Cross-linguistic barriers and literacy instruction via breakthrough to Setswana in Botswana public schools : a case study of the early primary school years

Abstract

This study investigated the efficacy of Breakthrough to Setswana, one and the only method for teaching and learning of literacy in the Republic of Botswana public schools, using a monolingual approach in a multilingual setting, at beginner reader level. The research site was situated at one public primary school; Mantshwabisi. Mantshwabisi is also the name of a village where the study site was situated in the Republic of Botswana. I was motivated by the fact that Botswana recognises two languages of literacy of instruction amid more than 20 languages. I used qualitative approach case study and related techniques viz; class observation, interview, focus group discussion, document analysis to understand a phenomenon in a context-specific environment. Therefore, the study was of research methodology paradigm. Cases are created hence I created a case within cases. Mantshwabisi primary school had a number of cases, but I chose ‘literacy in the early years of primary school’ and what composed those years. These were among others: children, teachers, parents, language(s)and documents used to execute early literacy teaching and learning. The study was guided by conceptual framework that pivoted around the languages used at home, school, and teacher training programme. It was further grounded on three theories bilingualism and multilingual in education and pedagogy in language education. The three theories were used to verify how teachers offered early literacy teaching and the supportive systems they used such as documents, school material. Furthermore, how the theories complement one another. The other supportive systems were parents, and children were involved to find out if they benefitted from the way(s) early literacy was taught. The study was guided by four objectives: a) To examine the extent to which language of literacy teaching and learning facilitates early literacy when it differs with learner’s home language. b) To explore parents’ involvement in their children’s early literacy teaching and learning. Cross-linguistic barriers c) To establish how teacher training prepares teachers for multilingual setting for early literacy instruction and learning. d) To ascertain why teachers used Breakthrough to Setswana to teach beginner-readers literacy. Against research, one becomes literate in formal schooling after four to five years using their home language. The practice at school was that Breakthrough to Setswana, a skill-based method, language experience approach based, and child centred was contrary to just the aforementioned principles. It was used interchangeably with English language to teach literacy in the environment where not all children were Setswana language speakers, where children’s Setswana proficiency was varied. Most of the documents were in English language except the vocabulary children were to learn. Therefore, children were seemingly taught literacy in rote learning method. They had to remember instead of comprehending. Most of the children’s parents were not involved in their children’s early literacy learning because children were at a boarding facility. In addition to that, the parents could have not been speaking the literacy teaching languages; Setswana and English. Consequently, they may have not been literate, more so that there were no schools in their areas hence children were sent to the boarding school. There was a teacher aide who was not trained in teaching profession. Her duty was to interpret between teachers and children. This was so because the teachers did not speak some of the children’s languages; Sekgalagadi and San/Sesarwa. The teacher-aide did not speak Sesarwa language. Still Sekgalagadi and Seswarwa varied and that could have raised communication challenges as well. There were three standard one classes, and the teacheraide could not avail herself to all the classes at the same time since she took turns in the said classes. That resulted in teachers teaching in Setswana or English and at least the non-Setswana speakers were disadvantaged. Much as teachers and other management staff did not speak some of the children’s languages, they believed that literacy teaching was their job, and they could do it. They realised that those children could read but did not comprehend. Therefore, that confirmed that children remembered but did not understand. Few parents whose children were not boarders, helped their children with Setswana learning and teachers rarely gave children English language assignments to do at home. Even during end of term parent-teacher consultation, the teachers did not mention anything about English performance. That may confirm that children had to learn in their home language for four to five years to be introduced to a second language. The boarding children were supposed to be under the conduct and academic guidance of care takers who acted as loco parentis. The latter did not stay in the hostels and whose substantive job was to clean the hostels, wash for the children and bathe little ones. They did not and could not assist the children in early literacy learning because their job schedule clashed with time to help the children. There was that element that boarders did not trust care takers in assisting them with their homework; particularly in Mathematics. Parents and care takers believed in teachers’ ability to teach because the latter were trained to do so. The teacher training programme offered two languages for literacy teaching and learning as reflected at Mantshwabisi primary school. Teachers expressed that Breakthrough to Setswana was an imposed method and they could not compare its efficacy with any other because it was the only one used. They expressed that they needed more training on Breakthrough to Setswana, more so that what they were exposed to during their teacher training was inadequate, theoretical and did not help them to execute literacy teaching. The early literacy approaches used by teachers were not based on children’s ways of knowing, did not empower children because they did not tap from children’s background. As such, that alienated the children from school. The children’s background could not be accommodated by teachers because that was how the guidance from documents dictated. In conclusion, early literacy should be done in the child’s home language, his or her ways of knowing, his or her language proficiency as well as the child’s background. The instructional material should reflect the child’s home language. These children should be taught by teachers who speak their language, they should stay with their parents. There should be a programme for parents to make them aware that literacy is endowed in their homes, where it should start. Teachers should be trained at teacher training institutions to support parents in early literacy teaching. The teacher training should expose teacher -trainees to a variety of teaching early literacy approaches that will allow child-centred methods. There should also be in-service training for appropriate early literacy approaches. This study is an opportunity to all involved in preparation for early grade teachers and literacy teaching and learning in a typical school and literacy teaching and learning in general. There is a possibility that teachers can use effective methods to teach early literacy because they are eager to do so, and they believe in themselves. Also, parents believe in teachers.