The analysis and interpretations of the challenges and teaching strategies employed in each school were made in order to address the last research question: how does the teaching of language structures and conventions compare between a public and an independent school? In addressing this question, similarities and differences have been taken into account in addressing the implications of teaching language structures and conventions.
The method and approach most commonly used throughout the TPs in both schools was the text- based approach. In both public and independent schools, teachers initiated communication at the beginning of the lesson in order to get the learners thinking about the current work. However, the public school focused more on drill and practice (Audiolingual Method to language learning), whilst the independent school encouraged communication based on real-life contexts (CLT).
The classroom observations and interviews clearly showed that lessons in the public school followed a traditional approach that was mainly teacher-centred. In order to assess the learner’s understanding of the work, learners were required to complete simplistic exercises presented in the textbook. Lessons in the independent school, however, were more learner-centred as discussions were scaffolded to encourage learner participation. Lessons follow a traditional approach based on the requirements set out in the CAPS, but involve a variety of tasks and learning materials to complement the textbook. The CLT and text-based approach are the two main approaches advocated in the CAPS (2011) which teachers find the easiest and most effective approaches to apply in the EHL classroom. Teachers also benefit from the textbook as it is CAPS compliant, accommodating the use of CLT and text-based approach. Learners in the independent school showed more enthusiasm when participating in classroom discussions and answering questions than their counterparts in the public school. Moodley (2010) explores how communicative competence is used not only for communicative purposes but also to enhance
cognitive skills. Questions asked in the public school consisted of literal questions that elicited lower order thinking. However, learners in the independent school developed new understandings and meaning because critical questions were asked.
Although most teachers in both schools indicated that the integration of the language skills is important and occurs involuntarily, it was more evident that independent schools integrate the language skills more effectively during the lessons due to successful planning. As a result, more work gets covered during a lesson and more language skills are employed during each task. The integration of language skills help learners develop their understanding in order to apply their linguistic knowledge across other language skills.
The Sociocultural theory of Vygotsky (1986, 1980) emphasizes the meaningful interaction among individuals which is a prerequisite for cognitive development (Eun & Lim, 2009, p. 13). Learners, as Celce-Murcia (2001, p. 5) notes, are viewed as capable of generating rules because part of language learning is rule based and vocabulary orientated. The public school seems to take on a repetitive way of teaching where the teacher asks learners to provide definitions or examples of linguistic aspects, whereas teachers in the independent school seem to produce more interesting lessons that go beyond the learners’ metacognitive levels of thinking. Higher order thinking, as Lantolf and Thorne (2000, 2006) suggest is best developed through interaction within social and cultural environments. This is fundamental in terms of how to keep the learners focused on the task at hand and how to assist learners in remembering what they have learned (Donald, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Both schools, however, promote that learning should take place within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) with the mediation support of their teachers (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001, p. 13).
The language needs of the learners are taken into account allowing space for language growth. The only difference in terms of the linguistic standard between the schools is because of the language proficiency of the learners. Therefore, both schools present a diverse learning culture. Learners in the public school do not actively participate in classroom discussions, unless the teacher elicits a response from the learners. Learners are also portrayed as having limited confidence when responding in English. Apart from the linguistic barrier, the following reasons may be considered:
lack of learning support from home; lack foundation to language learning; poor scaffolding strategies used by the teacher; learner lacks communicative academic language proficiency skills; or learner lacks motivation to learn. In comparing the learning culture of the public school to the independent school, learners show confidence when participating in classroom discussions. The following reasons may be considered: learners show an interest in the learning process; teacher creates space for learners to actively engage and share their understanding; and learners have been given a good foundation to language learning.
In comparing the comments made during the interview process at both schools, the independent school prefers using the CAPS as opposed to the public school. More positive comments were made regarding its structure and accountability. However, both schools seem to agree on the time constraints advocated in the CAPS. As a result, independent schools are able to select certain content from the CAPS, whilst public schools are more restricted. However, its application can be further argued that the independent school prefers to cover content more in-depth, thus demanding more time. The rigorous application of the CAPS is the reason that the public school represents a more traditional approach to teaching because the curriculum is not open to interpretation. Teachers are expected to follow the requirements advocated in the CAPS, despite the concerns it poses. As a result of conforming to language teaching norms, Savignon (1976, p. 14) highlights the implication that ‘we have remained prisoners of academia and failed to offer our students the kinds of language learning experiences they need most’.
4.5. Conclusion
This Chapter addresses the research questions by analysing and discussing the findings attained in each school. In order to achieve the main aim of this study, a comparison of the public and independent school was made.