Bridging Language Challenges in Technology Teacher Education

Abstract

Technology teacher preparation is continuously evolving to stay relevant and responsive to the educational context of students and to bridge the theory–practice divide. The (multi-)language barrier significantly contributes to the theory–practice divide in South African schooling. This article reports one adaptation that was implemented to provide more inclusive and equitable education for Technology education student teachers in their preparation for bridging the barriers experienced in multilingual contexts in South African classrooms. Subject-specific terminology lists were introduced as part of their teacher preparation programme to support multilingualism and inclusivity. The impact of multilingual tables on student teachers’ learning outcomes was not measured in the current investigation, as it was not mandatory for students to use them. The objective of the constructivist research was to explore how Technology student teachers and Technology lecturers viewed, used, and experienced this novel tool. A larger, exploratory multi-method qualitative study was implemented, but the current article only reports findings from the data collected using open-ended questionnaires (students) and reflective journals (of lecturers). The findings indicate that the multilingual approaches supported students’ understanding and collaboration, yet many students still prefer English for learning and teaching. Additionally, the study highlights the vital role of vocabulary in students’ understanding of the module, subject field, and lecturers’ explanations. Technology lecturers reported that the terminology lists contributed to enhancing inclusivity. Further research on scaffolds to support inclusive and equitable teaching–learning in Technology teacher preparation programmes, with the goal of informing education policy and practice, is needed.

1. Introduction and Background

The research discussed in this article needs to be contextualised within the linguistic landscape of the educational domain in contemporary South Africa, where English has been the de facto medium of instruction for many decades (Wildsmith-Cromarty & Balfour, 2019). This has led to linguistic inequalities for learners from African language backgrounds (Kerfoot & Bello-Nonjengele, 2023). Any student who is instructed in a language other than their home language is unlikely to perform optimally because their self-confidence and sense of self in society is undermined, which have a detrimental psychological, cognitive, social, and cultural impact on the student, and which often leads to under-achievement (Da Costa, 2021, pp. 70–71; Mogashoa, 2014, pp. 300–301; Owen-Smith, 2010, p. 31). This led to the development of a Language Policy for Higher Education (South African Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 9), which provided for all nine indigenous languages to be afforded “parity of esteem” alongside Afrikaans and English. In 2020, this policy was replaced by the Language Policy Framework for Public Higher Education Institutions (LPFHE) (DHET, 2020, p. 10), which provided a framework for the development and strengthening of indigenous languages as languages of scholarship, teaching and learning, and communication. It also provided guidelines for the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of institutional language policies. The university where the current study took place revised its language policy in 2022 (NWU, 2022, p. 1) to be in full alignment with the LPFHE, aiming to “pursue and provide for a functionally multilingual university”. The university recognises four institutional languages for scholarship and communication: Setswana, Sesotho, Afrikaans, and English. The language policy thus promotes inclusion and access for student success. Faculties are required to design their own language plans for the implementation of the policy, and this is monitored and evaluated on a regular basis by the Language Directorate. Implementation includes the development of glossaries, which include all four languages, translation of study guides, voice-overs and subtitling in PowerPoint presentations, and other multilingual interventions by lecturers. This article discusses one such intervention which entailed the development of a glossary for Technology education and feedback on this intervention by staff and students.

2. Literature Review

Theories of and scholarship on multilingualism, multilingual education, and technology education (including vocabulary and teacher preparation for multilingual technology education) underpin the study and inform the analyses of findings. A brief overview of the relevant literature is, therefore, provided below.

2.1. Multilingualism

European Commission (2007, p. 6) defines multilingualism as “the ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage on a regular basis with more than one language in their day-to-day lives”. Benzehaf (2023) simply describes multilingualism as the use of several languages by an individual or within a community. It includes both multilingual communication skills and the existence of various languages in a society (Drobot, 2022), as is the case in South Africa and most other African countries (Lasagabaster & Van Der Walt, 2024). Although multilingualism has become a global phenomenon in recent years (Mbirimi-Hungwe, 2024), multi- and bilingual language research has been conducted in South Africa from as early as 1938 (Malherbe, 1946). Those early studies determined the benefits of bilingual and multilingual education for learners across a range of cognitive abilities (Malherbe, 1977). In academic settings, multilingualism encompasses the utilisation of various languages for teaching and learning, research, publication, and communication, illustrating the diverse linguistic backgrounds of scholars (Curry & Lillis, 2024). At the time of writing the current article, there was still no consensus on the definition of multilingualism among South African scholars and from a South African viewpoint (Mbirimi-Hungwe, 2024). Yet, Heugh (2018, p. 341), for example, notes that—although several different understandings of multilingualism exist—“there is a common purpose, which is how societal multilingualism/s might best be employed to benefit students in education systems…” The same stance was adopted by the current authors.

2.2. Multilingual Education

South Africa has 12 official languages, namely, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa, isiZulu, siSwati, Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, and South African Sign Language (Alexander, 2024). This implies that learners enter formal education from a broad range of home languages. Education facilitated in a learner’s home language holds several advantages, such as improved academic performance and access to education, which reduces dropout rates and failure. Teachers are advised to use learners’ home language as much as possible during lessons to support the teaching-learning process (Mathunya, 2023). The South African Department of Basic Education (DBE) also acknowledge that learning success and outcomes are “inextricably linked to proficiency in the language of learning and teaching (LoLT) and utility” (DBE, 2021).

Research, however, reports a large disparity between the home language of most teachers being trained and the home language of the majority of learners in South Africa (Lasagabaster & Van Der Walt, 2024; Probyn, 2024). As a result, the LoLT used most often in formal education in South African schools is English (DBE, 2021). Yet, Alexander (2024) reports that English is the home language of less than 10% of South Africans. Recognising this critical language disparity, the DBE has developed several “curriculum resources” to support teachers in ameliorating the disconnect between learners’ home language and English as their LoLT. For example, five documents (manuals and examples of scripted lessons) for teaching English across the curriculum were published on the DBE’s “Information for Educators” website (DBE, 2024). These five documents include guidance and subject-specific content and suggestions to support English as LoLT across each of the school phases of South Africa (DBE, 2021). However, careful scrutiny of the five documents by the current authors revealed exceedingly limited examples of guidance regarding English as LoLT in Technology education.

2.3. Technology Education

Technology education, in the current article, refers to a set of South African school subjects aimed at developing learners’ technological literacy, including knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values, with a particular focus on problem-solving (DBE, 2011). Technology subjects were introduced into the curriculum “in recognition of the need to produce engineers, technicians and artisans needed in modern society” (DBE, 2011, p. 8) and should not be confused with subjects such as computer application technologies or other digital “technologies” used to support education.

Technology education is offered across three phases in South African schools. In the Intermediate Phase (Grades 4 to 6, when learners are between 10 and 12 years old), Technology forms part of a combined subject which merges natural sciences and Technology content. Senior Phase Technology (Grades 7 to 9, when learners are 13–15 years old), is a stand-alone subject that lays the foundation for the specialised Technology subjects in the subsequent school phase, as well as for “the world of work” (DBE, 2011, p. 8). The final exit-level school phase in the South African school curriculum is the further education and training (FET) phase. Most subjects in this phase are electives, as is the case for the Technology subjects, which include specialised subjects in Civil Technology, Electrical Technology, Mechanical Technology, and Engineering Graphics and Design (DBE, 2011).

2.4. Developing Vocabulary for Technology Education

According to Quality Council for the South African curriculum, “[c]oncept and vocabulary development is strongly related to academic achievement” in Technology education (Umalusi, 2019, p. 21). The senior phase Technology curriculum includes tables with illustrated and itemised tools and terminology, as well as a subject-specific Technology education glossary (DBE, 2011, pp. 56–73). While we agree that those inclusions are useful for Technology teacher preparation as well as in practice, we question whether the glossary in the curriculum document will support learners’ Technology vocabulary development, as learners do not normally or directly use the curriculum document as a learning-teaching support. We thus support Umalusi’s (2019, p. 27) recommendation that teachers should share the glossary with their learners.

Despite some overlap, each of the “specialised subjects” in FET Technology includes subject-specific terminology and vocabulary. Yet none of the FET phase Technology subject curricula includes glossaries or lists of subject-specific vocabulary or terminology. As noted by the DBE, the resources they provide to enhance LoLT are limited and serve as “a catalyst, meant to spur you [teachers] into innovative use of language to enhance teaching and learning” (DBE, 2021). The onus to develop the LoLT for Technology education, particularly in the FET phase, therefore lies with teachers themselves or higher education institutions offering teacher training. Umalusi (2019, p. 66) unambiguously recommends that “Technology teacher training should include the development of subject terminology to foster a shared understanding of the vocabulary used in the subject”.

The LoLT is crucial to enable learners to reach the desired learning outcomes. However, the design and implementation of effective programmes depend upon vocabulary development in the target language; curriculum review on national and local levels; teacher capacity development; development of materials in the target language; and the development of culturally, linguistically, and pedagogically appropriate reading materials (Trudell, 2016). When new terminology is introduced, its meaning should be clearly conveyed and students’ understanding checked. Mathunya (2023) highlights the importance of clarifying key concepts to support students’ understanding. Key concepts, terms, or words are theme words to inform students about the main theme and sub-themes of the text. Keywords used in oral texts are usually emphasised; incorporated in the title; frequently used or repeated; and used with, or as, synonyms (DBE, 2024). Multilingual strategies, therefore, contribute to students’ conceptual understanding of learning content.

Language also plays a key role in intercultural understanding and can, therefore, support inclusivity in education. For example, Mouboua et al. (2024, p. 86) state that by integrating students’ “linguistic backgrounds into the curriculum, educators can create more inclusive and effective learning environments that cater to the diverse needs of learners”. For these reasons, researchers are increasingly investigating how language can contribute to inclusivity in STEM subjects (e.g., Ollerhead, 2020; Rahman & Singh, 2021; Smit et al., 2023), such as Technology education. The training of teachers in strategies for language of instruction is thus important (Mathunya, 2023).

2.5. Preparing Teachers for Multilingual Technology Education

Applying the principles of language use in teaching, however, requires a more extended learning curve and student teachers’ thoughtful evaluations of their own teaching-learning processes. A programme-wide culture change to ground student teachers in well-established language of instruction strategies is advisable (Al-Amri, 2020). A centralised, structured learning programme and on-site training programmes are recommended to supplement (student) teachers’ ability to support their learners using dual or multiple languages of instruction (Wildsmith-Cromarty & Balfour, 2019). Most of the training which Technology teachers receive is expected to happen pre-service as part of teacher preparation programmes.

Against the background of South Africa having 12 official languages, it is not surprising that Mohlahlo and Ditsele (2022) question the successful implementation of the multilingual approach in the country. Joubert and Sibanda (2022, p. 48) concur, noting that persisting in using English as the sole LoLT in higher education may “generate fractures, contestations and ontological dilemmas”. Emsley and Modiba (2024) critique universities for neglecting to establish multilingual environments that define, disseminate, and make accessible language policies for research, teaching, and learning. Furthermore, they contend that employing mainly English as the medium of instruction precludes speakers from meaningful engagement and epistemological achievement in universities. Consequently, it is essential for universities to implement a multilingual strategy to create more significant multilingual settings. As mentioned earlier, the language policy of the North-West University (NWU) states that the promotion of multilingualism and the advancement of African languages in higher education aim to enhance values of inclusivity and programme quality (NWU, 2022).

The Technology education teacher preparation programme at the university where the current study was conducted includes teacher preparation in Civil Technology, Electrical Technology, Mechanical Technology, and engineering graphics and design (NWU, 2024), in alignment with the specialised FET phase Technology subjects offered in South African schools. While these FET phase Technology subjects seem to be concerned with (only) conveying practical skills (Halaand & Nilsen, 2020), Andersen (2024, p. 139) argues that teaching and learning in vocational or Technology subjects “necessitates both general and specific language-related skills”. Mulaudzi et al. (2023) concur, explaining that Technology student teachers must “develop deep content knowledge and strong pedagogical skills”, as well as “develop the [personal] skills needed to function optimally in the 21st century” and highlight communication (which includes a variety of linguistic proficiencies) as key in this endeavour.

Underdeveloped language skills, and specifically learners’ inability to “understand and appropriately use academic and subject-specific terminology” continues to be highlighted as problematic in South African schools (DBE, 2023). Improved (multi-)lingual education is therefore of prominence both for Technology student teachers, as well as for Technology learners in schools. Student teachers, including those aspiring to become Technology teachers, must therefore be introduced to multilingualism and master subject-specific terminology to prepare them for their teaching career in diverse settings for teaching multilingual learners (Deng & Hayden, 2021).

2.6. Constructivism as Underpinning Theory

Technology education is intended to be student-centred and is often anchored in constructivism (Marthinisen & Luckay, 2023; Mulaudzi et al., 2023). This is valid for all levels of education, including primary and secondary schools, as well as tertiary institutions such as universities offering teacher preparation programmes. In constructivist Technology teacher education, “students want to be viewed as partners and want to have a more active role in their own learning” (Mulaudzi et al., 2023, p. 133). Such a constructivist approach provides Technology student teachers with opportunities to contribute to the active construction of their knowledge as part of their teacher preparation. Students should self-directedly choose to become actively involved in their learning and continuously reflect on the content, process, and outcomes to measure its effectiveness, which will give them agency in their learning construction (Blignaut et al., 2023). In the current investigation, lecturers (teacher educators) were viewed as facilitators of learning (rather than “lecturers”), and students were invited to be(come) co-constructors in their learning process. Technology lecturers strived to construct better social relationships with their students by creating more inclusive teaching–learning contexts when referencing and sometimes using vocabulary in languages other than English. Lecturers actively involved students in the process of developing their multilingual capabilities for Technology education by inviting students to comment on and provide constructive feedback on the terminology lists. Student teachers were also repeatedly invited to contribute terminology and concepts they deemed necessary to enhance their preparation as subject specialists in the various Technology fields. Technology teachers must be able to design and implement socially constructive learning spaces that are open and conducive to effective communication, “where learners can foster active engagement, use language as a tool for such communication, generate ideas, [and] develop a critical voice” (Marthinisen & Luckay, 2023, p. 11). The current researchers endeavoured to attain a similar goal by providing foundational knowledge in the form of terminology lists in three languages, as a starting point in preparing students for multilingual Technology education in South African schools.

3. Research Design and Methods

Developing Technology student teachers’ multilingual capabilities for their current training and future careers formed part of a larger, university-wide project coordinated by expert researchers from the Language Directorate at the North-West University. The study was conducted in accordance with the research and integrity stipulations of this university, and the protocol was allocated ethics approval number NWU-01101-22-A7. The larger project spans several faculties, including the Faculty of Education, in which the current research was conducted. An exploratory, multi-method qualitative study was implemented to investigate how Technology student teachers and Technology lecturers viewed and experienced the introduction of multilingual subject-specific terminology lists as part of the Technology teacher preparation programme. The research questions used to address this aim were as follows:

• To what extent did student teachers use the terms in the other languages to help them learn better?
• In which ways did they find the terminology lists helpful?
• What were the reasons why they did not use the lists?
• How useful were the terminology lists for the Technology lecturers in their teaching?
• What were the lecturer’s perceptions of the student teacher’s use of the lists?

Only findings from the data collected using open-ended questionnaires (student teachers) and reflective journals (of lecturers) are reported in the current article.

All permanently employed Technology lecturers across all three campuses where the programme is offered were invited to participate (N = 13), and seven chose to do so after providing informed consent (n = 7). Participating lecturers in a variety of specialised Technology education subjects) were requested to develop terminology lists for each of their subject specialisations (such as Engineering Graphics and Design Education or Civil Technology Education). The terminology lists were translated and validated by experienced members of the NWU Language Directorate. In accordance with Principle 3.8 of the Faculty of Education language plan, “the NWU Language Directorate has the mandate to ensure an appropriate standard for language use and to monitor and assess the quality of language use at Faculties” (NWU, 2022, p. 11). The purpose of the current research was not to evaluate the effectiveness of the tables’ content but rather to provide subject-specific terminology to support teaching and learning, and therefore piloting of the tables was deemed unnecessary.

The terminology in these tables was translated (with the support of the university’s Language Directorate) into two other languages, resulting in each specialisation module having a set of vocabulary tabulated in Afrikaans, English, and Setswana. The Language Policy of the NWU (2022) encompasses the utilisation of multilingualism in teaching-learning and assessment, research and development, language acquisition, and improvement, as well as the quality of language usage. It also aims to enhance values of inclusivity. The languages identified in the NWU Language Policy on the three NWU campuses include English, Afrikaans, Setswana, and Sesotho (NWU, 2022, p. 4). Only the first three of these languages were included for the current study. The master terminology list per subject was shared on the student teachers’ learning management system at the start of the semester in which the module is presented. The terminology lists were made available on the digital student portal (eFundi) at the beginning of the semester, ensuring continuous accessibility. Students could consult these tables whenever they required additional clarification of terminology in a language other than the medium of instruction. The tables were utilised across all first- and second-year modules in the Technology teacher education programme, supporting students in diverse classroom contexts. However, they were not integrated into assessments, as they served as a resource rather than a lesson or module outcome. Participating Technology lecturers were reminded to frequently refer to the tables during their teaching–learning sessions and to invite student teachers to contribute, adapt, or correct terminology included therein. Each participating lecturer kept a reflective journal, noting all their observations and experiences of their student teachers’ multilingual practices, interactions, and comments throughout the semester. The current article focuses only on the findings from thematically analysed data from the journals where student teachers commented specifically on their use or the usefulness of the terminology lists.

Data collection from Technology student teachers relied on access to their online learning environments for their Technology modules, where the terminology lists were managed, and for this reason, only student teachers in the modules of consenting Technology lecturers were invited to participate in the research. Data were collected using a qualitative online questionnaire aimed at exploring student teachers’ experiences and perceptions of using the terminology lists, their usefulness in contributing to their preparation as future South African Technology teachers, and the extent to which it contributed to student teachers’ inclusivity. Only data from student teachers who provided completed informed consent documents were included in the analysis. Participation in the study was voluntary and had no relation or impact whatsoever on student teachers’ assessments or marks. A total of 58 Technology student teachers provided informed consent and completed the questionnaire at the end of 2023. In 2024, 46 student teachers from the same cohort completed it in the first semester and 44 in the second semester. Responses remained anonymous, per subject specialisation. We report on the overall perceptions and experiences of student teachers with the terminology lists to enable their continued improvement in subsequent years.

The collaborative team of Technology lecturer participants conducted thematic data analysis of relevant excerpts from their journals, as well as the student teachers’ responses to the questionnaire over three semesters. A collaborative team of Technology lecturers conducted inductive coding and thematic analysis of the data in these two data collection instruments. Although an intercoder reliability test was not conducted, inter-coder agreement on themes and sub-themes was achieved through discussion, negotiation, comparison, and frequent collaboration, supporting the research process’s reliability and findings. Data analysis was exploratory to determine the impact of our efforts to create a more inclusive teaching–learning environment for our student teachers, who have a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds. This article reports on how student teachers and lecturers experienced the contribution of the multilingual subject-specific terminology lists in supporting inclusivity in Technology teacher preparation. The findings are presented and discussed in a cohesive manner, adhering to the qualitative nature of the investigation.

4. Findings and Discussion

Three main themes are used to report the findings. Each main theme also revealed sub-themes, which are outlined in the tables and sections below. Firstly, positive experiences and outcomes associated with the terminology lists are presented and discussed (Section 4.1), followed by negative experiences and challenges in relation to the use of the terminology lists (Section 4.2). Finally, evidence of the extent to which it contributed to student teachers’ inclusivity is presented and discussed (Section 4.3). Findings from data from student teachers and lecturers are included in each of the three main themes to provide a holistic view of how the overarching research aim was addressed. Section 4 then concludes with proposals for the way forward in relation to what we learned in the process thus far and how we can implement it in future versions of Technology teacher education.

Table 1, Table 2 and Table 5 provide some quantitative data on the responses received from student teachers for the first two main themes. Note that not all respondents replied to the questions that generated the sub-themes. As a starting point, Table 1 provides an overall quantitative comparison between student teachers’ positive and negative responses regarding their use of the terminology lists.

Table 1. Student teachers’ overall positive and negative responses.

Year	Positive Responses	%	Negative Responses	%
2023	45/57	79%	5/57	8%
2024	39/47	83%	9/47	19%
TOTAL	84/104	81%	14/104	18%

Table 1. Student teachers’ overall positive and negative responses.

Year	Positive Responses	%	Negative Responses	%
2023	45/57	79%	5/57	8%
2024	39/47	83%	9/47	19%
TOTAL	84/104	81%	14/104	18%

From Table 1, it is clear that positive responses to the use of multiple languages in the terminology lists (81% in total) far outweighed the negative responses (18% in total). Some of the sub-themes that were captured for Themes 1 and 2 appear in Table 2 and Table 5 in the subsequent sections. Qualitative evidence from the data collected is included in supporting findings, referring to the participant number (e.g., P10) and when the data set was collected. For example, 2023.2 refers to data collected in the second semester of 2023, and 2024.1 refers to the data set of the first semester in 2024.

4.1. Positive Experiences and Outcomes Associated with the Terminology Lists

The following subsections present findings from student teachers’ positive experiences related to the implementation of the terminology lists and multilingualism in Technology education. Table 2 provides a qualitative analysis of the positive responses from student teachers.

Table 2. Student teachers’ responses contributing to positive sub-themes.

Positive Sub-Themes	Number	%
Clarified English terms = 30 (29%)	30	29%
Allowed me to leverage off other languages	9	9%
Helped prepare me as a teacher	2	2%
Learned new words in my own language	6	6%
Helped me to better prepare for my module	29	28%
Helped me to understand my module	11	11%
Allowed self-directed learning and creativity	2	2%

Table 2. Student teachers’ responses contributing to positive sub-themes.

Positive Sub-Themes	Number	%
Clarified English terms = 30 (29%)	30	29%
Allowed me to leverage off other languages	9	9%
Helped prepare me as a teacher	2	2%
Learned new words in my own language	6	6%
Helped me to better prepare for my module	29	28%
Helped me to understand my module	11	11%
Allowed self-directed learning and creativity	2	2%

The two most important sub-themes in Table 2 are the clarification of English terms using multiple languages and helping student teachers to better prepare for (28%) and understand (11%) the module, which, taken together, totalled 39%. This was the fundamental aim behind the provision of a multilingual terminology list for Technology education. The qualitative data analysis yielded several similar subthemes, of which only two are reported here: improvements in conceptual understanding and supporting peer communication and collaboration.

4.1.1. Improved Conceptual Understanding

Table 3 presents selected responses from participants as evidence of how their use and the integration of the terminology lists in Technology teacher education contributed to their understanding of learning content, subject concepts, and subject-specific processes. In all three direct quotes in Table 3, “it” refers to the terminology lists.

Table 3. Evidence of student teachers’ development of understanding.

Participant Responses
“It helps me to understand something in a different language if I don’t understand it in English” (P10, student teacher, 2023.2)
“It helped me to understand specific meaning in my own language” (P8, student teacher, 2024.1)
“It helped me understand the words I didn’t understand in the other language” (P15, student teacher, 2024.1)

Table 3. Evidence of student teachers’ development of understanding.

Participant Responses
“It helps me to understand something in a different language if I don’t understand it in English” (P10, student teacher, 2023.2)
“It helped me to understand specific meaning in my own language” (P8, student teacher, 2024.1)
“It helped me understand the words I didn’t understand in the other language” (P15, student teacher, 2024.1)

Table 3 includes only some examples of several participants who highlighted the advantages of multilingualism in their teacher preparation programme for Technology education. Numerous individuals reported that utilising the terminology lists facilitated the clarification of terms and enhanced their comprehension during language transitions. Improved understanding was a prevalent theme, with P10 and P15 indicating that the terminology lists facilitated their understanding of concepts when they encountered difficulties with English. P8 valued the ability to grasp meanings in their native languages and also leveraged them in other languages, which improved their overall understanding. This finding corresponds with research conducted by Mbirimi-Hungwe (2024), which showed how the use of different languages improved student teachers’ understanding and comprehension, and that the use of terminologies in student teachers’ home languages may lead to better learning outcomes for them. Deng and Hayden (2021, p. 410) confirm the importance of introducing multilingualism to Technology student teachers to enable them to master subject-specific terminology in preparation for their teaching career in diverse settings, which could include teaching multilingual learners.

4.1.2. Supporting Peer Communication and Collaboration

The findings indicate that student teachers perceived the improved support of peer communication and peer collaboration as advantages of multilingual Technology teacher education. Table 4 includes responses from participants that highlight the significance of multilingualism in collaborative activities in their teacher training programme.

Table 4. Evidence of student teachers’ communication and collaboration being supported.

Participant Responses
“It helped me to understand some of the terms in other languages, and it makes it easier for me to communicate with my fellow people who are learning the same as me when I want to explain a term in their language” (P33, student teacher, 2023.2)
“I could communicate better with others about this subject; it is easy to find, so I don’t have to go and search for terms on other websites” (P34, student teachers, 2023.2)
“This helped me a lot because if a student asks a question in another language using these terms, then I understand what the student is asking and also answer them back in the language they ask [sic]” (P29, student teacher, 2024.2)

Table 4. Evidence of student teachers’ communication and collaboration being supported.

Participant Responses
“It helped me to understand some of the terms in other languages, and it makes it easier for me to communicate with my fellow people who are learning the same as me when I want to explain a term in their language” (P33, student teacher, 2023.2)
“I could communicate better with others about this subject; it is easy to find, so I don’t have to go and search for terms on other websites” (P34, student teachers, 2023.2)
“This helped me a lot because if a student asks a question in another language using these terms, then I understand what the student is asking and also answer them back in the language they ask [sic]” (P29, student teacher, 2024.2)

Several student teacher participants shared that multilingualism significantly improved their ability to communicate during collaboration (Table 4). P33, for example, noted that understanding terms in multiple languages made it easier to explain concepts to peers in their native languages, facilitating smoother communication. P34 appreciated the ease of finding terms without having to search extensively online, which improved their ability to discuss the subject with others. P29 mentioned that being able to understand and respond to questions in different languages improved their communication with peers. This finding corresponds with prior research suggesting that multilingualism can improve collaborative learning and communication among students (Bisai & Singh, 2019, p. 6). Student teachers’ responses collectively illustrate that multilingualism improves collaborative communication by making it easier to understand, explain, and discuss concepts in various languages as part of their learning experiences.

4.2. Negative Experiences and Challenges in Relation to the Use of the Terminology Lists

Quantitative analysis of data signifying student teachers’ negative experiences related to the use of the Technology terminology lists is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Student teachers’ responses contributing to negative sub-themes.

Negative Sub-Themes	Number	%
Did not use the lists	7	7%
Did not notice them in the MOD	1	1%
Do not know how to use them	2	2%
Useless waste of time	2	2%
Network problems	1	1%
Only use English terms	1	1%

Table 5. Student teachers’ responses contributing to negative sub-themes.

Negative Sub-Themes	Number	%
Did not use the lists	7	7%
Did not notice them in the MOD	1	1%
Do not know how to use them	2	2%
Useless waste of time	2	2%
Network problems	1	1%
Only use English terms	1	1%

Most negative responses point to student teachers not using the lists (Table 5), with a number of what could be considered reasons why they did not use them, all at very low percentages (1% or 2%). It is safe to say that the intervention was used by student teachers and that they appreciated the provision of multilingual terminology lists to help prepare them for their modules. The following section provides selected quotations from the respondents in support of the quantitative data reported in Table 5. In the qualitative analysis, two sub-themes were used to categorise negative experiences in relation to the use of terminology lists in the Technology teacher education programme. They were sub-themes related to viewing the terminology lists as ineffective or impractical and student teachers’ preference for English as LoLT above other languages, as described in the following subsections.

4.2.1. Vocabulary or Terminology in Other Languages Is Viewed as Impractical

Table 6. Evidence of student teachers’ view that other languages are ineffective or impractical.

Participant Responses
“It’s just a waste of time” (P13, student teacher, 2023.2).
“I don’t see the use of” (P1, student teacher, 2024.2).
“They didn’t seem helpful to me” (P2, student teacher, 2024.2).

presents a few of the responses of participants representing negative feedback on the terminology lists. From the responses of P13, P1, and P2 (Table 6), it is evident that some student teachers did not find the terminology lists useful or helpful and even viewed them as a “waste of time” (P13).

The negative views regarding multilingualism in education expressed in Table 6 resonate with published research that maintains a similar view. For example, Emsley and Modiba (2024, pp. 150–166) argue that multilingualism in higher education is a “myth”, mostly because of the divide between basic and higher education sectors in South Africa. According to them, most learners are educated in English in secondary schools, and (in their opinion) only English and/or Afrikaans are used as LoLTs in many tertiary institutions. They also mention that the lack of multilingual policy implementation, which includes the African languages, hinders curriculum transformation in higher education. The same authors imply that persisting with (mainly) English as LoLT in higher education seems to diminish the value of other languages for teaching and learning in the eyes of student teachers. Therefore, many student teachers feel that using languages besides English as a LoLT is not beneficial to their careers. This opinion is echoed by Mbirimi-Hungwe (2024, p. 111), who adds that many teachers and parents believe that the “English language holds the key to better life prospects in South Africa”. It is, therefore, not surprising that student teachers are reluctant to study in languages other than English and that they are reluctant to use multilingual strategies.

4.2.2. English Is Preferred as the Language of Learning and Teaching

The following responses indicate another challenge related to the one described in Section 4.2.1. The challenge is that many (if not most) of the current students in the Technology teacher education programme prefer to use English as their LoLT above all other languages.

Table 7. Evidence of student teachers’ preference for English only as LoLT.

Participant Responses
“I only understand terms that are written in English only, I do not understand any of those languages besides English” (P21, student teacher, 2024.1).
“Just better understanding. I study in English” (P2, student teacher, 2023.2).
“I’m more fluently in English that I am in Setswana [sic]” (P3, student teacher, 2024.1)
“By at least being taught in English rather than Afrikaans” (P12, student teacher, 2023.2).

presents the selected responses of the participants on using English as their preferred LoLT.

The student teachers quoted in Table 7 showed a preference for English as their LoLT, which opposes the policies by government and higher education institutions to adopt a wider array of languages as scholarly languages, such as the African languages (Mbirimi-Hungwe, 2024). P21, for example, remarked that although he is an isiZulu speaker, he wrote the secondary school exit-level exam in English and is, therefore, more familiar with English terminology. Student teacher P3 agreed and added that his fluency is better in English than in Setswana when it comes to formal learning. This finding supports the view of Emsley and Modiba (2024, p. 156) that the skewed preference for English over African languages as LoLT has created student teachers who have become disconnected from their home language and who ultimately lose their linguistic identities. Heugh (2000, pp. 30–31) argues that another reason for this phenomenon is that current school textbooks do not include African languages for many content areas of the curriculum and that learners who speak other languages often do not have any other choice than to study in English. Limited availability of textbooks in other languages, therefore, increases student teachers’ reliance on English as LoLT. The implication of the findings in both these sub-themes is that lecturers will have to increase their efforts to showcase and highlight the advantages of multilingualism, above or other than English as LoLT, not only for student teachers’ future careers but also for life in general.

4.3. The Extent to Which the Terminology Lists Contributed to Student Teachers’ Inclusivity

This section discusses findings regarding the contributions of the Technology lecturers’ efforts towards multilingual teacher preparation and student teachers’ inclusivity. We report on the motivational value of inclusive, multilingual approaches and how they contributed to student teachers’ sense of belonging. Evidence from lecturers and students is presented in support of this theme.

Analysis of data gathered from the reflective journals of Technology lecturers provided deeper and broader insights into how they approached multilingual Technology teacher preparation in their classes. A quotation from the reflective journal of one of the participating lecturers describes the motivational value of inclusivity in

Table 8. Technology lecturer’s views on the motivational value of his inclusivity efforts.

Participant’s Reflective Journal Inscription

“Most students appeared to be pleased with the inclusion of their own languages in a subject that is remotely linked to multilingualism, and this served as a motivating factor for them to do well in the module. However, a significant number of students felt excluded since the glossary of terms only focused on Setswana and Sesotho which is not their home language’’ (Reflective journal, Lecturer 1, 2023.2).

.

The lecturer’s comment in Table 8 illustrates that the inclusion of more student teachers’ home languages in the module served as motivation for students to do well in their Technology teacher education module. Including more indigenous languages will improve the inclusivity of all student teachers for a variety of reasons. Mouboua et al. (2024, p. 86) confirm this by stressing the importance of integrating students’ linguistic backgrounds into the curriculum to create more inclusive and effective learning environments that cater to the diverse needs of learners. Yet, the lecturer’s comment shows that more can be done. As only 4 of the 12 official languages are incorporated at the university where the current study was conducted (NWU, 2022), it still excludes all the other official and non-official home languages of many student teachers, which limits the inclusive potential of the current efforts. Alternative ways, other than text or terminology, need to be explored to create a better understanding and more inclusivity and equity in Technology teacher education programmes.

4.3.1. Inclusivity Through Promoting Understanding and a Sense of Belonging

Notes in the reflective journals of two other lecturer participants described how inclusivity was fostered through increased understanding and promoting a sense of belonging. Quotes supporting these ideas are presented in

Table 9. Technology lecturers’ views on inclusivity and a sense of belonging.

Participants’ Reflective Journal Inscriptions
“Most students commented that the list helped them understand the content of the module better, as well as the module outcomes’’ (Reflective journal, Lecturer 2, 2023.2).
“Using all languages has made it easier for students to understand the work, and it has also made the class more interesting and creative by bringing in ideas from everyone’s culture. For me, this changes the learning environment because everyone brings their unique experiences and perspectives to the class. This way, students from different language backgrounds feel like they belong in the class’’ (Reflective journal, Lecturer 3, 2023.2).

.

The observation that many student teachers seem to appreciate the terminology lists for their contribution to their understanding seems to have made student teachers feel less excluded, as they could now better contribute to the conversation about the work in class (TE2). The comments from lecturers in Table 9 illustrate that including student teachers’ home languages was perceived to promote student teachers’ feelings of inclusivity, respect for their diversity, and a sense of belonging (TE3). Deng and Hayden (2021) confirm the importance of introducing multilingualism to Technology student teachers to support them in mastering subject-specific terminology and preparing them for their teaching career in diverse settings, including teaching multilingual learners. Mouboua et al. (2024, p. 86) affirm that by integrating students’ “linguistic backgrounds into the curriculum, educators can create more inclusive and effective learning environments that cater to the diverse needs of learners”.

4.3.2. Student Teachers’ Own Perceptions of Feeling More Included

In the third round of data collection using the questionnaire (2024.2), a question designed to elicit quantitative data asked whether the use of the terminology lists made student teachers feel more included. This decision was based on informal discussions among the Technology lecturers regarding their perception of a pattern that suggested that the terminology lists contributed to student teachers’ inclusivity. A Likert scale was used to collect their responses, where 1 = not at all and 5 = definitely. Only 26 student teachers answered this question in the second semester of 2024. Figure 1 shows promising results.

Of the respondents, only two student teachers rated this question (Figure 1) as 1 or 2 (not at all; very little) at 4% each. Seven student teachers (27%) gave a rating of three (undecided, or unconvinced, but not negative). However, nine student teachers (34%) gave a rating of 4 (yes, I agree), and 8 student teachers (31%) gave a rating of 5 (yes, definitely). These results confirmed observations from lecturers that our efforts, including the terminology lists, contribute to making our student teachers feel more included. These findings served to motivate Technology lecturers to renew and expand their efforts to develop a more inclusive teacher preparation programme for future Technology teachers.

5. Conclusions

The findings of the current study emphasise the critical contribution of vocabulary to student teachers’ understanding of the module content and the subject field, as well as grasping the lecturers’ explanations. In the current investigation, many student teachers across various Technology specialisations used terminology lists to develop their knowledge and understanding collaboratively and individually in preparation for their future careers as Technology teachers. Student teachers who contributed suggestions for additions to the terminology lists became co-constructors in their learning process. Technology lecturers purposely intended inclusivity as a goal for including the terminology lists and reported several benefits resulting from this. Still, some Technology education student teachers have not yet realised the potential value of adopting and developing multilingualism for their own future careers. Technology student teachers may struggle with complex translated terms, as some concepts remain unclear without images or technical specifications to support understanding. Future terminology lists should include visuals to improve understanding. Another limitation is the lack of multilingual educational materials at the school level, with textbooks and exams only available in Afrikaans and English. This scarcity hinders efforts to prepare student teachers for implementing multilingualism from higher education to basic education. In addition, subject-specific Technology education resources in other languages are limited and producing them is neither financially nor practically viable. Lecturers will have to extend their efforts to increase student teachers’ cognisance of the need for multilingualism in preparation for teaching in South African schools, together with the potential of the Technology terminology lists as one step towards this goal. Additional research is needed to develop refinements and adaptations to the subject-specific Technology education terminology lists to enhance their efficacy as a scaffold to support inclusive teaching-learning in Technology teacher preparation programmes.