English Other
I don‘t think that is a problem. [Mm?] I think the students have been conversing in this language from high school. Most of them – all of them have been learning in English, although it may not have been their first language. Dr Hlubi 13;71-72
Given that grasp of a second language is itself difficult, and grasp of new concepts expressed in a second language is an added layer of complexity, nonetheless, respondents react negatively to the suggestion of delivering the programme in Zulu.
It‘s not that they don‘t understand the English – they do – but when it comes to medicine there‘re certain things that they‘ll take longer to grasp. So putting it in Zulu – it actually takes you two steps back, because they‘re going to learn it in Zulu; now what are you going to do because we‘re not going to write our papers in Zulu [Why not?] and explain to consultants in Zulu. ... I honestly wouldn‘t write a paper in Zulu. Zulu is a very difficult – it‘s easy to talk but difficult to write. English is a lot simpler, honestly speaking.
Lungi 3;599-608
But it will help, I think, receiving lectures and notes in Zulu, because it would make it better. [Ja] But like, I‘ve got this point: at the same time it would take us back to the whole
‘94 apartheid thingie – and then we – I don‘t think it‘s going to help much.
Imbali 6;761-763
In the literature on learning in a second language, I find both support for and contradiction of the intuitively obvious idea that learning in a second language is disadvantageous. In South African schools, Simkins and Paterson (2005) found that where the language of instruction was the same as the home language, children‟s test results were better. Howie et al. (2006) reported that the low literacy rates in South African primary schools was considerably exacerbated in the case of second-language learners. Heugh et al. (2007, p. 118) wrote: “...teaching, learning and assessment in languages other than home language may have negatively affected learner performance in all learning areas” [my emphasis]. In recognition of the “structural disadvantage” of being taught and assessed in a second language, there is a 5% positive adjustment of marks for second-language English-speakers who sit the South African national school- leaving examinations (Christie, et al., 2007, p. 9). This is likely to explain the relatively
A publication on primary school science teaching in the USA mentioned the poorer performance of second-language English speakers (Stoddart, Solis, Tolbert, & Bravo, 2010). In a USA medical school, it was found that Asian Americans, who generally had good academic records, fared worse in the clinical years; it was suggested that this could possibly be related to their slightly inferior ability to read English texts (Xu, Veloski, Hojat, Gonnella, & Bacharach, 1993). In contrast, Canadian primary school learners of mathematics and science in their second language were described as scoring as well as first-language learners in assessments in those subjects (Genesee, 1995). The same author (Genesee, 1994) suggested that second-language learners may in fact bring to bear on their studies a wider range of views and experiences than do monolingual learners. Certainly, the second-language students at UKZN are conscious that not only must they surmount the language/terminology barrier but that they must also be able to negotiate it on behalf of their patients. These students, who have school-leaving proficiency in the language of instruction, are conscious of the difficulty in learning subject content.
My respondents advance many reasons for not using Zulu as the medium of instruction: the difficulty of translating concepts, the unavailability of textbooks, the fact that learners are accustomed to English as a medium of instruction and aware of its role as an international language, the fact that many students from other parts of the country or continent are unable to understand Zulu, the fact that many Zulu speakers would struggle to speak and write „correct‟ Zulu, and the thought that mother-tongue instruction smacks of the apartheid era. Similar findings in the literature confirm these perceptions. Obanya (1995, pp. 322-323) mentioned the perception in West Africa that African languages are not suited to scientific discourse, and Heugh (2009, p. 104) described a similar suspicion that Xhosa was “old-fashioned and used simultaneously by intellectuals and rural people.”
One might expect success in PBL to relate to language skills, both oral – in small group discussion – and written – in deciphering textbooks. In striking – and counter-intuitive – contrast to the comparison between English first-language and second-language
speakers portrayed and discussed above, the GEE multifactorial analysis showed that language as a factor was not significant when compared to other factors. I ascribe this to the fact that these students, as remarked upon earlier, have survived a selection process (in order to be admitted into the programme), are determined to succeed, and feel, as they claim, that the language barrier is not as difficult to overcome as is the barrier of technical terminology.
Facilitator background
I have constructed a graphical representation of the relationship of test marks to facilitators‟ background training. For the purpose of comparison, I divide facilitators into: medical doctors – those who qualified with an MBChB or equivalent degree, medical scientists – e.g. anatomists, pharmacologists and pathologists, and postgraduate students – those studying towards a Masters or PhD in a branch of medical science.
Bearing in mind that small-group members and facilitators change with each theme, I portray the average marks of all those who had each kind of facilitator for each test as an attempt to indicate the effect of a particular type of facilitator. This necessarily combines different students – each with individual characteristics – for each test, which may well confound the effect of the facilitator‟s background. As an indication of how test marks aggregated when divided according to facilitator background, the means for the 18 tests over the three years were: 62.5 % (postgraduate students), 62.1 % (scientists) and 62.1 % (medical doctors). From these means and in the graph no difference is evident (Figure 5.10). This is reflected in a non-significant p value on GLM analysis.
Figure 5.10 Test results over three years according to facilitator background PGStu: Postgraduate (Masters/Doctoral) students Sci: Scientists
MedDr: Medical doctors
All the students – and one member of staff – feel strongly that facilitators should be medical personnel.
From my experience in the past, I‘ve really enjoyed and participated and quite felt I should really do my work for the tuts because these are doctors that ideally we‘re talking about. Most of the time they give an approach, and then in the tutorials they normally have the ‗Why?‘ question – ―Why would you say that?‖ – d‘you understand? But those who are not doctors tend to just come and they listen to you. They come and they just
―Say out whatever you know‖ – it‘s more about – to us – to most of us students, we find that we end up knowing things but nobody understands them. Matlodi 4;130-135
The lectures and the facilitators should be medical clinicians. I‘ve had brilliant clinicians, and our tuts are ten times more rewarding, as compared to a basic science facilitator –
‘cause they just don‘t have the whole over-picture. Kevin 7;163-165
That is where the general approach comes in – the intra-disciplinary general approach comes in; and that can only be done by a clinically qualified person.
Dr Patel 12;226-228
The reasons advanced for preferring medical rather than non-medical facilitators are not always well articulated. In the main, medically qualified staff members are thought to
50 55 60 65 70
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
Mean group marks (%)
Tests over three years