factor
As evidenced by the literature reviewed, many research studies have been conducted in the area of difficulty of the teacher’s classroom language in science since their championing by Gardner in the early 1970s. However, as mentioned in some sections of this chapter and the number of studies reviewed in this study there are very few known studies in this area in South Africa for English second language learners of science.
In all these studies, the findings reveal poor understanding of the non-technical terms when used in the science context by learners. Consequently, there is a high probability that teachers are not aware of this problem or they choose to ignore it. Studies on the science teachers’ use of language of instruction in the classroom as a source of difficulties to the learners and, the science teachers’ awareness to this problem are rare (Yore, Bisanz & Hand, 2003; Yore & Treagust, 2006; Oyoo, 2009). In one of his latest studies, Oyoo (2009) concluded that learners indeed have trouble with the English words (as a language of instruction) in the teaching and learning of Physics/science. The study was conducted in Kenya, a country in sub Saharan Africa, involving mainly science teachers and students. The study investigated the physics teachers’ use of the language of instruction and the difficulties learners encounter when using every day (common) words (English) in Physics/science context. In that study, Oyoo came to a conclusion that learners encountered difficulties with the use of the science class room language but the teachers were not aware of this in many instances. This shows some similarities with the researcher’s study conducted in South Africa involving learners and their teachers. We concur in that the difficulties encountered by learners in studying school science are a cause for concern because this affects the overall pass rates in the science subject. It is imperative to identify the root cause of such problems, in order to help the
learners to understand science concepts, answer questions properly and to prevent the formation of misconceptions.
Teachers are usually concerned with syllabus coverage, ignoring language issues. Muralidhar (1991 p. 254), concluded that the poor scores in science examinations due to science classroom language is a result of teachers who “take it for granted that the language used to define terms, express rules or explain terms is self-evident to learners”. In a study conducted on the role of language in teaching science to English second language, the author observed how the teachers used terms like classify and describe in questions written on the board for learners to answer without bothering to explain their meanings. The learners produced strange answers due to the fact that the teacher was not explains such non-technical terms. It is important that this language must be understood by the learners, taking into account their general background and level of schooling.
In this study, the researcher shares the same view with other researchers that if teachers explain the meanings of the non-technical terms to learners, this may go a long way in assisting learners to understand Physics concepts (Oyoo, 2007/2008). The learners may be failing to understand what examiners are expecting in particular. The learners may misinterpret situations owing to the use of non-technical terms in a particular context-not as a result of lack of content knowledge of Physics. Furthermore, the researcher is of the view that the learners may be in a better position to understand Physics concepts if they realise that everyday words attain a different meaning depending on the context they are used. Consequently, teachers ought to be aware of the difficulties that the learners encounter with the contextual change in meaning of everyday words when used in Physics in order to conscientise the learners. If learning using the language of the science classroom is not easy for the native speaker of the language of instruction, how much more is it for the non-native speakers? This is precisely why the teacher has to be certain that he/she is communicating with the learners, not complicating the situation further (Cobbing, 2007). Many researchers, used samples of first language and/or second language learners as their research samples that the non-technical terms are problematic (Oyoo, 2007, 2008, 2010). Some of these researchers like Johnstone and Selepeng (2001) used samples of both first and second language learners for comparison and they arrived at the same observation that this component is problematic Internationally, the research studies have attempted to show that all the three non-technical component categories of the instructional language used in science are generally difficult to
all learners regardless of their gender, and linguistic or cultural backgrounds (Oyoo, 2008, 2009). It should therefore be expected that “learners’ understanding of the meanings of all words in this language when used as science words and/or in science context would result in enhanced students’ understanding or internalisation of the concepts taught” (Oyoo, 2009, p. 171). The science classroom language is different from the language of instruction for both first language speakers and second language speakers (Tao, 1994). In a scientific context, the words are more precise in meaning than in general situations.
The literature reviewed show that learners encounter difficulties with the use of the science teacher’s classroom language in many countries, particularly for the second language learners of English. The present study also intended to investigate this problem for South African children doing Physics. Now that the two components of the teacher’s classroom language have been reviewed, the next sections will briefly look at the South African language policy as enshrined in the post-apartheid era constitution, and thus present the reason why this study was relevant to the South African situation.