There has been a lot of research in this area albeit not much of it focuses on mathematics teacher education. For the purpose of this study the focus of the discussion that follows is on what is happening in teacher training institutions in some countries in Africa that have teacher training policies targeting teachers who are going to teach in bi/multilingual classrooms. In most countries, there is not much that is happening in training the teachers for bilingual classrooms, therefore, this section provides a discussion of countries such as Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Niger, Ghana, and Malawi. Furthermore, this section indicates some of the programmes put in place by various countries in trying to prepare teachers for multilingual classrooms.
In Burkina Faso, teachers who receive regular pedagogical support from the University of Ouagadougou linguists and are familiarized with the first and official languages used as LoLT in schools are those teachers who teach Ecoles Bilingues (Brock-Utne & Alidou, 2005). Ecoles Bilingues, according to the authors, are learners (nine years or older) who have not had a chance to be enrolled in formal primary schools. Brock-Utne & Alidou further explain that these learners are more mature and have already developed full language skills in their home languages before enrolling in Ecoles Bilingue.
In Ethiopia, the LoLT for primary teachers who are being prepared to teach in the first four years of schooling in training colleges is the same as the LoLT for the first four years of schooling in primary schools (Mekonnen, 2005). The concern however, is that this LoLT for primary teachers is not followed in actual practice (Mekonnen, 2005).
In the case of Ethiopia, the education and training policy of teachers of 1994 (GTZ, 2005) stipulates that LoLT of different levels of education should be as follows:
Table 2.1: National policy on the language of learning and teaching in education and training of teachers in 1994 in Ethiopia. (From GTZ (2005) report p. 114)
Level of Education National policy on LoLT I Primary Education • I cycle (Grade 1-4) • II cycle (Grade 5-8) Mother tongues II Secondary Education • I cycle (Grade 9 - 10) • Preparatory (Grade 11 - 12) English
III Primary Teachers’ Education • PTE for I cycle
• PTE for II cycle
Mother tongues and English
IV Secondary teachers’ education English
In table 2.1, it can be appreciated that, LoLT for primary teacher education is the same as LoLT for primary education. According to Mekonnen (2005), there is a concern, however, that this national policy is not followed in actual practice and that there is a mismatch between the LoLT of primary education of the second cycle (grades 5 - 8) and the LoLT of primary teacher education for the second cycle. For example, the LoLT for grades 5 – 8 is the mother tongue but the LoLT being used in the teacher education is just English. Table 2.2 shows this mismatch.
Table 2.2: From GTZ (2005) report on optimizing learning and Education in Africa – the Language Factor (p. 114)
Educational Level
LoLT Primary Education
Grade 1 – 4 Mother tongue
Grade 5 – 6 Mother tongue and English
I
Grade 7 – 8 Mother tongue and English
Primary Teachers’ Education
Grade 1 – 4 Mother tongue
II
Grade 5 – 8 English
However, it is not clear whether the teacher educators teach the subjects in their own home languages as indicated in table 2.2. Table 2.2 shows that teacher training in local languages in Ethiopia and other countries is still a challenge. Although the policy in Ethiopia encourages the use of mother tongue languages in teacher training programmes, it is seen that teacher educators sometimes ignore the LoLT as defined in the Language-in-Education Policy and use whatever they feel is important and helpful for the student teachers. Without the teacher educators implementing the policy on the ground, student teachers will graduate with little or no knowledge of how to teach in their local languages.
This means that in addition to the Language-in-Education Policy that encourages the use of local languages in teacher training institutions, there is also a need for the deliberate move from the mathematics teacher educators themselves to use local languages as they prepare the student teachers. The point here is that mathematics teacher educators need also to use their reasoning and other skills that they feel will help in preparing the student teachers to teach in local languages. Moreover, teachers have to learn new methods, since teaching in the learners’ first language differs considerably from teaching in a second or a foreign language.
In Niger, studies conducted by Chekaroua (2004) support the idea that multilingual teacher education is very important for teachers who are implementing the new Language-in-Education Policy. In her study, she found that school teachers who are transferred from monolingual schools to bilingual schools have a negative perception of learner-teacher interactions in bilingual schools. Chekaroua argues that this is so because they are used to controlling the classroom due to the use of a language which is unfamiliar to learners while trained bilingual teachers hold different views about the interactions. The main problem that Niger and other African countries have is that they have a significant number of untrained teachers (GTZ, 2005) to implement the new language-in-education policies. The majority of these teachers are those who are enthusiastic about teaching in mother tongue or new graduates from secondary schools who are waiting for other employment opportunities (Benson, 2002; Traore, 2001). According to Benson (2002), both categories of teachers receive very limited training in teaching using the mother tongue and have no adequate school-based support. But Alidou (2003) says strongly that these teachers, though enthusiastic, need to go for training in mother tongue and official languages:
Teacher’s enthusiasm cannot substitute for qualification required for teaching in mother tongues and official languages. Many bilingual teachers face serious professional challenges. They may be able to speak the LoLT, but they have not mastered reading and writing in that language. (Alidou, 2003, cited in GTZ, 2005, p. 120)
Even though Alidou (2003) emphasizes the point that teachers need to be trained in the mother tongue, the question is where are they going to be trained since most of African countries do not have teacher training programmes for the LiEPs that are being introduced? Introducing and implementing the LiEPs that encourages the use of local languages alone may not improve the performance of learners. To improve the learners’ performance will also involve training teachers on how to implement the new LiEPs. It might be difficult for teachers to implement the new LiEP if they are not trained on how to teach in local languages.
In Ghana, Addabor (1996) states that there was no teacher training in mother tongue or in bilingual teaching methodology. However, Alidou & Brock-Utne (2005) reports that now there is GTZ that is working to strengthen teaching in local languages in many
teacher training colleges in the country. Therefore, as GTZ has done, since local language education in primary school is introduced gradually, teachers have to receive ongoing training for the subsequent classes they are going to teach, and at the same time new teachers have to be educated in using the local language for instruction.
In 1996, the Malawi government invested significantly in teacher training programmes to help teachers cope with the implementation of the then LoLT, which was Chichewa (Chilora, 2000). Teachers were trained in teaching in Chichewa as the LoLT. Textbooks were also produced in Chichewa except teachers’ guides that were produced in English to accommodate teachers who were not fluent in Chichewa (Chilora, 2001). Although the new LiEP is in place, little has been done in teacher training colleges to help teachers cope with the implementation. It is not surprising, therefore, to see mathematics teachers struggling to cope with the demands of LoLT when teaching mathematics in bi/multilingual classrooms. Their prior educational experiences, including teacher training programmes, do not have proper training programmes in language practices as regards the LoLT. Teaching behavior is frequently moulded by prior educational experiences (Shiundu & Mohammed, 1996) and language practices are likely to emerge in schools if teacher education programmes engage their student teachers in language practices early in their career preparation. This is quite a challenge as noted by Gay & Ryan (1999). Gay & Ryan (1999) argue that student teachers bring into the programme their prior knowledge, beliefs and experiences, which affect their assimilation and construction of new knowledge. They continue to argue that teacher educators are themselves products of their own prior experiences in traditional settings. Therefore, it is crucial to study what happens in primary teacher education.
The research summarized in the foregoing section shows that there is an awareness of bi/multilingual teacher education and at least something is being done towards the move to bi/multilingual education. The literature shows, however, that African countries have not gone very far with teacher training in bi/multilingual education. Ngu (2004) who conducted a study on behalf of UNESCO argues that teacher-training programmes in most African countries were developed before the countries got political independence. This implies that student teachers are being prepared to teach all subjects including
mathematics, in languages that are unfamiliar to children (such as English, French, Spanish and Portuguese). Even in countries such as South Africa, where new teacher education programmes were developed after independence, student teachers are still being prepared to teach mathematics in English or Afrikaans only. With such teacher education programmes, teachers are likely to find it challenging to cope with teaching in multilingual classrooms in which learners are learning mathematics in a language that is not their home, first or main language.
It is also seen in Ethiopia, that, even though the LoLT in teacher education matches the LoLT in primary schools on paper, the policy is not fully implemented on the ground. Most countries do not even have bi/multilingual teacher training programmes, even though their language-in-education policies of mother tongue are being implemented. This highlights the major problem that Africa has in teacher training programmes. It shows that teacher training programmes are inadequate in the use of mother tongue as the LoLT (GTZ, 2005). The GTZ report says that, due to lack of adequate training, primary school student teachers do not know how to effectively teach, monitor and assess learners using mother tongue. The GTZ report continues to argue that in most cases teachers do not understand the phenomenon of bi/multilingualism education, and student teachers rely on previous language teaching methods and their own experience as student teachers to teach their learners (Alidou & Brock-Utne, 2005).
With such teacher education programmes, one wonders whether the student teachers are adequately prepared to teach using local languages and whether the teacher educators themselves first need to be sensitized and go for training on how they can teach the student teachers in local languages. It should be acknowledged, however, that several studies in multilingual teacher education stress the importance of and recommend the inclusion of bi/multilingualism in teacher training education. Teacher training institutions are important because that is where student teachers acquire the skills needed to implement educational policies. Teacher training institutions in African countries bring together student teachers from all linguistic communities of the country, which means that they have some knowledge of education language policy (Poth, 1980). Therefore, as their training institutions help them to conceptualize this
knowledge, Poth argues that they are in a better position to teach effectively and therefore implement language-in-education policies effectively on the ground. Thus this research investigated what really happens in primary teacher education.