The Influence of Sepedi Scientific Language Register on Classroom Interaction and Discourse

Study design

This study included three schools from Seotlong Circuit in Limpopo Province. Seotlong Circuit has a denser population of the Sepedi-speaking people, which makes it a suitable area for this study. The participants included a Sepedi speaking teacher, who is a qualified Natural Sciences and Technology teacher who has been teaching Natural Sciences and Technology for at least three years, and a classroom of the Sepedi-speaking Intermediate Phase learners. Data were collected in the schools.

Data collection

Data were collected through lesson observations. Prior to the lesson observation, the researcher obtained the written consent from the parents and/or guardians since the learners involved were minors. The lessons observed were conducted using the Sepedi Scientific Language Register. The researcher remained a complete observer, recording key points in a diary. This observation method allowed for a better understanding of subjects and interaction, as well as the ability to capture details that may be difficult to bring up in interviews or focus groups.³ Observing three classes using the same register developed in Sepedi was a way of ensuring triangulation of data.

Data processing

The researcher took notes (diaries) during the classroom observation. The notes were verbatims or the exact words of the participants and were not corrected. The participants were allowed to go through the notes to ensure that it is their exact, untwisted words. The researcher used pseudonyms to ensure anonymity. Hard copies of the notes taken during class observations are stored in a locked cupboard/filling cabinet for research purposes.

Data analysis

Data from classroom observations were analysed using Inductive Content Analysis (ICA). ICA is utilized to comprehend the study’s topic or the participants’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.² It uses coding, which involves breaking up the material into digestible chunks and labelling certain textual parts in every transcript.^16,17 The researcher fragmented data and analysed each part to get an in-depth understanding of the nature of the classroom discourse.

Ethical considerations

In this study, the researcher followed these ethical guidelines by first obtaining permission from the relevant stakeholders. This included securing approval from university of South Africa.

Participant provided written consent. Thus, they were provided with consent forms to sign, prior to data collection, to indicate their voluntary participation. The researcher obtained the written consent from the parents and/or guardians since the learners involved were minors. They were fully informed about the study’s details, assured that data would be used solely for research purposes, and made aware that participation was not mandatory. To maintain confidentiality, the researcher used pseudonyms to conceal the identities of participants and schools. The researcher also ensured that the study caused no harm or discrimination to participants. Data collection was scheduled outside school hours to minimize disruption to the regular functioning of the schools.

Rigour

The researcher allowed participants to review the data to confirm if it accurately reflects their perspectives, to ensure credibility. The participants reviewed the notes taken during the classroom observations. The researcher does not know the participants and acted as a complete observer during the observation phase. Gathering data from three schools ensures triangulation. The researcher refrained from influencing the data and reported only on the information gathered, without adding interpretations or details not directly from the field. Furthermore, the researcher provided a clear and comprehensive description of the research aspects, including data and methods, and the processes followed. Additionally, information-rich findings and conclusions were shared to aid in evaluating transferability.

Case one: School one primary school

Teacher one, a Natural sciences and Technology teacher, presented a lesson on the shape of the Earth, referred to as “Sebopego sa Lefase.” The lesson was delivered in Sepedi, both verbally and in writing, which differed from typical lessons where the use of Sepedi is generally limited to verbal communication.

The lesson took the form of a dialogue from the start, with the teacher initiating the interaction by asking the learners questions that facilitated the exchange of ideas, as shown below:

The above transcripts show that the teacher allows learners to participate and contribute to the lesson, an example of the interactive-dialogic approach. Additionally, the teacher does not correct the learners’ responses but instead asks further questions to encourage deeper thinking, reflecting an IRFRF pattern. The questions are posed as different ideas are explored, demonstrating high-level interanimation within the interactive-dialogic approach. The lesson continued as follows:

The teacher provided information about the myths surrounding the shape of the Earth, integrating some of the responses previously raised by the learners. He then asked questions to encourage critical thinking and maintain learner engagement. The learners offered varying ideas, which sparked a debate, an element of dialogic discourse. By doing so, the teacher created a platform for learners to interact. The lesson continued as follows:

In the above transcript, Teacher one introduced a new concept while keeping the learners engaged and allow them to build on their existing knowledge through questioning. The learners expressed their views, contributing to the discussion.

The transcripts show that the learners engaged in discussions and exchanged ideas in a language they were comfortable with, which aligns with the principles of social constructivism (Saleem et al., 2021). They were encouraged to build from what they already knew. The transcripts also demonstrate meaningful communication, where ideas were contextualized, as well as real communication, in which ideas were shared (Rezaie & Lashkarian, 2015). Extended conversation and questioning are evident, guiding learners toward the correct answers rather than simply providing feedback or offering the correct answer. This reflects an IRFRF technique that invites further discussion (Chuzairy et al., 2019). Additionally, the teacher welcomed learners’ contributions, even when they were incorrect, exemplifying an interactive-dialogic approach.

Case two: School two primary school

Teacher two presented a lesson using the Sepedi Scientific Language Register to the Intermediate Phase learners. The lesson took an authoritative approach from the outset, with the teacher taking control of the lesson and serving as the main source of knowledge. The teacher first provided information to the learners and then asked questions to invite them into the discussion. This is demonstrated in the transcript below:

The transcripts above show that learners were given the opportunity to share their thoughts, introducing an element of interaction. Additionally, the teacher evaluated and provided feedback on each learner’s response, as highlighted below. The lesson then proceeded as follows:

The transcript above demonstrates that the teacher created a platform for learners to exchange ideas while guiding them toward the most relevant answer. The type of questioning steered learners towards a specific response, indicating an interactive-authoritative approach. Furthermore, the teacher provided feedback on the learners’ answers, reflecting an IRF pattern. The lesson then continued as follows:

The above transcript primarily features short questions with brief, specific answers. Additionally, it includes evidence of Sepedi-English bilingualism, as the teacher asked learners to translate terminologies from English to Sepedi.

Case three: School three primary school

Teacher three presented a lesson using the Sepedi Scientific Language Register. The lesson took an interactive form from the start, with the teacher ensuring that learners were actively engaged. The teacher asked questions that prompted the exchange of ideas, demonstrating dialogic discourse. This is illustrated in the transcript below:

The transcript above shows that different ideas are welcomed, providing evidence of an interactive-dialogic approach. Additionally, instead of simply providing answers, the teacher asks further questions, reflecting an IRFRF discourse pattern. This is illustrated below:

The transcript above shows that the teacher encouraged learners to share their thoughts and make contributions, regardless of whether their responses were correct or incorrect. This reflects an interactive-dialogic discourse type. Furthermore, learners engaged in agreeing and disagreeing with one another, indicating that the teacher facilitated a platform for idea exchange and debate—key elements of dialogic discourse. The lesson continued as follows:

The transcript above shows that the teacher continued to guide the learners toward the correct answer while keeping them engaged, which reflects an authoritative discourse style. However, the lesson was predominantly dialogic in nature.

Limitations

This study focused on one Intermediate Phase classroom from three schools in the Seotlong Circuit. The participants were selected based on the criteria specified in the study design, ensuring that the results align with the study’s objectives. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalized. The results might not be broadly applicable; however, they could still be relevant in other educational contexts.