Instructional Language Dichotomy on Foundation Phase Learning: A Case of University Student Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For proficiency in language learning, the prescribed medium of instruction for Foundation Phase (FP) learning becomes a prerequisite, as demarcated by South African policy on language learning. Nevertheless, student teachers while embarking on Teaching Practise (TP) find comfort at infusing the English medium when interacting with learners. In contradiction, English language learning is compromised as most subjects underpinning the FP curriculum are offered in home languages. This paradox of mixed opinions on policy, student teacher perspective hence their medium of learning is English language for all courses offered at university level, together with the situation where students are expected to consider FP curriculum offering, really causes some inconsistency, leading to compromised English language proficiency as both student teachers and learners infuse IsiXhosa to a greater extent during the entire process. This paper therefore seeks to investigate whether home language teaching has any substantial influence towards enhancing English language as one of the subjects underpinning FP curriculum. A qualitative approach embedded in a case study design was administered on two purposefully identified university teachers as pioneers expected to conduct assessment during practise teaching. To collect data, semi structured interviews were conducted to understand better the underlying factors caused by instructional language contradiction in-between student teachers and learners. It emerged as major findings that (i) conflicting media of instruction (in university and in schools), (ii) home language dominance, and (iii) policy imperatives were challenging causes on the declining English proficiency in learners. This paper concludes and recommends that for sustained English language development, policies underpinning teaching and learning need to be re-defined as all subjects offered rely on efficient attainment of the language component, thereby leading to improved learner throughput rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".