The findings of the bilingual online glossary usage suggest that the words that were not clicked on were already known by the learners, that the term equivalent was already known by most of the learners, that convert, diagram and shaded were unknown for several learners, and that most learners did not understand the meaning of simplest form. The fact that most
138
learners who used the glossary clicked on one to five terms several times each could indicate that either the learner did not understand the definition, or that they forgot it.
The reason for the term simplest form receiving so many clicks could be because of an inadequate reversioning of the term. Another likely reason is that putting an answer into simplest form makes the difference between an answer being correct or incorrect, whether or not the concepts have been understood and all other processes have been followed. For this reason, learners may have clicked on it many times to check that they would or had done the correct procedure to get an answer that the computer would mark as correct. Furthermore, the term simplest form also occurred significantly more often throughout the course than the other glossary items, and its frequent appearance could also be a contributing factor to its repeated clicks. Learner 2, who clicked on this term the most times, defined it with the isiZulu term ezilula kakhulu. Eight out of the 14 learners who took the quiz gave definitions that indicated they understood the concept.
The word illustrate was not known by the learners, despite this being a general language term that is not limited to the mathematics context. The fact that it was not clicked on suggests either that the learners did not deem understanding it to be important or relevant to the work they were doing, or they lacked the meta-cognitive awareness of which words they did and did not understand.
IsiZulu and isiXhosa-speaking learners wrote in their L1s more readily than had ever been noted in a written task at OLICO Youth. The fact that learners successfully used their L1s to explain terms illustrates that learners believe their languages are suitable for use in mathematics. This is contrary to the commonly held belief, noted by Probyn (2009: 127) and evidenced by the learners prior to the experiment, that African languages have insufficient terminology to be used in mathematics. The learners’ use of their L1s to explain the glossary terms also illustrates their (albeit perhaps surface-level) understanding of the use of language for cognitive activity, which Titone (1978: 287) cites as an important role of multilingual education. This also indicates that learners can benefit greatly from the use of multilingual teaching resources such as this glossary, as these resources equip learners with the linguistic knowledge needed to facilitate conceptual development.
5.2.4 Feedback during the course
The feedback collected from the learners during the course is important as it’s often in the unstructured feedback like this where learners let their guard down and are honest, because they don’t feel like they’re being tested. However, due to the online nature of the course, off-
139
the-cuff feedback about the experiment was not easy to come by as online work typically cuts down interpersonal interactions and discussions.
As argued by Cummins and Swain (1986: 101), the use of the learners’ L1 asserts their pride in their identity, and as argued by Benson (2004: 119) it promotes the status of the language. This was clearly illustrated by learners’ positive reactions to learning in isiZulu, and also later by learners requesting a similar experiment using their various L1s.
Several learners who had elected to do the English-medium course later said they would like to do a course through the medium of isiZulu or their home language after seeing the experimental course. This is encouraging, and could indicate that learners felt motivated by seeing their friends doing the experimental course, or that their preconceptions about the type of language that would be used differed to the actual language use. That learners then said they would prefer to watch the videos in English in the post-video surveys suggests that learners got excited about it in the moment but lost enthusiasm when it was not a current or tangible event. This may illustrate that while the experimental course did improve learners’ enthusiasm, this enthusiasm may not be sustainable as for some learners it is extrinsic and dependent on external factors such as the novelty and newness of the course rather than intrinsic motivation and desire to learn in their L1.
The quality assessor’s feedback about the ambiguity of using the term izikhathi to reflect fractions speaks to Pimm’s (1981: 148) point that translating mathematical language directly into ordinary language is a commonly used technique; however, confusion may arise from its use as mathematical terms often do not have direct and constant equivalent terms in English (or the LoLT). The feedback given by the mathematics coordinator and the quality assessor regarding ambiguities of the language used and correctly explaining core tenets of the subject were vital in this process, and suggests that if this model of codeswitching were to be applied elsewhere it would require the person creating the videos to have a sound
understanding of the language and the subject, ideally more than any layperson. This would need to be a consideration if one were to scale such a project.
As raised by Setati et al. (2002: 135), learners need to be familiar with the associated discourse of any subject in order to be able to make sense of it. In this case learners are only familiar with this discourse in English, and the equivalent discourse in their L1 is resultantly unfamiliar. The quality assessor (interview: 2015) supports this argument by pointing out that learning mathematics in their L1 is unfamiliar for the learners in this experiment and thus they would require more time and exposure to it in order to be familiarised with it.
140 5.2.5 Parent discussion group
There are many conflicting attitudes towards learning through the L1 in South Africa. Without parents’ support, any education programme will be hard-pressed to be successful. It is therefore encouraging to note that the parents made no allusion to the belief that African languages should not be used as LoLT because they are inferior or lack necessary
terminology, a belief that Probyn (2009: 127) notes is commonplace in South Africa. The parents held differing views about whether or not English should be used as a medium because it is the language used at school (and by extension in the political economy), or whether translanguaging should be implemented because it assists with cognition. This illustrates the tension noted by Webb, Lafon, and Pare (2010: 280) that the utility and prestige of English often outweighs the cognitive benefits of additive bilingualism.
Thinking that “literacy” refers to “English” reinforces the idea that African languages are not for the academic world – they are something for the home. Parents’ views on the importance of learning English reflect the usefulness of English, and the necessity of understanding it if one is to succeed at school. In answering the question of whether it is important to learn in English, parents approached this in a very practical way, looking at the current educational context their children are in, rather than in an idealistic way which would challenge the current LoLT norms.
Parents’ enthusiasm for their children to learn African languages reflects a strong tie to cultural identity, and possibly also parents’ concern that urbanisation, globalisation, or the hegemony of English might diminish their children’s knowledge and practice of their culture.
The parents’ views are important because they determine to a large extent how supportive the parents will be of their children participating in a multilingual programme. Their views are also important because they represent views that are informed by their surrounding society and personal convictions, rather from being learned in academia in this respect. Alexander (2000: 13) wrote about recognising the sentimental value of a language and understanding the relationship between language and cognition, and the parents involved in this discussion value language for both these reasons. The parents clearly value their home languages for sentimental reasons, citing the connection between language and culture. While the parents also value language for its facilitation of cognition, this is slightly more complex: parents are very conscious that their children understand content better in their L1s, however there was no allusion to the cognitive benefits of developing one’s L1. It was particularly encouraging that the suggestion of using English and learners L1s was brought forward by a parent.
141
It is encouraging to see such forward-thinking parents. The literature suggests that it is currently difficult to implement policies of true additive bilingualism because of parents’ resistance towards such policies. Hopefully with more parents like this it will become easier to implement better language policies. However, as Setati and Adler (2000: 254) suggest, parents from urban areas are more open to codeswitching than parents from rural areas. As such it may be the case that the parents present in this discussion represent urban parents to a larger extent than rural parents. Even if this is the case, parents’ views are critically important as they largely determine to what their children will have access.