It was found that, quantitatively, the video-based translanguaging made little to no difference on learners’ conceptual development of mathematical concepts, yet qualitatively it did influence and affirm learners’ valuation of their L1s in the learning environment. This is attributed to the very short space of time over which the experiment was conducted, as reasoned by the mathematics coordinator and quality assessor. This is further attributed to the fact that this experiment went only as far as the first iteration, requiring it to be evaluated, improved, and implemented again. The minimal quantitative improvement does not,
however, indicate a failure of this experiment. Contrarily, it illustrates that learners were able to perform with at least as much improvement as their peers while learning through the language of their choice, which also enriched learners’ motivation and sense of self-worth.
The experimental glossary improved learners’ language proficiencies as they recalled many of the terms they had clicked on, and it improved their attitudes to using their L1 in the mathematical context as several learners chose to use their home language to explain the English terms. The use of translanguaging showed evidence of positively impacting learners’ attitudes to learning, particularly with respect to learning through their L1. This was
evidenced by learners’ positive feedback and evident enthusiasm throughout the experiment, which contrasted sharply with the attitudes expressed in the pre-course surveys. This positive attitude towards their L1 appeared, however, to be short-lived as learners only actively
135
advocated using their L1 in learning mathematics when this was available to them as an option. After the experiment, when learners returned to learning in English, most learners once again argued that they should be learning through the medium of English. This
illustrates that learners’ motivation for their choice of LoLT is not necessarily influenced by knowledge of the relation between language and cognition, but rather by hegemonic language in education practices.
While the creation and implementation of the experiment were informed by a broad spectrum of literature on the topic, it was also inextricably influenced by my own experiences as a researcher. My previous research experience was gained in the Joza township of
Grahamstown, Eastern Cape, where isiXhosa is the L1 of almost all the learners and teachers and English is rarely used or heard outside of class time. This is in line with the point raised by Setati and Adler (2000: 255) that in rural schools the teacher is often the learners’ only source of English exposure. This is also a very different context to that of Diepsloot,
Johannesburg, where linguistic contact between people of varying L1s is the norm, resulting in multilingual children who, in this significantly more urban township, also hear and use more English, in line with the research of Soudien (in Probyn, 2009: 127). That is to say, I may have underestimated the difference which may be likened to that between foreign language learning and second language learning contexts (Setati et al., 2002: 130). As such the difficulties of developing CALP and learning in English experienced by the learners in this study is probably less significant than that experienced by learners in my previous research.
This research did, however, illustrate the positive impact of incorporating learners’ L1 in learning particularly with regard to their sense of self and valuation of their L1. This speaks to both personal and political values. The linguistic and mathematical value added by the L1 may not have been apparent in the quantitative data, but the creation of spaces in which learners’ L1 can be incorporated into their education is dependent on increased personal and political value held by the L1.
As suggested by Baker and Hornberger (2001: 38), it is indeed clear that the learners’ multilingual development is impacted by the language attitudes of those around them and the prestige and prevalence of the languages in their contexts. This is seen in learners’ constant referral to the need to learn through the medium of English because of its prestige and function, which is reflected by their parents’ attitudes.
136
5.2.2 Pre-quiz to Post-quiz improvement in Fractions course
The difference in improvement between the experimental and control groups was inconsistent and inconclusive. The experimental group showed more improvement in Fractions 1, 4 and 7, the control group showed more improvement in Fractions 6, and no significant difference in improvement was seen in Fractions 2, 3, 5 and 8. Learners were only included in the analysis of a lesson if they achieved less than 80% for the pre-quiz. Furthermore, not all the learners completed all the lessons, as learners who struggled with the lessons did not complete lessons as fast as their peers and, if they did not attend catch-up sessions, they fell behind. This means that they could not complete all eight lessons within the given time period, indeed whether or not they reached the lesson at all, as the learners who completed each Fractions lesson differed slightly in each lesson. As the videos progress they become more context- reduced, meaning learners become increasingly dependent on the language being used as they are unable to draw meaning from the context (Baker and Hornberger, 2001: 43). It is
therefore interesting that there is no obvious trend in pre-quiz to post-quiz improvement as the lessons progress.
In Fractions 1, it is noteworthy that learners in the experimental group showed more improvement than control group. This goes against the expectation that learning in an
unfamiliar LoLT (in this case, the learners’ L1) can be confusing for learners and throw them off track. While this is most likely due to learners gaining better understanding through their L1 as LoLT, this could possibly also be attributed to increased enthusiasm and attentiveness due to the newness and novelty of the experimental course. This improvement is made more significant by learners in the experimental group attaining a lower average score for the pre- quiz and a higher average score for the post-quiz than the control group, as they started with less prior knowledge upon which to build and yet outperformed the control group in the post- quiz.
The effect size in Fractions 2 and 3 was too small from which to draw any meaningful conclusions, meaning that there was no notably difference in performance between the
control and experimental groups. While the difference in improvement in Fractions 3 was insignificant, the experimental group scored significantly higher for the pre-quiz and the post- quiz. This is most likely attributed to learners’ prior knowledge and the role it played in their completion of this lesson.
In Fractions 4 the learners in the experimental group again showed more improvement than learners in the control group, and their average pre-quiz and post-quiz scores were also
137
significantly higher than those of the control group. This could point to this group of learners being academically stronger than the learners in the control group.
The effect size in Fractions 5 was too small from which to draw any meaningful conclusions, meaning that both the control and experimental groups benefitted similarly from watching the videos in English and English and isiZulu respectively.
In Fractions 6 the control group showed more improvement than the experimental group; however they ended with similar post-quiz scores. In consultation with the quality assessor, she said that she could not find any reason in the experimental video for the learners to not perform well because of it. The difference in improvement could then be because the experimental group scored higher than the control group in the pre-quiz. If the experimental group were to then show as much improvement as the control group (i.e. if they were to improve 37.25% by 26.41% points) it is unlikely that either group would attain an average of 66.33% for this post-quiz. As such the lesser improvement shown by the experimental group is most likely attributed to the high scores attained in the pre-quiz, rather than video quality.
In Fractions 7 the learners in the experimental group scored lower in the pre-quiz, indicating they had less existing knowledge of the content prior to watching the video. These learners also scored on average lower than the control group for the post quiz. However, they showed more improvement than the learners in the control group. The reasons for this are unclear.
If it is the case that all (or most) learners have meta-cognitive awareness (i.e. they’re aware of what they know and what they don’t know) then one may assume that the learners who selected to do the English-medium course either did so because they were confident in their English proficiency, or because they were not confident in their isiZulu proficiency because it’s not their L1, or they were willing to compromise their understanding of
mathematics in pursuit of English proficiency. However, the learners’ awareness of how they would be perceived and treated by their peers based on their choice of LoLT for the Fractions course should also be taken into account.