Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 29 November 2014, At: 22:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Language Matters: Studies inthe Languages of AfricaPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlms20
Building literacy for learningA Smyth aa School of Education , University of theWitwatersrand , E-mail:Published online: 31 May 2008.
To cite this article: A Smyth (2002) Building literacy for learning, Language Matters:Studies in the Languages of Africa, 33:1, 49-69, DOI: 10.1080/10228190208566179
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190208566179
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, 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 theContent.
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 isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Building literacy for learning
A Smyth School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand
ABSTRACT
The majority of children in South Africa do not use their home language for learning. In the past, these children were forced to make a transition to English after four years of schooling, resulting in the stifling of the development of their home languages. It would seem that the maintenance and development of learners' home languages is a major factor in successful bilingual programmes. This is linked to the crucial relationship between language and thought and the role which this plays in the growth of concepts, both everyday and scientific, in cognitive development. It is suggested that unless scientific concepts and the abstract literacy skills necessary for successful learning are developed in learners' home languages, these learners are seriously disadvantaged. Ways of incorporating scientific concept development and cognitive academic language skills in home language courses are investigated.
INTRODUCTION
Since 1994 in South Africa much time and effort have gone into trying to redress the educational inequalities of the apartheid past in order to offer all children in South Africa equal educational opportunities. This has led to the development of a new curriculum and new language-in-education policies. This article argues that, in spite of well-meaning changes in terms of policy, little has changed on the
49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
ground for first language (L1) African1 children who still attend schools in the racially segregated townships and rural areas. It argues that for real change to occur, the new language-in-education policies need to be re-examined so that the heavier educational burden borne by these children is taken into account.
THE INHERITED EDUCATION SYSTEM
Prior to 1994, L1 African learners in racially segregated schools used their home language for the first four years of school. After this they changed to using English as their language of learning and teaching for all their subjects except for their home language itself (NEPI, 1992). The effects of this sudden transition to English were documented by the Threshold Project (Macdonald 1990 a-d; Macdonald & Burroughs 1991; Van Rooyen 1990) which provided an in-depth account of how this sudden transition in the language of learning and teaching affected children's academic performance at school.
The Threshold Project (Macdonald 1990a-d) concluded that learning through a language which was not their own seriously affected children's ability to succeed academically. It found that the change in the language of learning and teaching resulted in their L1 skills not being developed, findings which confirmed earlier observations made by Gugushe (1978), which revealed that L1 African primary school children were not fully literate in their home language. At the same time, the Threshold Project found that learners' English language skills were insufficiently developed for them to learn successfully when using it as the language of learning and teaching. Macdonald (1990b) reported that children's writing skills in English were immature, that they lacked the vocabulary, syntax and ability to link ideas necessary for explanation in content subjects, and that tests of children's English reading comprehension revealed that they were unable to answer simple inference or factual questions.
50
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Van Rooyen (1990) examined the English used in textbooks. She found that children were not sufficiently prepared to deal with the range of language demands made by the textbooks, specifically, the grammatical structures associated with expository writing and the new, subject-specific vocabularies related to things of which the children had no direct experience. She thus concluded that the children were unable to read their English textbooks, let alone use them to gain new knowledge. The children's inability to use English effectively meant that they could not make new concepts their own and they thus lacked stimulation for further development. The Threshold Project (Macdonald 1990a) concluded that the underdevelopment of children's language skills resulted in the stifling of their academic development.
Research conducted since the Threshold Project, notably the research done as part of the President's Education Initiative (PEI) (Taylor & Vinjevold 1999), confirms that not much has changed in the interim. In order to make subject matter intelligible to children who use English as their language of learning and teaching without having an adequate grasp of it, teachers continue to set tasks in the classrooms at the most basic level. There is little attempt to develop learners' higher language or mental skills, leaving children with lists of decontextualised words in their classwork books and limited reading and writing skills (Pile & Smyth 1999).
What these studies reveal is that the development of language skills is a major issue in learning, and that past educational practices have not enabled learners to adequately develop the language skills they need to learn. The fact that learners have to change the language that they use for learning and that they are inadequately prepared for this, increases the learning difficulty which L1 African learners confront. Changes in language-in-education policies since 1994 have placed the responsibility of deciding what language should be used as the language of learning and teaching in the hands of the parents. Although no statistics are available about what languages are being
51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
used in schools or at what level changes in the language of learning and teaching are being made, Vinjevold (1999) asserts that research indicates that there is a decrease in the use of African languages as languages of learning and teaching in primary schools. This is confirmed by the Khulisa Management Services (KMS) (1999:64) report on the implementation of Curriculum 2005 at Grade 1 and 3, which found that "... 83% of all learners in the sample ...[were] being taught in English, even though only 20% have English as their home language".
Research into the Canadian immersion programme (Cummins & Swain 1986) has shown that learning in a bilingual situation need not, in itself, be a problem. The key issues to successful bilingual learning seem to revolve around home language maintenance, adequate development of the language used for learning and teaching, and the development of language skills needed for successful learning across the curriculum in both home language and the language of learning and teaching.
ISOLATING LANGUAGE SKILLS NECESSARY FOR LEARNING
Cummins (1976, 1978, 1980, 1981 & 1984) developed a number of models which help to explain key issues in bilingual education. Drawing on research conducted by Peal & Lambert (1962) and Torrance (1974), to mention but two studies which suggested that bilingualism could, in fact, be beneficial to learners, Cummins (1978) developed the interdependence theory in which he proposed that children could develop language skills in either language. The skills and knowledge developed in one language could then transfer to the other. However, this did not explain why it was that certain children seemed to suffer as a result of bilingualism. In order to explain this, Cummins suggested that there needed to be "... a threshold level of linguistic competence which a bilingual child must attain ... in order to avoid cognitive deficits..." (Cummins 1977, in Baker 1994:119).
52
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cummins's (1976) threshold theory suggested that there are three critical levels of language proficiency which influence learning. He suggests that at the first threshold, children have low levels of competence in both their languages and thus experience learning difficulties. At the second threshold, children have age-appropriate competence in one language and, as long as this is the language they use for learning, they experience no benefit or disadvantage from their bilingualism. At the third level, learners have age-appropriate proficiency in two languages. Cummins (1976) claims that this latter threshold produces a positive, cognitive effect by allowing children to think more divergently.
Research conducted by Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa (1976, in Cummins 1984) revealed that Finnish students in Sweden, although able to interact successfully on a social level in both Finnish and Swedish, had literacy skills which were way below age-appropriate levels in both their languages. This led to a distinction being made between surface knowledge and deeper conceptual-linguistic knowledge and the development of the BICS/CALP continuum (Cummins 1981). In this, Cummins argued that language demands could be divided into those surface features needed for basic, interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and more abstract, contextually reduced skills used for learning, which he termed cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). For Cummins, BICS occur in contexts which support meaning and which are not cognitively demanding. As the supportive context is reduced and the level of abstraction increases, a process which is part of schooling, the processing and production of language become cognitively more demanding, necessitating the development of cognitive academic language proficiency if learners are to succeed at school.
While Cummins's interdependence theory posits that learning could happen in either language and transfer to the other, research by Lambert (1975) revealed that bilingual children who did not perform well at school were children whose home languages were not
53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
maintained and were in the process of being replaced by their additional language (a process referred to as 'subtractive bilingualism'). It thus appeared that in order for bilingualism to have a positive effect, it had to be additive. This was acknowledged by Cummins (1984:108) who said:
... it is the failure to develop students' L1 for conceptual and analytical thought that contributes to cognitive confusion. When minority students' L1 proficiency is strongly promoted by the school programme, the resulting additive bilingualism appears to entail some subtle linguistic and possible cognitive benefits.
Finally, research by Hakuta & Diaz (1985) claimed that well-developed primary language skills led to enhanced additional language learning. They saw second language acquisition as being linked to learners' cognitive and metalinguistic skills which made the input in their additional language comprehensible, a point which Cummins & McNeely (1987:84) take up, arguing that first language conceptual knowledge "... facilitates the acquisition of second language literacy and subject content matter".
Cummins has been criticised for proposing a deficit model of language and learning (Piper 1993), and for not being able to define precisely what constitutes a threshold level of proficiency (Baker 1994). However, it is held in this article that his models provide a useful theoretical framework for understanding language and literacy necessary for academic success.
It would thus appear, based on the findings of the Threshold Project (Macdonald 1990 a-d), that L1 African children in South Africa are in the first or second threshold level of language proficiency. This view is supported by Starfield (1990) who, in examining academic difficulties experienced by tertiary students at the University of the
54
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Witwatersrand, suggests that their difficulties might, in fact, be caused by a lack of advanced language skills in their home language. Starfield (1990:85) observes that CALP in the first language is barely developed and is largely allowed to atrophy after the first four years of schooling in Department of Education and Training (DET) schools.
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING THEORY
Vygotsky's (1986) description of how learning occurs gives us a fuller understanding as to why home language maintenance is so important for learning. Vygotsky saw speech as central to learning, describing it as the means of mediation of "the rational, intentional conveyance of experience and thought to others... " (1986:7). He proposed that communication becomes internalised and lays the basis for the development of thought. Thus he believed that early speech between adult and child develops into later mental functions and that language forms the basis of internalised thought and the means through which children gain the cultural tools of reasoning. If we accept Vygotsky's description of the development of thought, we must also accept that language is crucial to our thought and understanding processes.
Fundamental to Vygotsky's (1986) proposition that speech is central to cognitive development lies his notion of concept development. He defined concepts, which he saw as embodied in words but linked to objects, as "an act of generalization of the most primitive kind..." (1986:49). He maintained that there are two types of concepts -spontaneous concepts which children develop contextually and unconsciously from their everyday life and over which they have little conscious control, and scientific concepts, learnt through mediated experience between children and adults or more competent peers. He defined scientific concepts as abstract and systematic, reaching beyond the child's immediate experience, delivered to the child by an adult or more competent peer, through verbal definition.
55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Vygotsky (1986) saw the development of spontaneous and scientific concepts as related, influencing each other as part of a single process. The development of the two types of concepts happens in opposite directions - spontaneous concepts develop from the phenomenon to which they refer upwards, while scientific concepts develop downwards, from the concept to reality, meeting and merging with existing spontaneous concepts. He believed that spontaneous concepts give body and meaning to scientific concepts, and scientific concepts give conscious control and systematicity to spontaneous concepts.
As such, Vygotsky (1978) saw schooling as playing a vital role in children's cognitive development, preceding and parallelling development. He maintained that "... human learning presupposes a specific school nature and a process whereby children grow into the intellectual life of those around them" (1978:88). By "specific school nature " Vygotsky (1978) was referring to the gaining of systematicity of thought brought about through the development of scientific concepts learnt at school through interaction with adults.
The systematicity and control which scientific concepts bring to child thought is what Vygotsky (1986) saw as leading to higher mental functioning. For him, systematicity indicates growing generality, that is, the formation of superordinates and the mediation of objects related to concepts in relation to other concepts. He proposed that each structure of generality had a corresponding system of relations of generality. The systems of relations bring forth an entire system of possibilities from which the individual may choose one. This system also makes possible intellectual operations such as comparisons and judgments. Changes in the systems of relations lead to further development, with higher concepts transforming the meaning of lower ones, leading to greater and greater mastery over the total system as logical thought develops.
The vital question arising from Vygotsky's (1986) explanation of the development of logical thought and the school learning situation of
56
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
children who do not use their home language as their language of learning and teaching, is what effect this has on children. Can they develop scientific concepts in a language not their own - particularly given that the very nature of scientific concepts lies in the fact that they are transmitted to children in the form of verbal definitions? What happens when scientific concepts are developed in one language and spontaneous concepts are developed in another? Do they meet and merge, which Vygotsky (1986) suggested as necessary for logical development, or is there a disjuncture which leaves scientific concepts floating as empty verbal formulae, and spontaneous concepts disordered and lacking conscious control? Further, if true scientific concept formation does not happen, what happens to children's relations of generality and higher mental functions? These questions are of great concern as they have major implications for children learning in situations where conditions are not optimum for the adequate development of either their home language or their language of learning and teaching.
Research conducted in Zimbabwe (Roller 1988) provides insight into children's concept development in their home language (Shona) and their language of learning and teaching (English), although it was aimed primarily at trying to establish the applicability of Cummins's interdependence theory. Roller found that unfamiliar concepts learnt in English did not transfer into Shona. The only evidence of transfer which she found was between everyday (spontaneous) concepts learnt in Shona and children's recognition of English words with a similar meaning. This would indicate that scientific concepts learnt in an additional language are not developing downwards and linking with spontaneous concepts.
Vygotsky (1928), in passing, refers to lack of language skills as hampering reasoning. Writing of a young Tartar girl's inability to draw conclusions in Russian, he says:
57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
The retardation in the development of logical reasoning is due entirely to the fact that children have not sufficiently mastered the language, the principle weapon of logical reasoning and the formation of concepts (1928:417).
Research involving minority language children struggling academically indicates that home language maintenance seems to be a factor in determining children's ability to gain from learning in a bilingual situation. Vygotsky's (1986) explanation of learning and development provides a theoretical framework for understanding why this is so. If we accept both as being valid, in the South African situation it would thus seem vital that children's home language skills be developed beyond the level of BICS. In order for this to happen, African home language courses should explicitly aim to teach learners the higher level language and literacy skills involved in the development of CALP. In doing this, learners would gain not only central concepts in school subjects but also the systematicity necessary for higher level reasoning, as well as a sound basis for the learning of an additional language.
Learning language and language for learning
Current trends in the teaching of home language reflect a growing awareness of the language demands necessary for effective learning and the need to develop language skills which enable learners to deal with the more abstract, logical demands of content subjects. Piper (1993) outlines the role of language in learning in a way that links to Vygotsky's explanation of language and learning.
The role that language plays in content knowledge is twofold. First, it is the medium through which children acquire much of their knowledge about the world. Second, it facilitates the formation of organisational networks that not only make this knowledge more available but make possible the integration of new, related items (Piper 1993:229).
58
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
The new interest in language and content learning includes developing literacy strategies. Saunders, Patthey-Chavey & Goldenberg (1997) point to the need for learners to develop a level of discursive fluency appropriate for active and engaged learning, both in their home and in their second language, and Wray & Lewis (1997:4), writing about English home language learners, propose that
[t]he uses of reading and writing ... are, by definition, curriculum wide processes. Reading and writing can never be pigeon-holed as simple English activities as children read and write in virtually all other curriculum areas. This suggests that each curriculum area offers its own opportunities for teaching reading and writing as specific content.
The question arises of how one includes the language demands of other learning areas within a language course. This article suggests that language courses should focus on those aspects of language with which children experience difficulty. The detailed synthesis of research on children's language learning by Perera (1984) offers us insight into this. Perera (1984) and Piper (1993) report that most children come to school with a fairly advanced knowledge of how narrative texts work, gained through their everyday literacy experiences. They maintain that it is with expository texts, the basis of content learning, that children experience difficulty. Langer (1986), however, claims that children have greater knowledge of expository texts than is normally acknowledged. She reports that the primary school children with whom she worked could differentiate between narrative and expository text. Nonetheless, she acknowledges that children do experience more difficulty in both producing and processing expository texts than narrative texts. However, in spite of research which shows that children have greater difficulty with expository texts, few language courses include expository reading or writing tasks. It is thus suggested that the structured inclusion of more abstract, context-reduced texts within learners' home language courses
59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
would help learners to overcome difficulties which they experience in processing and producing them.
In order to provide a context for the inclusion of expository texts, it is suggested that texts included in language courses should be linked to other learning areas. This allows for the possibility of children developing both concepts and literacy skills within a meaningful context in which the emphasis is on understanding language and how it is used, rather than the manipulation or application of concepts dictated by the subject disciplines from which they are drawn. It also allows for a break away from the more traditional approach to the study of language in which the sentence is presented as the basis of meaning to an approach that examines how real language is used in real contexts.
The use of real texts, drawn from other areas of study, provides opportunities for children to grapple with many different aspects of language with which they may experience difficulty. This includes new or subject-specific vocabulary, unfamiliar syntax as well as familiarising them with the structure of different discourse types.
In terms of vocabulary, a real text approach provides learners with an opportunity to develop relevant subject-specific vocabulary, thus broadening the conceptual base they need in order to deal with then-content subjects. It provides a meaningful context in which learners can work out what words mean, as well as how they are used. It also exposes learners to different, and often to more difficult, forms of syntax used in real situations in different types of texts - something which is vital for children's language development. Perera (1984:158) reports that the gaining of literacy results in a large increase in new grammatical constructions, since reading and writing help children to gain grammatical patterns which are not used in oral speech. At the same time a whole text approach teaches learners about more formal aspects of text such as punctuation, spelling, paragraphing and the use of layout.
60
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
The study of whole texts also expands the learners' knowledge of genre so that they are able to make more accurate predictions about the text and are therefore able to process texts more efficiently, combining their knowledge of vocabulary, syntax and discourse.
Through exposure to, and comparisons of, different types of texts, used in different learning areas, children can learn about how language is used differently to create meaning in different contexts relevant to them. An approach which focuses on text at a discourse level helps learners to consciously extend the range of schemas available to them, both in reading and writing. Note is taken of Barnes & Sheeran's (1992) criticism of the genre approach, which they claim can result "in genres being seen as composed of words and grammatical structures" leading to teaching on the "rhetorical surface" (1992:94). However, it is suggested that careful use of whole texts allows learners to grapple with the deeper aspects of genre, such as "meaning, priorities and ways of understanding ... [that] brings them into the thinking patterns that genre represents" (Barnes & Sheeran 1992:94-95).
One of the most important aspects of a whole text approach, based on real texts from other learning areas, is the building of children's awareness of how language is used in different contexts. Sealey (1996) suggests that this is best achieved by linking reading to writing through the use of model texts, a view supported by Beard (1984), Konopak, Martin & Martin (1987) and Meek (1988). Sealey (1996) strongly maintains that learning about how language is used often occurs at the interface between reading and writing. When reading is linked to the production of equivalent texts, children gain more than just the meaning of the text. They learn about the properties of the text as well. At the same time, use of written texts as models exposes children to the language of more competent writers. Writing activities linked to real texts, taken from other subject areas, provide learners with an opportunity to put into practice what they gain from the texts they have used as a model. In order for learners to gain writing skills
61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
useful in other areas of learning, it is important that the tasks reflect the kind of writing activities expected of children in their other subjects, giving the tasks an authenticity while building the actual literacy skills which learners need.
To exploit this learning opportunity fully, Sealey (1996) suggests that writing tasks need to be framed so that they encourage learners to reflect on how they have used language, thus reinforcing what they have gained from their model texts. The way in which she suggests this be done is by requiring that children draw up guidelines as to how to go about the various production tasks they might have undertaken. Through such tasks, children are required to make explicit aspects about reading and writing on which they draw implicitly.
It would thus appear that the current trends in language teaching point towards an approach that aims to specifically include those aspects of language with which learners have difficulty. Research has shown that most learners experience difficulty with expository or factual texts. By providing expository reading and writing tasks linked to content subjects, learners are given an opportunity to build the skills necessary to process and produce such texts within a meaningful context, thus developing language skills vital for learning across the curriculum. Through the use of texts taken from content subjects, learners are given the opportunity to develop subject-specific vocabulary in context and to familiarise themselves with the syntax patterns used in different types of texts. It also contributes to the development of their knowledge of genre and discourse. The use of whole, real texts increases learners' knowledge of language by developing an awareness of how language is used in different contexts. It is suggested that the building of literacy skills which children need for learning comes from tasks that encourage learners to reflect on how they and others use language. It is further suggested that a growing awareness of how language is used helps learners to gain greater control over their own language and the linguistic options open to them in communication.
62
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
IMPLICATIONS FOR L1 AFRICAN LANGUAGE COURSES
It would appear from an examination of L1 Sesotho language texts, namely, Matshohlo a Puoya Sesotho (Thejane & Englebrecht, no date given) and Pulamadiboho - Thuto ya Puo ya Sesotho (Mohatlane & Tsoeu 1996) that L1 African language courses have followed a pattern in which a story is presented, comprehension questions asked on the story and a writing task set which may or may not relate to the content of the story, followed by decontextualised spelling tasks and grammatical, sentence-based exercises.
The Cingo Commission of 1962 (in Rose & Tunmer 1975) reported that both teachers and parents felt that the teaching of Xhosa in schools was redundant as children know their language. In some ways, given the way in which African languages have been taught in the past, this is true. The only thing which children gained in their L1 courses at school was literacy. For L1 courses to have value, they must teach children something new and something which is valuable, rather than simply testing them on what it is assumed they should know. It is thus suggested that the teaching of vocabulary, linked to scientific concepts, together with the learning of more advanced language skills, linked to the gaining of cognitive academic language, provides a way forward for L1 African courses. As such, it is important that L1 African courses should include texts which relate to what children are learning in their different learning areas. In an ideal situation, L1 African courses should run ahead of the rest of the curriculum so that concepts, cognitive and language skills are established in the learners' home language before they have to deal with them through their language of learning and teaching, as was suggested by Macdonald & Burroughs (1991).
In planning a language course which aims to combine the development of literacy and language skills related to specific concepts, the demands of language learning and concept development need to be coordinated. Like all courses, a language course needs to
63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
be aimed at the base of knowledge which children have, a base which Ausubel (1985) termed 'anchorage' if it is to be effective. But it also needs to move beyond this if children are to gain from it. A language course, as suggested above, needs to coordinate knowledge of language, literacy skills and concepts drawn from other areas of learning. These need to be graded so that there is a gradual transition from that with which children are familiar to new concepts and skills.
Course developers have access to the concepts children need in order to learn successfully in their other subjects. It should, therefore, not be difficult to include these in their language courses. History texts are an easy starting point as they are narrative in form and therefore align with the text styles with which children are most familiar. By providing learners with the opportunity to read and write narrative texts, based on topics which they cover in history and by requiring that learners reflect on how they go about such tasks, a language course can build the language skills learners need for history while presenting them with subject-specific concepts and language in a meaningful context.
Expository texts are used in both natural and human sciences. Inclusion of such text types introduces learners to new genres and, by using them as models for further writing, provides learners with the opportunity to experiment with text genres with which they might experience more difficulty. Through their inclusion, as with history texts, children may be presented with and required to use the new concepts and subject-specific vocabulary associated with the sciences. Part of this should include the retrieval and presentation of information which is graphically represented. As few texts of this kind are available in African languages, it might be necessary to translate such texts from English. However, government departments are beginning to produce information pamphlets in all official languages, the most notable example being the constitution of the country produced by the Department of Justice, which could be used in language teaching texts, as well as articles from popular African language magazines such as Bona.
64
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
It is suggested in this article that the inclusion of texts from other learning areas is a valid option for L1 African course designers. Not only does it give direction as to the types of language children need to learn but it also provides a context for gaining of both new concepts and advanced literacy skills. In so doing it builds the scientific concepts which children need for their other subjects in their home language and enables children to link these to knowledge which they have gained through their everyday lives without the comprehension difficulties caused by having to learn about them in another language. It also builds their ability to use cognitively demanding, context-reduced language in their home language.
CONCLUSION
The position held in this article is that if all children in South Africa are to face an equal task at school, they should all be using their home language for learning. In addition to this, it is argued that all home language programmes need to engage actively with the teaching of the cognitive academic language skills necessary for learning across the curriculum. However, it is also acknowledged that, realistically, language policies in the schools are unlikely to change due to the understandable suspicion with which many L1 African parents view L1 instruction (NEPI 1992). This will only change with concerted information programmes aimed at parents, communicating the importance of conceptual development and home language development.
If one accepts that most L1 African children will continue to use English as their language of learning and teaching, it is vital that their L1 language courses should shoulder a large part of the burden of cognitive academic language proficiency development. In so doing, children will be provided with the opportunity to develop the scientific concepts linked to the disciplines taught at school in their home language. Without the barrier of a change in the language of instruction, these concepts should be able to link with children's
65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
everyday experience and thus allow for true concept development -something which research shows does not happen easily (Roller 1988). At the same time, learners are also provided with the opportunity to develop the more advanced literacy skills demanded across the curriculum in their home language. Once both concepts and language skills are soundly established, it is possible for learners to access them in English, making the burden of learning through another language easier.
NOTE:
1. While it is acknowledged that current terminology in terms of Curriculum 2005 refers to the term 'home languages', in this article home languages will be referred to as L1 languages for reasons of clarity and space.
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D. 1985. Learning as constructing meaning. In Entwhistle, N. (ed.) New directions in educational psychology, volume. 1. Learning and teaching. London: The Falmer Press.
Baker, C. 1994. Foundations in bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Mutlilingual Matters.
Barnes, D. and Sheeran, Y. 1992. Oracy and genre: speech styles in the classroom. In Norman, K. (ed.) Thinking voices. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Beard, R. 1984. Children's writing in the primary school. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder & Stoughton.
Cummins, J. 1976. The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: a synthesis of research findings and exlanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9: 1-43.
— 1978. Metalinguistic Development of children in bilingual education programs: data from Irish and Canadian Ukranian-English programs. In Paradis, M. (ed.) Aspects of bilingualism. Columbia: Hornbeam Press.
66
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
—
—
—
Cummins, J. 1980. The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In Alatis, J.E. (ed.) Georgetown University Round table on languages and linguistics 1980. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 1981. Bilingualism and minority language children. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. & Swain, M. 1986. Bilingualism in education. New York: Longman.
Cummins, J. & McNeely, S. 1987. Language development, academic learning and empowering minority students. In Fradd, S.H. & Tikunoff, W. (eds) Bilingual education and bilingual special education. Boston: College Hill.
Gugushe, R.N. 1978. The teaching of Bantu languages in Black schools. In Lanham, L.W. & Prinsloo, K. (eds) Language and communication studies in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Hakuta, K. & Diaz, R.M. 1983. The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: a critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In Nelson, K.E. (ed.) Children's language. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Khulisa Management Services (KMS) 1999. Evaluation of Curriculum 2005. Johannesburg: Gauteng Institute For Curriculum Development.
Konopak, B., Martin, M. & S. Martin 1987. Reading and writing: aids to learning in the content areas. Journal of Reading 32:109-115.
Lambert, W.E. 1975. Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In Wolfgang, A. (ed.) Education of immigrant students. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Langer, J.A. 1986. Children reading and writing. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Macdonald, C.A. 1990a. Crossing the threshold into Standard Three. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
—
—
—
1990b. How many years do you have? English language skills evaluation. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. 1990c. Ballpoint pens and braided hair: an analysis of reasoning skills and the curriculum. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. 1990d. Swimming up the waterfall: school-based learning experiences. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
Macdonald, C. A. & Burroughs, E. 1991. Eager to talk and learn and think. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
Meek, M. 1988. How texts teach what readers learn. Stroud, Glos: The Thimble Press.
Mohatlane, E.J. & Tseou, N.E. 1996. Pulamdiboho 2. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.
NEPI 1992. Language - report of the NEPI Language Research Group. Cape Town: Oxford University Press/NECC.
Peal, E. & Lambert, W.E. 1962. The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76, No. 546.
Perera, K. 1984. Children's writing and reading. Oxford: Basil Blaekwell. Piper, T. 1993. Language for all our children. New York: Macmillan. Pile, K. & Smyth, A. 1998. Language in the human and social sciences
classroom - final report. Unpublished research report. Johannesburg: PEI/JET.
Roller, K. 1988. Transfer of cognitive academic competence and L2 reading in a rural Zimbabwean primary school. TESOL Quarterly 22 (2): 303-318.
Rose, B. & Tunmer, R. (eds) 1975. Documents in South African education. Johannesburg: Ad. Donker.
Saunders, W., Patthey-Chavey, G. & C Goldenberg 1997. Reflections on the relationship between language, curriculum content and instruction. Language, Culture and Curriculum 10(1): 30—51.
Sealey,A. 1996. Learning about language. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Starfield, S. 1990. Science and language: a new look at some old issues. South African Journal of Higher Education 4(2): 84-89.
Taylor, N. & Vinjevold, P. (eds) 1999. Getting learning right. Johannesburg: The Joint Education Trust.
68
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Thejane, L.E.A. & Engelbrecht, G.C. no date. Matshohlo a Puo ya Sesotho. Cape Town: Via Afrika.
Torrance, E.P. 1974. Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn.
Van Rooyen, H. 1990. The disparity between English as a subject and English as the medium of learning. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.
Vinjevold, P. 1999. Language issues in South African classrooms. In Taylor, N. & Vinjevold, P. (eds) 1999. Getting learning right. Johannesburg: The Joint Education Trust.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1928. The problem of cultural development of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology: 415-432.
—
—
1978. Mind in society - the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Wray , D. & Lewis, M. 1997. Extending literacy - children reading and writing non-fiction. London: Routledge.
69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 22:
46 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
