Language issues in the teaching
and learning in South Africa:
the dilemma of code-switching
Session 9: 18 October 2021
Adler (2001); Essien (2018)
Introduction
• The induction of learners into mathematical classroom.
• Encourage the movement of informal spoken language to a formal
written mathematical (Adler, 2001).
• There are two ways to facilitate this movement as suggested by Pimm
(1991) cited in Adler (2021):
i) Encourage learners to write down what they say informally and
work on making their writing more mathematically.
ii) Practice mathematical formality in speech before it is written down.
• The suggestion brings us to the two kinds of “learning talk”:
i)
Explanatory talk- Informal talk
Informal talk assumptions being the approach to knowledge cannot be
true for ALL mathematical classrooms
i)
Discourse-specific talk- requires enculturation into the subject
discourse
• The movement from informal spoken language to a formal written
mathematical language is complicated in multilingual contexts where
the shared main language is not the same as a the LoLT.
• Teachers and learners in multilingual classrooms navigate between
different languages as a resource and a strategy to teach and learn.
CODE-SWITCHING
• “Code-switching refers to the use of more than one language in the
same conversation” (Adler, 2001, p.73).
• A South African linguistic feature in multilingual classrooms.
Advantages of code-switching
• Enhances the quality of classroom interaction,
• Conceptual discourse becomes the focus of discussion when a
teacher switches to learners’ home language (p. 75).
The dilemma of code-switching: Thandi’s
classroom practice
• The development of English proficiency vs. Understanding
mathematics when mathematics is taught in English.
• Adherence to policy due to classroom diversity.
• Thandi Code-switching will not be a resourceful strategy because of
other home languages besides Setswana.
Context
• Thandi’s lesson was on linear inequality graphs.
• Probing questions: “Why they shaded graphs the way they did?”
• Focus: Discourse specific talk – Mathematical language on
comparative concepts (not less than, at least, not more than and at
most).
• “At most” for non-English speakers is tricky to explain.
• Everyday examples did not help the learners, learners were left
unanswered and more confused.
Restricted patterns of interaction and shifting
discourses
• Probing questioning was unsuccessful. The comparative concept was
not understood by learners at the end of the lesson.
• Repetition and reformulation.
• An attempt to shift discourse to create chains of signification. The
choice of everyday examples to contextual mathematics could result
to confusion (they may hold different significance in real life than in
mathematics).
• Pimm (1987) argued that “within mathematics register, meaning
shift” (as cited in Adler, 2001, p. 81)
• Mathematical meaning shift according to their application. The
awareness of this is crucial.
• For instance, more and most in language learning and earlier
mathematics can be associated together (p.80). This meaning shifts
according to Adler (2001) in relation to Thandi’s lesson. At most
becomes the negation of greater.
• Meanings within the mathematics register carry out different
meanings. Meanings shift according to their application.
The dilemma of switching out of English and
learners switching to their main languages
Switching out of English - Absence
Switching to learners’ main language –
Presence
• Limited language accessibility
• Learners choice to use their main
(Main language could not be resourceful
language
to formulate distinction for her lesson)
• Degree of diversity in a classroom
• Chaining within mathematical discuss
(p. 83)
• Denying learners access to the English
language
Dilemmas of code-switching as a source of praxis and
as a personal and contextual, analytical and
explanatory
Thandi’s action research:
o Group work
o Discussion by learners
o Switching by learners
 Languages in the classroom were viewed as a resource not as a problem