Introduction
Effective teaching in South African schools depends on addressing both how pupils access
learning and the conditions that make learning possible. This assignment examines two
critical classroom realities: the use of home languages in teaching and the management of
bad behaviour. Both issues centre on inclusion, dignity and epistemological access in
multilingual, diverse contexts. The first section argues for the strategic use of home
languages such as Tshivenda and Xitsonga to improve conceptual understanding,
participation and transfer to additional languages, while acknowledging implementation
challenges. The second section identifies the root causes of disruptive behaviour and
proposes a proactive, collaborative approach involving teachers, parents and school
support structures. Together, these responses demonstrate that quality education requires
language practices that affirm pupil identity and behaviour systems that respond to
underlying needs rather than punishing symptoms.
Question 1
Position: For the use of home languages in teaching
I support the use of home languages in teaching because it directly improves
comprehension, pupil confidence, and cognitive development, especially in multilingual
contexts such as South Africa. Using pupils’ home languages as a resource does not
replace English or other languages of learning and teaching, but mediates access to
curriculum content and ensures epistemological access. This position aligns with the
Department of Basic Education’s Language in Education Policy which promotes additive
bilingualism.
Three reasons to support this view
First, home languages improve conceptual understanding by reducing cognitive load.
When initial explanations are delivered in a language pupils think in, working memory is
freed to process new content rather than decode unfamiliar vocabulary. As a result, pupils
, grasp complex concepts faster and retain them longer. Research by the Department of
Basic Education (2011) confirms that mother-tongue instruction in the foundation phase
strengthens literacy and numeracy across all languages later, because skills transfer via
Cummins’ common underlying proficiency model.
Second, using home languages builds pupil identity and active participation. When
children hear their home language valued at school, their affective filter, as defined by
Krashen (1982), is lowered. This means anxiety decreases and they feel included, making
them more likely to ask questions, take academic risks, and engage in exploratory talk.
Consequently, classroom discourse becomes richer and more equitable.
Third, home languages support scaffolding to additional languages. Strong foundations in a
first language transfer to second-language acquisition because conceptual knowledge
does not need to be re-learned. For example, concepts learned in Tshivenda or Xitsonga
are not re-taught in English, only re-labelled. This promotes additive bilingualism rather
than subtractive language shift.
Three examples from classroom practice
In a Grade 4 Natural Sciences lesson on “photosynthesis”, I would first explain the process
in Tshivenda using familiar terms such as _duvha_ for sun and _matari_ for leaves, then
introduce the English scientific terms. Pupils would draw and label diagrams bilingually,
providing evidence that they understand the concept, not merely memorising vocabulary.
During group work in Mathematics, pupils can discuss problem-solving strategies in
Xitsonga before presenting the final solution in English. This translanguaging approach
ensures all group members contribute cognitive resources, rather than only the English-
confident speakers dominating.
For reading comprehension, I would apply the “preview-view-review” strategy: preview the
story and key themes in Tshivenda to activate schema, read the English text together for
decoding practice, then review key themes in Tshivenda to check deep understanding. This
ensures no pupil is left behind due to language barriers.
Effective teaching in South African schools depends on addressing both how pupils access
learning and the conditions that make learning possible. This assignment examines two
critical classroom realities: the use of home languages in teaching and the management of
bad behaviour. Both issues centre on inclusion, dignity and epistemological access in
multilingual, diverse contexts. The first section argues for the strategic use of home
languages such as Tshivenda and Xitsonga to improve conceptual understanding,
participation and transfer to additional languages, while acknowledging implementation
challenges. The second section identifies the root causes of disruptive behaviour and
proposes a proactive, collaborative approach involving teachers, parents and school
support structures. Together, these responses demonstrate that quality education requires
language practices that affirm pupil identity and behaviour systems that respond to
underlying needs rather than punishing symptoms.
Question 1
Position: For the use of home languages in teaching
I support the use of home languages in teaching because it directly improves
comprehension, pupil confidence, and cognitive development, especially in multilingual
contexts such as South Africa. Using pupils’ home languages as a resource does not
replace English or other languages of learning and teaching, but mediates access to
curriculum content and ensures epistemological access. This position aligns with the
Department of Basic Education’s Language in Education Policy which promotes additive
bilingualism.
Three reasons to support this view
First, home languages improve conceptual understanding by reducing cognitive load.
When initial explanations are delivered in a language pupils think in, working memory is
freed to process new content rather than decode unfamiliar vocabulary. As a result, pupils
, grasp complex concepts faster and retain them longer. Research by the Department of
Basic Education (2011) confirms that mother-tongue instruction in the foundation phase
strengthens literacy and numeracy across all languages later, because skills transfer via
Cummins’ common underlying proficiency model.
Second, using home languages builds pupil identity and active participation. When
children hear their home language valued at school, their affective filter, as defined by
Krashen (1982), is lowered. This means anxiety decreases and they feel included, making
them more likely to ask questions, take academic risks, and engage in exploratory talk.
Consequently, classroom discourse becomes richer and more equitable.
Third, home languages support scaffolding to additional languages. Strong foundations in a
first language transfer to second-language acquisition because conceptual knowledge
does not need to be re-learned. For example, concepts learned in Tshivenda or Xitsonga
are not re-taught in English, only re-labelled. This promotes additive bilingualism rather
than subtractive language shift.
Three examples from classroom practice
In a Grade 4 Natural Sciences lesson on “photosynthesis”, I would first explain the process
in Tshivenda using familiar terms such as _duvha_ for sun and _matari_ for leaves, then
introduce the English scientific terms. Pupils would draw and label diagrams bilingually,
providing evidence that they understand the concept, not merely memorising vocabulary.
During group work in Mathematics, pupils can discuss problem-solving strategies in
Xitsonga before presenting the final solution in English. This translanguaging approach
ensures all group members contribute cognitive resources, rather than only the English-
confident speakers dominating.
For reading comprehension, I would apply the “preview-view-review” strategy: preview the
story and key themes in Tshivenda to activate schema, read the English text together for
decoding practice, then review key themes in Tshivenda to check deep understanding. This
ensures no pupil is left behind due to language barriers.
