Zona Noroeste

Gotosa, Rwodzi and Mhlanga (2013) observe with concern that implementation of the proposals for the use of mother tongue as a LoLT in Zimbabwe is failing to take off the ground. Gotosa et al are critiquing the proposals for the use of the mother tongue as a LoLT that have been suggested by Thondlana (2002), Viriri and Viriri (2013), Gora (2013) and Phiri, Kaguda and Mabhena (2013). In this study, I am re-examining the proposals put forward by these four studies and in addition to that, critique the proposals by Gotosa, Rwodzi and Mhlanga who are also critiquing the four studies alluded to above.

Thondhlana (2002) is advocating for the use of indigenous languages as the LoLT in primary schools. She argues that pupils are exposed to a second language before they have fully mastered their first language which jeopardises proficiency in the mother tongue because the focus by teachers at school and parents at home is now on English only. Indigenous languages are now being marginalised. She also observes that in some cases, children come to school when they are already proficient in their mother tongues but soon begin to lose this as their focus shifts to develop proficiency in English both at school and at home. Therefore, her proposal is that the mother tongue instruction be extended from grade three up to grade seven so as to give adequate time for the acquisition and development of cognitive, affective and social skills through the mother tongue. Gotosa, Rwodzi and Mhlanga (2002) are questioning when the English medium of instruction will be introduced.

There are well-documented empirical studies of mother tongue-based education programmes in African countries which confirm that use of the mother tongue helps in the acquisition of skills and knowledge (Kadodo & Mhindu, 2013:108; Maseko & Dhlamini, 2014:59). Studies by Thomas and Collier (2002) proved that learners who were taught through the use of English and mother tongue achieved better results than those who were taught through the use of English only. In Nigeria, studies by Bamgbose (2005) compared instruction in Yoruba mother tongue and ESL. Learners taught using Yoruba performed better than those taught using ESL. In Niger, Chekaraou (2004), compared use of Hausa mother tongue with the use of ESL as the LoLT at school. That study revealed that mother tongue instruction enhanced active teacher- pupil interactions which enabled learners to develop their critical thinking skills which were

64

transferrable to all learning experiences, even when the mother tongue ceased to be the medium of instruction at a higher level. In Malawi, Mchazime (2001) compared the use of ESL with Chichewa mother tongue when teaching Social Studies at primary school level. Her findings revealed that pupils lacked proficiency in ESL and that ESL retarded the pupils’ performance. The issue of the level at which Thondhlana would propose to introduce English as a medium of instruction is irrelevant because she was only focusing on the medium of instruction at primary school level. In the researcher’s opinion, it needs a different study to identify the level at which this should be done. That will be outside the scope of Thondhlana’s study.

Despite the negative attitude towards the use of mother tongue as LoLT, the implementers who happen to be teachers and lecturers know what is supposed to be done, and that is using that mother tongue. So they code-switch now and then from ESL to mother tongue. Studies by Ogutu (2006:43) confirm that learners and their teachers may switch to another language during learning for several reasons. The most common ones are: to ensure that learners comprehend the teacher’s explanations; to facilitate self-expression and communication; to enhance student interest, response and participation. The attitude issue can be corrected if there is a language policy that the government can enforce. Some vernacular languages can be imposed on other vernacular languages because there is no language policy in Zimbabwe.

The fact that primary teacher training colleges teach students how to teach all subjects in English and not in indigenous languages has been cited by Gotosa et al (2013) as evidence for lack of full implementation of the original Education Act of 1987. That is not true because the original Education Act (1987a) stipulated that Shona would be used as a LoLT from grade one up to grade three. Tertiary institutions only use indigenous languages for teaching indigenous languages as subjects.

Gotosa et al (2013) want details of how languages would be used given the multilingual setting in Zimbabwe. Phiri, Kaguda and Mabhena (2013) report of a situation where in one class there are Ndebele, Shona and English L1 learners. Again, the question of a language policy arises. Teachers for ESL classes can be bilingual (Shona/English; Ndebele/English) or multilingual (Shona/Ndebele/English). Books and Examinations can continue to be in English. The use of indigenous languages is to make explanations simpler to the teacher and clearer to the learner. In response to the question “What has changed to warrant extension of mother tongue to grade seven?” I am arguing that studies have proved that primary school pupils whose L1 is not English are not yet proficient enough to use English as a medium of instruction in class.

65

Gora (2013) proposes that the Education Act be adhered to as far as the medium of instruction for grades 1 to 3 is concerned. From grade 4 to 7, she suggests that only Mathematics and English should be taught in English. Code-switching to indigenous languages when necessary should be allowed. I do not agree with her because all subjects including Mathematics and English require simpler explanation in indigenous languages. For the rest of the subjects which are Shona/Ndebele, Religious & Moral Education, Social Studies, ES & Physical Education, she suggests that Shona and Ndebele should be used. I think that all subjects should be treated the same, that is, they should be taught in English with legalised code-switching. No subject is more important than the other. Viriri (2002) talks of linguistic hegemony of an indigenous language by another. The researcher concurs with Gotosa et al (2013) that all indigenous languages previously taught up to grade 3, should continue to be taught up to grade 7 in the areas in which they are spoken. If there is a language policy, the government can easily get this implemented.

The researcher concurs with Gotosa, Rwodzi and Mhlanga (2013) that government and policy makers should legalise what is currently happening in classrooms. A multilingual policy that allows all indigenous languages to be used during code-switching by those who can speak those languages should be put in place. English should continue to be the language of instruction. Textbooks and examinations should continue to be in English. Learners whose L1 is not English should not be taught by teachers who do not speak any indigenous language, particularly at lower primary school.