South African Journal of African Languages

ISSN: 0257-2117 (Print) 2305-1159 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjal20

Educational simultaneous interpreting as tool

to stimulate reflection on multilingualism in
mathematics teacher education programmes
Hannatjie Vorster & Johan Zerwick
To cite this article: Hannatjie Vorster & Johan Zerwick (2013) Educational simultaneous
interpreting as tool to stimulate reflection on multilingualism in mathematics teacher
education programmes, South African Journal of African Languages, 33:2, 225-232, DOI:
10.1080/02572117.2013.871464
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2013.871464

Published online: 19 Dec 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 42

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjal20
Download by: [85.73.33.137]

Date: 07 September 2016, At: 08:50

South African Journal of African Languages 2013, 33(2): 225232

Printed in South Africa All rights reserved

Copyright NISC (Pty) Ltd

South African Journal

of African Languages
ISSN 0257-2117 EISSN 2305-1159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2013.871464

Educational simultaneous interpreting as tool to stimulate reflection on

multilingualism in mathematics teacher education programmes
Hannatjie Vorster* and Johan Zerwick
North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
*Corresponding author, e-mail: hannatjie.vorster@nwu.ac.za
Simultaneous interpreting from English into Setswana as target language in the training of mathematics teachers
was launched in a Mathematics Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) programme in 2009. This was introduced
in two didactics topics included in the first year geometry course. This experiment was aimed at assisting
teachers who found that English as Language of Learning and Teaching (LoLT) contributed to the difficulties
they experienced with these topics. Users were shown the new interpreting technique where the headphone is
placed into only one ear, leaving the other earpiece unused, so they could hear both source and target languages
simultaneously. In 2010 and 2011, the interpreting was extended to include mathematical transformation and
Euclidean geometry. The aim was to investigate how teachers as end-users would experience simultaneous
interpreting into an indigenous language in a teaching and learning situation. Although the Setswana mothertongue speakers were in the minority, the qualitative study yielded significant data pertaining to multilingual
educational settings. Future research will look into developing terminology for Euclidean geometry.

Introduction
One of the many factors that contribute to poor academic
achievement in mathematics is learners lack of language
proficiency in subject-specific English at their grade
level (Howie, 2003; Clarkson, 2007; Johnson, 2010).
According to Khisty (1995) and Johnson (2010), it takes
five to seven years to develop this level of proficiency.
Research on dual language use in multilingual classrooms
has been forthcoming from contexts all over the world. In
mathematics education in southern Africa, the different
aspects of code-switching have been particularly scrutinised (Adler, 2001; Setati et al., 2002, 2009; Webb & Webb,
2008).
This paper focuses on another strategy closely related to
code-switching, namely that of educational simultaneous
interpreting. Educational interpreting is mainly known as it
is applied in Sign Language Interpreting for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing (Verhoef, 2008). Since 2004, an extensive
educational interpreting service for the hearing has been
running at the North-West University (NWU) 1, South
Africa to accommodate students from different language
groups. This application of simultaneous interpreting was
the first of its kind. The programme, which started with
17 periods per week in 2004, has grown exponentially. In
2011, about 1 500 periods per week were serviced at the
Potchefstroom and Vaal Triangle campuses of the NWU.
Smaller educational interpreting services are running
at the University of the Free State and the University
of Stellenbosch. Simultaneous interpreting was also
implemented in projects at one secondary and two primary
schools (NWU, 2011). The target language at the university,
that is, the language that would be available to the user,
is mainly English, as the main language of instruction is

Afrikaans. Van Rooy (2005) found that the African language

speakers performed better by 3.5% when they attended
classes in English compared to when the classes were
interpreted from Afrikaans (a foreign or third additional
language to many of the African language speakers2) to
English. However, it was not statistically significant and the
students in the research group did not receive any printed
material. Van Rooy (2005) was of opinion that, had English
study guides been supplied, the difference may have been
even less.
In another project, Setswana, which is the main indigenous language of the region, has been introduced as the
target language for one group of primary school student
teachers at the NWU. At the schools where simultaneous
interpreting is used in interventions by NWU researchers,
the target languages are indigenous languages relevant to
the context.
However, this study reports on educational interpreting
with a difference. The research was done in collaboration with a group of secondary school teachers who teach
mathematics through the medium of English, although they
all have indigenous languages as their main language.
They attended a course where the Language of Learning
and Teaching (LoLT) was English. The aim of the
interpreting into Setswana was not primarily to promote
better understanding of the course material, but to come
collaboratively to a better understanding of multilingual
mathematics classes. Furthermore, a fairly new technique
was used whereby the user would put the earphone only in
one ear and be able to listen to both languages. The user
would then have the benefit of both English and Setswana.
The teachers in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 cohorts
of the Mathematics Advanced Certificate in Education
(ACE) programme without exception taught multilingual

The South African Journal of African Languages is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

226

mathematics classes. These teachers were positively

inclined to take part in the research. It was clear that a
group of mathematics teachers could be a worthwhile
laboratory for research on dual language use.
Theoretical framework
As early as 1987, Pimm wrote extensively about the difficulties learners experience in mastering the mathematics
register. Different studies tried to establish a link between
language proficiency and achievement in mathematics,
but of special interest are the findings of MacGregor and
Price (1999). They indicated that there might be a correlation between meta-linguistic awareness in language and
achievement in algebra. They found that no learner in their
research sample with low meta-cognitive skills was a high
achiever in algebra.
Kern (1994), as well as Upton and Lee-Thompson (2001),
reported on university students own internal translation from the second language (L2) to their first (main)
language (L1) when reading L2 texts. Kerns (1994) study
was conducted using university students learning a foreign
language, while Uptons students were learning English
as L2, which was the LoLT at the university. Some of
their conclusions were that learners could remember L1
words better than L2 words and hold longer chunks of L1
information in their short term memory, which promotes
understanding (Kern, 1994). Kern (1994), as well as Upton
and Lee-Thompson (2001), found that those students who
were less proficient in L2 utilised L1 more than the more
proficient students, but that very proficient students still
used mental translation to their L1 when they struggled to
understand something. Students with higher proficiency in
L2 used the L1 more effectively for comprehension, reflection and meta-cognitive purposes than those students who
were less proficient in L2. The less proficient students
used mental translations to L1 mainly to make sense of the
meaning of each word.
However, an important observation was that up to 65%
of the students own mental translation was not accurate,
especially where the students were less proficient in the
language of instruction (Kern, 1994:446). Furthermore,
Kern (1994) also found that students had more confidence
in their ability to understand in L1. Both these findings
are important for considering simultaneous interpreting,
translating notes to learners main language and facilitating
the use of glossaries.
Considering MacGregor and Prices (1999) results,
one might expect learners in a multilingual setting to
perform better than learners in monolingual settings as
syntax usually receives substantial attention when a
second language is taught. However, learners learning
mathematics through an additional language often do not
perform satisfactorily (Howie, 2003). This could perhaps
be explained by the threshold hypothesis of Cummins and
Swain (1986:6) that proposes that there may be a threshold
level of competence. If the learners proficiency in either of
their languages is below this threshold level, they do not
benefit fully from the fact that they are bilingual.
This implies that learners should at least acquire the
threshold proficiency in both their main language and

Vorster and Zerwick

English. The learners main language also has to be

above the threshold level to have maximum benefit of
both languages. Proficiency above the threshold level in
the learners main language is essential at least until their
English has advanced well above the threshold level. If both
languages are below the threshold level, the learner will be
in trouble. Therefore, the learners main language should
not be allowed to lapse.
As mathematics teaching and learning changed to a
learner-centred approach, learners ability to explain the
processes they use, to discuss mathematics with their
peers and to report their findings to their teachers has
become essential. In multilingual mathematics classrooms
in South Africa, learners proficiency in English is not always
up to this challenge. The usefulness of the learners main
languages as resources for accessing learners ideas, reflections and mental processes and as scaffold to understanding
emerged as teachers started to use code-switching spontaneously and to allow learners to use their main languages in
discussions. At first, many teachers would not openly admit
that they used code-switching in mathematics classes, as
the official LoLT in most schools in South Africa is English. It
is also the language of prestige and is seen as the language
that provides access to the workplace and the world. The
research of Setati (see Setati, et al., 2009 for list of Setatis
publications) and Adler (2001) has done much to legitimise
the practice of code-switching. Webb and Webb (2008)
showed that real explorative discourse can only be reached
if learners use their main language, while Vorster (2008)
and Setati, et al. (2008) indicated that it may be beneficial to
complement code-switching with written notes in the relevant
indigenous languages.
Some mathematics dictionaries were published. They
differed in approach. Fricke and Meyer (2005) supplied
explanations of the English terminology in different indigenous languages, while the dictionary of the Department
of Arts and Culture (2003) compiled 1 000 different
mathematical terms in all 11 official languages, mainly for
use in primary schools. Although these contributions were
valuable, the terminology was limited and terminology for
many mathematics concepts is not yet available in the
indigenous languages.
Language strategies should be aimed at giving learners
as much support as possible in becoming proficient in
English, and specifically in the mathematics register.
However, language strategies should also provide enough
support for learners to master the mathematics content
while they are still on their way to becoming proficient
in English. One strategy is to use the learners main
language as a scaffold. Code-switching, as seen above,
is a practicable strategy for those teachers who want to
use the learners main language to facilitate mathematical understanding, provided that they are proficient in the
learners main language. However, where educational
interpreting is viable it may have certain benefits if placed
against the background of the above framework. If the
learners master the technique of using the earphone only in
one ear, they hear both the correct English and a grammatically correct version in their own language. Interpreting also
provides the correct mathematical register in the learners
main language in so far as it has been developed, furthering

South African Journal of African Languages 2013, 33(2): 225232

proficiency in the mathematical register of the learners

main language. Furthermore, inaccuracies in mentally
translating from English to their main language are reduced.
Educational interpreting can be seen as interpreting
that takes place in an educational setting (Verhoef, 2008).
One of the frequently debated questions is whether the
interpreter should have content knowledge of the subject
that he/she is interpreting. According to Verhoef (2008),
although both end-users and interpreters see content
knowledge as an important skill, end-users are frequently
mistaken about the scholarly background of the interpreter.
She identified the following trends (Verhoef, 2008:121122):
Provided end-users have an overall good impression of the service, they do not really detect the
difference between those interpreters with relevant
subject knowledge and those without. However,
once end-users have reason not to trust the
interpreter or lose trust in the service as a whole,
for whatever reason, they raise the issue as regards
the scholarly background of the interpreter.
Although situations in multilingual mathematics
classrooms at school level have been well researched,
little has been done on how teachers experience the
scaffold of their own language in an in-service programme
for mathematics education and on insights than can be
gained about multilingual mathematics classrooms from
such a situation. The aim of the research was, therefore, to
gain more insight into benefits that could result from using
indigenous languages as scaffolds in teaching and learning
in upgrading programmes for in-service teachers.
The research questions are:
(i) How do teachers as end-users experience simultaneous interpreting into an indigenous language in a
teaching and learning situation where they are involved
as students?
(ii) What added value, if any, do teachers experience in
this in-service course as a result of the interpreting of
the didactics topics?
(iii) Do teachers experience interpreting of geometry
content as adding value to their learning experience?
Design and method of the study
The design of the study is qualitative. Action research
was chosen as method to study the implementation of
educational simultaneous interpreting in the multilingual Mathematics ACE group. Creswell (2008:597) sees
action research as systemic procedures done by teachers
(or other individuals in an educational setting) to gather
information about and subsequently improve, the way in
which their particular educational setting operates. This
fitted the aim of implementing the findings to upgrade
and expand each consecutive round of simultaneous
interpreting. Furthermore, the qualitative data was also
scrutinised for insights from teachers regarding the use of
language in a multilingual educational setting.

227

Problem identification
The first year geometry course of the Mathematics ACE
includes two didactics topics, namely the Van Hiele theory
(Teppo, 1991) combined with Hoffers skills (Hoffer,
1981), and the different types of mathematical knowledge
as described by Cangelosi (2003). The formative and
summative assessments from the previous four years
showed that the teachers experienced these topics as
difficult. Contributing factors were that some teachers
experienced difficulty with the language of the textbooks,
explaining their understanding of concepts and theory
coherently in English, and misinterpretation of questions in
assessment due to language.
Planning action
Although the idea to experiment with interpreting into
Setswana was considered previously, it was hampered
by the knowledge that teachers would not give up the
social goods (Setati et al., 2008) of English to listen to a
Setswana translation. The researchers understood that
in such a study African languages as medium of instruction must be coupled with guaranteed access to English
otherwise they will be rejected (Ramani & Joseph, 2002).
However, simultaneous interpreting from English to
Setswana became feasible when the NWU Language
Directorate started with a project at a primary school
where they interpreted Grade 2 mathematics classes from
English to Setswana, using the technique of headphone
use described above. An intervention was then planned
with the teachers in the programme using this technique
when implementing simultaneous interpreting. For the
first round in 2009, only the two didactics topics of the
geometry module were interpreted. In 2010 and the first
two contact sessions of 2011, the third research question
was investigated. Mathematical content was interpreted
as well, namely transformation geometry (first year groups
2010/2011) and Euclidean geometry (second year group
2011). The topic in Euclidean geometry during the first
session was the introduction of Euclidean geometry and
deductive reasoning methods facilitated by two theorems
groups, namely angles formed by straight lines and
triangles. During the second session, domain-specific
problem-solving strategies were facilitated by means of the
theorem group about quadrilaterals.
The workbooks were translated into Setswana. The
English and Setswana texts were formatted so that they
appeared in columns alongside each other. A Reader with
chapters from different textbooks was available in English.
Simultaneous interpreting was offered during the two
contact sessions of January and April 2009 (altogether 17
periods of 50 minutes each), the four sessions of 2010 (32
periods), as well as the first two sessions of 2011, but this
time for both first and second years (17 periods each).
Population
The population was mathematics teachers enrolled in
an ACE. The sample for the first round was the first year
Mathematics ACE students of 2009 enrolled at the NWU,
and for the second round those of 2010. For the third
(2011) round both the first years and the second years
were involved. The official indigenous language of the

228

region is Setswana and, as such, it is the indigenous

language that the university supports. After the intake for
2009 was finalised, the researchers realised that the class
of 48 teachers included only nine Batswana. The rest of
the class included mother tongue speakers of Sepedi 3
(20), Tshivenda (13), Sesotho (1), siSwati (1), isiZulu (1)
and Xitsonga (3). Despite the fact that there were only
nine Batswana, the researchers decided to go ahead with
the study. In the end, this proved to be a good decision
as data collected in the qualitative study, especially from
the interviews, was particularly revealing for multilingual
settings. In 2010 and 2011, the number of Batswana was
12 and 15, respectively.
Instruments
The instruments comprised a qualitative questionnaire
applied after each session, as well as group interviews
conducted at the end of the two sessions of 2009. In
2010, it was applied after the third, and in 2011 after the
second session. Participation was optional. However, the
non-participants also gave their permission for the project
to go forward as they were involved passively by attending
the same classes. The logistic restrictions that curtailed
interpreting into any other languages were explained
to each group. The lecturer and the interpreter were
co-researchers.
Data
The data from the questionnaires were qualitatively
analysed as they consisted of open questions. The
interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded by means
of open coding, followed by axial coding. According to
Pandit (1996) simple questions are asked in open coding:
what, where, how, why, and so on. Similar answers are
then grouped together and categorised under the same
label. In axial coding, these categories are put together
in new categories of which the original categories form
sub-categories. The quotes of the teachers were coded
as follows: (TB, I2, 38, 2009), which indicates Teacher B,
Interview 2, Line 38, Year group 2009.
Ethical aspects
Each cohort of teachers was informed about the procedure
involved in both the research and simultaneous interpreting.
Thereafter, each teacher was given the choice of whether
or not to participate in the formal parts of the research and
the interpreting. Each teacher gave written consent for the
research to go forward and indicated whether they wanted
to take part in the formal research (e.g. questionnaires
and to make use of the interpreting service). Participation
was voluntary. Although not all of the teachers could take
part in the formal part as not all of them could understand
Setswana, nobody objected to going forward with the
research. Participation in the interviews was voluntary even
for the participating students. All teachers were able to take
part in the class discussions on terminology as the essential
properties of concepts often had to be negotiated before a
Setswana term could be discussed. Other language groups
were also free to propose terminology in their own language
and indeed often used the opportunity to contribute to the
discussions.

Vorster and Zerwick

Discussion of results
As results were consistent over the three phases, the
results of 2009 are taken as basis and the results of the
other years are only added where new ideas emerged.
Language profiles
The interviews of 2009 revealed the following language
profile: the four teachers in the first interview were all
Batswana (Teachers A, B, C, D). The participants in the
second group were four Bapedi (Teachers a, b, c, e) and
one Motswana teacher (Teacher d). In the third group, there
was one Tshivenda-speaking teacher who only understood
a bit of Setswana (Teacher 1). Teacher 2 was Sesothospeaking and understood Setswana well because partially
it [Sesotho] is the same as Setswana (T2 I3, 151, 2009)4.
Both Teachers 3 and 4 in this group were Tshivenda
speakers. Teacher 3 was conversant in Sepedi and could
understand Setswana partially, while Teacher 4 understood
Setswana and could also read and write it.
The following constructs were extracted from the
interviews and questionnaires with open coding, forming
themes by axial coding: difficulty of the content, the written
translation of the study guide and assignment, use of
terminology, value for teaching and technical aspects.
Qualitative data from the interviews
Difficulty of the content
All the teachers, except one, felt that the work in the two
didactics sections was more difficult than the mathematics
content. Teacher Bs comment summarised this view as
follows:
January was a bit tricky because most of maths
people are not used to the big theories where they
have to deal with theories knowing all the applications in terms of theories. (TB, I1, 3839, 2009)
This view confirmed that the didactics sections included
important topics to interpret and the teachers in the other
two cohorts were of the same opinion.
Written translation of the study guide
The teachers that could read Setswana all felt that the
Setswana translation facilitated better understanding.
Teacher C expressed their experience as follows:
Ja, it helps a lot to have translation because it is in
my language, so some of the terms is clearer to me,
it helps a lot. (TC, I1, 9596, 2009)
Teacher 2 was concerned that if you give learners notes
in their main language they would be disadvantaged when
they write the examination in English:
Someones among them are going to forget the
terminology of mathematics in English because I
think most of them because they are so interested
they are only going to concentrate on the Setswana
notes. (T2, I3, 275279, 2009)

South African Journal of African Languages 2013, 33(2): 225232

229

However, he conceded that he himself used the

Setswana notes when he did not understand well.
In the 2010 and 2011 results, the teachers indicated
that the interpreting and translations also facilitated better
understanding in the context of the geometry content
knowledge, as Teacher 4 expressed it:

Sometimes the translation, the word from English

it is translated directly, that is why you cannot get
clear information about the terminology, for example
like the word theorem, when you translate it to
Setswana, it remains theorem. (T6, I1, 124126,
2011)

especially if you look at the transformation, I was

not clear what is the difference between translation,
and what do you call it , the transformation itself,
because of the notes written both in Setswana and
English it helps me a lot. (T4, I2, 246249, 2010)

The teachers felt that borrowed words should be

explained in Setswana:

Regarding Euclidean geometry, Teacher 5 commented:

the verbal interpreting that helps us a lot. Also
in the written translation it helps us a lot because
sometimes you find that I dont understand actually
what the question is but I go to the Setswana to
understand it better. (T5, I2, 45, 4749, 2011)

The translation of the tests and assignments

Teachers also experienced this positively. Teacher D,
while commenting on the translation of the assignment,
expressed himself as follows:
At times youre not so sure yourself so you fetch
your mother tongue to assure yourself. (TD, I1,
305306, 2009)
The same view was expressed by the following two
teachers about translations of tests and assignments:
The written translation is helpful in the test. Because
when I dont understand the English word I usually
go to Setswana. (T6, I1, 190191, 2010)
I think it is fine because sometimes when you
struggle to understand, it is easy for you to go to the
translated work. (T2, I1, 192193, 2010)
These comments by the teachers correlate with the
findings of Kern (1994) and Upton and Lee-Thompson
(2001) that students fall back on their main language
whenever they find an obstacle in their way to
understanding. Furthermore, it also correlates with Beukes
and Pienaars (2006) finding that students prefer their
mother tongue for assessment purposes.
Use of terminology
Borrowed words and English terminology
Surprisingly, some teachers complained about the use of
borrowed words and English terminology in the Setswana
translation:
most of the concepts in English were taken
straight to Setswana for example the theory in
Setswana it will be just tiori. (TA, I1, 7475, 2009)

at least if he could explain much more elaborate

about that theory, in the Tswana language, so that
we could be able to understand. (TA, I1, 134135,
2009)
Teacher D also commented that it would be much more
better if proper Setswana terminology could be developed.
In opposition to this, Teacher 3 felt:
you mustnt go away, move away from the
terminologies that they are using in the question
papers and all those things. (T3, I3, 323326, 2009)
Teacher 1 commented:
For me translation is unnecessary because it could
cause or create misconceptions or confusion among
learners. In terms of the language mathematics
must be done in English in South Africa, other
languages is going to take us a long time in the
classroom. The concepts in English cannot be
translated in Setswana or any other language in the
country so it is unnecessary to translate. We should
only do mathematics in English. I think so. (T1, I1,
94100, 2011)
Discussions on Setswana terminology
Sometimes, the interpreter involved the class in discussions on mathematical terminology in Setswana and
other languages. The teachers appreciated this. Some
learned from other colleagues about Setswana terminology
unknown to them (TD, I1, 239240, 2009) and for other
teachers English terminology that they did not understand
well was clarified (TC, I1, 248249, 2009).
Teacher 4 in the 2011 group who studied Euclidean
geometry expressed the following view:
I think we must discuss some of these terms
because Im a Sepedi speaking person but as from
last year I have learned more terms in Setswana but
some of the words I dont understand in English, so
for instance that word rider I cant explain to my
learners what is a rider in Sepedi. But if maybe
they can translate it in Setswana I can have a
similar term in Sepedi. So that I can tell my learners.
(T4, I1, 14148, 2011)
Teacher 5 was positive about the discussions, but also
criticised the use of English terminology in the interpreting
and text:

230

Vorster and Zerwick

I can say I think that the discussion be good,

because if we can find a other word, like rider we
are saying rider, I think if we maybe can go outside
to get the meaning of the word rider in Setswana
because if we just say rider or ridere there is
no meaning. Again it help people like me I am
speaking Sepedi, but when they are coming with the
Setswana it teaches me a other language. So if you
say ridere I dont learn anything. You see. (T5, I1,
138143, 2011)
Technical aspects
The proficiency of the interpreter
The teachers concurred that the interpreting helped very
much and that it was never misleading or confusing. They
all had the highest regard for the quality of the interpreting.
The technique to listen with the earphones only in one ear
Teacher A described a common manner of using of the
earphones:
most of the time I will try to listen with one ear,
English you hear what theyre saying, then with
English then hearing the translation, sometimes
I become a little bit confused, listening to Tswana
only, or just put the earphones down and listen to
the English. (TB, I1, 173176, 2009)
Value for teaching
Teachers c and d, as well as Teachers 3 and 4, felt that
they understood the language dilemma of the learners
better. Teachers 3 and 4 changed their language strategy
from using only English in class to explaining some work in
the learners main language. Teacher 3 even encouraged
other teachers at his school to do the same and reported:
so the teacher came to me and he said you
see you did a great job because now you can be
able to see now, now there is a difference. (T3, I3,
219221, 2009)
In 2010 a Mopedi teacher who was teaching Batswana
learners reported that she felt empowered to upgrade her
quality of code-switching to Setswana.
It helps me for my teaching because Im teaching
Batswana learners and I am Mopedi so our mother
tongue somehow somewhat differ a little bit, and it
also help me with the vocabulary. (T3, I2, 286289,
2010)
Reflection
As the teachers were not used to listening to both
languages at the same time, the researchers expected that
there may be teachers who would not be able to master it.
Although some of them were uncomfortable with simultaneous interpreting and asked for consecutive interpreting, it
was to a much lesser degree than expected. The teachers
listened much more selectively in the second session than

in the first and became more comfortable to use the service

when they found it necessary as they progressed.
Although some of the teachers were sceptical at the start
of the intervention that the Setswana would have any value
for them, 29 of the 48 teachers in the 2009 cohort indicated
in the questionnaires that the interpreting helped them to
understand the work better. This was especially interesting
as only nine were main language Setswana speakers. The
other 19 were Bapedi and one was a speaker of Sesotho.
Another important spin-off was that the teachers said they
understood the language problems of the learners better
and even changed their language strategies with what they
thought would yield positive results. Furthermore, the fact
that the Mopedi teacher (2010 cohort) felt empowered to
enhance her code-switching to Setswana was an unforeseen benefit. In discussions among the teachers, the
different nuances of terms in related languages also helped
to enhance understanding of the mathematical concepts.
These results point to a possible use for simultaneous
interpreting in the education of mathematics teachers for
multilingual contexts where code-switching is used or where
teachers have to teach through medium of an indigenous
language.
Based on the value that the teachers awarded to the
written translation, the researchers decided to translate
and interpret the other first year topics in 2010 in order to
determine how teachers would experience interpreting and
translation of mathematics content topics. The session tests
and assignments were also translated. Considering the
results of 2010, the researchers extended the intervention
to include simultaneous interpreting and translation of study
material in 2011 for the second-year students. The syllabus
in the second year consisted of topics that facilitated the
introduction to Euclidean geometry and problem solving in
this domain.
It is also important to note that, although many of the
terms in the Euclidean geometry were not available in
Setswana at this level, most of the participating teachers
still experienced the translations to Setswana positively
in the workbooks, assignments and tests and verbal
interpreting. They found it useful to enhance understanding.
It surprised the researchers that the teachers complained
about borrowed words and English terminology in the
translation, as it is common practice in the teachers own
code-switching. Lively discussions were sparked by the
quest for terminology. As expected, there were differences
of opinion regarding creating terminology in the indigenous
languages, but the discussions on terminology in the class
created positive energy and better understanding of the
concepts involved.
The absence of mathematics terminology in the indigenous languages is clearly disturbing for many of the
teachers. To create new terminology is a daunting task. It
is costly both in time, effort and money. Different obstacles
have to be overcome, such as different words used in
different regions for the same concepts, finding relevant
terminology that incorporates meaning and is mathematically sound and, not the least, the standardisation of
the terminology (Schfer, 2010; also see Meaney et al.,
2011 for a discussion on this topic and the successful
development of Maori mathematical terminology). However,

South African Journal of African Languages 2013, 33(2): 225232

in the researchers view, it is something that can only be

beneficial for future mathematics students.

231

Notes
1

Conclusion
The researchers gained a better understanding of multilingual settings. Although teaching through the medium of
English themselves, at least some teachers still fetched
their language to understand both the didactics and the
subject content better and to interpret questions in tests and
assignments. The interpreting and notes in Setswana not
only enhanced the Batswana teachers understanding, but
also benefitted the Bapedi teachers. It is also important that
the intervention had value for the teachers understanding
of their learners language dilemma, as well as for
re-evaluating their language strategies in mathematics
classrooms, and in some cases it gave them tools to
enhance their teaching. The intervention became experiential learning that added valuable insights for the teachers
into the language dilemma of their learners and, as such,
also rendered simultaneous interpreting a useful tool in
teacher education for multilingual contexts.
Considering the range of benefits interpreting into their
main language had for these teachers, there may be
other settings in teacher education where simultaneous
interpreting into the main language of student teachers
could also be beneficial. In at least two other countries in
Africa, namely in Tanzania and Malawi (Chitera, 2011),
teachers that had been educated in a second language
as the LoLT, now have to be initiated into teaching
mathematics through medium of the main language of
the learners due to policy changes. In these situations,
interpreting into the language that they have to use as
medium of instruction may be of great value, inter alia
because it helps them to master the available mathematics
register.
Future research
In investigating the possibility of developing Setswana
terminology in the domain of geometry, different aspects
were considered which made it clear that it is a complex
process. There are many different views on how it could be
done and whether it should be done. However, a group of
researchers will be set up in 2014/2015 to do research on
developing Setswana terminology, focusing on Euclidean
geometry in the Further Education and Training (FET)
curriculum. Many informal discussions have already taken
place between teachers and the researchers. The group will
most probably include both teachers and language experts,
as well as mathematics experts, especially Batswana
mathematics experts.
At this stage, the methodology to do this research has
not been established, but such terminology may include
already existing terminology, borrowed words and transliterated words, but the researchers view is that Setswana
terminology should as far as possible express something
of the concept, for example, dikutlomabapi for adjacent
angles.

2
3

Abbreviations: ACE Advanced Certificate in Education; FET

Further Education and Training; LoLT Language of Learning
and Teaching; NWU North-West University; L1 first (main)
language; L2 second language; (TB, I2, 38, 2009) Teacher B,
Interview 2, Line 38, Year group 2009.
Authors note.
Strictly speaking, a dialect of the standard language known as
Northern Sotho (Sesotho sa Leboa).
The interviews were conducted in English, an additional
language for both the interviewer and the interviewees. Quotes
from the interviews are reproduced verbatim in this research
report, and as a result some of the quotes are grammatically
incorrect or resemble broken English or English containing
region-specific vocabulary. The quotes have not been corrected,
since this may change the evidence and also give an indication
of the language used in classrooms and the urgency of a solution
for multilingual classrooms.

References
Adler J. 2001. Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Beukes A, Pienaar M. 2006. Some factors influencing the use of
simultaneous interpreting as an alternative to parallel-medium
teaching in tertiary education. Journal for Language Teaching
40:127138.
Cangelosi JS. 2003. Teaching mathematics in secondary and
middle school: An interactive approach (3rd edn). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Chitera N. 2011. Helping student teachers to teach mathematics in
local languages: Challenges for mathematics teacher educators.
In: Setati M, Nkhambule T, Goosen L (eds), Proceedings of
the ICMI Study 21 Conference: Mathematics education and
language diversity, September 2011. pp 2027.
Clarkson PC. 2007. Australian Vietnamese students learning
mathematics: High ability bilinguals and their use of their
languages. Educational Studies in Mathematics 64:191215.
Creswell JW. 2008. Educational research. Planning, conducting
and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd edn).
Upper Saddle Creek, New Jersey: Pearson.
Cummins J, Swain M. 1986. Bilingualism in education: Aspects of
theory, research and practice. London: Longman.
Department of arts and culture. 2003. Multilingual mathematics
dictionary. Pretoria: National Language Service.
Fricke I, Meyer, L. 2005. Bilingual explanatory maths dictionary:
EnglishIsiZulu. Pretoria: Clever books. (Also in Sesotho,
Sesotho sa Leboa, Setswana and Tshivenda.)
Hoffer A. 1981. Geometry is more than proof. The Mathematics
Teacher 74:1118.
Howie S. 2003. Language and other background factors affecting
secondary pupils performance in mathematics in South Africa.
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education 7:120.
Johnson A. 2010. Teaching mathematics to culturally and
linguistically diverse learners. Boston: Pearson.
Kern RG. 1994. The role of mental translation in second language
reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:441460.
Khisty LL. 1995. Making inequality: Issues of language and
meanings in mathematics teaching with Hispanic students.
In: Secada G, Fennema E, Adajian LB (eds), New directions
for equity in mathematics education. New York: Cambridge
University Press. pp 279285.

232

MacGregor M, Price E. 1999. An exploration of aspects of

language proficiency and algebra learning. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education 30:449467.
Meaney T, Trinick T, Fairhall U. 2011. Collaborating to meet
language challenges in indigenous mathematics classrooms.
Dordrecht: Springer.
North-West University, South Africa. 2011. Interpreting project
makes multilingual learning possible. Official information leaflet.
Language directorate, Institutional office, North-West University:
Potchefstroom.
Pandit NR. 1996. The creation of theory: A recent application of
the Grounded Theory Method. The Qualitative Report, vol. 2, no.
4. Available at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html
[accessed 27 October 2009].
Pimm D. 1987. Speaking mathematically: Communication in
mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.
Ramani E, Joseph M. 2002. Breaking new ground: Introducing an
African language as medium of instruction at the University of the
North. Perspectives in Education 20:233240.
Schfer M. 2010. Mathematics registers in indigenous languages:
Experiences from South Africa. In Sparrow L, Kissane B, Hurst C
(eds), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings
of the 33rd annual conference of the mathematics education
research group of Australasia. Fremantle, Western Australia:
MERGA. pp 509514.
Setati M, Adler J, Reed Y, Bapoo A. 2002. Code-switching and
other language practices in mathematics, science and English
language classroom in South Africa. In: Adler J, Reed Y (eds),
Challenges of teacher development: An investigation of take up
in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. pp 7292.

Vorster and Zerwick

Setati M, Chitera N, Essien A. 2009. Research on multilingualism

in mathematics education in South Africa: 20002007. African
Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education. Special issue, 2009:6580.
Setati M, Molefe T, Langa M. 2008. Using language as a
transparent resource in the teaching and learning of Mathematics
in a Grade 11 multilingual classroom. Pythagoras 67:1425,
June. Special issue: Teaching and Learning Mathematics in
Multilingual Classrooms.
Teppo A. 1991. Van Hiele levels of geometric thought revisited.
The Mathematics Teacher 84:210221.
Upton TA, Lee-Thompson Li-Chun. 2001. The role of first language
in second language reading. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 23:469495.
Van Rooy B. 2005. The feasibility of simultaneous interpreting in
university classrooms. Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies 23:8190.
Verhoef M. 2008. Benchmarking the quality management of
educational interpreting services rendered at the North-West
University. In: Verhoef M, Du Plessis T (eds), Multilingualism
and educational interpreting. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. pp
4766.
Vorster H. 2008. Investigating a scaffold to code-switching as
strategy in multilingual classrooms. Pythagoras 67:3341,
June. Special issue: Teaching and Learning Mathematics in
Multilingual Classrooms.
Webb L, Webb P. 2008. Introducing discussions into multilingual
classrooms: An issue of code switching? Pythagoras 67:2632,
June. Special issue: Teaching and Learning Mathematics in
Multilingual Classrooms.