I TENOR I
4.1 Analysis and Interpretation of the Learners' Literate Life Histories (LLHs)
4.1.3 The Teaching of Writing
because learners could not read and, because ofthis, learners did not learn to read effectively. The result was a crippling neglect ofthe basic skills on which the future academic progress oflearners depends, namely, listening, speaking, reading and writing. Vinjevold (1999), summarising the PEI research into the provision and use of learning materials in South African schools, writes that teachers either do not use materials, such as textbooks, or use them in a haphazard way. The tasks 'do not demand higher order skills and knowledge' and 'often do not engage learners in progressively more demanding activities aimed at developing reading, writing and numeracy skills' (184). In particular, Macdonald found minimal time spent on reading and writing. The learners' LLHs indicate that this is a practice which permeates the whole system. The prevalence of copying notes off blackboards, and the minimal writing and narrow range of genres that learners experience, confirm Macdonald' s findings.They indicate that the problems set in motion by the transitionto English as MOl in year five without sufficient conceptual development in their mother tongue and sufficient English language development are ones that learners carry with them throughout their schooling. Italso indicates that these problems impact on the methodologies teachers' employ to respond to them.
The issue of the use of textbooks has important implications for the development of appropriate and empowering literate behaviours in learners. Vinjevold (1999: 166-168) reports on research in the Philippines and South Africa where students who used textbooks achieved more than learners who did not. The research in South Africa reported more individual and group work, and more involvement and motivation. Furthermore, the more the materials were used the greater the benefits. In contrast, the situation described by the learners in this research indicates the extent to which important learning experiences are being denied them. This will have a significantly detrimental effect on their ability to process and produce texts and consequently on their chances of success in their academic and working lives.
the desk. We just read the comprehension. After that we just answer the question.
We will not be given maybe anything, maybe like a composition to make us create things for ourselves. We usually depend on the books, depend on the teacher.'
He feels that they were 'not educated how to write a composition' , 'We just copy the composition to see how composition appears. Afterwards we write the same composition in a test'. The overall impression from Thulani's LLB is that teaching consisted of vague general comments about the structure ofan essay using an example from the board: 'They talked about [introductions] but they did not make sure that we understand how to use it. They just talked. If then the teacher's work is done. Okay finished'. As far as the teaching of paragraphs was concerned it seemed to consist ofthe teacher talking about an example on the board, 'the pupils just take the copied message then the teacher will explain each and every paragraph what it is about'. Prof also spoke of teachers writing something on the board, an example or 'some notes' and after explaining what is on the board, instructing the learners to do the same thing on their own. With letters 'you have to take this stuff that you have sawn on the board and you have to copy that as it is on the board and you'll do your own letter'. With compositions, after discussion on the notes, the teachers say 'this is the notes and you have to copy these notes ... you have to know them and learn them and practise how to write a composition'. Gladys was taught that compositions should be in stages and that compositions must not be written like a letter, 'each composition should have a topic and what ideas you put across should be in line with the topic and then you write it sort of formally'.
Kingsize recalls copying letters from the board in primary school and reproducing them in examinations or tests. In standard six, with the different types ofletters, he was required to copy them from the board and then use those models to write homework assignments. He was also taught how to plan an essay in standard six but there is little evidence that that sort ofteaching was consistent through his high school career. Romeo and Roka both received some tuition in planning an essay and building a coherent structure by modelling an essay on the board. Romeo describes the process:
... you write the introduction ofthe topic, you introduce your topic. And she will read to us the whole thing, the whole composition. Then she will tells us okay that you see this paragraph here on the introduction of this topic I am writing about, and the body, and the summary, now the conclusion of all you've said and done, and there was it.
While genre-based approaches favour modelling of texts they emphasise comparison across genres to bring home to learners how different communicative purposes are realised differently, each genre having its own distinctive beginning,middle and end. Thereis no evidenceof this in the learners' experience. Given the narrow focus on narrative/expressi vewriting, theselearners will only acquire a formulaic notion of 'introduction,body and conclusion' with no idea of how thesemight differ across genres nor of the functionality of that difference. For example, Romeo was told that 'you must write about 5 lines not about 10 to 15 lines, they said that is not a paragraph' .When asked why this was not considered a paragraph he answered, 'Because that is like if you are writing 15 lines that's a full page'.
The learners in this study are also not made aware of the link between context and language and thus betweena genre and its linguistic realisations. My observations of classes and theirexercise books revealed a preoccupation with decontextualised grammar exercises. There were no exercises that would encourage an awareness of language as a meaning-making resource as proposed by SFG linguists. When questioned, learners reported that most of the teaching time in the languages was taken up with teaching literature and grammar. Roka stated that teachers taught literature and 'how to write, and also read language. I think language is what we did the most'. It is interesting that when asked about what writing activities he experienced at school, Roka always mentioned grammar exercises first. In primary school, '...for instance a teacherwill write a sentence on the board then he would say, okay, let's do a negative form of that sentence' and 'Also we did spelling,ya,abbreviations,also doing the opposites.Wewere givennames and write the opposite of that'. In high school what he remembered about language work was changingsentences fromdirect to indirect speech and doing conjunctions.Prof,talking about his experience ofwriting in standard eight, saw it as the same as standard seven 'because nothingwas new... basically wewere forced to stay with the language,we had to push the language' .In other subjects there is no evidence of any explicit teaching around the relationship betweenlanguage and context to develop an understanding of the language for constructing reality in different subject areas. These learners experience language teaching for the sake oflanguage teaching,and not as a meaning-making resource at text level, for specific purposes and audiences, and across all areas of the curriculum. In contrast, Macken-Horarik (1996:273) quotes a teacher to illustrate her approach to the teaching of language in her science classes:
[I] explicitly model the language demands ofthe genre. I show them and tell them how to do it; step one, two, three, etcetera. I show the connectors, the processes.
I am really down at language level. And then they have the means for dealing with language on their own. They can deconstruct texts even in exams. The language functions are there even in short-answer questions.