A multilingual approach to conceptual

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cape Town Libraries] On: 08 April 2015, At: 04:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20

A multilingual approach to conceptual development in technical contexts Somikazi Deyi

a

a

Fundani Centre for Higher Education Development , Cape Peninsula University of Technology , PO Box 652, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa Published online: 23 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Somikazi Deyi (2010) A multilingual approach to conceptual development in technical contexts, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28:3, 259-266, DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2010.545028 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.545028

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2010, 28(3): 259–266 Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved

Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd

SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICS AND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES ISSN 1607–3614 EISSN 1727–9461 DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2010.545028

A multilingual approach to conceptual development in technical contexts

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

Somikazi Deyi Fundani Centre for Higher Education Development, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, PO Box 652, Cape Town 8000, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The focus of this paper is a multilingual intervention in Mechanics I, a core subject in the Mechanical Engineering curriculum. The multilingual intervention, which involved the subject and communication lecturer in a co-teaching process, encouraged students to use their first language (L1) for purposes of conceptual development. The findings indicate that when students learned concepts in their L1, their general understanding was enhanced. The findings also show that students’ acquisition of academic and technical English (an additional language for most students in the study) was improved when they were able to use the L1 to think through calculations, problems, diagrams and the other mathematical applications which form the basis of Mechanics I. The study highlights the relationship between the students’ conceptual development and their access to an appropriate language for conceptualisation. It shows that students were unable to respond to required tasks at an adequate level when they had limited linguistic resources for the processes demanded in advanced learning. When students were able to draw on the resources of a familiar language they were better able to develop higher order concepts. Introduction The role of the first language (L1) in promoting effective teaching and learning is an issue that has occupied many scholars for many years (Orr, 1997). This issue has been a particular concern in countries where English second language speakers are in the minority, such as United States, Canada and Australia (e.g. Krashen, 2003; Baldauf, 2005). In several countries, legislation on language rights for education has been passed in acknowledgement of the importance of the L1 for effective learning. In South Africa, where democracy is still in its infancy, it is not surprising that we have not yet resolved issues around the L1 for learning. As debates continue, the problems associated with the sole use of English as a language of learning continue to plague our education system (Alexander, 2005). English remains the main language of learning at many schools and universities, despite the policy-making that promotes the right to be educated through the L1. The above concerns prompted this research on multilingualism in higher education, as well as sharing work-in-progress and engaging university teachers in a constructive discussion on the appropriateness of multilingualism in South African universities. Language policies in higher education There are various reasons to promote multilingualism in South African universities. These include using the students’ L1 to create an enabling environment for learning. In this regard, the use of their L1 could assist students who enter higher education inadequately prepared for both the cognitive demands of their course of study and the advanced levels of academic English required in higher education programmes. National Policy Framework Legislation and policies that entitle learners to be educated in their home language include the South African Constitution of 1996, (South African Government) as well as the Language in Education Policy of 1997 and the Language Policy for Higher Education Institutions of 2002 (South African Department of Education). These advocate the use of the L1 in teaching and learning, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

260

Deyi

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

although very little progress has been made towards the implementation of such policies, particularly in higher education. The Language Policy for Higher Education (2002) commits universities to the development of African languages, thus suggesting that the use of these languages could be implemented in the long term. This underestimates the pressing needs of students who experience difficulties in learning in English. Institutions do not always have the will or capacity to support multilingualism (although it should be noted that a multilingual approach can be used to mediate understanding between monolinguals); resources are also needed for multilingual tutors, and for the development of study materials. Issues affecting institutions of higher education The results of Grade 12 examinations over the last three years show that many students have not achieved an appropriate level for entry into higher education. As a result of Grade 12 learners’ poor performance in their examinations, the majority of black school leavers in South Africa who apply for university studies do not qualify for direct entry to university studies. Many thus enter higher education through ‘Extended Curriculum’ or bridging programmes. This is particularly so in fields where high levels of attainment for Mathematics, Science and English are required for entrance. Not many learners achieve the required results, so it is not surprising that support programmes mainly attract black African students from disadvantaged educational backgrounds. When African students with poor matriculation results begin higher education through extended curriculum programmes they further face hurdles in acquiring the basic understanding required in their fields of study. Students have to grapple with scientific concepts, technical terms and expressions that are often foreign to them (Deyi et al., 2007). A brief review of the literature on language and conceptual development The relationship between language and concepts, particularly in technical contexts, is debated from a number of different positions. At one extreme is the assertion made by some philosophers (e.g. Whorf, 1956; Vygotsky, 1962) that all thought is dependent upon language. At the other extreme is the claim that all thought is independent of language. In between these two poles are claims that some types of thought are dependent upon particular forms of language. Because there has not been much dialogue and exchange of ideas among scholars representing various disciplines, it is not fully understood how the language forms that are particular to a discipline are related to its concepts (Carruthers et al., 2007). Stroud (2002), on the relatedness of language and conceptualisation, contends that when students cannot respond in cognitively adequate ways to classroom tasks, it is usually due to limited linguistic resources to account for processes involved in their learning. The sole use of English thus poses a problem for the development of abstract, symbolic levels of thought, particularly in working class or poor communities (Webb, 2002). Difficulties associated with the abstract nature of scientific and academic language can potentially be addressed through the use of multilingualism as an approach to teaching and learning in higher education (Deyi, 2007). Well-implemented multilingual support programmes can promote subject matter knowledge in the L1 without any negative effects on second language development (Cummins, 2000). In the South African higher education context, this suggests that the use of students’ L1 to facilitate their understanding of academic concepts will not negatively impact students’ acquisition of academic English. This understanding is supported by a body of research that was conducted internationally (e.g. Baker, 2001; Cummins, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) as well as in South Africa (e.g. Gough, 2000; Shembe, 2002; Winberg, 2005; Koch et al., 2009) demonstrating the positive effects of multilingual education on students’ acquisition of academic English. Learning in a multilingual environment enables flexibility in students’ thinking as a result of processing information through two or more different languages. Baker (2001) refers to the abilities that bilingual learners develop in the process of conscious reflection on the ways in which languages differ in their expression of concepts. One of the fundamental assumptions underlying the efficacy of a multilingual approach is that knowledge learned in the L1 transfers more readily to the L2 (Gough, 2000). This suggests that when students understand a concept in the L1, they are more easily able to transfer this knowledge to English (once they have developed the relevant terminology).

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2010, 28(3): 259–266

261

The importance of a good foundation in acquiring meaningful knowledge in a scientific subject is confirmed by a study that used isiXhosa to conceptualise mathematical components of Mechanics I to isiXhosa-speaking students (Deyi, 2007). This study shows that ‘the structural nature of Mechanics I is such that the understanding of key concepts, procedures and principles are fundamental to the proper acquisition of subsequent knowledge’ (Deyi, 2007: 15–16). The study further argues that if this understanding is not achieved, students ‘memorise certain points from the text-book long enough to reproduce them during tests and exam time’ (Deyi, 2007: 52). Similar forms of ineffective learning occur in many university programmes and it is for these reasons that it is necessary for departments to consider integrating the teaching of academic content and academic literacy through a bilingual or multilingual approach (Setati, 2005). This is suggested in consideration of research that claims that language is best developed within a content-based curriculum (Snow et al., 1994). Background to the study As a result of the difficulties facing many students, a number of language policies have been developed by higher education institutions for the purposes of supporting and enhancing teaching and learning. Acknowledging that the language of learning could be a barrier to success for many students, the higher education institution in this study developed an institutional language policy and language forum to build awareness of language and learning, and to support language interventions. The engineering department in this study undertook to pilot a multilingual approach in the facilitation of learning in a key subject area, understanding that such an approach was supported by the policies discussed above. In an attempt to address language barriers to students’ success, the department created an opportunity for students to use the L1 to enhance learning. Classroombased research was used to investigate the extent to which the multilingual intervention provided an enabling environment for effective learning. The multilingual intervention in Mechanics I The multilingual intervention included students’ use of the L1 in Mechanics I, a key subject in the Mechanical Engineering curriculum. Using students’ L1 to explain concepts in the classroom raised several problems. Affirming the linguistic diversity amongst students required an approach that would create an enabling environment for the use of several home languages in the learning process, while at the same time supporting students’ English academic literacy. It was hoped that students would see their L1 as a resource for effective learning. Students were introduced to a process of using the L1 as a tool for conceptual development, which included explaining the English term, finding equivalents in the L1 and back-translating (from L1 to English) to validate the appropriateness of the equivalent. The process involved carefully guiding students in meaning-making when using the L1 in order to promote their understanding of the concepts involved. For more detail on the intervention, see the section on ‘Findings from students’ feedback on the multilingual intervention’ below. The research process Data on students’ progress were obtained from two questionnaires as well as from their responses to the classroom activities. Students were asked to complete an initial questionnaire as the starting point for the multilingual intervention. The initial questionnaire required students to identify some of the concepts or areas of work that caused difficulty, as well as to canvass their opinions and perceptions with regard to using the L1 for learning purposes. Analysis of the initial questionnaire responses was followed by planning of the intervention in collaboration with the subject and communication lecturers to further identify those concepts that posed particular difficulties for students. The researcher assisted the lecturers to make informed decisions with regard to an appropriate multilingual intervention. After the multilingual intervention sessions (a two-hour combined Mechanics I and Communication I lesson per week) over a semester, students’ provided brief written feedback. This feedback enabled the researcher (who observed all sessions) to note difficulties as well as progress experienced by students in the classroom. At the end of the intervention, a second questionnaire was administered, and the data analysed.

262

Deyi

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

Findings from the initial questionnaire Students were asked to identify those concepts that seemed difficult in particular sections of the Mechanics I curriculum; they identified vectors, motion and equilibrium, momentum and rotation as particular concepts that needed further clarification. Students’ attitudes towards learning in the L1 (before the intervention) are discussed in the subsections below. Language and power Most students felt that improving their English was their first priority for both successful learning and for their professional development. One student wrote: In order to participate in classroom discussion during lectures in class and communicate with others outside the classroom I need to speak English fluently. Also, when you are employed people use English in the industry. You will write reports in English and do presentations in English. So you must be able to speak English well. Students saw themselves as empowered, if they spoke English well. For students, English is the language of opportunity and status. Fluency in English, they felt, would earn them respect amongst peers and colleagues. Influential people, according to students, are those who have a good command of English. For many students learning in the L1 was a waste of time and resources, since, as one student put it, such an approach would require ‘interpreting and translation most of the time’. Students felt that using the L1 to enhance their learning would be ‘taking a step back to high school or even primary school’. Lack of role models using L1 Students pointed out that most people in powerful positions use English to communicate with their wider audiences. It is therefore not difficult to understand students’ resistance to using their L1 at university. Technical registers African language speakers raised issues about the standardisation of African languages and their own dialects. African languages often have more than one term for a meaning or concept, depending on the context. The lack of a technical register was problematic for students since they had no L1 technical language resource to draw on. The idea of learning mechanical concepts in the L1 was, in students’ views, a futile exercise. It was evident from students’ responses that the L1 for teaching and learning was not something they had thought deeply about. Their responses had focused more on possible future negative outcomes if they were to learn in the L1, rather than on the potential for improving their understanding. Findings from students’ feedback on the multilingual intervention In this section, I briefly discuss the nature of the intervention, before analysing the data obtained from students’ feedback. The multilingual intervention In collaboration with the subject and communication lecturers, and using information from the initial questionnaires, a multilingual classroom intervention was developed. One of the first concepts that needed to be developed in Mechanics I was that of the scientific units involved in calculations (e.g. equations). It is explicitly taught in Mechanics 1 that a number without a unit has no meaning (e.g. in the case of 24m/s, 24 has no meaning without the meters (m) and seconds (s)). Most importantly, students needed to understand the principles, laws and rules of mechanics underlying units used in calculations. It was also not sufficient for students to merely understand these principles; they needed to actively apply them when solving problems or reading texts. Students also needed to understand the link between concepts learned in an earlier class or section of the course in order to build and extend concepts in mechanics. In addition, students needed to understand and become familiar with the technical terminology used in the field.

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2010, 28(3): 259–266

263

This was implemented through a team teaching method, in which a language practitioner worked with the subject lecturer. The subject lecturer taught concepts in Mechanics I as usual, but while the lecture continued, concepts named during the lecture were written on a whiteboard. In the last thirty minutes of the lecture, a discussion between the language lecturer, content lecturer and students took place. The process involved the students in discussing a concept, clarifying its meaning in English, finding an equivalent in the L1 and then back-translating into English. Students were thus provided with opportunities to express, discuss and explain the concepts in the languages available in the classroom. Afrikaans speakers found it relatively easy to find L1 equivalents of the concepts and terms discussed, but for African language speakers this was a daunting exercise. Most had not used the L1 this way before. Once students had decided on an equivalent term, they used the L1 as a vehicle to further their understanding. Once terms were identified, they were discussed in terms of both general meaning and specific meaning within a mechanical engineering context. Lecturers supported conceptual development by asking questions about each term, explaining concepts, diagrams and equations, and showing how rules and principles were applied in solving problems. The following approaches were used to ensure that learning was successful: • scaffolding to ensure that every step of calculation was thoroughly explained to students; • eliciting knowledge from the students to make sure that they participated actively in the learning process; • probing students’ understanding to confirm and revise learning; and • integrating study skills in the conceptualising process. Students’ feedback data It was difficult to isolate the success indicators in the multilingual intervention in the same way as one could in the case of a simple intervention where students’ performance is set before the intervention could be measured after it. While it was difficult to measure the effectiveness the multilingual intervention as a tool for teaching and learning, both the lecturers and the students agreed that the use of the multilingual approach seemed beneficial. The ways in which the intervention benefited students are discussed below. Internalisation When students grappled with concepts in the L1, greater internalisation seemed to occur. One student explained: ‘… since using this multilingualism approach to learn I understand my work fully because I apply all that we do here and use it as a study method’. Another student claimed: ‘I read with understanding unlike before where I just learned by heart and sometimes it got difficult to remember’. In cases where a student did not understand, a student who did understand, and who spoke the same language, could clarify the concept. This gave all students opportunities to learn from one another as well as to speak in a familiar language. This seemed to lead to deep learning, critical thinking and in-depth conceptualising. Confidence Students’ growing confidence is clear from the following comment: I am quite sure about the questions and certain about the answers to provide, because I think my questions through. I no longer guess answers but provide more appropriate ones since I give myself time to understand the question. Many of the students’ reflections and comments confirmed that the multilingual approach enhanced their confidence in solving equations and mechanical problems. Enhanced understanding This multilingual approach enhanced their understanding by providing students with processes for understanding and applying concepts. Using familiar languages enabled them to engage more with the concepts involved in their discipline.

264

Deyi

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

Independent learning The intervention created independent learners in the sense that working from the concept to its deeper meaning in both English and L1, was the students’ responsibility. They continued to use this approach to learning as a study method. Students would identify difficult concepts and try to understand them in terms of their meaning in a language they better understood and then back-translate the terms into English. Findings from the second questionnaire On completion of the multilingual intervention, students were given a second questionnaire to complete. By this stage, students had become more positive toward the use of the L1 in enhancing their understanding of concepts. They also understood that the use of the L1 was not intended to replace English. A new set of categories emerged from students’ responses, which are explained below. Affirmation of students’ identities Students now felt that learning concepts in the L1, alongside English, affirmed their identities. Students began to understand the value of the L1 in the learning process. The inclusion of the L1 in the academic classroom provided students with a sense of belonging, as opposed to being outsiders in the university setting. Enjoyment Because they were comfortable with the language of learning, learning itself became easier, even enjoyable. This was in marked contrast to the difficulties experienced, as well as general lack of enthusiasm about the content, when English was the only language used. Using a multilingual approach enabled students to gain deeper levels of knowledge in the subject, as well as increasing their confidence. Improved academic and technical English Once concepts were developed in the L1, students’ English comprehension and writing also showed improvement. The process of clarification, translation from English to L1 and then back-translating into English helped students to develop familiarity with the technical English terms. The process of translation thus led to understanding. Conclusion This paper claims that the use of students’ L1 in higher education can enhance conceptualisation and deep learning. When students thought through concepts in a familiar language, they developed clarity about the meanings of words. Bringing the L1 into the higher education classroom also enhanced students’ self-esteem and confidence. Students were more inclined to ask questions and express concerns when using a familiar language. In this particular study, the multilingual intervention assisted students to gain a fuller understanding of the basic concepts in Mechanics I. This study does not claim that poor academic performance is solely caused by language difficulties. It shows that the use of the L1 can address communication barriers and can benefit students’ academic development. While the use of a multilingual approach can lead to better understanding, there is also a need to look at other factors that impact student performance. Combining a multilingual approach with improved teaching and learning practices could result in a more holistic approach to student learning (Ladson-Billings, 1995). An improved way to measure the success of this intervention would be to devise an instrument for observing and measuring rates of student participation during and after the intervention in Mechanics I, as increases in student participation are linked to enhanced performance (Lantolf, 2000). Additional ways of measuring the impact of the multilingual approach are currently being discussed, and additional data are being collected, with regard to a closer analysis of students’ work. It would be helpful for students to understand that multilingual interventions are to their advantage, and that their benefits could be measured accurately.

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2010, 28(3): 259–266

265

References Alexander N. 2005. Language, class and power in post-apartheid South Africa. Harold Wolpe Memorial Trust Open Dialogue Event. 27 October 2005, Iziko Museum, Cape Town. Available at: http://www.wolpetrust.org.za/dialogue2005/CT102005alexander_transcript.pdf [accessed 18 November 2010]. Baker C. 2001. Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. 3rd edition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Baldauf RB. 2005. Coordinating government and community support for community language teaching in Australia: Overview with special attention to New South Wales. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(2&3): 132–144. Carruthers P, Laurence S & Stich S. (eds) 2007. The innate mind, volume 3: Foundations and the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cummins J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Deyi S. 2007. Amagama enza ingqiqo: Ukusetyenziswa kwesiXhosa ukufunda nokufundisa izifundo zezibalo. MPhil Thesis in Applied Languages and Literacy Studies, University of Cape Town. Cape Town: PRAESA Occasional Papers, No. 27. Deyi S, Simon E, Ngcobo S & Thole A. 2007. Promoting the multilingual classroom: Why the significance of multilingualism in higher education? Paradigms 14: 10–20. Available at: www.cput. ac.za/fundani/research/paradigms/para%2014.doc [accessed 19 March 2008]. Gough D. 2000. Discourse and students’ experience of higher education. In Leibowitz, B & Mohamed, Y (eds) Routes to writing in southern Africa. Cape Town: Silk Road International Publishers, pp 43–58. Koch E, Landon J, Jackson MJ & Foli C. 2009. First brushstrokes: Initial comparative results on the Additive Bilingual Education Project (ABLE). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27(1): 93–111. Krashen SD. 2003. Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ladson-Billings G. 1995. But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice 34(3): 159–165. Lantolf JP. (ed) 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLeod SH. 1994. Writing across the curriculum: The second stage, and beyond. In Russel DR & Bazerman C (eds) Landmarks in writing across the curriculum. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, pp 79–86. Orr EW. 1997. Twice as less: Black English and performance of black students in Mathematics and Science. New York, NY: Norton. Setati M. 2005. Mathematics education and language: Policy, research and practice in multilingual South Africa. In Vithal R, Adler J & Keitel C (eds) Researching mathematics education in South Africa: Perspectives, practices and possibilities. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council, pp 73–109. Skutnabb-Kangas T. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shembe S. 2002. IsiZulu as a teaching, learning and assessment tool in Chemistry in higher education. Paper presented at PanSALB conference on Utilising Research and Development Project Results, CSIR, 16 October 2002. Snow MA, Met M & Genesee F. 1989. A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly 23: 201–217. South African Department of Education. 1997. Language in education policy. Available at: http:// www.education.gov.za/Documents/policies/LanguageEducationPolicy1997.pdf [accessed 18 November 2010]. South African Department of Education. 2002. Language policy for higher education. Available at: http://www.education.gov.za/content/documents/67.pdf [accessed 18 November 2010]. South African Government. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. As

266

Deyi

Downloaded by [University of Cape Town Libraries] at 04:04 08 April 2015

adopted on 8 May 1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly. Act 108 of 1996. Available at: http://www.polity.org.za/polity/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html [accessed 18 November 2010]. Stroud C. 2002. Towards a policy for bilingual education in developing countries. New Education Division Documents No. 10. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Agency. Vygotsky L. 1962. Language and thought. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Webb V. 2002. Language in South Africa: The role of language in national transformation, reconstruction and development. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins. Whorf B. 1956. Language, thought, and reality. New York: Wiley. Winberg C. 2005. Activity theory and genre ecology: Conceptual tools for understanding technical communication. Per Linguam 21(1): 12–22.