Language as a Hurdle in Delivering of Secondary Distance Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61538/jipe.v4i2.231Abstract
This study, which was conducted in Tanga region assessed the way language of instruction (LOI) affects learners‟ academic performance in secondary distance education. The objectives of the study were: first to assess learners‟ ability to interpret instructions and questions presented in the language used as LOI, second, to examine learners‟ ability to express their ideas appropriately using the current LOI and third, to assess learners‟ views on language of instruction used for secondary distance education. The study employed principally survey design. Data were gathered through questionnaires as well as interviews. The respondents for the study were secondary education distance learners, teachers who assisted such learners and the IAE regional tutor.   Findings revealed that secondary distance learners faced problems due to poor competence in using English language as LOI. These included interpretation and expression problems, grammatical problems, difficulty of English vocabularies, inadequate competence in the language used as LOI (English language), and ambiguity of the language used to present the content in study materials and the problem of spelling errors. Such problems rendered secondary distance learners‟ academic performance to be poor as revealed in this study.  It was therefore recommended the need for providing English training programs to teachers and learners in order to improve learners‟ language competence, and encouraging scholars and educational professionals to write English language study materials for secondary distance learning. Moreover, learners‟ individual efforts to improve their language competence should be encouraged.ÂReferences
Barnes, D. (1969). Language in the secondary classroom. In Barnes, D., Britton, S. and Rosen, H. (Eds.). Language, the learner and the school. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Chonjo, P. and Welford, G. (2001). Reasons for the poor performance of students in “A†level science examinations in Tanzania. Papers in Education and Development, 21, 14-22.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Bergin and Garvey Publishers. Holmberg, N. (2003). Theory and practice of distance education. London. Routledge.
IAE. (2009). Getting to know. Dar es Salaam: Institute of Adult Education.
IAE. (2010). National examination results for secondary distance learners. Dar es Salaam: Institute of Adult Education.
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.
Mahenge, S.T. (2002). Prospects and the inherent challenges of the Open University of Tanzania in improving the technology enhanced independent learning environment and integration of ICT in teaching and learning. HURIA, 4(1), 5968.
Malekela, G. (2004). Secondary school students‟ views on the medium of instruction in Tanzania. Paper presented at the LOITASA Workshop, Arusha, Tanzania. January, 26-28.
Mcharazo, A. (1999). Distance learning in the African context: The learning resource requirements of students at the Open University of Tanzania and the extent to which they are met. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Thames Valley University.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon, U.K: Multilingual Matters.
Mosha, H. (1995). Primary education policy in Tanzania. Papers in Education and Development, 16, 28-59.
Mwinsheikhe, H. (2003). Using Kiswahili as a medium of instruction in science teaching in Tanzania secondary schools. In Brock-Utne, B. (Ed.). Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa. Dar es Salaam: E&D Limited.
Prah, K. (2003). Going native: Language of instruction for education, development and African emancipation. In Brock-Utne, B., Desai, Z. and Qorro, M. (Eds.). Language of Instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA). Dar es Salaam: E&D Limited.
Qorro, M. (2003). Unlocking language forts: The language of instruction in post primary education in Africa with special reference to Tanzania. In Brock-Utne, B., and Qorro, M. (Eds.). Language of Instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA). Dar es Salaam: END Publishers.
Qorro, M. (2004). Parents‟ views on the language medium of instruction at post primary education in Tanzania. Paper presented at the LOITASA Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania.
Rowntree, D. (1992). Exploring open and distance learning. London: Kogan Page.
Roy-Campbell, Z. (2001). Globalization, language and education: A comparative study of the United States and Tanzania. Journal of International review of education, 47, 3-4.
Roy-Campbell, Z. and Qorro, M. (1997). The language crisis in Tanzania: The myth of English versus education. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers.
Rubagumya, C.M. (1990). Language in education in Africa: A Tanzanian perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Rubagumya, C.M. (1991). Language promotion for educational purpose: The example of Tanzania. Journal of International review of education, 7(1), 67-81.
Sigalla, R.J. (1998). The medium of instruction and its impact on students at Open University of Tanzania. Unpublished M.A Dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education-Or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
UNESCO. (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2003). Education in a Multilingual World. Paris, France: UNESCO.
URT. (1982). Report of the presidential commission on education. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education.
URT. (1995). Education and training policy. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Vuzo, M.S. (2002). Pedagogical implications of using English as a language of instruction in secondary schools in Tanzania. Unpublished M.A Dissertation, Institute for Educational Research.
Vuzo, M.S. (2007). Revisiting the language of instruction in Tanzania secondary schools: A comparative e study of Geography classes taught in English and Kiswahili. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Norway.
Wells, G. (1999). Language and education: Reconceptualizing education as dialogue. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 135-155.
