Applying the isiNdebele Scientific Language Register in Natural Sciences to Foster Meaningful Learning

Abstract

Conducted as a qualitative interpretative case study, this research explored the influence of the developed isiNdebele scientific language register for Natural Sciences on meaningful learning among learners. Data collection involved interviews and observations of stakeholders. The findings revealed a positive correlation between the use of indigenous languages and meaningful learning. Notably, when Natural Sciences was taught using the isiNdebele register, classrooms exhibited heightened interaction, contrasting with lessons conducted in English, where learners were predominantly passive. These outcomes underscore the importance of creating scientific registers in indigenous languages, advocating for their integration into teaching practices. The study recommends the incorporation of scientific language registers in indigenous languages to enhance meaningful learning and academic performance. By examining the impact on meaningful learning experiences, the article contributes valuable insights to the broader discourse on inclusive and culturally responsive pedagogical practices in science education. The findings underscore the potential of applying indigenous languages in science instruction to bridge linguistic gaps and promote a more accessible and enriching educational environment.

1. Introduction

Although language is acknowledged as the primary vehicle for communication and cognitive processes, its evolution is shaped through social interaction, as highlighted by Vygotsky [1]. Vygotsky [1] further underscores the importance of language in the context of social constructivism, emphasizing its impact on learning through social connections, individual engagement with society, language acquisition, and cultural learning [1,2]. Both Vygotsky and Mudau [1,2] emphasize the crucial role of classroom and social interactions, along with language, as foundational elements for achieving meaningful learning. Meaningful learning is conceptualized as a dialogic process wherein diverse ideas are amalgamated and contemplated using language as a tool. Additionally, Mortimer and Scott [3] assert that interactions, discourses, and language play a fundamental role in meaningful learning, positively influencing learner performance. This study employs [2] Classroom Practice Diagnostic Framework (CPDF) as a guiding framework.

This article reports on a research endeavor that investigates the utilization of a developed scientific register in isiNdebele (see Supplementary Materials) within the context of Natural Sciences and its impact on shaping meaningful learning. Prior studies have predominantly focused on the use of English and Afrikaans to teach African learners [4]. Findings from these studies suggest that the use of English and Afrikaans impedes meaningful learning, placing learners in the challenging position of grappling with both language and scientific concepts [5,6,7,8]. The ongoing debate among politicians and scholars revolves around how the use of these two colonial languages contributes to low academic performance among African children. The Minister of Basic Education, Angie Motshekga, addressing a parliamentary session on 9 March 2022, highlighted that poor reading comprehension skills among South African children are attributed, in part, to learning in a foreign language, specifically English [9].

While South Africa boasts eleven official languages, including nine indigenous African languages (isiNdebele, seTswana, sePedi, seSotho, tshiVenda, siSwati, isiZulu, xiTsonga, and isiXhosa), English remains the predominant medium of instruction, excluding the indigenous languages [10]. This linguistic diversity, coupled with the diverse cultural and ethnic groups in the country, contributes to a rich tapestry of languages that foster a sense of belonging and cohesion [11,12]. However, linguistic diversity is not equitably addressed in educational settings, especially in rural schools where teachers are often compelled to use registers not written in either their or the learners’ home language [11]. This linguistic challenge makes the teaching process formidable, particularly when instructing learners in a language unfamiliar and incomprehensible to them.

The language issue extends beyond South Africa and is a subject of debate in other Southern African Development Community (SADC) and global contexts, such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and China. Ethiopia, with over 20 indigenous languages, uses English as the medium of instruction, resulting in poor performance in subjects like mathematics and science [13]. Similar challenges are observed in Mozambique, where Portuguese, a non-indigenous language adopted from colonial rulers, serves as the official medium of instruction, leading to subpar performance in science [14]. In contrast, countries like China and Spain use their indigenous languages (Mandarin and Spanish) as mediums of instruction, contributing to meaningful learning and evident success in technological innovations, mathematics, and science [6,15].

2. Methods

2.1. The Study Group

This study adopts a qualitative research approach, a method of inquiry aimed at understanding central phenomena by examining participants within their contextual environment. Creswell [16] underscores that a qualitative research design facilitates the exploration of phenomena in real-life settings. Specifically, in phenomenological research, researchers refrain from making assumptions and instead seek to comprehend the experiences of the participants. Employing a case-study design in this study was deemed appropriate, as the researchers aimed to delve deeply into the nuances of the explored subject [17]. This design allowed for the individual treatment of each case, considering the diverse backgrounds and teaching experiences of the participants.

The selection of participants involved purposive sampling, a method described by Maree [18] as ideal for choosing information-rich cases in an in-depth study, applying individuals with substantial knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation. Criteria for sampling were based on specific considerations: teachers whereby isiNdebele is their home language and are engaged in teaching Natural Sciences in senior phase schools, particularly within the Siyabuswa 2 circuit, and parents and learners affiliated with the selected school. Only learners whom isiNdebele is their home language participated in this study. The inclusion of participants was contingent on their willingness to participate in the study.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

Qualitative data collection in this study employed two distinct strategies. The initial strategy involved conducting one-on-one semi-structured interviews using a set of predetermined questions [16,18]. Interviews were conducted with two Natural Science teachers, two groups of learners, and two parents from selected schools, focusing on the inquiry, “Does the developed isiNdebele Natural Sciences scientific language register contribute to meaningful learning?” In these interviews, additional probing questions like “If yes, how, please elaborate?” were posed to elicit further clarification and gather comprehensive data.

Despite the perception of interviews as time-consuming and costly [19], this technique was deemed most relevant due to the limited number of participants and the personalized nature of interview data. Interviews proved instrumental in gathering sufficient and pertinent information [17]. Additionally, interviews yielded a richer source of descriptive information compared to instruments like questionnaires [20]. Participants were interviewed during their free time and after school, exploring how the developed isiNdebele Natural Sciences scientific language register influenced meaningful learning. The interview responses were recorded to ensure the accurate capture of participants’ perspectives.

The second strategy, classroom observation, served as a valuable means of data collection, with teachers observed instructing Natural Sciences using both English and isiNdebele scientific registers. Continuous observations were conducted over a three-week period to enhance data validity. Each teacher underwent multiple hour-long observations, dedicating the first 45 min to teaching Unit 1 on separating mixtures using the isiNdebele scientific register and the remaining 15 min using the English scientific register. This allocation allowed for a comprehensive understanding of how classroom interactions and discourse varied with different language registers. The non-participant observer approach was chosen as it ensured the researchers remained uninvolved, minimizing influence on the dynamics of the setting.

Data triangulation was facilitated through interviews and observations, enabling the researcher to cross-verify participant responses obtained during interviews with observations from the classroom. This comprehensive approach contributed to the robust findings of the study.

2.3. Data Analysis

To analyze the data collected from interviews and observations in this study, a content analysis approach was employed. Audio-recorded interviews and observations were carefully examined by listening to them multiple times and then transcribing the content into a Word document. Following the transcription of data from interviews and video recordings, the researcher revisited the audio recordings to cross-verify that the transcribed data accurately reflected the participants’ responses. The transcribed information from both interviews and observations underwent a thorough reading, during which the researcher highlighted significant statements that offered insight into the participants. Themes and categories were then derived from these highlighted statements, aligning with the research questions [16]. Interactions and discourses emerged as a central theme for analyzing the data in this study.

3. Data Presentation and Discussion

When implementing the register, I sought to gain insights from stakeholders, particularly teachers, regarding how the developed scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele contributes to meaningful learning. Fana expressed the following:

“Yes, I think it does influence, because the register is written in their home-language making it easier for learners to interact when they understand the language rather than when using English register where their participation is minimal”

Sfiso echoed Fana’s sentiment by stating the following:

“Yes, sometimes when they have the language barrier, they do not really interact or ask the questions that need to be asked. Sometimes they keep quiet because they do not want to speak in the language that we are using for teaching. They decide to keep quiet and stay with the questions that they need to ask or rather they agree with you without understanding. But using the isiNdebele register will make them interact better and ask questions because they will be using their home language”

His earlier statement aligns with his responses during the interviews, where he emphasized that applying isiNdebele to teach Natural Sciences could be a beneficial initiative. According to him, learners grasp concepts more effectively when instructed in their mother tongue compared to English. This viewpoint finds support in Adesemowo [21] observations, highlighting the advantages of using indigenous languages for teaching African learners. Adesemowo [21] notes that learners can better understand and relate to concepts when instruction occurs in their own language and cultural context. The same question was posed to learners after providing an explanation of what a scientific register in isiNdebele entails. Some learners responded as follows:

“Inomthelela omuhle ma’am ngobanyana sizokukgona ukuphendula imibuzo lula ngombana sizobe siyizwisisa ngoba ingelimu lekhethu neehlathululo zingelimi lekhethu” (yes, it has a good influence because we can interact since the register is written in our mother-tongue) L1

“Ma’am nasifunda nge register le siyakgona uku participator ngaphandle kokusaba ukuthi bazosihleka ngoba siberegisa sifunda ngelimilethu sikgona nokuqabanga msinya ngoba siyazwisisa” (when we learn using this register, we can participate without fear because we learn using the language, we familiar with and we able to think quickly because we understand better) L2

“Ah ma’am I think ine influence ehle cause ngoba sifunda nge siNdebele and singa understand’a” (the register has a good influence because we are learning in isiNdebele and we have a better understanding of science concepts in our own language) L3

Some of the responses from the learners align positively with their favorable perceptions regarding the use of isiNdebele for Natural Sciences instruction. However, there are inconsistencies with how they expressed their views during the interviews regarding their preferences for isiNdebele instruction. Initially, their perception was inclined towards English, influenced by their parents’ desire for them to be fluent in it. Nevertheless, when specifically asked about the impact of the developed scientific language register in isiNdebele on their meaningful learning, their responses were positive, expressing support for its use. The conflicting nature of their responses may be attributed to the negative perception instilled by their parents regarding the use of indigenous languages as mediums of instruction, overshadowing their personal views [22,23,24].

Parents represent a crucial stakeholder group in the implementation of the scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele. A number of parents expressed the following:

“Yes, it can influence because I think if they can teach Natural Science with IsiNdebele, because all learners are going to understand very well. If the teacher is talking about the head, body, leg, anything or an animal or what, they are going to explain to the learners with isiNdebele. And I think all learners in the class they are going to understand everything, and they are going to participate.” P1

“Well, Yes Madam. Our learners may be reserved. Reserved in the sense that they may not be able to present well. Though we’ve got good learners that will always interact with their teachers. But there will always be those that are feeling like to be reserved not wanting to interact because of not being certain of the language.” P2

“Of course, it does. Sometimes most of the terms are terms in English now the learner must think and try to think in English and then also write in English while the learner understands these things much better in their home language. So, it becomes a barrier when it comes to interaction. Now the teacher must ask in English, the learner does not know some of the terms, but he knows what the teacher is talking about. So, when it comes to communication, replying, responding to the teacher, the interaction becomes in a way poor, compared to the language that they normally use at home.” P3

“Yes. Ok, so it does because sometimes they cannot express themselves fully. For example, if you ask a question in English, a learner can have an answer but answering you in English is a bit difficult because isiNdebele is the only language which they use in most cases and it is the only language they are perfect in. So sometimes it becomes difficult.” P4

Like the responses from learners, certain parents’ perspectives on how the developed scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele influences meaningful learning align with their positive views on using isiNdebele as a medium of instruction for Natural Sciences. This consistency stems from the belief that learners grasp concepts more effectively when instructed in a language they understand and are fluent in Msila [25].

The collective responses from stakeholders suggest unanimous agreement that the developed scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele has the potential to foster meaningful learning. Their views are grounded in the perceived benefits of applying the mother tongue, which is believed to contribute to meaningful learning and subsequently lead to improved performance, as emphasized by Adesemowo [21]. Notably, political commentators like Dr. Somadoda Fikeni, traditionalists such as Zolani Mkiva, and Historian and Cultural Analyst Professor Pitika Ntuli support the idea that learning in the mother tongue enhances learner performance. This sentiment is reinforced by the findings of Reis and Ng-A-Fook [26], who highlight how the use of indigenous languages can enhance meaningful learning and yield better results.

To further validate and triangulate the data collected from interviews, the researcher observed teachers and learners in the classroom. This observational approach was crucial to capturing classroom interactions and discourse, as these aspects could not have been adequately captured through other methods [27].

During interviews, both Fana and Sfiso affirmed that the developed scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele indeed contributes to meaningful learning. Subsequently, their classroom practices were observed as they utilized the isiNdebele scientific register to teach Natural Sciences. Notably, Sfiso initiated his lesson by assessing learners’ prior knowledge of the topic, a practice deemed essential for meaningful learning, as highlighted by [28]. He indicated the following:

“Ama metha neensentjenziswa! uqabanga ukuthi ama metha yini. Yini igama elifika’kothoma qhaza nje ngendlela obonangayo Noma ngiwuphi umbono wamukelekile” (what comes to your mind when you hear the word “matter”? Any view is acceptable)

Throughout his instructional session, Sfiso employed dialogic discourse, a practice referenced by Mudau [2]. Learners were afforded the opportunity to actively engage in discussions regarding the presented content. This is substantiated by the following excerpt, wherein they articulated their interpretations of the concept of “matter”.

“I think matter is used to do something” L1

“matter is something that can take up space” L2

“Amametha zizinto eziphathekako” (matter is something that can take up space) L3

When Sfiso inquired about the nature of matter, he conveyed to his learners, “Noma ngiwuphi umbono wamukelekile”, translating to any perspective being acceptable. This approach rendered his teaching interactive and dialogic, in accordance with the observations made by Mudau [2] and Chin [29]. Learners were encouraged to provide any responses they had, with the emphasis not solely on correctness but on fostering participation and interaction, ultimately aiming for meaningful learning.

Furthermore, Sfiso’s utilization of dialogic discourse persisted throughout the lesson, consistent with the insights of Mudau and Chin [2,29]. Learners actively debated and engaged in discussions about the feasibility of extracting salt from saltwater, exploring the isiNdebele term for this process. The subsequent responses from the learners corroborate the observation.

“it is possible through boiling” L1

“yes, through filtering” L2

“Siyokubilisa amanzi anetswayi bese amanzi azokutjha aphele bese kusale itswayi” (we going to boil salt and water will evaporate and we will be left with salt) L3

“Mr nelangeni singawabeka amanzi anetswayi, amanzi azokutjha kusale itswayi lodwa, mara lokho kungathatha isikhatho eside” (we can also put the mixture in the sunlight water will evaporate, though that will take time) L4

“Iye indela yokuhlukanisa umvango loyo kukuwubilisa” (yes, we can only separate the mixture through boiling) Sfiso

Building upon the earlier observations, Sfiso not only utilized dialogic discourse but also employed an interactive–dialogic approach. During the lesson, learners actively proposed various methods for separating the mixture of salt and water. Despite some responses being incorrect, Sfiso did not dismiss them; instead, he acknowledged their input and provided the correct answers.

Continuously, throughout the instructional session, Sfiso posed questions designed to foster discussions and stimulate the thinking skills of the learners. This approach involved questioning that aimed to develop their cognitive abilities. An instance of this was noted when he prompted learners to identify and name mixtures and pure substances. This is validated by the excerpt below:

“Amadribe awomi siweko-amsulwa” (raisons are pure-substances) L1

“Irama-imsulwa” (Rama is a pure substance) L2

“Nami anginalo elinye igama engingabiza ngalo i Rama” (I do not know any other name that best describes Rama in isiNdebele) Sfiso

“Yibhodoro” L’s

In the discussion between the teacher and learners, there was a debate over whether margarine is an English term, eventually reaching an agreement that it is referred to as “yibhodoro” in isiNdebele. Contrary to merely posing questions to buy time, Sfiso posed thought-provoking questions that encouraged the development of thinking skills. This was evident as learners engaged in a debate about the meaning of “rama” in isiNdebele, a term unfamiliar to Sfiso. The learners collectively suggested a more suitable isiNdebele term, “yibhodoro”, borrowed from the Afrikaans “boter”.

During the interviews, Sfiso expressed the view that the developed scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele positively contributes to meaningful learning. He highlighted that applying the isiNdebele scientific register fosters improved interaction among learners compared to when using the English scientific register. Given his indications about the English and isiNdebele registers for Natural Sciences, I opted to observe him teaching the same topic using the English scientific register for Natural Sciences.

Contrary to authoritative discourses, as per Mudau and Chin [2,29], Sfiso predominantly employed an authoritative approach from the outset. Learners were not given the opportunity to debate or discuss concepts; instead, Sfiso transmitted information using a question-and-answer teaching method, a practice discouraged by researchers who argue that it leads to passive and superficial thinking. Throughout the observation, Sfiso relied on the question-and-answer method, structuring questions to provide learners with answers. Following each answer, he posed the question “angitjho”, meaning “right”. This question did not appear as an authentic query with room for a negative response but rather seemed to coerce agreement from learners. Consequently, in each instance, learners echoed a unanimous “yes”, and Sfiso proceeded to the next aspect.

“Why are you saying Tap water is a mixture? Because they use a chemical angitjho (right)?” Sfiso

“Yes” L’s

“So, we all are agreeing that tap water is a mixture?” Sfiso

“Yes” L’s

In his instructional session, learners were deprived of the opportunity to actively participate, discuss, ask questions, or share their perspectives on the presented content. Sfiso solely disseminated information, and the learners assumed a passive role as recipients of that information, resulting in an authoritative discourse [29]. The discourse pattern employed by Sfiso in his class adhered to the Initiation Response Feedback (IRF) model [30]. Sfiso was noted for initiating questions about mixtures and pure substances and subsequently providing feedback, as substantiated by the following excerpt:

“Milk is a what? Is a pure substance angitjho (right)?” Sfiso

“Yes” L’s

“Another one” Sfiso

“Salt” L’s

“Salt, it is a pure substance, right?”

“Yes” L’s

In every instance, Sfiso refrained from initiating questions that would encourage discussions or stimulate higher-order thinking among learners. All the questions posed were straightforward, with predetermined answers, and at times, Sfiso provided the answers himself. Despite the extensive use of questioning in Sfiso’s lesson, it was crucial to scrutinize the intent behind the questions asked. It became apparent that Sfiso posed questions for assessment purposes rather than to facilitate a deeper understanding.

Sfiso adopted an interactive–authoritative teaching approach, where interaction occurred primarily between the teacher and learners, with minimal interaction among the learners themselves. The authoritative aspect of Sfiso’s teaching style manifested through dominant lectures and question-and-answer methods, leaving little room for learners to question or seek clarification on the presented content. Although Sfiso encouraged responses from learners, he often supplied them with answers even when they were capable of formulating their own. This observation is substantiated by the recorded instance below:

“Let us go to picture B (Figure 1).”

“Picture B, what do you think of Picture B” Sfiso

“(Mumbling)” L’s

“You are not sure neh? But you can see different components there neh? There are some that is dark some that is white neh”?

“Yes.” L’s

“So, what you see there it is a mixture” Sfiso

The provided excerpts stand as a testament to the authoritative style employed by Sfiso in his communication approach. If Sfiso had allowed learners to engage with each other and with the content without providing immediate answers, it would have provided them with the chance to develop various skills, including questioning and communication skills, as outlined in the NS CAPS document for grades 7–9. Consequently, it can be deduced that the lack of meaningful interaction between learners and the teacher was influenced by the use of the English register for Natural Sciences.

Fana was also observed teaching Natural Sciences utilizing both isiNdebele and English scientific language registers. When utilizing isiNdebele, he started off his lesson by checking the learner’s prior knowledge of ways of separating mixtures. Fana relates the concept to the learner’s everyday life. This is supported by the extract below:

“Niyakhumbula abogogo baberegisa imincamo eyahlukahlukeneko ukwenza izinto emakhaya? Bayihlukanisa njani imincamo le” (Our grandmothers use different beads at home to make jewelery, how do they separate these kinds of beads?) Fana

From the above statement, Fana created an environment in which his learners were comfortable engaging with the lesson, which made his type of discourse dialogic [2]. His example further made learners respond at ease because they are used to seeing their grandmothers’ using beads at home, and they could easily relate the concept to their daily life experiences.

Fana’s dialogic discourse was further observed as he asked learners to discuss and report their answers. See the extract below:

“Yini into emsulwa yinto enjani?” (what is a pure substance?) Fana

“Into emsulwa yinto engakahlanganiswa noma imvelo” (is something that is not mixed with anything, it is natural) L’s

“Into emsulwa yinto engeze wakgona ukuyehlukanisa” (it is something that you cannot separate) L’s

The communicative approach that was used by Fana was interactive–dialogic. This is so because he accepted all the responses from learners, even the incorrect ones [3,29]. This was observed as he asked his learners how to separate a mixture of oil and water. This is how they responded:

“Sibilisa ukuhlanganisweko lokho bese amanzi azokuphuma kusale amafutha”

(learner explaining the process of evaporation) L1

“Sithokoze, abanye bangathini?” (thank you for the response, can we have anothis response) Fana

“Singaberegisa iphepha lokutsenga, amanzi azokudlula bese amafutha azokusala ephepheni lokutsenga” (Using a filter paper, Explaining the process and outcomes) L2

From the above assertions, Fana was observed accepting the incorrect answer from the learner who suggested that water can be separated by boiling the mixture. Instead of discouraging the learner, Fana applauds the learner for giving the answer and further requests other learners’ opinions, as the focus of the lesson was learners’ engagement rather than giving correct answers.

Fana used a question-and-answer method as he was observed asking questions for the better part of the lesson. Fana asked questions to construct understanding and develop learners’ thinking skills. See the below extract:

“Amanzi amvango namkha awa?” (is pure water a mixture or not) Fana

“Awa.” (no) L’s

“Akusimvango, kubayani nitjhonjalo?” (why you are saying that) Fana

“Amsulwa, akakavangwa nalutho.” (they are pure and not mixed with anything) L’s

From the above statements, after his learners gave their responses to the question, he then asked them to support their responses. That assisted learners to construct a better understanding of the concept. The pattern of discourse that was used by Fana was the Initiation Response Feedback Response Feedback (IRFRF) pattern of discourse, as he was observed using open-ended questions that are learner-centered [30]. This is supported by the extract below:

“Nihlanganiseni lapho?” (what did you mix) Fana

“Sihlanganise itjhukela namanzi.” (water and sugar) L’s

“Itjhukela namanzi. Sekumvango?” (water and sugar, is it now a mixture or not) Fana

“A mixture” L’s

“Liqiniso lelo” (That is correct) Fana

Fana was observed asking questions, and then learners responded. He then gave the feedback that triggered his learners to respond to the question, and finally, he gave a final response.

When he was interviewed about whether the developed scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele shaped classroom interactions and discourses, Fana indicated that the language of teaching and learning, which is English, is a barrier to learners. Hence, most of the time, they do not ask questions during the lesson because they are not confident in the language. Therefore, they remain quiet or agree to what the teacher says without understanding. From the assertions, he was then observed teaching Natural Sciences using the English Register.

Fana was observed asking questions during his lessons, but he used questioning to evaluate rather than to develop a learner’s skills. See the below extract:

“Suggest tools that are used in the kitchen to separate mixtures.” Fana

“Sieve.” L1

“A sieve, next?” Fana

“A filter paper.” L2

“You can use a filter paper. Next?”

“Hands.” L3

From the extract above, Fana used questioning to move to the next aspect of the content rather than to construct understanding or develop learners’ thinking skills. This is so because he accepted the learner’s responses without asking them how to use the tool or why they chose that tool, which could have developed their thinking skills.

Fana used an authoritative discourse. This is so because he used the lecture method of teaching, as his teaching reflected one-way communication. See the extract below:

“Inside the gas box its hydrogen neh” Fana

“Yes” L’s

“We use that one when we cook and the hydrogen inside the gas is a pure substance.” Fana

“Yes”

From the above extract, Fana was observed making an example of pure substances wherein he used hydrogen gas. However, the method he used was lecture, as learners were not given a chance to engage and ask questions. Furthermore, he used the word “neh” after each of his statements, which means “right”, which does not sound like a term to which a learner can say no but rather will chorus “yes”. This confirmed his assertions that learners would rather be quiet or agree with the teacher even if they did not understand. This reflects how many challenges English poses to African learners [21].

During observations, Fana used an interactive, authoritative approach. This is so because he was observed asking learners questions. When they were not sure of their responses, he gave them responses instead. See the extract below:

“Can you see the salt hen it is mixed with water?” Fana

“Yes/No” L’s

“No, you cannot see it because it melts, neh?” L’s

“Yes” L’s

From the above extract, Fana gave learners a response to the question and, furthermore, a reason why they could not see the salt when mixed with water. Instead, he could have given learners an opportunity to support their responses, and that could have made his lesson interactive and dialogic. The pattern of discourse used by Fana is called Initial Response Feedback (IRF) [31]. This is so because he was observed initiating questions, the learners responded, and then he gave them feedback. This is supported by the statements below:

“Identify which of the following show mixtures and which do not.” Fana

“Diagram C. It is a pure substance.” L’s

“Yes. It is a pure substance” Fana

From the above statements, Fana was observed giving learners final feedback without explaining why diagram C shows a pure substance.

4. Findings

When employing the isiNdebele scientific language register for Natural Sciences, both Sfiso and Fana embraced dialogic discourse, providing multiple opportunities for their learners to actively engage and discuss the presented concepts. They fostered an environment conducive to interaction, facilitating ease of communication among learners and between them and the teacher. Despite occasional inaccuracies in responses, this practice aligns with Vygotsky [1] concept of meaningful learning and characterizes their approach as interactive–dialogic. Both teachers utilized the question-and-answer method, posing questions aimed at developing thinking skills. Additionally, they incorporated the IRFRF pattern of discourse, offering feedback that stimulated learners’ thinking processes and encouraged further discussion and improved feedback.

In contrast, when they utilized the English scientific register for Natural Sciences, there were no evident attempts at discussion between them and their learners or among the learners themselves. Sfiso and Fana assumed the role of information transmitters, with learners primarily serving as passive recipients of information, resulting in an authoritative discourse. The application of the IRF discourse pattern by Sfiso and Fana limited learners’ opportunities to employ skills such as questioning and scientific processes, as outlined in the CAPS NS policy document. Questions posed by both teachers were primarily for evaluation purposes rather than to foster learners’ thinking skills or facilitate transitions between topics. The conclusion drawn from these observations characterizes both teachers’ communicative approaches as “interactive and authoritative”.

Based on these observations, it can be inferred that the developed isiNdebele scientific language register for Natural Sciences does indeed positively contribute to meaningful learning, potentially leading to improved performance in the subject, as suggested by Mortimer and Scott [3].

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Derived from the perspectives of stakeholders, does the formulated scientific language register for Natural Sciences in isiNdebele shape classroom interactions and discourse? Stakeholders collectively expressed a unanimous belief that the register should indeed foster meaningful learning. Their arguments were firmly rooted in the notion that learners, when instructed in their mother tongue, wherein they possess high proficiency, would enhance comprehension and diminish language barriers. Consequently, this approach is anticipated to improve learners’ performance and engagement in the subject, as they would be focusing solely on grasping natural science concepts rather than grappling with the language itself. These assertions find reinforcement from influential figures such as Dr. Somadoda Fikeni, traditionalist Zolani Mkiva, and historian-cum-cultural analyst Professor Pitika Ntuli, all of whom advocate for improved learner performance through instruction in the mother tongue.

Observations during lessons conducted in isiNdebele revealed instances characterized by active learner interaction and comfortable questioning. In stark contrast, when English was employed as the register, interactions were limited, with learners observed in a more passive role, either remaining silent or simply concurring with the teacher’s statements without delving into the lesson. The observed disparities in classroom interactions and discourses between different registers lead to the notion that the developed isiNdebele scientific language register for Natural Sciences does indeed lead to positive classroom interactions and discourse. Consequently, one can infer that incorporating indigenous languages in teaching positively contributes to meaningful learning. Therefore, the recommendation is to develop and integrate scientific language registers in indigenous languages into the teaching and learning processes in South African schools.