BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY
4.14 Research highlighting challenges with discipline-specific literacies in science
Research into student performance in the disciplines of science has outlined the link with discipline-specific literacies. Difficulties included poor conceptual understanding, problem solving skills and poor reading, comprehension and writing skills.
Poor performance in mathematics by students in HEIs in South Africa as a result of poor schooling, poor conceptual understanding and discipline-specific literacies, together with having to learn mathematics in a second language has been extensively researched (Bohlmann and Pretorius, 2002; Howie, 2003; Pillay, 2009; Moyo, 2010). Although mathematical competence is essential for students to progress and perform well in mathematics, other factors such as reading proficiency can impact negatively. A study undertaken by Bohlmann and Pretorius (2002) on foundation phase mathematics students at Unisa demonstrated that when students with poor reading skills are unable to pay attention to semantic and linguistic clues in texts, they either miss an argument of a text entirely or construct an erroneous or fragmented representation of it.
Drummond and Selvaratnam (2008) attribute students’ difficulties with problem-solving to poor intellectual strategies. To explore this, they conducted a study between 1999 and 2001 at North West University to investigate the competence of first year chemistry students in some of the intellectual strategies and skills important for learning chemistry effectively.
The students in the study spoke English as a Second Language (ESL). In the study, the method for testing intellectual strategies involved the comparison of students’ performance in pairs of questions: ‘standard’ questions and ‘hint’ questions. The standard and hint questions were the same, except for one difference. The hint question had a ‘hint’ that suggested a strategy that should be used to solve the problem. The purpose of the study was to identify difficulties associated with learning strategies rather than knowledge of principles and concepts in chemistry. The results of the study indicated that some students were unable to carry out simple instructions, despite the provision of a hint, a weakness which could have been attributed to language difficulty. They were unable to deduce information from a simple diagram; and did not attempt to solve unfamiliar problems.
Those who made some attempt to solve the problems did so using memorized procedures, rather than logic. Overall, the study revealed students’ tested difficulties in applying intellectual strategies to solve problems.
146
An investigation into the procedural understanding of first-year ESL science students in the SFP at UCT was done by Allie et al. (1998). These researchers noted the relevance of the three areas of procedural understanding: “(1) identify a variety of 'frames' for doing experimental work, i.e. students' perceptions of the purpose of practical experimentation;
(2) decisions about the experimental procedure are influenced by students' knowledge about how to manipulate the apparatus and; (3) the procedure adopted is critically influenced by the students' understanding of the issue of reliability of experimental evidence (Millar et al. 1996 cited in Allie et al. 1998).
The study by Allie et al. (1998) intended to show how informed perceptions of the reliability of the experimental data influence the design of a practical investigation, the ways the data are collected, reported and interpreted. In the study, written probes were used to explore ideas regarding the reliability of experimental data, in particular the need for repeating measurements, the spread of a set of measurements and the how to deal with sets of experimental data. In relation to students’ use of scientific language, the study of students’ responses to the probes revealed haphazard use of language: words were used interchangeably (e.g. calculation, result, value ) as well as confusion about terminology (e.g. error, range, precision) (Allie et al. 1998).
In another study involving SFP students as subjects, Feltham and Downs (2002) used a set of three probes viz. a drawing quiz, a multiple choice question (MCQ) and open-ended questions to assess whether students’ background knowledge of biology was poor and whether this was, in any way, related to language proficiency. The assessment was not designed to probe students’ biological abilities. Although the subjects in the study did not perceive language as a problem in biology, the results of the study showed otherwise.
Better performance in the drawing quiz (which was least language dependent) and the MCQ (requiring only reading ability) compared to the open-ended questions indicated students’ difficulties at written expression, an inadequacy that could disadvantage them.
The study undertaken by Feltham and Downs (2002) corroborates with that by Downs (2005) who conducted a study in the SFP at UKZN in which she investigated student performance in a range of tasks in biology and whether the final attained mark in biology reflected a students’ ability to cope with tertiary studies. The results of the study indicate that although students showed better performance in the practical component of biology
147
and multiple choice questions, they experienced difficulties with answering short questions and essays testing theoretical knowledge. Downs (2005) attributes this to poorly developed higher cognitive and/or language skills. She also states that a combination of language problems and poor biological language knowledge lead to difficulties in constructing explicit scientific arguments.
Research into the difficulties in discipline-specific literacies in science has also been undertaken. Inglis (1993 cited in Rollnick, 2000), who worked with students’ bridging into tertiary education, proposes that the quality of a student’s writing is closely related to the student’s conceptual understanding of the content of a particular assignment. Poorly written science assignments may be evidence of either poor language proficiency or poor conceptual understanding. According to Dempster and Reddy (2007), the learning of sciences requires a learner to be proficient in the language of instruction, as well as in the language of science, acquiring the specialized vocabulary that characterizes the sciences.
They also state that poor performance in science assessment may be due to learners’
misunderstanding of questions. Clerk and Rutherford (2000 cited in Dempster and Reddy, 2007), showed that misconceptions apparently identified in physics were frequently due to misinterpretations of questions.
Studies conducted within the (previous) Foundation Programme in Science (SFP) at UKZN include those undertaken by Keke (2008) and Pillay (2009). Concerned about students’
educationally disadvantaged backgrounds and inadequate mathematical knowledge, Pillay (2009) embarked on a research study that focused on the advantages of implementing collaborative learning as a pedagogical intervention method to facilitate and improve mathematical skills and knowledge. The study outlines the relevance of understanding mathematical register and discourse which are necessary for mathematical communication, comprehension, reasoning and interpretation. Pillay’s (2009) research illuminated the benefits of encouraging students to work together to create a mathematical community, to encourage interaction and to learn from each other. It also shows that students need to take responsibility for their own learning by working independently. Apart from this, the study showed that disciplinary specialists should be amenable to change and be prepared to veer from traditional teaching methods and utilize novel pedagogy to enhance student learning.
148
The study conducted by Keke (2008) explored how the experiences of students registered in the programme influenced their achievement and the mechanisms employed to improve upon their achievement. The research indicated that student achievement in the sciences was informed by academic, social and personal factors. Factors such as poor schooling, the articulation gap, the mismatch between expectations and the reality of the SFP, academic adjustment, financial difficulties, lack of family support, poor career choices and misconceptions of student support services were all identified as impacting on student achievement. Students attempted to combat these obstacles by using peers, mentors and counsellors positively with a view to enhancing their performance and success at university.
The research studies conducted in HEIs outlined thus far are pertinent to this study which seeks to explore the issues of discipline-specific literacies in science and the presence of any challenges that arise from poor understanding of them. As is the case with these studies, this study also looks at issues such as the impact of schooling experiences, LoLT, conceptual and procedural understanding on acquiring the discourse of science.
Conclusion
This Chapter commented on the need for the HE sector in South Africa to produce more skilled graduates in the fields of the sciences. It provided an understanding of how students who enter tertiary institutions should become participants in its culture and discourse practices. An explanation of the discourses needed to acquire tertiary level science has been provided. The characteristics of science discourse were highlighted as they are the literacies that feature in reading, writing, doing and talking science that FP students need to acquire and use as they engage with the texts and activities of science. This Chapter offered a discussion on essential literacies used in science disciplines at university. It illustrated the impacts of educational challenges and disadvantage at school level in South Africa on preparedness for tertiary level science. The research undertaken in this field serves to indicate concern among academics about difficulties associated with the acquisition of science discourse at university level and its impact on student learning and performance.
Chapter 5 discusses the research methodological practice that informed this study.
149
CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGIES TO UNDERSTAND THE PHENOMENON
Introduction
Chapter 4 presented reasons the HE sector in South Africa needs to heed the call for an increase in the number of skilled black graduates in science, engineering and technology. It drew attention to the NPHE (2001) which states that besides technical skills, “employers want graduates who can demonstrate a strong array of analytical skills and a solid grounding in writing, communication and presentation skills” (UNESCO/World Bank Report, 2000:85, cited in NPHE, 2001: 27). The Chapter also drew attention to the need for students to become members of the university community. Reference was made to the need for students to learn the discourses of the discipline, i.e. the view of discourses (with a lower case “d”) used in language for reading, writing and speaking; and the view of Discourse (with upper case “D”) as an identity toolkit that includes ways of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, acting, behaving and interacting (Gee, 1990). Such Discourse is concerned with broader values and worldviews. The Chapter offered a distinction between primary and secondary discourses (Gee, 1989). While primary discourse is acquired through face-to-face interactions in the home and represents the language of initial socialization, secondary discourses are acquired in social institutions beyond the family such as school and business contexts (Gee, 1989). Relevant to this study is secondary discourse which “involves the acquisition of specialized vocabulary and functions of language appropriate to those settings” (Gee, 1989: 5). The Chapter, furthermore, elaborated on the two ways in which meaning is expressed or received. In this context, it draws from Cummins’ (1984b) continuum of context-embedded and context-reduced communication. While context-embedded interactions involve the use of social discourse, academic discourse relies on context-reduced communication. Context-reduced communication is specifically important in this study as science discourse is particularly dense and abstract. This necessitated a discussion in Chapter 4 on the nature of science discourse, with emphasis on scientific register, nominalisation, lexical density and the discipline-specific literacies required in science.
Chapter 5 discusses research methodological choices made in the process of conducting this study. This discussion concerns the research paradigm, research methodology and the
150
research design deemed appropriate to realise the broad objectives of the study. The first part of the Chapter begins by explaining the rationale for choosing the interpretive research paradigm. The second part of this Chapter discusses the reasons for choosing the qualitative research approach and goes on to explain the types of data collected for this study, providing reasons for choosing triangulation as a strategy to ensure the accuracy of the findings. The third part engages with reasons for the choice of case study as the research design in this study. The fourth part offers the rationale for selecting the research sample. The final part of this Chapter discusses the choice of research instruments: semi- structured interviews, observation as well as documentary evidence (the course manuals used in the modules offered in the FP and the FP students’ laboratory practical workbooks, laboratory reports, field reports, and test scripts). Thereafter, follows an outline of how the theory informed the method in this study. A brief discussion of issues around ethical considerations concludes this Chapter.