Research on Language of Learning and Teaching Science: An International Problem

Research on the effect of the second language (English included) as a language of learning and teaching is not new (see paragraph 2.5.). Numerous studies have been conducted and without exception, many of them indicate that a number of words commonly used in Science texts are poorly understood.

In a study involving more than 12,000 secondary learners in Hong Kong schools, Marsh, Hau, and Kong (2000:302) traced the achievement of native Chinese-speaking learners in ESL and mother tongue schools in language subjects and content subjects for 3 years starting from Grade 1. While the mother tongue schools basically used Cantonese for teaching, the language of learning and teaching in the ESL schools varied greatly according to the abilities of learners. For many ESL schools with less able learners, the educators might use mainly Cantonese or a mixed code of Cantonese and English for teaching content subjects, though the textbooks and the examinations were in English.

Prior learner achievement was based on a placement score that represents an aggregate of achievement of a learner in all academic subjects at the end of primary schooling, moderated by external examinations. In each of the 3 years following entry into secondary school, the Education Department administered standardized achievement tests in English, Chinese, Mathematics, Science, Geography, and History. The achievement tests were administered to all learners near the end of the school year (May to June) in the language of learning and teaching in which the learner studied the particular subject.

Marsh et al. (2000:346) report the findings as follows: After controlling for learners’ prior ability and other factors, comparison of learners’ achievement indicated that ESL (LoLT) had

59

positive effects on English proficiency and, to a lesser extent, Chinese proficiency. However, the effects of ESL (LoLT) were negative on all other subjects, being relatively slight for Mathematics and greater for History, Geography, and Science. The positive effects of ESL as a language of learning on English and Chinese achievement were expected.

These results support the parental belief that immersion in English promotes the development of both English and Chinese. However, a possible reason for the strong negative effects of ESL on History, Geography, and Science is that these three subjects were new content areas for secondary school learners. Learning these subjects in a second language was always going to be particularly demanding for learners because they would have to master the basic terminology as well as develop conceptual understanding of the subject matter and comprehend the textbooks in English. The results also suggest that the English-language skills of the English language medium learners might be insufficiently developed to cope with the complex curriculum materials in these content subjects.

These problems were less serious with Maths, as mathematics learning involves the use of symbolic terminology that may not be so dependent on the language of learning and teaching. For History, Geography, and Science, the negative effects associated with teaching in English were the same, irrespective of learners’ initial academic ability. However, learners who were initially more proficient in English were less disadvantaged by learning in English (Marsh et al., 2000:346).

Nevertheless, the findings of the study suggest useful criteria for identifying learners who would benefit from English immersion, for example, postulating that the negative effects of teaching in English would be minimized if the selection of learners into ESL schools is based on prior English ability.

While the findings of the above studies regarding the effects of LoLT on learner achievement are inconclusive and sometimes conflicting, some generalizations can be drawn to guide policy making on the language of learning and teaching for schools in South Africa. There is evidence that teaching in English or in mixed code has negative effects on learning for low-ability

60

learners. However, the negative effects may decrease as learners’ English proficiency improves. For high-ability learners who have reached a threshold proficiency in both languages, using English as the LoLT may enhance language acquisition, particularly in English. For these learners, achievement in different content subjects may be affected to a lesser degree.

In the USA, Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowsi, Rosebury and Hudiscourt-Barnes (2000: 529), conducted a study which sought to understand the gap in Science learning and achievement separating low-income, ethnic minority and linguistic minority (L2 speakers) children from more economically priviledged learners. In their study, the relationship between everyday and scientific knowledge was approached from two perspectives. One of the perspectives viewed the relationship as fundamentally discontinuous whereas the other viewed it as fundamentally continuous. Basing their research on the latter tradition, they proposed a framework for understanding the every day sense-making practices of learners from diverse communities as an intellectual resource in Science learning and teaching.

Further, Warren, et al (2000:529) argue that too little attention is paid by researchers and educators alike to the potentially profound continuities between everyday and scientific ways of knowing and talking. They state that the pedagogical possibilities that may be derived from such an analysis, especially for “at risk” learners, are seldom realized. They then concluded that what learners from low-income, linguistic, racial and ethnic minority communities do as they make sense of the world, is different from what Europeans are socialised to do, even though what is done is intellectually rigorous and generatively connected with academic disciplinary knowledge.

In a related study, Lee and Luykx (2003:12) conducted their study in two elementary schools in the Southeast of USA. The schools were chosen on the basis of availability of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in them. The groups of learners who participated in the study comprised of: (a) monolingual English speaking learners; (b) African American learners who spoke Standard English and Black vernacular English; (c) bilingual Hispanic learners and, (d)

61

bilingual Haitian learners. Selected learners had to belong to one of the groups and were required to obtain a written permission from their parents to participate in the study.

The study was done in controlled environments outside classroom contexts. The Hispanic and Haitian learners were further divided into two categories: learners who were proficient in English and learners who were still in the process of learning English as a second language. Language proficiency was determined by the authors through a story telling exercise using pictures from a wordless book. Only those learners whose age was considered to be appropriate to their reading level participated in the study. A total of thirty two learners participated in the study. The learners were organised into 16 groups of two learners each. The authors refer to these groups of two learners as dyads. The dyads were encouraged to work cooperatively rather than competitively.

Learners were asked to work on three tasks that involved finding out, manipulating, generalizing and summarizing ideas concerning the topics. The learners worked in dyads of learners with the same language and culture with educators from the same cultural background and gender. Each Science task was accompanied with an elicitation protocol to ensure consistency among educators. Educators were encouraged to change to the learners’ alternative languages whenever necessary. All sessions were audio and videotaped and audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed. The video recordings were used to observe and analyze non verbal behaviour.

The results about Science knowledge and vocabulary indicate wide variations among the dyads of learners. With a possible maximum score of 42 for the three tasks, the scores for the dyads ranged from 32 to 3. The mean score for the 16 dyads was 15.6 and the standard deviation was 7.5. The study showed that learners who had thorough grasp of Science knowledge and vocabulary outperformed those who had problems in either Science knowledge or vocabulary or both. The authors found learners who appeared to understand the vocabulary but did not actually understand what the terms meant.

62

In the context of the present study, the above statements about vocabulary corroborate what Dlamini (2003:57) described when commenting on the Matric results for the province of Kwazulu-Natal. He (Dlamini) attributed the high failure rate of the matriculants in that province to the issue of learners’ lack of English functional vocabulary. He contended that “English is a complex language, and learning through it requires a great deal of effort and practice to master its vocabulary”.

The discussion (on the language of learning and teaching) presented above has tried to present a compelling view of the nature of the problem. Research findings from various parts of the world, particularly the United States and Europe have been presented and examined. The main concern of most studies has been to find causes of learner failure, especially reasons why foreign learners do not perform as well as native learners in countries of migration. In the literature, the major apparent cause seems to be the language of learning and teaching.

While it is generally accepted that there have been many studies that seem to indicate that teaching through an L1 results in high academic performance, the studies that show the opposite cannot be ignored. They too have something to contribute to the on-going search for conclusive evidence.

What one concludes from the literature review is that the search should therefore continue. It was in the light of this understanding that the researcher decided to investigate the use of English as a language of learning and teaching in the learning of Science in the Vlakfontein Circuit within a specific context and learning environment.

2.12 Research on Language of Learning and Teaching Science: A Continental (African)