Resultados Globales del An´ alisis Comparativo

During a follow-up classroom contact session, the participants were required to do a presentation on the topic to the researcher, a colleague of the researcher and the other students in the class. During the presentation, the participants were observed and evaluated by both the researcher and a colleague, who is in the same department as the researcher and skilled in the art of observing and assessing presentations. This was done to ensure that there was another opinion on the marking of the presentations, which is largely subjective, and also to assist with observation during the presentations.

During Activity 1A and 1B, all members in each group spoke the same L1 (Group 1 – Sesotho, Group 2 – Setswana, Group 3 – Sepedi, Group 4 – isiZulu, Group 5 – Tsonga), whereas for Activity 2A and 2B each member of each group spoke a different L1 (Member 1 – Sesotho, Member 2 – Setswana, Member 3 – Sepedi, Member 4 – isiZulu, Member 5 – Tsonga). During these activities, the participants were required to work together and prepare for the presentation as a group, thereafter they were required to do the presentation. The purpose of the presentation for each of the activities was to determine whether there were any noticeable differences between the performances of students when working together in the same L1 groups, and when working in different L1 groups. Marks were allocated to each of the groups for performance and these were based on an assessment grid (see Annexure F), which had also been supplied to the participants in the groups

during Activities 1A and 2A. Throughout the presentations, the participants were observed and any codeswitching or differences in linguistic repertoire were noted down by the researcher and the researcher’s colleague for further analysis.

During both Activity 1A and 1B, every attempt was made to ensure the conditions of testing remained as similar as possible. All participants were seated in a semi-circle to ensure effective videotaping and recording of interactions. The stickers participants were requested to wear were easily visible to ensure optimal transcriptions and identification of linguistic repertoires and codeswitching. The instructions provided to participants (annexures E and G respectively) were designed to mirror identical group work conditions in the following ways:

 The topics were present-day issues relevant to the participants.

 The topics did not require participants to undertake research into the topics, and participants were informed that Internet research was not required as enough information could be obtained from brainstorming in their groups.

 For each activity, each participant was required to speak during the presentation. As a group, they were required to allocate one participant the introduction of the presentation, one the conclusion, and the three remaining members of the group each needed to be allocated a topic for presenting.

 Each activity instruction sheet provided a list of possible topics for discussion but the presentation was not limited to these topics.

 The instructions included a date and time to be set for a practice session as a group prior to the actual presentation.

Apart from ensuring similar working conditions that would provide results that were comparable, the points above also ensured that the participants were forced to sit together during the allocated time and work on the presentation format, points for discussion, allocation of members to present the different topics and the setting of a date and time together that would be agreed to by all members. This would provide enough time for the researcher to record participants working together as a group.

3.4.5 Questionnaire

On completion of the final presentation, all participants who took part in the study were requested to fill in a questionnaire (see Annexure A). The questionnaire was made up of seven sections. Section A comprised biographical details of the participants such as gender, age, race and languages spoken most often by parents at home, while in Sections B to F, participants were required to rate their ability and proficiency in all the languages they are able to read/write and/or speak/understand. In order to provide some guidance on proficiency levels and to ensure some form of consistency, the following guidelines regarding what would constitute excellent, good, average, fair or poor proficiency, were given:

 1 = Excellent: I have no problems with this language and would not hesitate to enrol in a class where this is the language of teaching

 2 = Good: I have some skill in this language and could cope in a classroom where this is the language of teaching

 3 = Average: I am not very good in this language and am not sure if I could do all my studying if this were the language of teaching

 4 = Fair: I know some of the language but would need to do a lot of extra work to keep up with a class where this is the language of teaching

 5 = Poor: I would never consider attending a class where this is the language of teaching because I are not good enough in the language

These sections provided the researcher with insight into the multilingual nature of students’ linguistic repertoires at a tertiary institution in South Africa.

Finally, Section G of the questionnaire contained three dichotomous questions, where participants had a choice of only two answers, either Activity 1 or Activity 2. The answers to these questions should provide insight into how students at a tertiary institution in South Africa view the lingua franca classroom, how they perceived working in a group where

they shared an L1 or all had different L1s, and what their language preferences would be if they had a choice.

3.5 Analysis of data