AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND ICT EDUCATION
Attitudes of Black University Students
Lorenzo Dalvit, Sarah Murray
Education Department, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa
Alfredo Terzoli
Computer Science Department, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa
Keywords: Language attitudes, ICT Education, Interventions.
Abstract: In South Africa, English plays a dominant role compared to African languages in empowering domain.
Better access to Education through the use of African languages is an object of heated debate. This paper
shows that an intervention involving the use of an African language in the domain of ICT Education can
change the attitudes of Black university students. The methodology used included a survey with preliminary
and follow-up questionnaires and interviews and an intervention involving the use of localised software and
of an on-line glossary of computer terms translated, explained and exemplified in an African language
(isiXhosa). This experience increased the support for the use of African languages as additional LoLT, even
in the English-dominated field of study of Computer Science. This is an initial step towards promoting
linguistic equality between English and African languages and social equality between their speakers.
1 INTRODUCTION
Language is recognised as a crucial issue in the
transformation agenda and in redressing past
inequalities in South Africa. The possibility of using
African languages as Languages of Learning and
Teaching (LoLT) in South Africa is an object of
heated debate. Such languages can make a
significant contribution to enhancing
epistemological access for their speakers to all
domains of knowledge at all levels. One of the
arguments against their use is negative attitudes
among their own speakers, who seem to consider
African languages appropriate only for low status
domains and informal communication. A working
definition of language attitude accepted by most
authors in the field (Edwards 1994:97-98) is “a
disposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to
a language”. A number of factors such as self-
perception, self-presentation and self-justification
play an important role in determining one's attitudes
and behaviour.
The study discussed here is part of a broader, on-
going research which attempts to challenge the
association of African languages with low-status
domains. In this paper we explore the impact of an
intervention involving the use of an African
language as an additional LoLT on the attitudes of
speakers of African languages who are also students
of computer literacy at an historically “White”
institution. This is a particularly challenging context
in which to advocate for the use of African
languages. Prospective members of the emerging
Black elite are under a lot of pressure to gain
English academic proficiency, in a domain where
the linguistic dominance of English is particularly
evident. The choice of such context is deliberate. We
hope that success in improving students' attitudes
will provide a strong argument for a more extensive
use of African languages in other subjects and at
lower levels of education.
2 CONTEXT AND RELATED
WORK
2.1 ICT Education and African
Languages in South Africa
The South African Government recognises the
171
Dalvit L., Murray S. and Terzoli A..
AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND ICT EDUCATION - Attitudes of Black University Students.
DOI: 10.5220/0003350701710179
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2011), pages 171-179
ISBN: 978-989-8425-50-8
Copyright
c
 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

paramount importance of technology as well as
Mathematics and Science education for the
development of the country and to address past
inequalities. The Department of Education (DoE
2005) recognises that the education system has a
crucial role to play in bringing the advantages
offered by new technologies to members of
previously disadvantaged communities. Various
projects have been instituted.
While most projects focus on the deployment of
ICT infrastructure, i.e. PCs and Internet connections,
comparatively little attention is given to the
development of human resources. The e-Education
White Paper highlights the importance of supporting
ICT integration in teaching and learning and
building educators’, managers’ and students'
confidence in the use of ICT. Infrastructure is often
just “dumped” in schools without a clear integration
strategy (see Brandt 2006). As noted by Czerniewicz
(2004), it is not enough to provide physical access to
computers and information. In order for ICT to be
effective in education, the conditions must be
created for students to effectively appropriate the use
of the new technologies, understand how they work
and how to use them.
Chisholm (2004) argues that, together with lack
of access to ICT, the language barrier posed by the
use of English is a factor in the entrenchment of
inequality in South African education. The
Department of Education (DoE 2005) acknowledges
the potential role of English as a “gatekeeper” to the
study of ICT and to its use in education, and
emphasises the need to promote technological
discourse in African languages. Most students in
marginalised schools are speakers of an African
language who are excluded both from the study of
empowering subjects (such as Computer Science, for
instance) and from gaining proficiency in the
dominant language in these fields (i.e. English).
Until the use of ICT in education rises from the
currently low levels (Tlabela 2007), the university
remains the main arena in the struggle for equal
access to ICT.
Greyling and Calitz (2002) note that Computer
Science departments at South African universities
are under pressure from the computer industry to
produce Black graduates and postgraduates. A
decade after the end of Apartheid, Black students are
still under-represented in ICT-related fields of study
such as Information Systems and Computer Science.
According to Greyling and Calitz, language
problems are partly to blame. However, the
approach they propose, i.e. devising strategies to
better select and streamline potential Computer
Science students, is reactive rather than proactive. In
other words, their focus is on optimising the use of
resources of the university given the context (i.e.
underpreparedness of many Black students,
dominance of English in the ICT field, etc.).
According to Alexander (2001), South African
universities have an important role to play with
respect to the intellectualisation of African
languages, both by assisting in developing them and
by using them as LoLT, particularly in high-status
subjects. Finlayson and Madiba (2000:48) explicitly
refer to the advantages of using both English and an
African language in science education at tertiary
level (see Inglis 1993:131). According to Finlayson
and Madiba (2002:42), African languages lag behind
English and Afrikaans particularly when it comes to
modern terminology and registers. This makes the
possibility of using them within scientific academic
discourse a contentious issue.
Using African languages to teach highly
empowering but traditionally English-dominated
subjects (such as Computer Science, for instance) at
a tertiary level could have two sets of effects. First
of all, it would improve their status. This, in turn,
would improve the attitudes of their speakers and
their sense of pride in using them in all domains.
Raising the status of African languages would raise
the status of their speakers. Secondly, the use of
African languages would facilitate the participation
of their speakers in such domains, thus effectively
addressing the inequalities of the past. This would
have a deep transformative impact on the specific
academic discourse of scientific and technological
disciplines as well as on society as a whole. The
intellectualisation of African languages through their
use in higher education could contribute (and
potentially drive) social transformation.
2.2 Support for African Languages in
Different Domains
African languages are often associated with low
status domains. In this section we discuss four
studies on the language attitudes of Black university
students towards the use of their language: de
Klerk's (1996) research at Rhodes University, Dyers'
(1998) PhD research at the University of the
Western Cape (UWC), research at the University of
Fort Hare (Dalvit and de Klerk 2005), and
Aziakpono's Master's research at Rhodes University
(2008). The four studies had different scope, were
conducted at different times, focused on different
students and used different wordings for questions.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
172

Moreover, different researchers approached the issue
from different ideological standpoints.
Overall support for the use of African languages
vis-à-vis English was strikingly similar at the four
institutions over the same period. It was
comparatively low in de Klerk's (1996) and Dyers's
(1998) studies, conducted shortly after the end of
apartheid. In Dalvit's (2004) and Aziakpono's (2008)
studies, a stronger pro-African languages orientation
could indicate a shift in the ideological balance.
Similar attitudes at institutions with very different
linguistic compositions suggest that attitudes
reflected ideological orientation rather than being a
response to practical considerations. If the latter
were the case, one would have expected stronger
support for the use of isiXhosa at Fort Hare, where
80% of the student population speaks the language
(see Dalvit and de Klerk 2005), than at Rhodes,
where the percentage of isiXhosa speakers is close
to 15% (see Aziakpono 2008).
While considering the possible challenges to the
use of an African language in tertiary education, fear
of possible tensions with speakers of other languages
and of loss of English proficiency were the most
prominent concerns, expressed by one-third of the
respondents in Dalvit and de Klerk's (2005) and
Aziakpono's (2008) studies. The belief that using
different African languages would fuel tribalism
entrenches the role of English as a lingua franca,
equally disempowering for all speakers of an
African language. The belief that using one's mother
tongue would detract from English proficiency
polarises the language issue as a clear-cut choice, in
which the higher-status language prevails at the
expense of all others.
In both Dalvit and de Klerk's (2005) and
Aziakpono's (2008) studies, the sample was split in
half between support for an English-only and a dual-
medium model. Moving away from a clear-cut
choice between one and the other and adding
complexity to the picture highlighted possible areas
of support for the use of isiXhosa as an additional
LoLT. More than three-quarters of the students in
the two studies recognised that their mother tongue
has a crucial role to play in tutorials, additional
teaching material etc. This was considered most
appropriate for the first year and for subjects in the
Faculties of Education and Humanities (roughly
one-third of the sample) rather than Science
(approximately 15%). This reflects the association of
African languages with low-status disciplines and
domains.
Dyers notes that code-switching was common in
tutorials, and argues that negative overt attitudes
towards the use of isiXhosa by some of the students
contradicted the positive covert attitudes shown in
actual practice. She also argues that use of isiXhosa
might be a sign of the frustration many students
experienced with academic English. In both Dalvit
and de Klerk's (2005) and Aziakpono's studies,
respondents believed that using isiXhosa would
improve their understanding of things they studied
(mentioned by more than one-third), and, to a lesser
extent, increase their confidence. Less than one-fifth
believed it would improve their marks. These
figures, consistent across different institutional
contexts, reflect the discrepancy between learning
informally scaffolded through isiXhosa, and
assessment, which only takes place in English. This
coupled with the fact that only a small minority
(approximately 15%) felt that using isiXhosa would
not help them at all, could be seen as an indicator of
potential for change.
Maşoeu and de Villiers (2001) note that, at the
present stage, localisation of software into African
languages serves more a symbolic than an
instrumental function. In other words, its main
contribution is the promotion of the status of the
African languages rather than increasing access to
technology for their speakers. Although this could
still be considered crucial to break the dominance of
English in the field of ICT, one must consider that
the users in Maşoeu and de Villiers's (2001) study,
like most Black university students, were already
familiar with computers in English. Research at a
Master's level explored the experience of students'
learning computer literacy partly in isiXhosa from
the beginning, yielding encouraging results, both in
terms of students' attitudes and access to the
discipline.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
The study described here is part of a broader
research exploring issues of linguistic hegemony in
ICT Education. The current paper focuses on how a
practical intervention involving the use of an African
language as an additional LoLT affects language
attitudes.
The focus group for this study are students in the
Computer Skills component of the Science Extended
Studies Programme (CS1S) at a historically “White”
South African tertiary institution. These are students
with recognised academic potential, but who would
not normally meet the requirements for admission
AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND ICT EDUCATION - Attitudes of Black University Students
173

into university. The Computer Skills course is part
of a series of offerings designed to equip students to
cope with further studies in the Science Faculty.
Most students in the course are speakers of
isiXhsosa, the most widely spoken African language
in the area.
In 2007, this group of students was exposed to
and encouraged to use a glossary of approximately
150 computer terms translated, explained and
exemplified in isiXhosa. The glossary was
developed by a multi-disciplinary team within the
University. The purpose of the intervention was to
promote the status and use of isiXhosa in the
empowering but English-dominated domain of ICT
Education. The glossary was implemented both on-
line, through the e-learning course students regularly
use in class, and in print.
The use of the glossary was complemented by
other initiatives involving the use of African
languages in the ICT domain. The students' language
attitudes were documented through two
questionnaires, administered before and after the
intervention respectively, as well as interviews and
observations. Data were analysed descriptively
rather than statistically, due to the small size of the
focus group.
3.2 Questionnaires
Questionnaires are commonly used in research on
language attitudes (see de Klerk 1996; Dyers 1998),
often in combination with follow-up interviews. The
two questionnaires used in this study served to
evaluate a practical intervention and targeted
students in the foundation computer course for
Science.
Some of the studies mentioned above (i.e. Dyers
1998; see Frazer and Lawley 2000:93) made use of
questionnaires in two languages. The questionnaire
used in this study was made available in two
languages. Using a questionnaire in two languages
was intended to ensure the inclusion of students with
low levels of English proficiency. These might be
the most interesting respondents. The analysis of the
differences between respondents who chose to fill in
the English as opposed to the isiXhosa version
promised to yield interesting results.
The first section of the questionnaire requested
information about several background variables,
such as language, gender, social and educational
background, degree and year of study, level of
computer literacy and familiarity with localised
software in the student’s mother tongue. The second
section dealt with language attitudes towards
English and African languages in general and in the
field of Computer Science. The third section
concerned students' beliefs about possible
consequences of the use of African languages as
additional LoLT and envisaged best practices. The
fourth section created space for comments and for
respondents to leave their details for follow-up
interviews. We used a combination of different types
of questions (factual or concerning subjective
experiences, open-ended and closed-ended) and
answer formats (classic, rating scales, Likert scale or
ranking). Attention was also paid to question order,
proximity and avoiding bias (see Frankfort-
Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 for a discussion on
the use of each question type in language attitudes
research).
For the administration of the questionnaire, we
used the Moodle questionnaire feature. This entailed
the risk of excluding those students who were not
confident in using computers. To ensure
participation and provide support, the questionnaire
was run in class. The use of web-based instead of
paper-based questionnaires made data collection and
capturing much faster. The follow-up questionnaires
run at the end of 2007 served an evaluative function
and were functional in the preparation of the
interviews. In order to maximise participation to get
a more comprehensive overview, printed forms were
used instead of the on-line system.
3.3 Interviews and Observations
Interviews are an established and widely used
method in the social sciences and in educational
research. In the present study interviews were used
not only to supplement information obtained using
other methods, but we used evaluative interviews in
order to assess its impact and the possible limiting
factors. Interviews were complemented by personal
communication and classroom observation, to obtain
a comprehensive picture of the language dynamics
of a multilingual Computer Science classroom.
Various authors (Frankfort-Nachmias and
Nachmias 1996) discuss the use of different types of
interviews and their limits as research methods. The
preferred interview type in the present study was the
focused interview (roughly corresponding to a semi-
structured interview). The topic and purpose of the
research was briefly introduced and explained. This
initiated a dialogue in which the respondents were
free to address issues that particularly concerned
them. An interview guide (usually in the form of a
list of topics) was used to help keep the interview
going and to stay “on track”.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
174

A number of randomly selected students, tutors
and mentors were interviewed. Interviewees were
either contacted in class or selected from those who
left their details (indicating they would like to be
interviewed) in one of the questionnaires. The initial
interview guide was drafted based on critical issues
involving the use of African languages in the field of
ICT emerging from the relevant literature.
Subsequent interview guides were informed by
responses to the questionnaire, classroom
observation, informal conversations with students
and their lecturers and feedback on the
implementation. While analysing the interviews,
information collected through these additional
methods was considered. In particular, informal
communication with the lecturer of the course
provided interesting insights.
4 INTERVENTION, FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Classroom intervention
During the first term, CS1S students familiarised
themselves with computers, e-mail and Web
applications. The “English – isiXhosa computer
glossary” was added to the course in March 2007.
By that time one could assume that students would
have the necessary level of familiarity with
computers to use it. Before being exposed to the
glossary, students filled in a language attitudes
questionnaire (Appendix A). This served as a
baseline for a follow-up questionnaire (Appendix B)
administered at the end of the year. Comparison
between the results for the two questionnaires
captured changes in language attitudes.
During a 15-minute slot at the beginning of a
lecture, we explained to the students how to use the
on-line glossary, and gave them the chance to test it.
At the same time, we distributed print copies of the
glossary. Initial reactions varied between amusement
and enthusiasm; a few students made sarcastic
remarks such as “I will give this to my
grandmother”. Results from previous language
attitudes studies suggested that an intervention
giving prominence to one African language (i.e.
isiXhosa) over the others might be perceived to
cause tensions among students. We therefore made it
a priority, in this first meeting, to explain that we
were experimenting with a model which, if proven
successful, could be applied to all African
languages.
Students were encouraged to use the glossary
throughout the year. Reminders were sent through
the tutors and lecturer, who fully supported the
intervention. During the second term, students were
invited to write one of their practicals using
localised software in their language. This took place
in the laboratory, hosted by the School of
Languages, which features software that allows
students to operate computers almost entirely in an
African language. It was not possible to assess
whether students used software in English as
opposed to an African language for the practical.
The impact of this experience was eventually
assessed in the follow-up questionnaire at the end of
the year and through interviews.
4.2 Shift in Language Attitudes
Students were administered two questionnaires: one
before and one after the intervention, followed by
interviews. The first, 21-item questionnaire was
available in both English and isiXhosa. Out of the 42
students enrolled in the course, 38 filled in the
questionnaire. Students had 15 minutes to fill in the
questionnaire in class, although they could finish it
in their own time.
The second questionnaire was also available in
two languages. It included a subset of questions
from the first one as well as new questions, mainly
related to the glossary. In an attempt to maximise the
collection of feedback and to avoid the problems
experienced with the on-line version, this time the
questionnaire was administered in print format. This
yielded a response rate of 33 out of 42 students.
When compared to the figure for the previous
questionnaire, however, it should be noted that the
follow-up questionnaire was completed by all
students attending the class on that particular day.
Informal communication with the lecturer confirmed
that attendance was generally poor throughout the
year.
Figures for all background variables were
consistent with the available statistical data for the
class. Distribution according to area of provenance
(25% urban, 54% semi-urban and 21% rural) and
type of school attended (71% former “Black”, 8%
former “Coloured” and 21% former “White”)
obviously remained the same in both questionnaires,
as did those for home language. These figures
suggest that the majority of the foundation students
attended schools for speakers of English as a second
language. This is consistent with the statistical data
available from the university.
AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND ICT EDUCATION - Attitudes of Black University Students
175

The majority (17, i.e. 74%) of the students spoke
isiXhosa. Although only 2 students indicated
English as their home language at registration, 5
indicated it as their home language in the
questionnaire, invariably in combination with an
African language. This suggests that, when given the
option, respondents did not indicate English as their
sole home language, but chose it in combination
with isiXhosa.
In spite of the practical which took place in the
lab which features software localised in all eleven
South African languages, only 7 students out of 32
(i.e. 22%) reported having used software in their
language by the end of the year. Given the wording
of the question, this might imply that students did
see the localised software but, in order to complete
their practical on time, preferred to use the English
interface they were familiar with. This was partly
confirmed during follow-up interviews, although
some students had not understood that software was
available in their language, and others deliberately
refused to use it.
Several students (12) added comments on
localised software. These ranged from enthusiastic
support (e.g. “it was so impressive”, “I think it
would make me understand things better”) to
scepticism (e.g. “I haven't used it because it wouldn't
make sense to me”). Most criticism concerned the
terminology used (e.g. “the terms seem much more
complicated in isiXhosa”). During the follow-up
interviews, one student commented enthusiastically
that seeing software in his language was “like when
you are in a foreign country and you meet someone
who speaks your language”.
Comparison between the two questionnaires
points to a positive shift in attitudes towards African
languages, but reflects the discrepancy between
practice and policy: confidence in speaking about
computers in one's mother tongue was not matched
by increased support for mother-tongue education.
The number of those who believed they could speak
about computers in their mother tongue increased
from 6 (i.e. 21%) in the first questionnaire to 14 (i.e.
44%) in the second. This is particularly significant if
one considers that, while in the first questionnaire no
respondent agreed strongly, in the second an equal
number ticked the “agree” and “strongly agree”
option. Besides the intervention, this could be due to
the fact that, after attending the course, students felt
more confident about speaking about computers in
any language. The number of those who believed
their language should be used more in education
increased from 17 (i.e. 58%) to 21 (i.e. 67%).
However, in this case the increase was due to a
higher number of students ticking the “agree” box.
In both questionnaires, respondents were asked
to rank possible problems associated with using
material in the African languages in the teaching and
learning of Computer Science. On a scale 1 to 5, the
average for all problems showed little variation,
decreasing from 3.2. to 3.1. Results indicated that
being exposed to resources in an African language
increased ranking for some of the possible problems
(see first, second and third row). At the same time,
this experience helped students to deconstruct some
of the arguments perpetuating the exclusion of
African languages from the academic domain
(fourth, fifth and sixth row).
The belief that using resources in the African
languages would entail lower levels of English
proficiency ranked consistently highest (3.3 and
3.5). This can be seen as a reflection of the linguistic
hegemony of English. The perception that material
in an African language would be difficult to read and
understand was the one which increased the most as
a result of the intervention. This raises concerns
about the quality of the material used rather than the
idea of using resources in an African language.
The intervention countered some of the
arguments against the use of African languages in
the academic domain. Figures reflecting the fear that
this kind of intervention would create tensions with
speakers of other languages, which ranked as the
most important problem in both questionnaires,
decreased from 4 to 3.7. As confirmed in the follow-
up interviews, students seemed to understand that
this was a model which could be applied to any
language. This is consistent with the fact that all the
8 speakers of African languages other than isiXhosa
in the sample invariably agreed that the glossary we
developed should be replicated for other languages.
Not surprisingly, ranking for lack of terminology in
the African languages as a problem was the one that
decreased the most, from 3.4 to 2.7. Deconstructing
the argument of lack of terminology as a reason to
exclude African languages from the ICT domain was
probably the main contribution of the intervention.
4.3 Feedback on the Glossary
Respondents were asked to rank the perceived
usefulness of various types of additional teaching
and learning material in an African language for
Computer Science. On a scale 1 to 5, the average for
all types of material showed little variation,
decreasing from 3.7 to 3.6. Exposing students to
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
176

software in their mother tongue increased their
perception of its usefulness. Localised software,
while ranking the lowest in both questionnaires (3.1
and 3.5 respectively) was the only resource for
which perceived usefulness increased. The 7
students who reported using localised software
ranked its usefulness higher than the average for the
sample (3.7 as opposed to 3.5) and commented
positively on it (e.g. “It was a little bit different than
usual, but in a good way”).
Figures referring to a glossary of computer terms
explained in an African language raised concerns
about the quality of the material used in the
intervention. A glossary was consistently rated as
the most useful in both questionnaires (4.3. and 3.8).
However, exposing students to a practical example
of it seemed to decrease its perceived usefulness
more than was the case with other types of
resources. While the vast majority (24 out of 31
respondents, i.e. 80%) agreed that the glossary we
developed was a good idea, only two-thirds of those
who used it (16 out of 24, i.e. 66%) agreed it was of
good quality and easy to use.
Responses to the follow-up questionnaire
confirmed a tendency to consider the use of African
languages as LoLT suitable “for someone else”.
Among students who claimed they did use the
glossary, only 7 out of 23 (i.e. 30%) believed that
the glossary could help them, while 16 (i.e. 70%)
agreed it would be useful for others. It is reasonable
to assume that this attitude was even stronger among
isiXhosa-speaking students who chose not to use the
glossary at all.
Of the 12 respondents who claimed not to have
used the glossary, 5 indicated they did not speak
isiXhosa as the main reason. The interviews
revealed that one of them was an isiXhosa speaker
who attended schools for speakers of English as a
first language. An additional 6 respondents claimed
they did not need the glossary, and only one
indicated he or she preferred to use English.
Comments seemed to be more favourable among
non-isiXhosa speakers (e.g. “if there was one in
Tshivenda I would use it”) than among isiXhosa
speakers (e.g. “I cannot read isiXhosa”).
As noted above, actual use of the glossary was
difficult to assess. Out of a total of 33 respondents to
the follow-up questionnaire, 24 answered questions
for those who used the glossary and 12 answered
questions on why they did not use the glossary. The
interviews clarified that the overlap of 3 respondents
could be explained by the fact that some people used
the glossary at least once, but were still in a position
to explain why they did not use it further.
Responses did not give a clear indication of
which format is best to use for the glossary. A
roughly equal proportion (one quarter) of those who
used the glossary preferred the print or the on-line
version. For the remaining half of the respondents it
did not seem to matter. One of the suggestions for
improvement (i.e. “You could make its own web
page and not just on Moodle”) pointed to the need
for a standalone application. Although this had
already been set up, CS1S students were not made
aware of it. This avoided confusion and streamlined
all the feedback through the on-line glossary in their
course.
Comments in the first questionnaire ranged from
mild optimism (e.g. “I think it could be useful if we
get a chance to use computers in our language
though it might be a little bit hard at first but it's
always okay to learn new things”) to scepticism (e.g.
“it would be a great idea to see material produced in
our home languages, but also an impossible task”)
and categorical rejection (e.g. “it is better to learn in
English”). Students emphasised that English was the
main language in the ICT domain. A few
respondents mentioned that having somebody to
explain things in their mother tongue would help.
This is consistent with high ranking for the
usefulness of such a solution, which matched the
rankings for the glossary in the second questionnaire
(i.e. 3.8). However, this reinforces rather than
challenges the traditional association of African
languages with orality and low-status domains.
Comments on both questionnaires emphasised
two issues noted above. First of all, respondents felt
that the use of African languages as LoLT could
help “others”, either students with lower levels of
computer literacy or students at lower levels of
education. Secondly, respondents to both
questionnaires emphasised the need to make
resources available in all languages, not to create
tensions between speakers of different languages
(e.g. “It would be unfair to other people who do not
speak my language”, “There are a lot of official
languages and all of them would need to be
accommodated”).
Comments to the follow-up questionnaire were
generally more positive than in the first one. Most
comments were favourable to the use of African
languages, and remarks about the impossibility of
using such languages in the ICT domain were
virtually non-existent. Another noticeable difference
is that many more students wrote their comments in
isiXhosa. This is consistent with the fact that the
number of respondents who filled in the isiXhosa
version rose from 5 (i.e. 13%) in the first
AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND ICT EDUCATION - Attitudes of Black University Students
177

questionnaire to 14 (i.e. 42%) in the second. This
appears to be a significant difference, and could be
considered an indicator of a shift in the students'
attitudes.
Three points emerged strongly in the feedback,
both in English and in isiXhosa, in the second
questionnaire. First of all, it was clear that both
English and African languages had to be used at the
same time (e.g. “ukuba ulwimi lwesiNgesi
lunokusetyenziswa kunye nesiXhosa kungabhetele”,
which means “if English were used together with
isiXhosa it would be better”, “I think it would be
good to use my language with English because I
personally experienced this in primary and high
school and if there is a shortage of lectures I am
willing to volunteer myself”). Emphasis on using
both languages is consistent with the fear that using
African languages would entail lower levels of
English proficiency. As noted above, this fear was
reinforced by the actual example of teaching
material in an African language.
The second point which emerged from
comments to the follow-up questionnaire is the
difficulty of the words used (e.g. “simplify the
language”, “nisebenzise amagama alula esiXhosa”,
which means “use simple Xhosa words”). Although
every effort was made to use simple and common
words, further efforts in this direction could address
the concerns students raised about the quality of the
glossary. As mentioned above, issues of quality
might have hampered the perceived potential
usefulness of the glossary.
The third point which emerged from feedback to
the follow-up questionnaire is that students wanted
to be involved in the process (e.g. “You can always
ask every student that knows Xhosa to help you with
vocabulary”). Little usage of the localised software
in the Peter Mtuze Multimedia Laboratory raised
concern about the actual commitment of students.
However, positive comments indicate a willingness
to counter the linguistic hegemony of English by
showing support and voicing one's opinion. This is
confirmed by the fact that 25 respondents (i.e. 76%)
left their details in order to be contacted for an
interview.
4.4 Follow-up Interviews
Follow-up interviews were conducted between the
end of October and the beginning of November
2007. Out of the 25 students who left their details in
the questionnaire, 15 were contacted for 5 individual
and 5 group interviews. The latter involved two
interviewees each and, in spite of various efforts, it
was not possible to organise interviews with larger
groups.
The interviews served a number of purposes.
First of all, they were used to probe the responses to
the questionnaire. They confirmed most of the
observed trends and included interviewees with a
wide spectrum of different orientations. Among
speakers of isiXhosa, these ranged from the
scepticism of a student who had attended schools for
speakers of English as a first language, and did not
see much point in using an African language at
university, to the enthusiastic position of a student
from a rural area. Non-isiXhosa speakers were
supportive of the initiative, and seemed to
understand that this was the experimentation of a
model which could be used for languages other than
isiXhosa. This was a crucial point to assess since the
fear that promoting isiXhosa might create tensions
with speakers of other languages emerged strongly
from the questionnaire.
Most isiXhosa speakers indicated using the
glossary, though it was not clear to what extent.
Some non-isiXhosa speakers, mainly speakers of
isiZulu, also reported looking at it and thought it was
a good idea. There was no clear indication of
whether students preferred the print or on-line
version, although the former was more readily
available when preparing for tests. It made little
sense to ask whether the glossary had any impact on
performance, since it was an optional resource.
Comparison of the CS1S marks for the 2006 and
2007 cohort confirmed that there was no noticeable
variation in the marks of isiXhosa speakers
compared to those for speakers of other languages.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we discussed the issues related to the
use of African languages in the empowering but
English-dominated field of ICT Education in South
Africa. Analysis of language attitudes suggests that
an intervention involving the use of a (mainly) web-
based glossary of computer terms translated,
explained and exemplified in an African language
mildly improved students' attitudes towards the use
of African languages in the ICT domain. This was
supported by the higher number of students who
filled in the isiXhosa version of the follow-up
questionnaire and wrote comments in isiXhosa, as
well as by the comments themselves.
Attitudes towards the use of African languages
as LoLT showed mixed orientations. The fear that
using African languages as a LoLT would entail
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
178

lower English proficiency remained strong.
However, fear of possible inter-linguistic tensions
decreased, as did perceived lack of terminology in
African languages. The latter two are important
arguments, often used to entrench the linguistic
hegemony of English and perpetuate the exclusion
of African languages from the academic domain.
As a result of this research, staff members in
other departments (Economics, Politics) expressed
an interest in having similar glossaries developed for
their disciplines and integrated in their courses.
A
reasonable outcome to expect of such interventions
would be an improvement of support for African
languages. However, a larger-scale intervention and
better integration within the course structure might
provide opportunities for research into the impact of
additional teaching material in the African languages
on students' marks. While attitudinal change among
Black students is a precondition for the success of
any such intervention, improved performance would
be a strong argument in favour of a more extensive
use of African languages in tertiary education.
Comparison of findings across different disciplines
would contribute to a better understanding of the
relationship between linguistic hegemony and access
to discipline-specific academic discourse.
REFERENCES
Alexander, N. (2001). “Language Policy, Symbolic Power
and Democratic Responsibility of the Post-Apartheid
University”. D.C.S. Oosthuizen Memorial Lecture.
Rhodes University, Grahamstown, 9 October 2001.
Aziakpono, P. (2008). “The Attitudes of Xhosa-Speaking
Students towards various Language of Learning and
Teaching (LOLT) Issues at Rhodes University.
Unpublished Master's thesis. Rhodes University.
Brandt, I. G. (2006). Models of internet connectivity for
secondary schools in the Grahamstown circuit.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Rhodes University,
Grahamstown. http://eprints.ru.ac.za/778/
Chisholm, L. (2004). Changing Class: Education and
Social Change in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Cape
Town: Human Sciences Research Council, and
London: Zed.
Czerniewicz, L. (2004). Cape of Storms or Cape of Good
Hope. Educational Technology in a Changing
Environment. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35 (2), 145-158.
Dalvit, L. & de Klerk, V. (2005). “Attitudes of isiXhosa-
Speaking Students at the University of Fort Hare
towards the Use of isiXhosa as a Language of
Learning and Teaching (LOLT)”. In Southern African
Journal of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
(SALAALS), 23(1), 1-18.
De Klerk, V. (1996). “Use of and Attitudes to English in a
Multilingual University”. English World Wide. 17 (1),
111-127.
Department of Education. (2005). The Development of
Indigenous African Languages as Mediums of
Instruction in Higher Education. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Dyers, C. (1998). “Xhosa Students’ Attitudes towards
Black South African Languages at the University of
the Western Cape”. South African Journal of African
Languages. 19 (2), 73-82.
Edwards, J. (1994). Multilingualism. London: Routledge.
Finlayson, R., & Madiba, M. (2002). The
intellectualisation of the indigenous languages of
South Africa: Challenges and prospects. Current
Issues in Language Planning, 3 (1), 40-61.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research
Methods in the Social Science. New York: St Martin’s
Press.
Frazer, L., & Lawley, M. (2000). Questionnaire Design
and Administration. Brisbane: John Willey and South
Australia Ltd.
Greyling, J. H. and Calitz, A. P. (2002). “The
implementation of a streaming model in first year IT
courses”. Paper presented at the Southern African
Computer Lecturers Association (SACLA) Conference.
27-29 June 2002, Fish River Sun, South Africa.
Mosoeu, A., & de Villiers, C. (2001). Web usability in a
multicultural environment: A concern for young South
African Web. Proceedings of CHI 2001.
Tlabela, K. (2007). Mapping ICT Access in South Africa.
Cape Town: HSRC Press.
AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND ICT EDUCATION - Attitudes of Black University Students
179