Issues of the language of learning and teaching (LoLT) at school

In 1998, President R.G. Mugabe set up the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Education and Training that is popularly known as the Nziramasanga Commission. It was constituted so that it could inquire into the Zimbabwean education system that had been inherited from the

39

colonial government of Rhodesia. Its report revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the education and training system then. The Commission recommended a complete overhaul of the system to make it relevant to the needs of independent Zimbabwe. The Commission recommended, among other things, the provision of access to education for all citizens at all levels, from pre-school to tertiary and life-long education; the upgrading and development of indigenous languages; development of ICT skills; teaching of practical skills at primary school level and giving special attention to the marginalised groups like the girl child, the disabled and vulnerable children (Institutional Repository at University of Zimbabwe. Staff Publications). Proposals were made to use the learners’ mother tongues as the LoLt at school (Nhongo, 2013:1209; Nziramasanga Report, 1999:156) That would help to raise the standards of education of Zimbabweans. Government was urged to review its policy on indigenous languages and make them a compulsory part of the curriculum. Zimbabwe needs a clear and explicit language policy.

Before 2006, the learner’s first language was used as the LoLT in schools from pre-school up to the third grade only. From the fourth grade onwards, English became the LoLT. Were those pupils proficient in the English language? The Presidential Commission did not question that, yet as Setati (2011:7) puts it explicitly: “Language proficiency is important for both social and academic interactions.”

Debates on LoLT in most multilingual African countries, is a contemporary issue (Pitman, Majhanovich & Brock-Utne, 2010:1). On the same issue, Vakalisa (2000:24) also noted with concern in her inaugural lecture at the University of South Africa (UNISA), that the language of instruction is “an unresolved matter in many multilingual countries.”

Zimbabwe is a multilingual country (Peresuh & Masuku, 2002:27; Gotosa, Rwodzi and Mhlanga, 2013:88; Viriri, 2003:2; Nhongo, 2013:1208; Shizha, 2012:786; Makanda, 2011:10). 82% of the population of Zimbabwe are Shonas and 14% are Ndebeles. Whites and Asians are less than 1% and the other ethnic groups are 3% (US Department of State report on Zimbabwe, 2011). The indigenous languages that were previously considered as minority languages by the colonial regime have now been granted official status. These languages are as follows: Chewa, Chibarwe, English, Kalanga, Koisan, Nambya, Ndau, Ndebele, Shangani, Shona, Sign language, Sotho, Tonga, Tswana, Venda and Xhosa (Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013: 17).

40

In a report on Harare Intergovernmental Conference on Language Policies in Africa written for UNESCO, Chimhundu (2002:10) summarises the attributes of a specific, coherent and realistic national policy of an African country. He intimates that first and foremost, the language policy should define short, medium and long-term goals. Secondly it must take stock of the problems to be resolved and finally, it must determine the methods and resources to be used and spell out the mechanisms to be set up. The linguistic landscape of the country and the region should be considered in order to come up with the basis for the strategies to be laid down. For instance, in Zimbabwe, Shona is spoken in Manicaland, Mashonaland and Masvingo while Ndebele is spoken in Matabeleland. The dialects would also have to be considered to come up with the linguistic landscape of the country. In addition to this, the functions of each language by the state and its citizens should also be specified. For instance it has to be explicitly stated which language(s) would be used as LoLT and for which subject(s)? Which language(s) would be used as the language(s) of commerce? Parliament? Road signs, and so on.

Chimhundu (2002:32) observes that in Zimbabwe there is no clear, coherent and explicit language policy framework. His sentiments are echoed by Thondhlana (2002:30); Viriri (2003:2); Shizha (2007:302) and Makanda (2011:2). Instead, there is just an Education Act. Prinsloo (2012:26) contends that the major goals of a language policy are: to facilitate total involvement in all national issues through education for all; to ensure that learners are supported in their educational endeavour, and hence to have multilingualism as an approach to use of language in at school; to upgrade and develop all the official national languages; to support the teaching and learning of all the other languages used by learners, communities and government; to correct limitations resulting from mismatches between the home language and the LoLT; and to develop programmes to redress previously denigrated languages. According to Prinsloo, the underlying principle is to keep home language(s) but offer additional language(s). For instance, ESL can be introduced while learners continue to use their first language as the LoLT at school. Clearly, this is not happening in Zimbabwe.

During the formulation of the policy on language in the 1997 document in South Africa, the Working Group’s report to the Minister of Education on values in Education identified two important aspects namely: the importance of studying through the language one knows best and the fostering of multilingualism. At primary school, secondary school, and even at tertiary level, the language that a learner knows best in Zimbabwe and indeed elsewhere, is the learner’s mother tongue or first language.

41

On languages to be taught and the LoLT in Zimbabwean schools, Section 62 of the Zimbabwe Education Act was repealed to extend the use of the mother tongue as a LoLT up to grade seven. Sign language is the LoLT for the deaf and hard of hearing at school (Zimbabwe Education Amendment Act, 2006). However, from my long experience as a college lecturer, I have observed that there is tension between the Education Act that represents the national language policy and practice. English continues to dominate as the LoLT in Zimbabwean primary schools. The hard of hearing are not segregated from inclusive classrooms. Unfortunately, these classrooms are manned by teachers who are illiterate in Sign Language. The current ES syllabus requires teachers to use a pupil-centred approach (CDU, 1994:6). This approach is intended to trigger curiosity, which should lead to logical and systematic questioning by pupils. It should also encourage exchange of ideas among pupils, which should enable them to view problem identification and problem solving from different angles. However, the writer strongly feels that the issue of language should not be ignored if pupils are to share ideas, ask questions and answer high order open-ended questions and not just literal questions as I have observed during ES lessons. This brings about the question of proficiency in the LoLT again. If pupils are not proficient in the LoLT, the pupil-centred approach alluded to above is likely to be problematic in implementing.

Ndawi and Peresuh (1998:59) maintain that “a curriculum design may prescribe a high standard of education but whether it will be achieved depends on such essential factors as the availability of adequate human, material and financial resources.” That may be true to a certain extent. But my own observation is that there is still something missing. If learners and teachers are unable to communicate effectively, then all the other improvements are in vain.

Findings of studies done so far have revealed that the use of ESL as a LoLT is a barrier to effective learning and teaching, particularly in Science (Shizha, 2012:787; Setati, 2011:20; Brock-Utne & Desai 2010:11). Viriri (2003:2) shares the same view when he says, “Learning in foreign languages would take longer than in a mother tongue”, and “Our indigenous languages, Shona and Ndebele inclusive, are the right media of instruction that ensure understanding and transfer of knowledge.” Shizha (2007:307) also has this to say in support of this idea, “The language of instruction in African schools is the major obstacle in students’ cognitive development and learning outcomes...”

42

The studies alluded to above reveal the advantages of using the learners mother tongue in the learning of science concepts. The findings of a study conducted by Nomlomo (2007:17), reveal that teachers and learners communicate better in their first language and that learners perform better in lessons conducted using their first language too. In Zimbabwe, this is clearly not the case. The majority of our primary school pupils are using ESL as the LoLT (Shumba, 1999:5; Young, 1988:6).

I have observed over the years, that many pupils rarely ask questions and they seldom take part in class discussions during Science lessons in Zimbabwean Primary Schools. I ascribe that to the learners’ lack of proficiency in the medium of instruction. I have also observed that even when English was the official language of instruction in class, in practice, learners and their teachers at primary and secondary school used both English and the pupils’ mother tongue in class oral discourse. This practice is known as code-switching. Gotosa, Rwodzi and Mhlanga (2013:88) concur, “Practically, the mother tongue is used in class oral discourse only through code-switching; a practice teachers and pupils have devised in order to solve classroom language problems.” These observations are also supported by Muthwii and Kioko (2004:4) who regard it as a learner’s right to feel safe and confident in class. The use of English as a LoLT seems to disorient most ESL learners. They become passive and silent in class (ibid). Muthwii and Kioko attribute this to two factors. Either they lack the ability to express themselves in the LoLT being used, or they feel uncomfortable to use a foreign language.