This study reveals that the various first languages of the learners in the classrooms are often viewed as challenges that need to be overcome.
The primary method employed for overcoming these challenges is to expose the learners to as much English as possible as early as possible, in the classroom, on the playground and in the home even to the exclusion of the L1. This view appears to motivate and underpin most teaching practices. For example, the learners are strongly encouraged to speak only English in the classroom and in the playground (cf. section 4.4.7 in chapter 4), all of their school work is in English and reflects a typical Western culture (cf. section 4.2 in chapter 4), and parents of L2 learners are strongly encouraged to speak English and to read English stories to their children when outside the classroom environment (cf. section 4.4.7 in chapter 4).
This belief that exposure is the key, in my opinion, stems firstly, from a substantial lack of suitable in-service teacher training in this area and secondly, from observations that L2 learners who have grown up with their parents speaking English in the home or who have lived in a middle-class English-speaking community from a young age, cope much better than those who have grown up solely with Xhosa in the home and who live in a Xhosa- speaking environment such as the local township. However, the difficulty with this view arises in the fact that there are numerous reasons, other than exposure to the English language per se, why L2 learners who are raised in a middle-class English environment fare better than those who are not. The primary one, I believe, is exposure to Western literacy and cultural practices in general. Western literacy is the primary literacy in the school and so often dictates what is expected of the learners. Those learners who have interacted with the culture and literacy in the home are further along the assimilation process and so are more successful because they have a better understanding of what is expected of them and what they are required to do.
This scenario is not purely a South African one and has been found to be true in many countries.
For instance, this view is supported by extensive ethnographic research that Shirley Brice Heath (1986 cited in Baker 2001) conducted in America. In her research, she shows how certain cultures or communities mirror more closely the type of language behaviour expected in traditional Western classrooms than others.
Thus a difference may occur between patterns of language and literacy in the home and that expected in schools. For particular cultural and ethnic groups, this may make school a relatively more challenging and strange
experience. The transition from the language and literacy of home to school may be more difficult for some
language communities than for others
(Baker 2001: 331).
For example, in Heath’s research (1986 cited in Baker 2001) certain pre- school learners gained experience of books with their parents in a manner which paralleled that of interaction with teachers whilst other communities had different literacy practices, important in themselves, but which did not match school-oriented literacy practices. Thus, in South African terms, the L2 learners that have grown up in a Xhosa-only environment are not at a disadvantage simply because they lack exposure to the English language, but they are also at a disadvantage because they lack exposure to the Western culture and literacy practices, which dominate these classrooms.
Furthermore, exposure to English in the home environment is believed to be absolutely vital and having parents who speak English well is said to be crucial to the successful acquisition of English. However, Collier and Thomas (2001) (cf. section 2.3.2 in chapter 2) shed some interesting light on this issue of linguistic exposure and show, along with Heugh (2002) (cf.
section 2.6 in chapter 2), that the notion that it is not only beneficial but necessary to expose L2 learners to English as much and as early as possible does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, Collier and Thomas’s (2001) research shows that while socio-economic factors, including the home environment, do play an important role, a school can counteract the impact they have by adjusting the education programme. Furthermore, they found that whilst parental levels of proficiency in English are important predictors of a student’s achievement in English, the most powerful predictor of an L2 learner’s academic success in acquiring English is actually determined by the amount of formal schooling they receive in their L1.
This over-emphasis on exposure to English is problematic because, even though it is very clear that the teachers and the school are motivated by a strong desire to help L2 learners, especially the Xhosa- speakers, to acquire English as successfully and as quickly as possible, unfortunately, when this desire is underpinned by misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge regarding multicultural and bilingual education, it can lead with the best of intentions, to practices such as exposing L2 learners to so much English that their L1 is actually undermined. This, in my opinion, is what is possibly happening in the classrooms described in this study, and it may
prove to be detrimental for L2 speakers in general and for Xhosa speakers in particular.
A very good example of this is the Afrikaans and Xhosa lessons that are provided in Gr. 2 and Gr. 3 respectively (cf. section 4.4.7 in chapter 4). These lessons could possibly offer the L1 speakers of Afrikaans and Xhosa at least one opportunity to excel and to have their culture accepted and affirmed as valuable and interesting. In terms of my observations, this does indeed happen for the Afrikaans L1 learners, who were more animated and excited and participated more during the Afrikaans lesson than at any other time. They were also able to ‘show off’ and were commended for their skill. This is also evidenced in their reports and evaluations, where the L1 Afrikaans speakers failed to meet the requirements and criteria for English (cf. section 4.3.6 in chapter 4), whilst in Afrikaans they generally exceeded or at least met the requirements.
However, during the Xhosa lessons, Xhosa learners are taken out for extra English lessons (section 4.4.7 in chapter 4). This is unfortunate because the Xhosa lessons could possibly provide these learners with an opportunity to excel, to ‘show off’ their ability and for that moment, to be stronger and at more of an advantage than the L1 English learners. But, because the Xhosa learners do not attend this lesson and are instead taken out for a special class, they are once again marked as being weaker and unable to cope alongside L1 English learners. In this school environment, where English is the language of instruction, most Xhosa learners appear to struggle, especially if they are not exposed to English at home as recommended by both T1 and T2 (cf. section 4.4.6 in chapter 4). They are, consequently, academically behind the L1 learners and the teachers acknowledge that they are at a serious disadvantage (cf. section 4.4.6 in chapter 4). However, taking them out of the one lesson where they are at an advantage is perhaps not the best solution to this dilemma.
This issue of exposure is particularly important because it has a far-reaching impact on the education that these L2 learners receive. Both teachers state that their primary objective is to teach these learners to cope in whatever school they go to and to produce well-rounded and confident young
people who have a sound basis from which to carry on (cf. section 4.4.10 in chapter 4). This is an excellent objective and must be commended, however, Heugh (2002) indicates that L2 learners who are exposed to English from Gr.1 or earlier and who thus receive no formal schooling in their first language are actually more likely to struggle throughout their school careers.
Furthermore, since this school only teaches up to grade 3, and thereafter the teachers can only keep track of the learners informally through events like prize-giving and art evenings and so on (cf. section 4.4.11 in chapter 4), the teachers unfortunately, do not really see the long-term impact the school has had on the learners and whether they are in fact able to cope in the higher level schools they go to. Thus, it is possible that the teachers might be falling short of their primary objectives and are unaware of the problems faced by the learners.