Thesis Hum 2011 Hausiku S.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgementTown of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Cape Published by the University ofof Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: LINGUISTICS SECTION The differences in medium of instruction for the Lower Primary Phase in teacher education and schools in Namibia, with reference to the Kavango educational region, are a barrier to effective teaching and learning. Town A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN APPLIED LANGUAGE AND AFRICAN LINGUISTICS Cape of University By SCHOLASTIKA MBAVA HAUSIKU: HSKSCH001 AUGUST 2011 DECLARATION I hereby declare that this work is my own and other sources that I have used and quoted have been acknowledged with complete references. Town Cape of University ( i ) ABSTRACT The study aims to investigate whether the difference in the language of teaching in teacher education and the language of teaching in the lower primary phase is a barrier for effective teaching and learning in the targeted institutions. Furthermore, would additional focus on mother tongue education in teacher education benefit educational achievement in the Kavango educational region specifically and in Namibia as a whole? The focus of the study is the interaction between teacher educators and their student teachers during teacher-training sessions as well as the interaction between teachers and learners in the lower primary phase at the target school. In both classroom observations, these interactions include how teacher educators deal with subject content, and how student teachers respond, comment and offer critical thinking about what is being taught in class. In addition, the work produced by student teachers and learners was considered to be part of the interactions experienced in this study. This study uses a qualitative approach in that it was conducted throughTown interviews, questionnaires, focus group discussion and focus group interviewing as research instruments. Findings confirm that the use of different languages as medium of instruction for training teachers in the training institutions and for teaching in the lower primary phase creates difficulties for many teachers in the selected school. These difficulties affect the pedagogical aspectCape negatively. Formal and informal discussion with other educators during the investigation reinforcedof this view. However, there was some dispute among participants with respect to the degree of support for the findings. In the selected school, the study found that expecting teachers trained in English, (a language rarely used in the school community in daily communication) to translate the knowledge and skills gained during training for learners in the mother tongue hampered effective teaching. The findings indicate, among other things, low participation rates of student teachers during training sessions and misleading, even wrong,University translations from English to Rukwangali of concepts which are central to the realisation of the curriculum. Therefore, the general conclusion and specific recommendation of the study is that a mother tongue-based bilingual approach should be introduced in the teacher training programme, especially for teachers who will work in the lower primary phase. ( ii ) DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my late mother Secilia Vihemba Mbundu who departed from us during the first year of my studies. Town Cape of University (Iii) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First I would like to thank my family members, especially my husband Gervasius Hausiku and my children Mukuve, Namvhura, Harusanga and Nashira, for their patience and support during my study and my absence from home. I would like to thank the participants for their contributions made to this study. A special word of thanks to my supervisor , Prof. Neville Alexander, for guidance throughout the completion of my thesis. Special thanks also to PRAESA and the Leistrade scholarship for their financial support. Town Cape of University ( iv ) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY......................................1 - 8 1.1 THE BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.........................................................1 1.1.1 Historical Context.............................................................................................1 - 2 1.1.2 Current Language Policy in Education..........................................................2 1.1.3 The need for teacher Education Reform........................................................2 - 3 1.2 RATIONALE AND MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY.................................3 - 5 1.3 THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY..........................................................................5 - 8 1.3.1 Main Research Question...................................................................................5 1.3.2 Sub-Questions.....................................................................................................Town 5 1.4 Significance of the Study...................................................................................6 1.5 Clarification of Keywords.................................................................................Cape 6 - 8 of CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................9 - 22 2.1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................9 2.2 LANGUAGE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN EDUCATION....................9 - 10 2.3 THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION PROGRAMME IN NAMIBIA, WITHUniversity SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO KAVANGO................10 - 13 2.4 LANGUAGE POLICY FOR SCHOOLS IN NAMIBIA............................13 - 15 2.5 THEORETICAL POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR MY STUDY...............16 - 22 2.5.1 Language and Culture.....................................................................................16 2.5.2 Dominance and hegemony of English............................................................17 - 19 2.5.3 Linguistic- transfer...........................................................................................19 - 20 2.6 CLAIMS FOR MOTHER TONGUE EDUCATION..................................20 - 21 2.7 IMPLICATION OF THIS SITUATION FOR TEACHER EDUCATION...21 - 22 (v) CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES......23-34 3.1 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................23 3.2 RESEARCH SETTING......................................................................................23 3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................................24 - 25 3.4 METHODS...........................................................................................................25 - 31 3.4.1 Literature Review..................................................................................................26 - 27 3.4.2 Interviews..............................................................................................................27 - 28 3.4.3 Questionnaires......................................................................................................29 3.4.4. Classroom Observations.......................................................................................30 3.4.5 Focus Group Discussion and Focus Group Interviewing..................................31 3.5 RESEARCH SAMPLE................................................................................Town ......31 - 32 3.6 ETHICS, CONFIDENTIALITY AND GAINING ACCESS.........................32 - 33 3.6.1 Ethics....................................................................................................................32 3.6.2 Confidentiality......................................................................................................Cape 33 3.6.3 Gaining Access.....................................................................................................of 33 3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY....................................................................34 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION...........................................................35 - 58 4.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................35 University Presentation of Data (Appendices I-M).........................................................................35 - 58 5. CHAPTER FIVE: SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS..............59 - 73 5.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................59 5.2 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION......................................................59 - 73 5.2.1 Participants’ Profiles..........................................................................................59 5.2.2 Language Profile................................................................................................60 - 63 5.2.3 LANGUAGE ATTITUDES..............................................................................64 - 66 ( vi ) 5.2.3 A. Dominance and hegemony of English..........................................................65 - 66 5.2.4 META-LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE...............................................................66 5.2.4 A. Participants’ views on Linguistic Transfer................................................67