Historically, some languages and discourses which were initially localised subsequently became regionally or even globally dominant. Currently, English is the dominant global language in all domains, including the academic. Thus academics and scholars from non-English backgrounds are at a disadvantage: they have to adhere to academic literacy conventions in a language in which they may not be completely proficient. This article discusses findings from a study of challenges experienced by a group of postgraduate students from Rwanda whose main languages are Kinyarwanda and French, but whose studies and research at a South African university were in English. Data were collected through questionnaires administered to 21 students and through interviews with four of these students and with three lecturers/research supervisors. Assignment tasks and lecturers' feedback on assignments and research work were also analysed. The findings suggest that, besides the challenges of studying and researching through the medium of English, these students' previous academic 'ways with words' differ from those expected by their lecturers and research supervisors. This article offers a critical discussion of these differences and We know what to say, we know what to write, but we don't know how of the strategies adopted by students to master 'the right English' to cross academic borders. It raises questions about academic borders and academics as border guards.
Background: Writing is among the most important skills, and globally it has received more emphasis in literature on language teaching than reading, speaking and listening. However, a paucity of studies is observed in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in contexts where English is being taught as an additional or foreign language, as is the case in Rwanda. Research shows that learners who can write well in different genres and for different purposes tend to do well in all curriculum subjects and subsequently beyond school education. The key challenges are the inadequacy of materials and teachers’ inability to teach writing well, especially through distance education programmes.Objectives: This study investigates the effectiveness of materials used at the University of Rwanda-College of Education’s Distance Education programme to train high school teachers on writing pedagogy for English teaching.Method: The study adopted a qualitative approach to report on the findings from textual, document analysis of distance education materials, argumentative essays and focus group discussions with 80 of 599 in-service teachers, who responded to designed and redesigned sections on writing pedagogy.Results: The findings indicate that teachers’ knowledge and skills in both writing and writing pedagogy are not addressed effectively by the materials designed. This negatively affected the quality of their own writing abilities and those of their students.Conclusion: The article recommends reconceptualisation of distance education materials to equip in-service teachers with propositional knowledge and procedural knowledge on writing pedagogy.
Language Policy and Planning is a complex endeavor that requires the intervention of different participants at different levels. In the onion metaphor which they use to represent language policy and planning, Ricento and Hornberger compare these participants and levels to onion layers. These levels together with the processes in which the policy is made permeate and interact with each other to varying degrees. They include legislation and political processes, states and supranational agencies, institutions and classroom practitioners. This desk-based research article discusses these 'layers' and the different roles which they play in language policy and planning in Rwanda, with a focus on the 2008 language-in-education policy. The article points to a unidirectional top-down approach, to lack of coordination in the way the layers work and interact and to a very limited role of classroom practitioners and practices in the language policy and planning process in Rwanda. These practitioners are conceptualized as mere implementers of policies decided on higher offices, which has negative effects on the effectiveness of the policies and their implementation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.