language on reading comprehension in a South African context,
Seabi et al. (2012) [
5
] postulated that learners who learn in a second language would perform poorly
in comparison to those learning in their first language, given that the test of reading comprehension
(SRS2) was an English-based assessment. English as an Additional Language (EAL) speakers may be
at a double jeopardy when exposed to both noise and having to read and comprehend in their second
language [
5
]. The results of this study illustrated a significant difference in favor of EL1 learners, which
suggests that reading comprehension is influenced by language, particularly if the assessment is not in
one’s home language [5].
Further to the above South African findings, Webb [
6
] conducted research into English as a second
language at a tertiary institution: the University of Pretoria. The study revealed that the use of a second
language as a language of learning and teaching (LoLT) could be unfavorable to the academic growth
of students as well as to the assessment of their progress, if the students in question do not have the
proficiency in the LoLT. Following tertiary education, proficiency in the standard language, which is
generally English in South Africa, is imperative and non-negotiable for professional occupations in
today’s marketplace. Consequently, the need to take the role of language in academic development
and assessment very seriously is evident [
6
]. Although this study is referring in particular to tertiary
level academics, it can be postulated that the same applies for secondary and primary level schooling.
Poor proficiency in the LoLT causes poor academic achievement and a poor foundation for cognitive
development [6], be it at a primary, secondary or tertiary level.
Conversely to the aforementioned research findings, authors Hipfner-Boucher et al. (2015) [
7
]
conducted research in Canada on narrative abilities that yielded results indicating that overall
performance of EAL learners was indistinguishable from that of their EL1 counterparts. This study
further divided the EAL learners into two groups based on parent reports of the language most often
heard and spoken at home (EAL English language users and EAL minority language users). Although
the current study did not control for the amount of English exposure to EAL learners, one needs
to still consider that perhaps EL1 learners will not always necessarily outperform EAL learners on
reading comprehension tasks. Genesee (2015) [
8
] further explored the myths about early childhood
bilingualism and concluded that learning two languages simultaneously is as natural as learning
one, and that children can acquire full competence in two languages that is comparable with that of
monolingual children. Based on this, perhaps it can be postulated that the same can be said for reading
comprehension performance between EL1 and EAL learners.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 3 of 11
1.3. Social Disadvantage (Socio-Economic Status)
Social disadvantage can be described in numerous ways and is difficult to distinctly define.
Frequent measures of socioeconomic status (SES) include parental education level (usually maternal),
occupation (usually paternal), economic deprivation, for example, low family income and poverty,
type of housing, and high usage of medical and social services [
9
]. In South Africa particularly,
the following indicators are increasingly being used as measures of the level and depth of poverty:
unemployment, food security, housing, basic services, education and health [
8
]. The international
community classifies South Africa as a middle-income country, yet the scale and demographic profile
of poverty still indicates that it is one of the countries with the greatest levels of inequalities among its
citizens [8].
The poverty rate in South Africa currently stands at 71% for rural areas [
10
]. This rate is indicative
of a lower SES, and is measured by the proportion of people in a particular group or area falling
below the poverty line. This high rate is concentrated in poor Black African and Colored communities,
mimicking that which occurred during the apartheid era. In terms of schooling, three in five children
in poor households attend inconsistently. Given this inconsistent scholastic attendance, it can only be
assumed that lower academic achievement rates exist among those socially disadvantaged, and this is
indeed confirmed by Statistics South Africa [
11
], which established that while 70.7% of all “Whites” in
South Africa have at least a Grade 12 qualification, only 22% of “Africans”, 23.4% of “Coloreds” and
49.8% of “Indians” have an equivalent qualification [12].
In addition to these statistics, Pretorius & Naudé [
3
] looked at children between the ages of five
and a half and seven years, whose first language was Setswana (i.e., one of the South African indigenous
languages), and who resided and were schooled in an informal settlement in South Africa. The aim was
to determine what factors might play a role in the poor literacy and numeracy performance of young
South African learners in comparison to that of other countries. Every child in the sample was assessed
individually in Setswana (test material was translated into Setswana). Results of this study indicated
that these children are ill-prepared for formal education: They have inadequate literacy skill, poor
sentence construction, poor syntax knowledge, and inadequate phonological (sound) development [
3
].
While the fact that language may certainly play a role in under-developed literacy skills, there is no
doubt that the additional factor of being poor and disadvantaged is also linked to poor cognitive and
reading comprehension competency.
Further to this, there seems to be an interaction between SES and language and their effect on
reading comprehension [
7
,
13
]. Although the current study did not take this into account, it is important
to keep in mind given the fact that South Africa is a developing and middle-income country with 11
official languages, and that the interaction between socioeconomic inequalities and multilingualism
indeed affects a child’s academic performance, particularly in literacy, as identified above.
1.4. Gender
In terms of reading, this is typically considered an activity whereby mothers play a more active
role in teaching children to read and engaging in shared reading [
14
]. Boys and girls have been shown
to differ in their motivation to read, reading choice, frequency thereof, attitudes towards reading,
competency and the value of reading [14].
Taking into consideration reading and reading comprehension performance, a study conducted
in the United States indicated that boys and girls begin grade one with approximately equal reading
scores; however, as they grow up, a significant gender gap develops [
4
]. By grade 5, girls score
considerably higher on reading tasks than boys. In addition to gender differences, the authors also
considered SES, and found that the gender gap in reading seems to be characteristic mainly of children
from socially disadvantaged families.
A similar longitudinal study conducted by Burbridge, as cited in Entwisle et al. [
4
], found
an association between gender gap in reading and family SES and reported that boys in low SES
households are far more likely than girls to be held back in school. However, a study conducted by
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 4 of 11
Bianchi indicated slightly different results: In poverty-stricken families, boys are more likely than girls
to be above the grade average, but as the poverty level decreases to better-off families, boys and girls
are similarly likely to be above the grade average.
Many international studies, which included 35 to 40 countries, examined reading comprehension
with 10-year-old children and found gender differences favoring girls in every participating
country [
14
]. Further to this, the research shows that these differences in reading competence continue
into adolescence and that gender differences appear regardless of the type of reading instruction
children have received, or of the writing system. Girls and boys tend to differ in their reading
preferences, habits and reading interests. Girls tend to read more and have better reading ability [
15
].
All these findings are important to keep in mind when considering reading comprehension
performance on a standardized measure, and more research into the reading habits and preferences
needs to be conducted within a South African context, as there is a dearth of information thereof.
Although this study did not aim to look into this, it is important to keep insights from previous research
in mind when considering gender difference performances on reading comprehension tasks.
1.5. Research Questions
This study was undertaken to answer the following questions:
1. What is the effect of gender on reading comprehension?
2. What is the effect of socioeconomic status on reading comprehension?
3. What is the effect of language on reading comprehension?
2. Method
2.1. Context of the Study
This study constituted part of a larger, longitudinal, South African-based study, namely, The Road
and Aircraft Noise Exposure on Children’s Cognition and Health (RANCH-SA) study. RANCH-SA is
based on the original RANCH project that primarily investigated the effects of aircraft and road traffic
noise on children’s cognitive performance. The RANCH-SA project attempted to determine the effects
that aircraft noise has on South African primary school children’s reading comprehension, attention,
working memory and episodic memory in KwaZulu-Natal [16].
The RANCH-SA study administered five instruments. These included the following: the Suffolk
Reading Scale Level 2 (SRS2) to assess reading comprehension, the Toulouse Pieron test that assesses
attention, the Children’s Memory Scale, the Search and Memory task, and the Figure Analogies subtest
of the Quantitative Battery for Cognitive Abilities test to assess IQ levels. No hearing tests were
performed to screen for hearing impairments; however, parents were asked if their child(ren) had any
known hearing difficulty [15].
For the purpose of this study, archival records were utilized, whereby only the effects of
demographic variables on reading comprehension were investigated.
2.2. Research Design
This quantitative study employed a cross-sectional, archival design (as part of a longitudinal
study) whereby observations of the same variable at one specific point in time are made. Archival
studies, such as this study, make use of previously collected data for new analysis and to answer
current research questions [17].
2.3. Participants
Permission to conduct the study was obtained (MED/11/0061H) from the Wits Human Research
Ethics Committee (Non Medical). The sample was drawn from the larger RANCH-SA study. In total,
834 (n = 834) learners across 5 public schools in the KwaZulu-Natal province participated in the study.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 5 of 11
Participants were primary school learners in the age range of 8–14 years old from different grades.
The mean age was 11 years 1 month. The sample consisted of 322 (39%) males and 331 (40%) females
(n = 331). The gender of 181 (21%) learners was unknown.
2.4. Instruments
While five instruments were administered as part of the RANCH-SA study, only two instruments
were utilized for this study. A biographical questionnaire was used to obtain relevant biographical data
relevant to this study, and the Suffolk Reading Scale 2 was used to obtain reading comprehension scores.
2.4.1. Biographical Questionnaire
The biographical questionnaire aimed to gather information regarding the participants’ home
language, age, gender, health, support at home and school work. Socioeconomic status was also
established from the questionnaire and was determined by whether or not a participant (child) was
entitled to receive free meals at school. A significant correlation has been shown between free school
meal ratio and a range of census indicators representative of socioeconomic status [
16
]. Thus, receipt
of a free meal was linked to whether a participant’s caregiver was receiving a government social grant.
The questionnaire was administered in English and completed prior to the assessment.
2.4.2. Suffolk Reading Scale 2
Reading comprehension was measured using the Suffolk Reading Scale 2 (SRS2). It consists of
86 multiple choice sentence completion questions, each with five possible answers. The SRS2 was
standardized in the United Kingdom using a sample of primary school children that was representative
and mostly randomly selected. It has three comparable levels covering an age range from 6 years to
14 years 11 months. Each level has two parallel forms for easy testing arrangements.
Research was conducted in order to determine whether the SRS2 is a reliable instrument in the
South African context [
18
]. This research was conducted on primary school learners in KwaZulu-Natal,
South Africa, and formed part of the RANCH-SA study by Seabi and his colleagues. Results indicated
that the test is a reliable measure of reading comprehension in the South African context despite its
having been developed and standardized in the United Kingdom. The SRS2 proved to have a suitable
internal consistency Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.93, which was consistent with findings of the SRS2
in the United Kingdom, which revealed correlation estimates of above 0.7 (r = 0.85) [
18
]. Raw of the
SRS2 were used as it was not standardized for the South African population. Further details about
applicability of the SRS2 to the South African context is provided in another study [1].
2.5. Data Analysis
The data analysis in this study was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). Descriptive (mean scores and standard deviation) and inferential statistics were utilized
to analyze the data set. Independent t-tests were conducted, as all assumptions of normality had
been fulfilled.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
The total data set consisted of 834 participants. These participants were from both noise-exposed
and quieter environments. Descriptive statistics for the Suffolk Reading Scale 2 (SRS2), which measured
reading comprehension, are presented in Table 1. Out of the total data set, 142 participants (17%) did
not complete the SRS2; thus, a total of 692 (83%) of the scores were analyzed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 6 of 11
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics for the Suffolk Reading Scale 2 (SRS2). Reading comprehension
descriptive statistics.
N Mean SD
Reading comprehension 692 31.3 15.7
Table 2 shows the mean scores of reading comprehension for the three variables of this study:
gender, socioeconomic status (SES) and language.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics for the three variables of this study. Reading comprehension scores of
gender, SES and language groups.
Variable N Mean SD
Male 332 30.6 15.3
Female 338 32.2 15.3
Low SES 257 34.9 15.3
High SES 338 30.8 14.2
EFL 410 36.2 14.9
EAL 374 28.6 13.5
3.2. The Effects of Gender on Reading Comprehension
The first research question sought to determine the differences in reading comprehension
performance between males and females. Results indicated that the difference in reading
comprehension scores were not statistically different. This suggests that the learners’ gender does not
influence performance on reading comprehension tasks.
3.3. The Effects of Socio-Economic Status on Reading Comprehension
The second research question aimed to examine the differences in reading comprehension
performance between learners from a low socioeconomic status and those from a high socioeconomic
status. The results presented in Table 3 indicate that learners from a low socioeconomic background
(M = 34.9, SD = 15.3) performed significantly better than those from a high socioeconomic background
(M = 30.8, SD = 14.2), t(465) = 3.07, p < 0.001, d = 0.28. An effect size of d = 0.28 indicates a weak effect
size. This illustrates that, although socioeconomic status plays a role in the performance of reading
comprehension, it does not play as significant a role as that of language, which indicated a moderate
effect size of d = 0.53. However, another study indicated that the effect of socioeconomic status was
only significant in this particular year of testing (2009); thereafter, there was no difference in reading
comprehension performance between those learners who had a low socioeconomic status and those
who did not [
19
]. In 2010, no effect size (d =
´
0.0001) was determined, and in 2011 a minimal effect
size (d = 0.12) for socioeconomic status on reading comprehension was determined [19].
Table 3. Results of the Independent t-test analyses. The effect of noise on gender, SES and language.
Variable DF t p
Gender 565 ´1.25 0.21
SES 465 3.07 0.00 *
Language 658 6.86 0.00 *
Notes: * Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p < 0.05).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 7 of 11
3.4. The Effects of Language on Reading Comprehension
Lastly, this study aimed to investigate the differences in reading comprehension performance
between English as a First Language (EL1) versus English as Additional Language (EAL) speakers. As
previously mentioned, the SRS2 is an English assessment tool; thus, it was assumed that EL1 learners
would perform better than EAL learners. This assumption was correct as EL1 speakers had a higher
mean reading comprehension score (M = 36.2, SD = 14.9) than EAL speakers (M = 28.6, SD = 13.5),
t(658) = 6.86, p < 0.001, d = 0.53. This suggests that learners perform better on reading comprehension
tasks that are administered and completed in their native language. An effect size of d = 0.53 indicates
a moderate effect size, which suggests that language undoubtedly influences reading comprehension
performance. Of further note is that the performance of EL1 learners is above that of the sample mean
score (M = 31.3). Thus, this difference in means highlights the observation that reading comprehension
performance of EL1 speakers generally exceeds the performance of the sample size as a whole.
4. Discussion
4.1. The Effects of Socio-Economic Status on Reading Comprehension
The second research question considered whether socioeconomic status (SES) affected children’s
reading comprehension. The result indicated that children from a lower SES performed better than
those from a high SES. However, it is of vital importance to note that this was the case for only the first
year of testing; thereafter, there was no difference in reading comprehension performance between
those learners who had a low SES and those who did not [
19
]. It was suggested that this may have been
due to the fact that the participants who constituted the lower SES bracket in 2009 came from areas
where there were high levels of noise, thus demonstrating the students’ potentially better adaptability
and concentration, and in turn leading to better performance results [
19
]. These noise levels were as
a result of the school’s being located in close proximity to the Durban International Airport in 2009.
Although one would expect the opposite effect of noise exposure, the results could indicate that the
children were more habituated to the extraneous noise experienced and thus better able to concentrate
during the administration of the SRS2 [19].
As previously mentioned, there is generally a negative correlation of cognitive and academic
achievement with SES. However, the result of this study challenges this notion, and is inconsistent
with previous findings of that of Korat [
20
], Gentaz et al. [
21
] and Pienaar et al. [
22
], who found that
learners from a lower SES achieved lower reading and writing scores than those from a higher SES. In
lieu of these findings, the result of this study needs to be carefully considered.
One needs to consider, however, that perhaps the effect of socioeconomic status on reading
comprehension was not yet apparent in the current study, and that this may become evident at a later
stage in schooling, similarly to that of a previous study by Akhtar and Niazi [
23
], which confirmed that
lower class students perform poorly at a secondary (high school) level of schooling. Likewise, although
the findings of Jednoróg et al. [
24
] indicated an association between reduced academic performance
and SES on neural imaging, perhaps this also only takes effect later on in schooling years. Lastly,
although Pienaar and colleagues [
22
] concluded there was a negative association between low SES
and academic performance, this study only included first grade learners, which is limiting when
considering that primary school children can vary in age from 6 (grade one) to 13 years (grade seven),
and that reading (comprehension) proficiency increases as a child gets older.
The quoted statistic (that three in five children in poor households attend school inconsistently)
needs to be considered since those who participated in this study may not be part of those three
children, but rather the two who do attend consistently. This being said, although the learner is from a
low SES, he/she may be someone who is dedicated to school and works towards positive academic
achievement, and thus performed well on the reading comprehension task.
The discussion above may explain why children of a lower SES performed better than children
from a higher SES. However, it is important to mention that, although socioeconomic status plays a
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 8 of 11
role in the performance of reading comprehension, and that this variable requires further investigation,
it does not play as significant a role as that of language, which is yet to be discussed.
4.2. The Effects of Language on Reading Comprehension
This study aimed to determine the effect of language on children’s reading comprehension,
with specific reference to having English as a First Language (EL1) in comparison to English as an
Additional Language (EAL). The Suffolk Reading Scale 2 was administered in English. Language plays
an integral role in the assessment of cognitive functioning, particularly that of reading comprehension.
Testing, of any form, in one’s first language is imperative for the results to be truly reflective of a child’s
abilities. Tests are generally standardized, which means that it allows for the ranking of a child’s
performance on the test against that of typically developing children in the same age group [25]. The
result was in favor of EL1 learners, which confirms the paradigm that testing in one’s native language
is positively correlated to better reading comprehension. Furthermore, this supports the notion that
formal standardized norm-referenced language tests are biased against children from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds because these children are not included in the normative sample [
25
].
Scores obtained from testing a South African child with a non-South African test would not be a valid
indicator of the child’s abilities. Testing comprehension in a second language, regardless of the child’s
perceived fluency, would not indicate their true abilities, and there would be no equal ground for
different learners in understanding and constructing meaning from a text [
25
]. This is rife in South
Africa in general.
Thus, had children been tested in their native language, or had the entire sample been made up
of EL1 speakers, perhaps the results would have been different. However, given the multicultural
and multilinguistic nature of South Africa and its youth, it can be expected that testing in one’s native
language will not always be achievable, and that the result of this particular aim is debatable.
Until an assessment tool has been developed, which caters for the language needs of those whose
first language is not English, it will be difficult to ascertain genuine reading comprehension outcomes,
as this task is heavily dependent on language. The slow implementation of policy to introduce native
languages as the language of learning and teaching (LoLT) by the Department of Education continues
to place EAL learners at risk; thus, language remains a contentious issue in South Africa and for the
primary, secondary and tertiary education, the latter of which is described by Webb [6], of its youth.
4.3. Strengths and Limitations
The findings of this study provide awareness into the possible effects of personal and sociocultural
factors on reading comprehension. The reasonably large sample size allowed for generalizability and
observed significant differences; however, the provision of Cohen’s d effect size balances this effect out.
Investigation into the effect of language on reading comprehension revealed and highlighted the need
for educational policy implementation, as well as the need for standardized testing tools to meet South
Africa’s multilinguistic needs.
The results of this study should be read in the context of the following limitations. This study was
cross-sectional in nature, and such studies do not allow for differentiation between cause-and-effect
and simple association [
26
]. As a result of this, it cannot be said, for example, that gender causes
impaired reading comprehension.
Students were not matched on age and/or IQ, which may contribute to increased variability on
results and limitations on reporting these. Reading comprehension scores at only one point in time
were analyzed and used to draw conclusions. Perhaps comparing scores at more than one point in
time would provide more valuable information, i.e., considering longitudinal data and discussing the
changes over time. Lastly, although the language variable was differentiated as either EL1 or EAL, a
variety of languages surely make up EAL, and thus generalizability of the study is limited.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 9 of 11
4.4. Implications for Future Research
The findings of this study lend to suggestions for future studies in this field. The tool to
measure reading comprehension, be it the SRS2 or an alternate tool, needs to be standardized and
administered in more than one language, which will ensure increased reliability and validity of reading
comprehension scores. Further to this, perhaps the language variable needs to be dissected into
every single language spoken by the learners, and comparisons made on reading comprehension
performance between these languages. Considering the conundrum of the combined influence of
gender and SES on reading comprehension, further research into the interplay of these variables can
be considered.
In order to determine the effects of gender, socioeconomic status and language on reading
comprehension over time, further investigation into each of these variables at all three points in time
of measurement should be done.
5. Conclusions
This study aimed to examine the impact of gender, socioeconomic status and language on the
cognitive skill of reading comprehension in a sample of primary school learners in KwaZulu-Natal.
The results of this research indicate that reading comprehension is indeed affected by a variety of
variables. Although each variable was studied in isolation, there is no doubt that the interplay between
them may also influence reading comprehension performance. One cannot consider that they are
independent of each other.
It is clear and evident that language plays the most significant role in reading comprehension
performance. Given the diversity of cultures and languages in South Africa, serious consideration
needs to be given to the standardization and normalization of assessment tools. In terms of gender
influencing reading comprehension performance, it is clear that females generally perform better,
although not significantly so. Lastly, socioeconomic status attested to be a factor in performance,
although the results thereof were unexpected, and further investigation into this may provide
additional insight as to why this was so.
Acknowledgments:
The authors gratefully thank the children who participated in the study, without whom this
study would not have been possible. This material is based upon work supported financially by the National
Research Foundation (NRF). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors; therefore, the NRF does not accept any liability in regard thereto. This publication
was also made possible (in part) by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made
and views expressed are, however, solely the responsibility of the authors.
Author Contributions:
Gabriela Völkel conducted statistical analyses of the data, interpreted the results, wrote
and revised the manuscript. She also approved the final version of the article to be published. Joseph Seabi made
substantial contributions to conceptualisation of the study, contributed to its funding, implemented the pilot,
collected data, wrote and revised the manuscript. He approved the final version of the article to be published.
Kate Cockcroft made substantial contributions to conceptualisation of the study, contributed to its funding,
implemented the pilot, collected data, wrote and revised the manuscript. She approved the final version of
the article to be published. Paul Goldschagg made substantial contributions to conceptualisation of the study,
contributed to its funding, implemented the pilot, collected data, wrote and revised the manuscript. He approved
the final version of the article to be published.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
RANCH The Road and Aircraft Noise Exposure on Children’s Cognition and Health
SRS2 Suffolk Reading Scale 2
SES Socio-Economic Status
EL1 English as First Language
EAL English as Additional Language
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 10 of 11
References
1.
Seabi, J.; Cockcroft, K.; Goldschagg, P.; Greyling, M. A prospective follow-up study of the effects of chronic
aircraft noise exposure on learners’ reading comprehension in South Africa. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol.
2015, 25, 84–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Cain, K.; Oakhill, J. Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. Br. J. Psychol.
2006, 76, 607–708. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Pretorius, E.; Naudé, H. A culture in transition: Poor reading and writing ability among children in South
African townships. Early Child Dev. Care 2002, 172, 439–449. [CrossRef]
4.
Entwisle, D.R.; Alexander, K.L.; Olson, L.S. Early schooling: The handicap of being poor and male. Sociol.
Educ. 2007, 80, 114–138. [CrossRef]
5.
Seabi, J.; Cockcroft, K.; Goldschagg, P.; Greyling, M. The impact of aircraft noise exposure on South African
children’s reading comprehension: The moderating effect of home language. Noise Health
2012
, 14, 244–252.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Webb, V. English as a second language in South Africa’s tertiary institutions: A case study at the University
of Pretoria. World Engl. 2002, 21, 49–61. [CrossRef]
7.
Hipfner-Boucher, K.; Milburn, T.; Weitzman, E.; Greenberg, J.; Pelletier, J.; Girolametto, L. Narrative abilities
in subgroups of English language learners and monolingual peers. Int. J. Biling.
2015
, 19, 677–692. [CrossRef]
8. Genesee, F. Myths about early childhood bilingualism. Can. Psychol. 2015, 56, 6–15. [CrossRef]
9.
Ginsborg, J. The effects of socioeconomic status on children’s language acquisition and use. In Language and
Social Disadvantage; Clegg, J., Ginsborg, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2006; pp. 9–27.
10.
Mayekiso, T.; Tshemese, M. Contextual issues: Poverty. In Community Psychology: Analysis, Context and
Action; Duncan, N., Bowman, B., Naidoo, A., Pillay, J., Roos, V., Eds.; UCT Press: Cape Town, South Africa,
2007; pp. 150–165.
11.
Statistics South Africa. Census 2011—Key Results; Statistics South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 28 November
2012. Available online: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Census2011/Products/Census_2011_Key_results.pdf
(accessed on 2 September 2014).
12.
Duncan, N.; Bowman, B.; Stevens, G.; Mdikana, A. Contextual issues: “Race” and childhood health in South
Africa. In Community Psychology: Analysis, Context and Action; Duncan, N., Bowman, B., Naidoo, A., Pillay, J.,
Roos, V., Eds.; UCT Press: Cape Town, South Africa, 2007; pp. 166–186.
13.
D’Angiulli, A.; Siegel, L.S.; Maggi, S. Literacy instruction, SES, and word-reading achievement in
English-language learners and children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. Learn.
Disabil. Res. Prat. 2004, 19, 202–213. [CrossRef]
14.
McGeown, S.; Goodwin, H.; Henderson, N.; Wright, P. Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex
or gender identity provide a better account? J. Res. Read. 2012, 35, 328–336. [CrossRef]
15.
Logan, S.; Johnston, R. Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences
lie. J. Res. Read. 2009, 32, 199–214. [CrossRef]
16.
Seabi, J.; Goldschagg, P.; Cockcroft, K. Does aircraft noise impair learners’ reading comprehension, attention
and working memory? A pilot study. J. Psychol. Afr. 2010, 20, 101–104.
17. Whitley, B.E. Principles of Research in Behavioural Science; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
18.
Ramaahlo, M. The Application of the Suffolk Reading Scale (2) on South African Learners. Master’s Thesis,
University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1 November 2010.
19.
Maynard, I. A Developmental Study of the Effects of Aircraft Noise Exposure on Primary School Learners’
Reading Comprehension. Master’s Thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa,
1 November 2012.
20.
Korat, O. Mothers’ and teachers’ estimation of first graders’ literacy level and their relation to the children’s
actual performance in different SES groups. Educ. Treat. Child. 2011, 34, 347–371. [CrossRef]
21. Gentaz, E.; Sprenger-Charolles, L.; Theurel, A.; Cole, P. Reading comprehension in a large cohort of French
first graders from low socioeconomic status families: A 7-month longitudinal study. PLoS ONE
2013
, 8, 1–8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Pienaar, A.E.; Barhorst, R.; Twisk, J.W.R. Relationships between academic performance, SES school type and
perceptual-motor in first grade South African learners: NW-CHILD study. Child. Care Health Dev.
2013
, 40,
370–378. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 322 11 of 11
23.
Akhtar, Z.; Niazi, H.K. The relationship between socioeconomic status and learning achievement of students
at secondary level. Int. J. Acad. Res. 2011, 3, 956–961.
24.
Jednoróg, K.; Altarelli, I.; Monzalvo, K.; Fluss, J.; Dubois, J.; Billard, C.; Dehaene-Lambertz, G.; Ramus, F.
The influence of socioeconomic status on children’s brain structure. PLoS ONE
2012
, 7, e42486. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
25.
Battle, D.E. Assessment and intervention for culturally and linguistically diverse children. In Language and
Communication Disorders in Children, 6th ed.; Bernstein, D.K., Tiegerman-Faber, E., Eds.; Pearson: Boston, MA,
USA, 2009; pp. 536–576.
26.
Mann, C.J. Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross sectional and case-control
studies. Emerg. Med. J. 2003, 20, 54–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
©
2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
