As illustrated in the data presentation, the main reasons learners selected No in answer to whether they would like to watch videos in their L1s was that their L1 is difficult, it is important to learn English, English is the LoLT, English is a lingua franca in a multilingual environment, and that they prefer English to their home language. The reason that learners gave when saying that their L1 is difficult also alludes to the belief noted by Probyn (2009: 127) that appropriate terminology for mathematics in African languages does not exist. It is noteworthy that these learners felt their L1 to be more difficult than English, yet when they conversed with each other (be it in a BICS or CALP context) they generally used their L1, with small amounts of English thrown in now and again. This was also the case when they explained mathematics to each other, except for when they were reciting rote procedures for which they use English.
Upon interrogation of some learners I discovered that when they think about learning through their L1 they imagine the type of L1 they are taught as Home Language at school. This is typically very formal language with a focus on form rather than meaning. The argument for English as a lingua franca in the multilingual environment certainly makes sense, however in reality this is not practiced by the learners as they use either isiZulu, Sepedi or Sesotho as lingua francas amongst each other, selecting one of these languages depending on the L1s of the conversation participants. At OLICO Youth, English is only truly used as a lingua franca with facilitators, and several learners still use their L1 to communicate with the facilitators (myself included, despite learners’ knowledge of my limited multilingual
proficiencies).
Learners’ argument for the importance of using English is hard to refute, and in conversations with learners it often comes across that being fluent in English is synonymous with being successful. In this regard it is likely that learners choose to learn in English (a)
142
because they believe it will help them to become more fluent in English, and (b) because learning in English holds a certain level of prestige on its own.
As illustrated in the data presentation, the main reasons learners gave for selecting Yes in answer to whether they would like to watch videos in their L1s was that the English
language is difficult, that they understand better in their L1, and that they prefer using both English and their L1. In this case it is clear that learners prioritise understanding content above all other factors. The learners’ metacognitive awareness here is noteworthy, as the learners have chosen an option that they most likely know is not as prestigious, yet they seek understanding rather than prestige. It is noteworthy that one learner suggested mixing
languages, suggesting she recognises that she understands her L1 better than English but also that it is important to use English in this context (which she could have attributed to a number of reasons discussed above).
The learners found the videos ranging from “ok” to “very easy”, but found the
mathematics to range from “difficult” to “very easy”. Working on the premise that the videos assist learners in understanding the mathematics, these results suggest that there is a slight mismatch between the videos and the mathematics, and that learners were not feeling fully equipped for the mathematics after watching the videos. On the other hand, watching a video is a relatively passive act and doing mathematics is active, so naturally some learners may find watching the videos to be easier tasks than actually doing mathematics.
Before the experimental course, the majority of learners stated that they would not prefer to watch the videos in their L1. It is regrettable that the question was phrased in this binary way because, judging from learners’ comments, they value English for its function and prestige and so would generally not choose English over their L1. However, they may still have been open to including their L1 in addition to English had they been given this option in this question. That said, it is noteworthy that learners theoretically chose the function and prestige of English over the comprehensibility of their L1s.
5.2.7 Discussion groups
It is of interest that the learners stated that they prefer the videos in both English and their L1, as this was before the Fractions course was made available in this form, and so learners had taken it upon themselves to lobby for this. This indicates some learners already believed that this would be beneficial for them.
Learners made reference to the “step-by-step instructions” and that the video “shows you how to do it”. This likely indicates that these learners feel the most helpful part of the
143
videos is the procedural knowledge they impart. However, it could indicate that the videos progressed conceptually in an order that made sense to the learners. On the other hand, several learners made reference to how the videos “help us to understand” thereby indicating they gain conceptual understanding. Also “they show how to calculate methods” suggests that learners understand the videos as assisting them with procedures.
5.2.8 Post-video interviews
These interviews speak to the point made by Moschkovich (1999: 27) that researchers should also examine how learners solve mathematical problems rather than simply looking at their ability to do so.
The first learner I interviewed did not point out anything about the experimental course of her own accord, but when questioned about it she stated that she now understands the videos and, if given the choice, would still choose to learn with isiZulu again. This
illustrates that while learning through isiZulu is not noteworthy to her, she does prefer it from an understanding perspective in comparison to learning in English.
The reaction of the second learner I interviewed when I asked her to explain to me indicates that this is a new thing for her to do. While it is quite common in urban South African schools for teachers to ask learners to explain how they did something so that they could see their thought process and conceptual development, this was clearly new for her, indicating that this is lacking from her education both at school and at OLICO Youth.
In these interviews it is evident that learners’ explanations are procedural, with limited – if any – conceptual explanation involved. This may be attributed to the school environment which, according to the literature (see for example Pretorius and Machet, 2004: 57) and supported by observations made by my colleagues and myself, is heavily procedural. In addition to this, the course and videos in which learners participate at OLICO Youth also revert back to procedural approaches to an extent, in that learners are assessed by their answers and that there is no room for discussion of concepts in the online classroom setting. Furthermore, the videos illustrate that the procedures and methods learnt by the learners at school are often deeply ingrained in their approach to mathematics, as several learners used methods they had learnt at school rather than using the methods they had learnt in the OLICO videos. This also shows us that while the learners are gaining something from the videos, the course is partly simply providing them with practice activities which allow them to improve their procedural methods and make them more accurate. That said, it is insufficient to simply add bits of learners’ L1 here and there in some videos and hope for a miracle. The
144
programme itself needs to break down the rote approach learners are so comfortable with (although how to do this is beyond the scope of this research) and provide more focus on conceptual development through the videos and coursework. Perhaps then a concept-based translanguaging model could be more useful. However it is clear that while language proficiency is a notable factor in education it is certainly not the only factor at play.
5.2.9 Post-video Surveys
Learners’ enthusiastic lobbying for the experiment to be conducted again in all languages, and not only their own L1s, illustrates Lindholm’s (in Lindholm-Leary, 2001: 62) point that additive bilingualism also fosters learners’ embrace of other cultures. It is worth noting that the control group found Fractions easier in comparison to the experimental group, and that the experimental group found Fractions easier than Decimals. This could be because the experimental group was confused or disoriented by the use of isiZulu, or because the experimental group had enhanced metacognitive awareness during the isiZulu-medium course and were more aware of what they did not know than the control group.
5.2.10 Post-video discussion
There are two main ideas evident in the post-video discussions. Firstly, it is clear that either (a) learners’ enthusiasm for learning through English together with their L1 had diminished after the completion of the course, or (b) the learners who felt this way were more confident and forthcoming with feedback than those who did not. This is likely because learners are constantly surrounded by and aware of the prestige of the English language. Secondly, it is also clear that learners were enthusiastic about creating videos in several languages. This again reflects Lindholm’s (in Lindholm-Leary, 2001: 62) note about cultural acceptance being created through additive bilingualism.