British Association for Applied Linguistics

3rd-5th September, 2009

University of Newcastle, England

Investigating opportunities for English language development and support in

Zanzibar secondary classroomsOksana Afitska, Guoxing Yu,

Zuleikha Khamis, Pauline Rea-Dickins

2 Introduction

• Learning through L2 in African countries: overview

• The research context

• Scope of this study

• Analysis of classroom data and findings

• Performance in Form II examinations: English and other

subjects

• Conclusion

2

3 Learning through L2 in African countries: overview

• Main medium of instruction: It was suggested by many researchers that students may struggle to engage with the curriculum if they have a limited command of the medium of instruction, i.e. English language (Wei and Martin,

2009; Mohamed, Hashim Issa and Banda, Felix, 2008; Brock-Utne, 2007; Moloia, Morobeb,

Urwickc, 2008; Probyn, 2006; McGlynn and Martin , 2009).

• Achievement: “Prior achievement is highly correlated with later student achievement, with students with high prior achievement scores achieving higher scores in subsequent achievement tests (Hungi and Thuku, 2009) …. prior achievement is the highest contributing factor in the prediction of student achievement (Ethington, 1992; Reynolds and Walberg, 1992; Gill and Reynolds, 1999; Fuchs

et al., 2000).

4 Learning through L2 in African countries: overview

• Code-switching: Many researchers reported observing learners code-switching from English language to their primary languages in the classrooms in order to better understand the concepts, sustain conversations or simply interact between themselves. Teachers were also often observed code-switching between the languages in order to support understanding or hide their own gaps in English language knowledge (Paxton, 2009; Moodley, 2007;

Hardmana, Abd-Kadira, Smith, 2008; Probyn, 2006).

• Chorusing: The research shows that in many classrooms pupils got the opportunity to speak only through chorus responses (otherwise they could easily go through the whole lesson without getting the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding or lack of it at all) (Altinyelken, 2009). The research also suggests that chorusing through the completion of phrases, the repetition of words and choral affirmation of ‘understanding’, may prevent pupils from engaging in more creative and higher levels of thinking (Abd-Kadir

and Hardman, 2007).

4

5 Learning through L2 in African countries: overview

• Teacher talk: Teacher talk was often characterised by explanation and recitation with paying little attention to securing pupils’ understanding, use of IRF sequence (of which only first two parts were often present), and closed-questions (Hardmana, Abd-Kadira and Smith, 2008; O’Sullivan, 2006; Abd-Kadir and

Hardman, 2007).

• Group work: Teachers admitted that they often either avoided of failed to do meaningful group work because of high number of students (Altinyelken, 2009;

Moloia, Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008). When group work did take place teachers often remain seated at their desks or walked around the classrooms waiting for the students to present their work (Moloia, Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008). “Exploratory talk” during group work activities was conducted in learners’ first language (Probyn,

2006).

6 Learning through L2 in African countries: overview

• Reading: The research suggests that little reading happens in many African classrooms, often

with only some learners participating in this activity due to the lack of resources (Probyn, 2006;

Opoku-Amankwa, 2009; Vinjevold, 1999). It was also found that pupils who were taught by teachers

who were good readers achieved better in reading than pupils who were taught by teachers who were poor readers (Hungi and Thuku, 2009).

• Writing - The research also suggests that pupils are often ill-prepared for written work as little

speaking (oral work) and writing happens in many African classrooms (Probyn, 2006; Moloia,

Morobeb, Urwickc, 2008).

• Speaking: It was observed that students were often “passive” and quiet in the classrooms;

when invited to speak in L2, they produced largely minimal responses, often consisting of few

words only (Mohamed, Hashim Issa and Banda, Felix, 2008; Brock-Utne, 2007; Moloia, Morobeb,

Urwickc, 2008; Hardmana, Abd-Kadira, Smith 2008). However, when learners were allowed to speak

a language that they felt comfortable with, they could suddenly became vibrant and articulate (Hulya Kosar Altinyelken, 2009). Overall, speaking was not common activity in many classrooms.

7 The research context

Educational Policy in Zanzibar Island: Primary schools’ medium of instruction – Kiswahili, with English taughtas a subject; Secondary schools’ medium of instruction andexaminations – English.

This study was carried out as part of SPINE (Student Performance inNational Examinations: dynamics of underachievement) project (ESRCmajor research grant RES-167-25-0263), which aims to investigateFactors influencing students’ under/achievement in nationalexaminations in Zanzibar secondary schools.

One of the 9 studies specifically aimed to investigate classroomLanguage practices in Zanzibar secondary classrooms in order toreveal the extent to which learners were provided with language supportand opportunities for English language development during the lessons.

7

8 Scope of this study

This study draws on to a database of 9 lessons selected from a largercorpus of 72 hours of video-recorded intact lessons in four corecurricular areas: biology, chemistry, mathematics and English. The datawere collected over a two months period in Form II Zanzibar public andprivate secondary schools.

The lessons were selected according to:

• The subject area (Biology 3 lessons, Chemistry 3 lessons, Mathematics 3 lessons)

• The extent of L1 and L2 classroom use (Kiswahili-English, mainly English)

• The levels of teachers’ L2 proficiency (English - high proficiency, English - low proficiency)

8

9 Analysis of classroom data

• From two perspectives: Teacher’s focus on language (Grammar, Pronunciation, Paraphrasing,

Translation and Vocabulary) Development of learners’ language skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading and

Writing)

• Definitions: Grammar – any instances when the teacher draws learners’ attention to the

grammatical structure of the language (as part of teaching, feedback, assessment. For example, use of tenses, capital letters…)

Pronunciation – any instances when the teacher corrects learner’s pronunciation, makes an emphasis on variations of pronunciation, drills pronunciation by means of chorusing. For example, teacher says: “T: chloroplast, all together, chloroplast; CLASS: chloroplast”

9

10 Definitions

Paraphrasing – any instances when the teacher uses the exact or contextual synonyms, or alternative ways of saying something. For example: T: “it has no numbers, here is nothing” or “what organism can not make their own food what type of organism can not can not manufacture their own food”.

Translation/explanation in L1 – any instances when the teacher translates or explains in L1 information which has just been presented in L2.

Vocabulary/concept – any instances when the teacher introduces new vocabulary/concept; explains the meaning, invites learners to chorus definition or new vocabulary item.

Listening – all instances when learners hear teacher speaking either in L1 or L2.

11 Definitions

Speaking – all instances when learners speak in L1 or L2 (individually, in groups or as chorus)

Reading – all instances when learners read aloud (or in head) after they have been instructed by the teacher to do so (from the board or from their text books).

Writing – all instances when learners are instructed by the teacher to do a writing activity (either at the board or in books).

Chorus – all instances when learners speak altogether, these are interactions with the teacher.

Group – all instances when learners speak within their group to their peers but not to the teacher.

Individual – all instances when learners speak individually to the teacher in response, or asking a question

12 Findings12

13 Findings13

14 Findings14

15 Findings15

16 Findings16

17 Findings17

18 Summary

• Few potential opportunities for language development and

support were provided across all contexts;

• English-Kiswahili lessons seemed to provide more potential

opportunities for learners’ language development than English

(mostly) lessons, regardless of whether these lessons were

taught by teachers with high or low English language

proficiency;

• Most attention seemed to be paid to vocabulary issues (leaving

focus on grammar, pronunciation, comprehension through

paraphrasing or translation behind);

19 Summary

• Of the four major language skills, students spent

considerably more time listening to the teacher than on other

skills (speaking, reading and writing);

• Learners never used English language to talk to their peers

and the teacher during group work activities;

• Reading in L2 was practiced very rarely and only through

chorus reading from books.

20English language ability and performance in maths, biology and chemistry – data structure of multilevel modelling

Note: 161 schools (156 in 2007, 158 in 2008, some new schools joined in 2008,

a couple of schools that had data in 2007 but did not have data in 2008)

21 English and maths (a)

Total: 64.717, school=29.18%,

pupil=70.82%

Total=90.4, School=30.75%,

Pupil=69.25%

22 English and maths (b)

• Adding ENGLISH explains

(90.4-64.717)/90.4=28.41% of the maths total

variance; and (27.8-18.882)/27.8=32.08% of the

school level total variance and

(62.6-45.835)/62.6=26.78% of the pupil level total

variance. In other words, ENGLISH can explain

nearly 1/3 of the total variance of maths, and 1/3 of

school-level and 1/3 of pupil-level variances in

maths too.

23 English and biology (a)23

Total=65.646, school=18.17%,

pupil=81.83%

Total=114.968, school=18.79%,

pupil=81.21%

24 English and biology (b)

• Adding ENGLISH alone explains (114.968-

65.646)/114.968=42.90% of the total variance in

BIOLOGY (see the cons model), and (21.601-

11.928)/21.601=44.78% of school-level variance in

BIOLOGY, and (93.367-53.718)/93.367=42.47% of

the pupil-level variance in BIOLOGY.

25 English and chemistry (a)

Total=158.281, school=23.06%,

pupil=76.94%

Total=275.993, school=22.05%,

pupil=77.95%

26 English and chemistry (b)

• Adding ENGLISH alone explains (275.993-

158.281)/275.993=42.65% of the total

CHEMISTRY variance, and

(60.852-36.497)/60.852=24.36% of school level

chemistry variance, and

(215.141-121.784)/215.141=43.39% of pupil level

chemistry variance.

27 Other languages?

• Although other two languages (Kiswahili and

Arabic) are also significant predictors of the

students’ performance in maths, biology and

chemistry, it is noted that they are less capable of

explaining the variances than ENGLISH.

• KISW explains (275.993-88.954)/275.993=31.54%

of the total chemistry variance, (114.968-76.585)/

114.968=33.39% of the BIO total variance, (90.4-

75.678)/90.4=16.29% of the maths total variance.

28 Other languages?

• KIARAB explains

(275.993-203.452)/275.993=26.28% of the CHEM

total variance, (114.968-88.569)/114.968=22.96%

of the BIO total variance,

(90.4-71.885)/90.4=20.48% of the maths total

variance.

29 Summary of the multilevel models (a)

• It is very clear that ENGLISH is a significant and substantial predictor of the students’ performance in maths, biology and chemistry.

• The school-level variances explained in the cons models as well as in the models including ENGLISH as the single explanatory variable demonstrated a substantial proportion of the variance is attributable to school level factors

30 Summary of the multilevel models (b)• As ENGLISH itself is affected as other core subjects by various school and

pupil factors, this probably explains why there is not much improvement in

terms of fitness of the models (measured by the change of % of school-level

variance in the total variance).

• It is therefore essential to collect further school- and pupil-level data to

examine what factors (in particular, in relation to English language learning

opportunities at home and at school) and how much these factors can

account for the variances (in the tradition of school effectiveness studies) and

the role of ENGLISH language ability compared to the other factors – our

plan for nationwide data collection using pupil and headteacher

questionnaires

31 Conclusion (a)

• Findings of this study lie in line with findings from other research studies in teaching and learning practices in many multilingual African classrooms.

• Firstly, the examination results demonstrate the crucial role of English language ability in students’ performance in examinations of other core subjects.

32 Conclusion (b)

• Secondly, the classroom data suggest that learners could potentially benefit from schooling more if they are provided with more opportunities for English language development and support during the lessons.

• Thirdly, language support and opportunities for English language development may be best provided when teaching and learning in the classrooms are conducted through non-restricted and collaborative use of learners’ first language and English language, where both languages are seen as crucial and equally important for effective facilitation of successful learning and higher achievement.