View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS) APPRENTICING LEARNERS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GRADE 10 PHYSICAL SCIENCE CLASSROOM A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS IN EDUCATION ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING of RHODES UNIVERSITY by Wesley Gray November 2006 Volume I THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT Wesley Gray M.Ed. ELT Rhodes University i ABSTRACT The number of African learners who participate and succeed in physical science is recognized to be ‘disturbingly low’. One of the factors attributed to the low levels of enrolment and performance in physical science is language. In this study, teaching and learning through the language of science is examined in the context of the bilingual classroom. A model of analysis is constructed that (1) extends the notion of the language of science to include the mathematical and visual ‘languages’ of science, (2) takes recognition of the manner in which language, content, and values and beliefs construct the science learner, and (3) moves beyond the characterization of teaching and learning according to the dichotomy of the ‘traditional’/ the ‘progressive’. The model of analysis draws upon the central concepts of a sociocultural model of pedagogy, namely the ‘developmental model’. In addition, the model of analysis makes use of Systemic Functional Linguistics to examine teaching and learning at the micro level of classroom interaction. This study reveals the complex nature in which the language, content, and values and beliefs change as a lesson unfolds: teaching and learning through the language of science has been shown in these classrooms to be marked by features of both a ‘traditional’ and a ‘progressive’ model – each of which appears to serve different functions in the overall construction of the science learner. In addition, this study begins to uncover how a ‘successful’ teacher equips his/ her learners in the context of the bilingual physical science classroom: teaching and learning through the language of science has been shown in these classrooms to incorporate complex and varied strategies that depend upon choices made by both the teacher and learners. These findings ii substantiate the need to understand the challenges teachers and learners face in the bilingual physical science classroom in ways that acknowledge the complexity of the teaching and learning process. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to extend my gratitude to those whose confidence in me and willingness to give up of themselves and their time have made the process of doing research a rich and rewarding experience. First and foremost, I am indebted to my supervisor, Sarah Murray, who has generously given up of herself and her time to guide me through the process of what it means to do research into schools. Her knowledge and understanding of education and curriculum policy in South Africa has been invaluable to this study. I am truly grateful for the enthusiasm in which she received the ideas that I put forward, the confidence she placed in me to be able to carry through on those ideas, and for her sound advice that helped me to focus on the most salient points that emerged from the research. I am also indebted to my co-supervisors Kenneth Ngcoza and Ralph Adendorff for lending their expertise towards this study in the field of science education and linguistics, respectively. I wish to thank Kenneth Ngcoza for always going out of his way to assist me in whatever way he could: in gaining entrance to the schools in Grahamstown, in translating the letter to the parents into isiXhosa. In addition, I wish to thank Ralph Adendorff for taking time out of his busy schedule to read through the proposal and thesis. I am most grateful for the encouragement and feedback that I received from both. I wish to extend my gratitude to the school governing bodies and principals for welcoming me into their schools, and to the teachers and learners for the privilege of being able to go into their classrooms to study what takes place in them. In particular, I wish to thank the two teachers whose practice this study draws extensively upon for their willingness to accommodate me throughout this year: their knowledge and understanding of teaching science in the context of the bilingual classroom in South Africa has enriched this study. iv Thanks too are due to those who took the time to read the proposal or working draft of the thesis and offer feedback – Bruce Brown, Gill Bolt, Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, Robert Kraft, Margie Probyn, Hennie van der Mescht – to Thenjiwe Siga for translation work done, and to Judy Cornwell for her assistance in finding the necessary texts for this study. In addition, I must record my thanks to Jill Bourne who took time to discuss the working draft of the thesis on her recent visit to Rhodes, and to David Rose for his willingness to send his most recent articles on classroom discourse analysis to me. I am also most appreciative of the opportunities that have been created for me this year to share what I have learnt with others through presenting at workshops, conferences and various seminars. The feedback that I have received has been most encouraging and has helped in adding clarity during the process of writing up the thesis. Finally, I wish to thank my parents and family for their unfailing love and support. This thesis is dedicated to them. v TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS vi CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 CLASSROOM WORK AS SOCIAL PRACTICE 10 2.1.1 POWER AND CONTROL 16 2.1.2 MORAL REGULATION 22 2.1.3 SOCIAL SEMIOTIC SYSTEMS 27 2.1.3.1 THE ‘LANGUAGES’ OF SCIENCE 27 2.1.3.2 VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 32 2.1.4 A DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY 34 2.1.5 AN IDEAL PEDAGOGIC SUBJECT POSITION 37 2.1.6 THE REVISED NATIONAL CURRICULUM 38 STATEMENT 2.2 CLASSROOM WORK AS STRUCTURED EXPERIENCE 47 2.3 CLASSROOM WORK AND THE THREE TYPES OF MEANING 50 2.3.1 THE METAFUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION OF 51 LANGUAGE 2.3.2 THE NOTION OF SYSTEM 52 2.3.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEXT AND CONTEXT 64 vi CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY 68 3.1 THE PRELIMINARY STUDY 68 3.2 THE FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION 69 3.3 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS THE PRINCIPAL MODE OF 70 ANALYSIS 3.4 SELECTION OF THE DATA 72 3.5 PRESENTATION OF THE DATA 86 3.6 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 91 3.7 ADDRESSING VALIDITY THREATS 95 CHAPTER 4 – DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS 99 4.1 POWER AND CONTROL FOR THE ACTIVITY TYPE TRIADIC 99 DIALOGUE 8A 4.1.1 STAGE I 100 4.1.2 STAGE II 102 4.1.3 STAGE III 103 4.1.4 STAGE IV 108 4.1.5 STAGE V 114 4.1.6 STAGE VI 117 4.1.7 STAGE VII 118 4.1.8 STAGE VIII 118 4.2 MORAL REGULATION FOR THE ACTIVITY TYPE TRIADIC 126 DIALOGUE 9F 4.2.1 STAGE I 127 4.2.2 STAGE II 130 4.2.3 STAGE III 133 4.2.4 STAGE IV 135 4.2.5 STAGE V 137 4.2.6 STAGE VI 146 vii 4.2.7 STAGE VII 147 4.3 MORAL REGULATION FOR THE ACTIVITY TYPE TRIADIC 153 DIALOGUE 1B 4.3.1 STAGE I 154 4.3.2 STAGE II 159 4.3.3 STAGE III 165 4.3.4 STAGE IV 166 4.3.5 STAGE V 169 4.3.6 STAGE VI 169 4.3.7 STAGE VII 173 4.4 LOGOGENESIS FOR THE ACTIVITY TYPE TRIADIC 181 DIALOGUE 4H 4.4.1 STAGE I 181 4.4.2 STAGE II 187 4.4.3 STAGE III 189 4.4.4 STAGE IV 191 4.4.5 STAGE V 192 4.4.6 STAGE VI 195 4.4.7 STAGE VII 196 4.4.8 STAGE VIII 197 CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION 201 5.1 APPRENTICESHIP AT THE MICRO LEVEL OF CLASSROOM 201 INTERACTION 5.2 APPRENTICESHIP AND THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER AND 206 LEARNER 5.3 APPRENTICESHIP AND THE REGULATION OF THE 207 LEARNERS’ BEHAVIOUR 5.4 APPRENTICESHIP OVER TIME 209 viii 5.5 APPRENTICESHIP AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 210 LEARNER 5.6 THE STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 212 5.7 CONCLUDING STATEMENTS AND AREAS FOR FURTHER 214 RESEARCH REFERENCES 216 VOLUME II (Under Separate Cover) APPENDIX A 1 LETTERS OF PERMISSION FOR THE PRELIMINARY STUDY 2 LETTERS OF PERMISSION FOR THE RESEARCH STUDY 5 EXAMPLES OF JOURNAL ENTRIES 10 APPENDIX B 14 TRANSCRIPT A 15 TRANSCRIPT B 35 TRANSCRIPT C 50 TRANSCRIPT D 65 TRANSCRIPT E 78 TRANSCRIPT F 93 TRANSCRIPT G 106 TRANSCRIPT H 115 TRANSCRIPT I 135 APPENDIX C 148 TRANSCRIPT J – THE ANALYSIS OF TRIADIC DIALOGUE 8A 149 ix TRANSCRIPT K – THE ANALYSIS OF TRIADIC DIALOGUE 1B 175 TRANSCRIPT L – THE ANALYSIS OF TRIADIC DIALOGUE 9F 215 TRANSCRIPT M – THE ANALYSIS OF TRIADIC DIALOGUE 4H 244 x LIST OF SELECTED FIGURES Figure 1-I Enrolments and Performance of Learners for Physical Science 1 on Higher Grade (HG) during the Period 1997 to 2000 Figure 1-II Enrolments and Performance of Learners for Physical Science 2 on Standard Grade (SG) during the Period 1997 to 2000 Figure 2.1.1 Martin’s (1992) Provisional Classification of Fields 19 Figure 2.1.2-I The Relation between the Instructional and Regulative 24 Discourse Figure 2.1.2-II The Instructional Discourse projected by the Regulative 24 Discourse Figure 2.1.3.1-I A System Network for Energy 27 Figure 2.1.3.1-II The Multiple Semiotic Representations for the Concept of 32 Direction Figure 2.1.4 Time Frames and Semogenesis 36 Figure 2.1.6-III Types of Pedagogy 47 Figure 2.2 The Moves for the Activity Type Triadic Dialogue 48 Figure 2.3.1 The Three Metafunctions with Subfunctions 51 Figure 2.3.2-I A System Network for the Choices that are made from the 53 Grammar in the Construction of an English Clause Figure 2.3.2-IV A ‘Semantic Cline’ for Modalization 56 Figure 2.3.2-V A ‘Semantic Cline’ for Modulation 56 Figure 2.3.2-VII Transitivity shown for the Example ‘I push the spring in tight.’ 58 Figure 2.3.2-VIII The Process Types in English