Discussion

The findings of the study show that the participant teachers did not provide the meanings of all words crucial in understanding of science concepts by the learners. In my previous study, one of the findings was that learners have difficulty with comprehension of words used in science, especially non-technical words (Oyoo, 2012). The fact that teachers may not be providing meanings of words used in science could be the reason why science students have difficulties with the science language. The teacher is expected to expose learners to meaning of all important vocabulary words not only part of it. The reason why the participant teachers did not provide meanings of all the technical and non-technical words could be that the teachers assumed that learners were already familiar with meanings of these words. This notion that teachers assume learners already know the meaning of words before coming into the science classroom was also confirmed by Teacher B in the educator follow-up interview. However, Teacher A explained more words than Teacher B. Teacher A used simple and straight forward language to explain meanings of some of the words he thought needed their meanings explained. Teacher B on the other hand, despite the fact that he acknowledged the importance of explaining specialised words used in science, did not attempt often to explain meanings in a language that can be accessible to learners. Instead he read definitions directly from the textbook, and even lamented the fact that learners did not have science dictionaries from which they could read definitions or meanings of specialised science words.

62

Failure to explain the meaning of all important vocabulary means that the teachers were not giving enough guidance and scaffolding, as expected in the constructivist perspective of learning. Scaffolding is necessary to enable acquisition of the correct proficiency in science language necessary for shared understanding between the teacher and learners during science lessons. The constructivist perspective view learning as a socially mediated activity through use of language that allows sharing information between the knowledgeable teacher and his learners. Lack of shared understanding between the teacher and learners may result in the concepts that the teacher is trying to teach to the learners to be neither plausible, fruitful nor intelligible (Posner et al., 1982.) It also indicates that learners may not acquire the necessary language for learners to enter into the science community.

None of the participant used their learners’ prior understandings of some non-technical words to build their understanding of meanings of these words when they are presented in a science context. This is in direct contradiction with the constructivist perspective on learning which recognises the importance of learners’ prior knowledge in construction of new scientific knowledge. This shows that the participant teachers do not recognise the importance of learners’ pre-instructional conceptions to learning of new conceptions.

The lack of engagement of learners in the observed lesson’s conversations observed in Teacher B’s lessons could also be contributing to poor development of the correct science language in learners. Learners need to engage in talk occurring during the process of teaching and learning science so that they develop their language skills. According to Scott, Mortimer, and Ametller (2011), “the internalisation step does not involve the learner absorbing knowledge fully formed from the interaction of the social plane. …..learning … is regarded as being essentially dialogic process, which involves bringing together and working on ideas” (p. 4). This quote confirms the importance of learners’ engagement in everything that occurs in the classroom, including

63

engaging in the classroom talk as a way of reconstructing for themselves the meanings of words used in science, hence the language of science. The teacher can also be able to identify learners’ misconceptions with regards to misuse of words and offer the necessary assistance immediately.

Other factors that were observed that could be indicators of ineffective use of a science teacher’s oral instructional language is their speed of talking. This was evident in Teacher B’s lessons. He seemed to be rushing through the lessons. By doing this, Teacher B may have missed the chance of engaging his learners in the lesson’s discussions and not having enough time to explain the specialised words he is quite aware exists in science. Some of the information was evidently distorted, l believe, due to the fact that the teacher was perhaps concerned with finishing the lesson without paying much attention to what he was saying.

4.5 Chapter summary

In this chapter, the findings from the lesson observations and interview with one of the participant teachers are discussed. Some of the findings from the lesson observations were that in some instances the participant physical sciences teachers did not provide meanings of both technical and non-technical words used, none of the teachers used their learners’ prior understanding of non-technical words, and that participant Teacher B did not encourage participation of his learners in the lessons’ conversations as much as Teacher A. The face-to- face interview with Teacher B showed that Teacher B is aware that learners experience challenges with science language, and that meaning of non-technical words when presented in a science context is sometimes different from their everyday meaning.

In the next chapter, the conclusion, implications, recommendations and limitations of the study are presented.

64

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION