CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6. CONCLUSION
To specifically highlight and emphasise: the research findings of this study support that of other studies (Adler, 2001; Heugh, 2001, 2002; Rose & van Dulm, 2006; Setati, 2005a) which emphasise the role of mother tongue in learning and that code switching is an invaluable strategy in bi/multilingual classrooms that should be made
130
explicit to FAL English teachers and learners alike. This should thus provide insights for the local DBE individuals who strive to empower ML FAL teachers with novel, essential and effective pedagogies; especially those who attempt to wholly assist FAL learners to use their real life-related knowledge and experiences to close the language gap between learning in the LoLT English and their home language isiZulu. These indications therefore brings about serious concerns that education stakeholders in South Africa need to consider such as: revisiting and reflecting upon the current LiEP (DoE, 1997) specifically to clarify the notion of additive bilingualism and the acceptance of the use of code switching in bi/multilingual South African classrooms; educating it’s South African citizens about the benefits of mother tongue instruction; and providing adequate and appropriate INSET programmes to FAL English teachers and the partial funding to access postgraduate studies. Postgraduate studies in ML would equip teachers with the necessary mathematics knowledge and skills required to be an effective ML teacher and that in itself is a battle half won as the FAL English teachers become more confident with their own competence in their bi/multilingual classrooms.
In this study, the perceptions and experiences of the FAL teachers and learners with the teaching and learning of ML in the LoLT English revealed their challenges and problems within their bi/multilingual classrooms. The findings of this study revealed that the participants’ home language isiZulu, was the preferred language to use and that code switching was a common practice during their teaching and learning of ML. Participants highlighted that English was used only because of its global power, and also, it was the LoLT as prescribed by the LiEP (DoE, 1997), and textbooks, assessments and examinations were in English. Thus, the role of mother tongue instruction cannot be ignored and that code switching needs to be wholly legitimised in South African bi/multilingual classrooms.
131
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
African National Congress. (1994). A policy framework for education and training. Johannesburg: South Africa.
Akhurst, J. E. (1997). Teachers' perceptions of their influence in the psycho-
emotional development of their studies. Paper presented at the fifth biennial
conference of the International Association of Special Education. Cape Town. Alexander, N. (2004). The Politics of Language Planning in Post Apartheid South
Africa. Cape Town: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research (11th ed.). Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Banda, F. (2000). The dilemma of mother tongue: Prospects for Bilingual Education in South Africa. Language, Culture and Curriculum , 13(1), 51-66.
Brombacher, A. (2007). Mathematical Literacy, A Reader. Cape Town: Bateleur Books.
Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependance, and
the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MA: John Hopkins University Press.
Burkett, B., Clegg, J., Landon, J., Reilly, T., & Versters, C. (2001). The Language for Learning Project: Developing language-sensitive subject-teaching in South African secondary schools. Southern African linguistics and Applied
Language Studies , 19, 149-161.
Christiansen, I. M. (2006). Mathematical Literacy as a school subject: Failing the progressive vision? Pythagoras , 64, 6-13.
Coben, D. (2004). What is specific about research in adult numeracy and
mathematics? Retrieved August 21, 2011, from Topic Study Group 6 Adult
and Lifelong Education 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education: www.icme-10.dk-Programme-TSG6
Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). New Jersey:
132
Cresswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Morales-Escoto, M. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counselling
Psychologist, 35 (2), 236-264.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual children in the
crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and
Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
DBE. (2011). National Curriculum Statement Grade 10-12, Curriculum and
Assessment Policy Statement: Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department
of Basic Education.
de Klerk, V. (2002). Language issues in our schools: Whose voice counts?
Perspectives in Education , 20(1), 1-28.
de Lange, J. (2003). Mathematics for Literacy. In Quantitative Literacy: Why
numeracy matters for Schools and Colleges? (pp. 75-89). Princeton, NJ:
National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
DoE. (2008). National Curriculum Statement Grades 1--12 (General), Overview. Pretoria: Government Printers.
DoE. (2008). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General), Subject
Assessment Guidelines: Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of
Education.
DoE. (2006). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 Teacher Guide:
Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of Education.
DoE. (2005). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General), Learning
Programme Guidelines: Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of
Education.
DoE. (2003). Revised National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General):
Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of Education.
DoE. (2003a). National Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General):
Mathematical Literacy. Pretoria: Department of Education.
DoE. (2001). Curriculum 2005 Policy Document. Pretoria: Department of Education. DoE. (2001). Education White Paper 6: Special Needs Education: Building an
Inclusive Education and Training System. South Africa: Government Printing
Works.
DoE. (1997). Language-in-Education Policy. Pretoria: Department of Education. DoE. (1997b). Curriculum 2005: Lifelong learning for the 21st century. Pretoria,
133
DoE. (1996). National Education Policy Act. South Africa: Government Printing Works.
DoE. (1995). White Paper on Education and Training. Government Gazette, 357 (16312)
DoE. (1994). NATED 550: Policy document. Pretoria: Department of Education. du Plooy, G. M. (2009). Communicating Research: Techniques, methods and
applications (2nd ed.). Cape Town: ©Juta & Co. Ltd.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Foley, A. (2007). Mother Tongue Instruction. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from English Academy: http://www.english academy.co.za/pansalb/education.pdf
Forman, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 333-352). Reston VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Forman, E. A., & McPhail, J. (1993). Vygotskian perspective on children's
collaborative problem-solving activities. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone, Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's
development (pp. 213-229). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gee, J. P. (1994). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Basingstoke: Farmer Press.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 49, 193-223.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Lincoln, & Y. Denzin (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105- 115). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Hallett, D. H. (2003). The Role of Mathematics course in the Development of
quantitative literacy. Retrieved June 19, 2010, from Quantitative Literacy:
Why numeracy matters: www.maa.org/ql/pgs91-98.pdf
Hechter, J. E. (2010). Analysing and understanding teacher development on a
Mathematical Literacy ACE course . Johannesburg: Unpublished MSc
Thesis. University of the Witwatersrand.
Herbert, R. K., & Bailey, R. (2002). The Bantu Languages: Sociohistorical
perspectives. In R. Mesthrie (ed.), Language in South Africa (pp. 449-475). Cambridge: University Press.
134
Heugh, K. (2008). Implications of the stocktaking study of mother-tongue and
bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa: who calls the shots? In P. Cuvelier, M. T. du Plessis, M. Meeuvis, & L. Teck, Multilingualism and Exclusion:
Policy, Practice and Prospects (pp. 40-61). Pretoria: van Schaik.
Heugh, K. (2002). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South Africa: Laying bare the myths. Perspectives in Education , 20(1), 171-196. Heugh, K. (2001). The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South
Africa. University of Cape Town: PRAESA occasional papers.
Howe, K. (2003). Closing methodological divides: Towards democratic educational
research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Howie, S. J. (2003). Language and other background factors affecting secondary pupils' performance in mathematics in South Africa. African Journal of
Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 7, 1-20.
Howie, S. J. (2001). Mathematics and Science Performance in Grade 8 in South
Africa 1998/1999: TIMSS-R 1999 South Africa. Pretoria: Human Sciences
Research Council.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn
mathematics. Washington DC: National Research Council.
Krauss, S. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The
Qualitative Report , 10(4), 758-770.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lerman, S. (2001). A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher education. In F. L. Lin, & T. J. Clooney (Eds.), Making Sense of Mathematics
Teacher Education (pp. 33-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Macdonald, C. (1991). Eager to Talk and Learn: Bilingual Primary Education in
South Africa. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
Macmillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mercer, N. (1995). The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk among Teachers
and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Mattters.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's
thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Moschkovich, J. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in mathematical discussions. For the learning of mathematics , 19(1), 11-19.
135
Moschkovich, J. (1996). Learning math in two languages. In L. Puig, & A. Gutierex (Eds.), Conference of the International Group of the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 27-34). Valencia: University of Valencia.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for school mathematics. Reston VA: Author.
NCTM. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston VA: Author.
NMMU. (2010). BEd Honours Study Guide, PHE 409: Teaching in Multi-lingual
Contexts. Port Elizabeth: NMMU.
Pandor, N. (2006). Language Issues and Challenges (Opening Address at the Language Policy Implementation in HEIS Conference). Pretoria: South Africa. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
PRAESA. (2007). Project for the study of alternative education in South Africa. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.uwc.ac.za/depts/praesa Probyn, M. J. (2004). Making sense of science through two languages: a South
African case study. School Science Review, 86, 49-59.
Rogoff, B., Turkanis, C. G., & Bartlett, L. (eds.) (2001). Learning Together: Children
and Adults in a School Community. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, S., & van Dulm, O. (2006). Functions of code switching in multilingual classrooms. Per Linguam , 22(2), 1-13.
Setati, M. (2008). Access to mathematics versus access to the language of power: the struggle in multilingual classrooms. South African Journal of Education,
28(1), 103-116.
Setati, M. (2005). Researching teaching and learning in school from "with" or "on" teachers to "with" and "on" teachers. Perspectives in Education , 23(1), 91- 102.
Setati, M. (2005a). Teaching mathematics in a primary multilingual classroom.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 36(5), 447-466.
Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2001). Between Languages and discourses:language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa.
Educational Studies in Mathematics , 43(3), 243-269.
Setati, M., & Barwell, R. (2006). Discursive practices in two multilingual mathematics classrooms: An international comparison. African Journal for Research in
136
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code- switching and other language practices in mathematics, science and English language classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,
16, 128-149.
Smith, M. J. (1988). Contemporary communication research methods. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Steen, L. A. (2003). Data, Shapes, Symbols: Achieving Balance in School
Mathematics. In Quantitative Literacy: Why numeracy matters for Schools
and Colleges (pp. 53-74). Princeton, NJ: National Council on Education and
the Disciplines.
Steen, L. A. (2001). The case for quantitative literacy. Mathematics and Democracy. In L. A. Steen (Eds.), The case for quantitative literacy (pp. 1-22).
Washington DC: The Mathematical Association Of America.
Struwig, F. W., & Stead, G. B. (2007). Planning, designing and reporting research. Cape Town: ©Maskew Miller Longman (Pty)Ltd.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., & Painter, D. (eds.) (2006). Research in Practice:
Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: UCT Press.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for
Language Minority Students' Long Term Academic Achievement. Retrieved
June 19, 2010, from CREDE (Centre for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence): http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School Effectiveness for Language Minority. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an
Action Sensitive Pedagogy (2nd ed.). NY: State University of New York Press.
Venkatakrishnan, H., & Graven, M. (2006). Mathematical Literacy in South Africa and Functional Mathematics in England: A consideration of contrasts.
Pythagoras, 64 , 14-26.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5: Child
psychology. (M. J. Hall, Trans.) London: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of the higher psychological
processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
137
Webb, L. (2010). Searching for common grounds: Developing mathematical
reasoning through dialogue . Port Elizabeth: Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
Webb, V., Deumert, A., & Lepota, B. (2005). The Standardisation of African
Languages in South Africa. Pretoria: PanSALB and the University of Pretoria.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating Communities of
Practice. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from
http://books.google.com/?id=mlxZuNq9RygC&dq=cultivating+communities+of +practice&printsec=frontcover&q=
138
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Mother tongue: Refers to the language that a learner has acquired in his/her early
years and which has normally become his/her natural instrument of thought and communication.
Home language: Refers to the language that is spoken most frequently at home by
a person. In this study the home language is isiZulu.
Language of learning and teaching (LOLT): Refers to the language medium in
which learning and teaching, including assessment, takes place. In this study the LoLT is English.
Bilingualism: Refers to the ability to communicate effectively in two languages, with
more or less the same degree of proficiency in both languages.
Multilingualism: Refers to the ability to speak more than two languages; or to be
proficient in many languages.
Code switching: Refers to switching from one language of instruction to another
language of instruction during teaching and learning.
Dual medium of instruction: Refers to the use of two media (languages) of
instruction by a teacher in a lesson, switching from one medium (language) to the other, on a 50: 50 ratio.
Language learning areas: Refers to any of the 11 official languages, other
languages approved by the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB), Braille and South African Sign Language, approved by Umalusi.
139
Language level: Refers to the level of proficiency at which language learning areas
are offered at school (e.g. home language, first additional language, second additional language).
Language proficiency: Refers to the level of competence at which an individual is
able to use a language for both basic communication tasks and academic purposes.
African language: In the context of this study, the term refers to South Africa’s nine
official languages namely: isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Siswati, Tshivenda and Xitsonga.
Single/main medium of instruction: Refers to the use of one medium (language)
of instruction by a teacher in a class.
Single/main medium school: Refers to a school that uses one medium of
instruction (language) for all learners in all grades.
Preferred language of instruction: Refers to the (preferred) language of
instruction indicated by a learner at the time of registration.
First additional language: Refers to a compulsory language subject that learners
140
APPENDIX B
SCHOOL PROFILE FORM
Dear Principal, along with your consent I require the above demographical data about your school which can be accessed from your schools SAMS database.
NAME OF SCHOOL: ____________________________________
SCHOOL QUINTILE RANK: ___________
TOTAL NUMBER OF LEARNERS IN THE SCHOOL: ___________
NUMBER OF TEACHERS IN THE FET PHASE – GRADES 10 – 12 (IN THE SUBJECT MATHEMATICAL LITERACY ONLY): ___________
NUMBER OF TEACHERS IN THE FET PHASE – GRADE 12 ONLY (IN THE SUBJECT MATHEMATICAL LITERACY ONLY): ___________
GENDER OF THE ABOVE NUMBER OF TEACHERS - GRADES 10 – 12 MALE: _____
FEMALE: _____
NUMBER OF LEARNERS PER GRADE IN THE FET PHASE – GRADES 10 – 12 (MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICAL LITERACY):
GRADE 10 - MATHEMATICS: ________ MATHEMATICAL LITERACY: ________ GRADE 11 - MATHEMATICS: ________ MATHEMATICAL LITERACY: ________ GRADE 12 - MATHEMATICS: ________ MATHEMATICAL LITERACY: ________
141
APPENDIX C
TEACHER PROFILE FORM
PERSONAL DETAILS
TITLE AND SURNAME: ………..
FIRST NAMES: ………. DATE OF BIRTH: …..………... GENDER: ……… CELL NUMBER: ……… HOME TEL: ……… WORK TEL: ……… HOME ADDRESS: ……… ……….. POSTAL CODE ……… SCHOOL DETAILS NAME OF SCHOOL: ………. SCHOOL PRINCIPAL: ………...
SCHOOL TEL: ………FAX: ………..
PHYSICAL ADDRESS: ………. ……… POSTAL ADDRESS: ………. ……… POSTAL CODE ……… TEACHING DETAILS NUMBER OF YEARS TEACHING ………
MAIN SUBJECT(S) YOU HAVE TAUGHT DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS: ………..
GRADES TAUGHT AND NUMBER OF YEARS TEACHING THEM: GRADE 7 8 9 10 11 12 ………
NO OF YEARS TEACHING THEM: ………….
NO OF LEARNERS THIS YEAR: …………..
NUMBER OF YEARS TEACHING MATHEMATICAL LITERACY: …………
IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY TEACHING MATHEMATICAL LITERACY, WHICH GRADE(S) ARE YOU TEACHING? ...
142
BESIDES MATHEMATICAL LITERACY, WHICH OTHER SUBJECTS ARE YOU TEACHING? ……… ……… TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS QUALIFICATION(S): ……… ……… YEAR(S) OBTAINED: ……… INSTITUTION(S): ……… MAJOR SUBJECTS: ……… ………
HIGHEST LEVEL STUDYING MATHS E.g.: Matric or College or Year? ………
………
OTHER REGISTRATIONS ARE YOU CURRENTLY REGISTERED FOR FURTHER STUDIES? ………
IFYES, WHICH INSTITUTION? ………..
WHAT PROGRAMME ARE YOU STUDYING FOR? ………..
……… THANKING YOU Saloshni Pillai RESEARCHER HOME: (036) 352 4003 CELL: 084 589 9869 email: [email protected]
143
APPENDIX D
TEACHER INTERVIEWS – ENGLISH VERSION Questions to be used during the Interview Process
1. Which language(s) do you use to support your teaching of the inter-related nature of mathematical literacy content and context in your classroom?
Why do you choose to use this language(s)?
2. Which language(s) do you prefer to use when clarifying specific concepts, (that is to bring about conceptual understanding) that are so content driven by the mathematical literacy curriculm?
Why do you choose to use this language(s) at this point in your lesson?
3. How do you feel using English as a medium of instruction and assessment in your mathematical literacy classroom?
If a negative response is given- probe further to ascertain specific reasons. If a positive response is given- probe further questioning the acceptance and
advantages of English as a LoLT.
4. Which language(s) do learners use as a channel of communication with your or classmates in order to understand the contextual word problems?
Why do you think they resort to using this language(s)?
5. Do you provide learners with opportunities (lesson strategies) to talk (exchange ideas), discuss, argue and engage in conversation when you teach?
How do you do this during your lesson?
6. Which language do you mostly use to teach the word problems and word problem-posing that is richly filled with academic literacy?
144
INTHAVYU KATHISHA – ISIZULU VERSION
1. Yiluphi ulimi noma izilimi ozisebenzisayo ukusekela ukufundiswa kwe Mathematical Literacy egunjini lakho lokufundisa?
Yini eyenze wakhetha lolu limi noma lezi zilimi?
2. Uncamela luphi lona ulimu noma izilimi uma ucacisa noma uchaza kabanzi ngezinto eziphathelene neMathematical Literacy?
Yini eyenza ukuthi usebenzise lolu limi kulesi sigaba sesifundo sakho?
3. Uzizwa kanjani usebenzisa ulimu lwesigisi egunjini lokufundela uma ufundisa i- Mathematical literacy?
Uma impendulo yakho ingeyinhle sekela ngezizathu ezenza kubenjalo.
Uma impendulo yakho iyinhle sekela ngezizathu ezitshengisa ukuthi isigisi silungile ukuthi kufundiswe ngaso egunjini lokufundela.
4. Yiluphi ulimi noma izilimi ezisetshenziswa ngabafundi ukuze baxhumane nozakwabo noma wena uqobo lwakho ukuze baqonde izinkinga zemibhalo bezixazulule?
Ucabanga ukuthi kungani bephephela kulolu limu?