Second language learning and affective variables

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

THE SETTING AND SOCIOCULTURAL BACKGROUND

The Vhembe District (see Figure 1.1 below) is located in the north east of the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Limpopo is one of the most rural and one of the poorest provinces in the country and the University of Venda (Univen) is situated in Thohoyandou in the Vhembe District. Thohoyandou is the main town of the Vhembe District and was the capital of the former Venda Homeland. This Homeland was the most isolated in the years before 1994. This is because of its strategic position to the other African countries in the North, which necessitated a much firmer grip from the then government in order to prevent any influence from the other African countries northwards across the Limpopo River. In his PhD thesis, Gray (1997:83) argues that apart from the main factors of apartheid and Bantu Education that have militated against more acceptable levels of education, factors such as a lack of properly qualified facilitators have contributed to the limited development of critical, logical and problem-solving skills among the learners.

2 Student questionnaire

In order to enhance evidence to support deductions in this thesis, a sociocultural background questionnaire was distributed directly to the students whose texts feature in this thesis as well as to other students from the faculties of Natural and Applied Sciences and Mathematics, Agriculture, Rural Development and Health Sciences, and Law, Business and Management. The questionnaire was intended to complement the information supplied in the questionnaire that targeted academic staff members.
In view of second language problems in the area as discussed in this chapter, the use of languages in the home and outside is of particular interest and significance. In a sample of ninety students, only twenty-three per cent (23%) claimed to have been taught entirely in English throughout their intermediate and final phase education and these also claim to speak English at home with family members. Seventy-seven per cent (77%) indicated that they were not taught in English all the time even during the English class period as Mother Tongue featured quite prominently in their class activities. This percentage also indicated that they communicated mainly in Mother Tongue with family members and friends and those they met who understand the particular Mother Tongue.

Summative comments on the learning context

What can be inferred from the responses are the issues endorsed in the literature reviewed and that is that poorly qualified staff have a negative impact on the language education of the students both at the first and second language levels. These teachers are part of the dilemma of lack of sufficient exposure to English that is being reinforced in the sociocultural context and this is highlighted in Chapters Two and Three.
The issue of transparency impacting on the expression of opinion complements the information that describes the sociocultural nature of the learning context. And the conclusion that one draws from the transparency issue is that there is little free expression of opinions. The respondents were also unanimous on the link between the expression of personal opinion and discursive writing ability. The responses to the questionnaires bolster what has already been gleaned from the literature reviewed as well as from personal experience that there is a serious language deficiency in the sociocultural learning context of the Vhembe District and the weak uncertainty avoidance coupled with the private nature of the society does not augur well for discursive writing.

RATIONALE FOR AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The framework, which elucidates the different levels of interaction that are relevant in examining social dimensions of language and language learning, is referred to as sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics contrasts macro and micro dimensions of language use in contexts that range from personal, interpersonal, community, national and international. McKay and Hornberger (1996) have stated that once there is a move towards the spread of education in an area, local languages inevitably coexist with the standard language of the school and in public affairs and, as a result, there is an effort to broaden the understanding of how second language teaching and learning is related to a wide range of factors including societal, political, cultural, psychological, and interpersonal issues. The major assumption behind this assertion is that the ‘how’ of language use reflects the larger society.
In this situation, it is also the role of sociolinguistics to clarify what communicative competence in a second language entails, because both the perceptions of communicative competence and the levels of analysis of second language interaction are critical for an understanding of the interaction between language and society. This is because the focus of analysis can be directed at either the larger context like that at the level of a nation and community, or at the more limited context of a particular social situation, such as the university whose domains or communities of practice bridge macro to micro dimensions.

LANGUAGE IS ACTION AND AFFILIATION

Although “exchange information” is the most readily acknowledged function that language is supposed to serve, Gee (2005: 1) highlights two other functions that are pertinent to this thesis. These are ‘to scaffold the performance of social activities and to scaffold human affiliation within cultures and social groups and institutions’. He underscores the fact that these functions are linked because cultures, social groups, and institutions shape social activities. It is the power of social groups, and institutions to share and shape that which is of relevance to the sociocultural context. Since the details of language get recruited, “on site”, to “pull off” specific social activities and social identities, one realizes that language-in-use everywhere is always political. By “politics”, Gee (2005: 2) is referring to everything and every place where human social interactions and relationships have implications for how “social goods’ are or get to be distributed. And the “social goods” stand for anything that a group of people believes to be a source of power, status, or worth (which includes, among other things, academic intelligence, control, verbal abilities, knowledge, literacy, and so on).

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Page
• Contents
• Abstract
• Key Terms
• Acknowledgements
• CHAPTER ONE Introduction and Background
  • 1.1 Introduction
  • 1.2 The Setting and Sociocultural Background
  • 1.3 Statement of the Problem
  • 1.4 Sociocultural Context questionnaires
  • 1. 4. 1 Academic Staff questionnaire
  • 1. 4. 2 Student questionnaire
  • 1. 4. 3 Summative Comments on the learning context
  • 1. 5 Objectives
  • 1. 6 Research Questions
  • 1. 7 Rationale for and Significance of the Study
  • 1. 8 Conclusion
• CHAPTER TWO Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
  • 2.1 Introduction
  • 2.2 The Construction of Knowledge in Research
  • 2.3 Language is Action and Affiliation
  • 2. 4 Making Knowledge in Writing
• CHAPTER THREE Literature Reviewed and key terms defined
  • 3.1 Introduction
  • 3.2 Sociocultural Theory and Literacy
  • 3.3 Literacy and Composition
  • 3.4 The nature of the written text
  • 3.5 Writing, Second Language and Literacy
  • 3.6 Writing, Value Orientation and Society
  • 3.7 Language learning and Group dynamics
  • 3.8 Second language learning and affective variables
  • 3.9 Writing and Communication
  • 3.10 Language, Communication and Culture
  • 3.11 Communicative Competence
  • 3.12 Acquiring second language in school
  • 3.13 Open and closed role systems
  • 3. 14 Writing, Reading and Content Learning
  • 3.15 Discursive writing
  • 3.16 Conclusion and Summary
• CHAPTER FOUR The Analysis
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.2 Qualitative Research
  • 4.3. Case study
  • 4.4 Methodology
  • 4.4.1 Discourse analysis
  • 4. 4. 2 Participants
  • 4.4. 3 Sample collection
  • 4. 4. 4 Data analysis
  • 4.4.4.1 Evaluation and criteria
  • 4. 5 Presentation of the results
  • 4. 5.1 Mother Tongue questions
  • 4. 5. 2 Sample essays (English Department)
  • 4. 5. 3 Sample essays (Geography Department)
  • 4. 6 Discussion of the Results
  • 4. 6. 1 Mother Tongue questions
  • 4. 6. 2 Sample essays
  • 4. 7 Conclusions and implications
• CHAPTER FIVE Interpretation
  • 5 Sociocultural influences on writing
  • 5. 1 Socialization
  • 5. 2 Restricted code
  • 5. 3 Division of labour and the central value system
  • 5. 4 Role system and communication
  • 5. 5 Social control and closed systems
  • 5. 6 Literacy and culture
  • 5. 7 The use of English for Mother Tongue education
  • 5. 8 Summary and conclusion
• CHAPTER SIX Conclusion and Recommendations
  • 6. 1 Introduction
  • 6. 2 Conclusion
  • 6. 3 Intervention Strategy
  • 6. 4 Recommendations

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
SOCIOCULTURE AND STUDENTS’ ARGUMENT WRITING IN ENGLISH: A CASE STUDY FROM THE VHEMBE DISTRICT, LIMPOPO PROVINCE, SOUTH AFRICA