Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research

Volume 4, Issue 8, 2017, pp. 133-150

Available online at www.jallr.com
ISSN: 2376-760X

The Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the Teaching of

Mathematics and Science in Primary Schools: Evidence from
Grade One Classrooms in Kenya

Martin C. Njoroge *
Associate Professor, Department of Communication, Languages and Linguistics,
Pan Africa Christian University, Kenya

Abstract
Despite the evidence from multilingual education research that states the pedagogical benefits
accrued when a child is taught in the mother language, obstacles to the acceptance of its use
and implementation in education in Africa are enormous. Although Kenya’s language in
education policy states that mother language is to be used as a medium of instruction in the
early grade years, most teachers use English in introducing children to formal learning. Is it
that the teachers do not understand the benefits accrued when a child is introduced to
learning in a language that he or she understands? It is against this backdrop that this study set
forth to test the efficacy of using Gĩkũyũ (a mother language to many speakers in Kenya) and
English (the official language in Kenya) in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in the early
grade years to capture the influence the language used had on performance in the two
subjects. To achieve the objective of this study, two standard one classes in Kiambu County
were purposively sampled. Learners in the experimental class were taught Mathematics and
Science using Gĩkũyũ while those in the control class were taught the two subjects using
English. A pre-test and a post-test were administered before and after the teaching.
Afterwards, the scores recorded in both tests were analyzed quantitatively using the Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances and the emerging patterns discussed. The general finding is that
teaching Mathematics and Science using Gĩkũyũ is an effective strategy that improves the
performance of the two subjects in Kenyan primary schools. The study, therefore,
recommends that Gĩkũyũ (and other mother languages) be adopted as a legitimate language
of mathematical and scientific communication in areas where the language is spoken in order
to facilitate multilingual learners’ participation and success in Mathematics and Science.
Keywords: Mathematics, Science, Gĩkũyũ, English, mother language

INTRODUCTION

In the celebration of the International Mother Language Day (IMLD) in Kenya hosted at
Kenyatta University on 21st February, 2014, under the theme: “Local Languages for Global

* Correspondence: Martin C. Njoroge, Email: [email protected]

© 2017 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 134

Citizenship: Spotlight on Science,” and which were organized by the Bible Translation and
Literacy (BTL) of Kenya, the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO and Kenyatta
University Institute of African Studies, and which the author of this paper attended as a
member of the Multilingualism Network of East Africa (MLEN), the role of African
languages in pedagogy was explored at length. The year’s IMLD fete came against a
backdrop of the raging debate of reintroduction of vernacular in the teaching process in
the Kenyan schools as stipulated by the Ministry of Education through the Sessional
Paper 14 of 2012 on reforming education and training sectors in Kenya (The Republic of
Kenya, 2012). In a keynote address by Prof. Kithaka wa Mberia, a celebrated linguist in
Kenya, he quipped: What is the role of learners’ first language (L1) in early childhood
language pedagogy in Kenya? This question, though not new, provoked the author of this
paper to critically assess the above statement and specifically the relation between
language and the performance of Mathematics and Science in Grade one in Kenyan
primary schools given the negative attitude many Kenyans have towards the use of
mother language in schools.

As highlighted in the introductory paragraph above, the problem of language proficiency

as an obstacle to learning Mathematics and Science in Africa, for example, is a challenge
(Adler, 2001; Howie, 2002). Unfortunately, the importance of the language factor by
educators and researchers in both the research and practice domains is “little more than
lip service” (Ellerton & Clarkson, 1996, p.1017). According to Webb (2010), for example:

Classroom studies in several sub-Saharan states reveal that using a

language that is not the learners’ home language coerces educators to use
teacher-centered methods of instruction which include chorus teaching,
repetition, memorization, and recall (p.4).

In Mathematics, for example, the language used to convey ideas to students is abstract
and replete with symbols (Langa, 2006) that differ from those of everyday language
(Secada, 1992; Cuevas, 1984; Mestre, 1988), and this has become a topic of increased
concern to Mathematics educators in recent years (Cuevas, 1984). Durkin (1991), for
instance, argues that “Mathematics education begins in language, it advances and
stumbles because of language, and its outcomes are often assessed in language (p 3).This
quotation captures the important role of language as a resource in the teaching and
learning of Mathematics. The same can be said of Science.

Although Kenyan primary schools have a home language as the language of learning and
teaching (LoLT) in the first three years of schooling, the crossover to English as medium
of instruction is normally made in Grade 4 (Koech, 1999)1. This is because learners at this
level are supposed to have acquired a minimal threshold level of proficiency in English, a
level of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), to function effectively on
academic tasks that are cognitively demanding (Cummins, 1986). But is the language

1
Koech was the Chairman of the Commission mandated in 1999 to recommend ways and means of enabling the
education system to facilitate national unity, mutual social responsibility, accelerated industrial and technological
development, life-long learning, and adaptation in response to changing circumstances in Kenya.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 135

policy implemented in the classroom? Thus, it is against this backdrop that this study
explores the effectiveness of English and Gĩkũyũ2 in the teaching and learning of
Mathematics and Science in multilingual contexts in Kenyan primary schools.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Despite the evidence from multilingual education research that states the cognitive,
linguistic, personal and educational development benefits accrued when a child is
introduced to formal learning in the mother language, obstacles to the acceptance of its
use and implementation in education in Africa are enormous (Gacheche, 2010). The
findings of a national Commission on education (Government of Kenya, 1999) observed
that majority of elementary schools did not use mother language in their teaching. In the
same vein, a study done in Kenya (Begi, 2014) to establish whether teachers in the early
grade years were using mother language as a language of instruction as per the language
policy points out that over 60% were using English instead of the mother language. The
same study reports that 80% of the sampled parents did not support their children being
taught in mother language. The media in Kenya, in their editorials, have indicated that the
use of mother language has no educational advantages. Are such teachers and parents in
Begi (2014) and media writers aware of the advantages of introducing the children to
formal learning in languages that they understood? Is the academic performance
influenced by the language used? A study that would focus on finding out whether a
child’s performance in Mathematics and Science, two key focus subjects in Kenya’s
education system, would be influenced by the language used (mother language and
English) was timely in addressing some perceptions held by significant sections of the
Kenyan society and beyond.

RATIONALE

First, our choice of Mathematics as a subject of study is based on the following reasons.
First, in order to achieve the necessary in-depth mathematical understanding, effective
communication of mathematical ideas is key (Thurston, 1995), since language forms an
integral part of this communication. Equally, Secada (1992) argues that language is
crucial for mathematical reasoning and for communicating ideas, claims, explanations
and proofs. Anstrom (1997) puts is clearly that:

Command of mathematical language plays an important role in the

development of mathematical ability. The importance of language in
mathematics instruction is often overlooked in the mistaken belief that
[M]athematics is somehow independent of language proficiency.
However, particularly with the increased emphasis placed on problem
solving, command of mathematical language plays an important in the
development of mathematical ability (p.25).

2
Gĩkũyũ is a language in the Central Bantu branch of the Niger – Congo family spoken primarily by the Agĩkũyũ
of Kenya. Gĩkũyũ belongs to the Kamba-Kikuyu subgroup of Bantu and is spoken in an area extending from
Nairobi to the southern and southwestern slopes of Mt. Kenya in Kenya.
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 136

Similarly, according to National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000),

Mathematics power is rooted in a strong conceptual understanding of Mathematics, and
this conceptual base is best developed through concrete experiences and language.
Several studies have also shown that the language problem is one of the factors
contributing towards the poor performance of many students in Mathematics in
multilingual contexts (Secada, 1992; Barton & Neville-Barton, 2003) since Mathematics
register is abstract and non-redundant (Langa, 2006). Further, another reason why the
language factor needs special attention is the fact that many learners are currently
learning Mathematics in their second or third language (Ellerton & Clarkson, 1996).
Moreover, research demonstrates that Mathematics alone is a language that is more
complex than everyday English (Cuevas, 1984).

Second, our motivation to study Science is based on several reasons too. According to
Wellington & Osborne (2001), one of the major difficulties experienced by learners of
Science is learning “the language of science” (p.1). Thus, paying attention to language is
primary in order to improve the quality of science education and every lesson should by
implication, be a language lesson (Wellington & Osborne, 2001, p.3). Similarly, in a study
on second language learning in Science, Rollnick (2000) notes:

It is acknowledged that expecting students to learn a new and difficult

subject through the medium of a second language is unreasonable, giving
them a double task of mastering both science content and language (p.
100).

As the above quotation attests to, the task of learning Science entails the acquisition of
two conceptually difficult and different skills at once - one is being related to language
and the other to Science content. As Howie (2003) claims the most significant factor in
learning Mathematics and Science is whether learners are fluent in English to understand
the esoteric terms used.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BASES

There has been a good deal of research on the role of language in mathematics classrooms
(O’Halloran, 2005; Pimm, 1987; Bartolini Bussi, 1998; Ellerton, Clarkson, & Clements,
2000) and the role of language in Science (for example, Wellington & Osborne, 2001;
Rollnick, 2000) and they all show that poorly developed language skills in the Language
of Learning and Teaching) affect performance. Lim (1998, as cited in Yushua, 2004), for
instance, studied the relationship between language and Mathematics among Korean–
American students and noted that bilingual students’ success in problem solving is
intertwined with their level of proficiency in English. The relationship between language
proficiency and Mathematics performance has also been documented by researchers
such as De Avila (1980), who found that the low achievement in mathematics of Latino
English-language learners (ELL) can be attributed to low levels of English proficiency.
Drawing on her analysis of South Africa’s poor performance in the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study of 1995, Howie (2003), on the other hand, argues that the
solution to improving South African second language learners’ performance in
Mathematics is to develop their English language proficiency. In an article titled: “Why
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 137

don't kids learn math and science successfully?” Howie is quoted as saying that the most
significant factor in learning Science and Mathematics is not whether the learners are rich
or poor; it is whether they are fluent in English. In the same article, Howie makes an
impassioned call on South Africa to choose only one language for teaching and learning
Mathematics in multilingual classrooms.

Langa (2006) presents an investigation on how learners’ home language can be used as a
support for learning Mathematics. This qualitative case study was conducted in
Phelindaba Primary School where learners use English as the language of learning and
teaching. Phelindaba Primary School worked in collaboration with the Home Language
Project to facilitate the learning of Mathematics using the learners’ home language as a
resource. Langa (2006) found that when learners use their home languages they interact
better with their peers, the teachers and their tasks. The study also found that learners
used home languages to achieve conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, adaptive
reasoning and strategic competence, which would in turn develop their productive
disposition (Langa, 2006). Similarly, Whale (2012) noted that using the learners’ home
language enhances communication and mathematical reasoning. Clarkson (1991)
conducted a study in Papua New Guinea and noted that the influence of the learners’
home language is cognitively important from primary school. He argues that the use of
the learners’ home languages could be used to good effect in the classroom to access the
mathematical ideas of local cultures in the local language, without the fear of
disadvantaging learners. However, Setati and Adler (2001) noted that while research on
the relationship between learners’ first language and learning has drawn much criticism
because of its cognitive orientation, it is supportive of the maintenance of learners’ home
languages in their mathematics learning.

This study is guided by Vygotsky’s theory of socio-cultural development3. According to

Williams and Burden (1997), the sociocultural theory posits that learning experiences
should be meaningful and relevant to the individual. Second, the theory opposes the idea
of the discrete teaching of skills and argues that meaning should constitute the central
aspect of any unit of study (www.ukessays.co.uk › Essays › English Language). Vygotsky
argues that the speech structures mastered by the child become the basic structures of
his thinking. Further, he argues that language and thinking can only develop if there is a
social interaction between the child and an adult (Williams & Burden, 1997). Therefore,
the social environment helps the child's cognitive development since the early word-
meanings thus acquired become the embryos of concept formation. The implication is
that using the child’s home language or the language that is acquired in the child’s
immediate environment, which forms part of culture, is required for concept formation
and thus learning in order to comprehend meaning. Thus, the surrounding culture

3
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of human learning describes learning as a social process and the origination of
human intelligence in society or culture. The major tenet of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework is that social
interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition.
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 138

provides a child with the processes or means of their thinking (Vygotsky, 1962). This is
probably what Vygotsky recognized as the assistance or scaffolding needed to bring
about new skills and concepts within a child’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
https://prezi.com/.../learning-approaches-theory-and-practice/4.

RESEARCH METHOD

Research Design

The research design for this study is eclectic in nature. First, it is an action research
employing a mixed method design of quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data
helped determine if there was a difference in test scores between pupils taught
Mathematics and Science in Gĩkũyũ and those taught the same subjects through English.
Creswell (2012) supports the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in
tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either one on its own. On
the other hand, the action research design was implemented because the research took
place in the classroom with the author of this paper as the researchers (Ferrance, 2000).
Second, the study also employed a case study research. A case study research is an
approach that supports deeper and more detailed investigation of the type that is
normally necessary to answer how and why questions (Yin, 1994, p. 9)5. Case studies
have often been viewed as a useful tool for the preliminary, exploratory stage of a
research project, as a basis for the development of the “more structured” tools that are
necessary in surveys and experiments (Rowley, 2002, p.16). According to Eisen-hardt
(1989), case studies are “particularly well suited to new research areas or research areas
for which existing theory seems inadequate (p. 548). A case study research was chosen
because the case involved the teaching of Mathematics and Science, but the case could
not be considered without the context, Kiambu County, Kenya, and more specifically, the
classroom settings. Thus, it was in these settings that the teaching of Mathematics and
Science took place. It would have been impossible for the author to have a true picture of
the learners without considering the context within which the teaching occurred. This is
why a case study research was deemed appropriate.

Study Locale, Population and Sample Size

Given the focus of the study, it was important to get an area in which the learners’ home
language is predominantly in teaching and learning in schools. Therefore, Kiambu
County, Kenya, was purposively sampled. This is because in purposive sampling,
researchers pick cases to be included in the sample. In this way, “they build up a sample

4
An important tenet of Vygotsky’s theory is the idea that the potential for cognitive development is limited to a
"zone of proximal development" (ZPD). This "zone" is the area of exploration for which the student is cognitively
prepared, but requires help and social interaction to fully develop (Moll, 1994). The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education focuses on the activities and interactions that are most beneficial to young children in
learning.
5 The case is defined by Miles and Huberman (1994) as, “a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded
context. The case is, “in effect, your unit of analysis” (p. 25).
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 139

that is satisfactory to their needs” (Cohen and Manion, 1994, p. 89). The researchers, who
are proficient in Gĩkũyũ and English, took part in the teaching of Mathematics and Science
in Grade 1classes.

Data Collection Procedures and Analysis

Pre-tests on Mathematics and Science were administered by the researchers on the first
day to the Grade 1 classes (cf. Appendix A and C). The Mathematics test contained twenty
questions and was designed from Grade one text book (Nderitu, Kihara & Ong’uti, 2011).
Similarly, the Science test contained twenty questions and was designed from Grade one
text book (Berluti, Njenga & Embeywa, 2003). The pre-tests were marked and scores
entered. On the second day, the researchers introduced the topic of additions and
subtraction to Grade 1 classes, the experimental class, using Gĩkũyũ for a period of 35
minutes. The researcher, for example, translated and explained the mathematical terms
“plus,” “subtract,” “remain,” “left” and “take away” in Gĩkũyũ. The researchers also taught
the topic “cleaning the body” to the experimental class, using Gĩkũyũ for a period of 35
minutes. Anatomical terms, for example, “fingernails”, “hands”, “toes”, “faces”, “eyes”,
“nose”, “gums”, “hair” and “teeth” and items that are normally used for cleaning the body
like “toothbrush and toothpaste”, “comb”, “soap”, “towel” and “handkerchief” were
explained to the pupils in Gĩkũyũ. For the control classes, the two areas of additions and
subtraction and the topic “cleaning the body” were taught for a period of 35 minutes using
English. Post-tests, the same tests administered as the pre-tests, were given to the pupils
on the third day. The researchers scored the post-tests and generated quantitative data
which were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Afterwards,
the scores recorded in both pre-tests and post-tests were analyzed quantitatively using
the Levene's Test for Equality of Variances. The results were then presented in tables
showing means and standard deviations and levels of statistical significance and the
emerging patterns discussed.

FINDINGS

The Table below presents the results of data analysis and the interpretation and the
discussion of the emerging patterns is based on these results.
Table 1.The mean and standard deviations of differences between the pretest and
posttest on the experimental and control groups
95% Confidence
Std. Std. Interval for Mean
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Experimental 29 4.17 3.095 .575 3.00 5.35 0 11
Maths
Control 15 -.20 .414 .107 -.43 .03 -1 0
diff
Total 44 2.68 3.269 .493 1.69 3.68 -1 11
Experimental 29 1.14 2.875 .534 .04 2.23 -5 8
Science
Control 15 .13 2.774 .716 -1.40 1.67 -5 4
diff
Total 44 .80 2.850 .430 -.07 1.66 -5 8
 Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 140

Table 1 above displays the means and standard deviations of the differences between the
pretest and posttest on the experimental and control groups. As indicated in the Table
above, the mean difference in the experimental group in both subjects is higher than that
in the control group. The mean score obtained in the post test examination is higher than
that in the pretest on the experimental group. On the other hand, the mean score of the
pretest and posttest for the control group in the two subjects is more or less the same.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the differences between the pretest and post test
scores is also performed to determine whether the treatment (use of mother language on
teaching) influences the performance of students in Mathematics and Science. The table
below shows the results as obtained when we apply this test using the SPSS.

Table 2. Differences between the pretest and post test scores

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 189.008 1 189.008 29.343 .000
Maths
Within Groups 270.538 42 6.441
diff
Total 459.545 43
Between Groups 9.977 1 9.977 1.235 .273
Science
Within Groups 339.182 42 8.076
diff
Total 349.159 43

Table 2 above and Table 3 below show that there is a statistically significant relationship
between the use of mother language and the performance of Mathematics subject, that is,
the Sig=.000. On the performance of Science; however, the value for Sig is .273 which is
above 0.05 hence we accept the null hypothesis that there is no influence on the use of
mother language on the performance of science. This is also evident from the correlation
table below.

Table 3. Correlation between difference in scores between the pretest and posttest and
the different groups (experimental and control)

Group Maths diff Science diff

Pearson Correlation 1 -.641** -.169
Group Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .273
N 44 44 44
Pearson Correlation -.641** 1 -.017
Maths diff Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .912
N 44 44 44
Pearson Correlation -.169 -.017 1
Science diff Sig. (2-tailed) .273 .912
N 44 44 44
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The general finding of the study indicates that the use of Gĩkũyũ (and subsequently home
languages) in the teaching of Mathematics and Science is effective and subsequently
influences performance (cf. Table 1). The statistics indicates that the learners who were
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 141

exposed to Gĩkũyũ did much better in the posttest than their colleagues who were taught
Mathematics and Science through English (cf. Table1). This finding suggests that Gĩkũyũ
may have successfully scaffolded and promoted mathematical and scientific proficiency.

First, the performance of Mathematics improved after the learners were taught using the
mother language (cf. Tables 1). This corroborates past studies which have proven that
the use of native language in a Mathematics classroom enriches students’ understanding
of mathematical concepts (Adler, 1998, 2001; Setati, 1998; 2002; Setati and Adler, 2001;
Setati and Barwell, 2006). Conversely, the performance of Mathematics is lower when
learners were taught using English than when Gĩkũyũ was used (cf. Table 1). This is in
line with Setati and Adler’s (2001) argument that in multilingual settings, teachers have
to teach English at the same time as they have to teach Mathematics since learners have
not acquired the minimal threshold level of proficiency in English (Cummins, 1986).
Similarly, Zevernbegen (2001) notes that where there is a great continuity between the
home and school, there is a greater chance of success in Mathematics since “classroom
interactions are imbued with cultural components that facilitate or inhibit access to the
mathematical content” (p.204).

In Science, the performance also improved after the learners were taught using the
mother language (cf. Tables 1). This improved performance is consonant with past
literature which shows that the use of mother language enhances sense making,
understanding of new ideas and conceptual discourses (Setati, 1998; Setati & Adler, 2001;
Setati, Molefe & Langa, 2008). Thus, having used Gĩkũyũ to teach Science may have
improved the comprehension of scientific terminologies and consequently the
performance of Science in the posttest. Home languages are, therefore, fundamental for
the learning of Science since understanding new ideas is a process that requires cultural
tools. According to Setati (2002), when English is the sole language used, pupils are
restricted in terms of classroom engagement and discussion probably contributing to low
performance. Similarly, Webb (2010) notes that “using a language that is not the learners’
home language coerces educators to use teacher-centered methods of instruction which
include chorus teaching, repetition, memorization, and recall (p.4). This could probably
have contributed to the lower performance in the Science subject when English is used to
teach Science than when Gĩkũyũ is used. Home languages, therefore, are imperative to
achieve higher levels of performance in both Mathematics and Science.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this paper indicate that the use of Gĩkũyũ could have implications to the
teaching of Mathematics and Science to Grade one learners in Kenyan primary schools.
The findings could, therefore, persuade educators on the need to tap on the richness of
home languages to create opportunities for learning (Raborn, 1995). Thus, Gĩkũyũ (and
perhaps other home languages) should be adopted as a legitimate language of
mathematical and scientific communication in areas where the language is spoken in
order to facilitate multilingual learners’ participation and success in Mathematics and
Science. According to Cummins and Swain (1986), for example, to achieve full first
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 142

language and cognitive development, the home language needs to be used as the medium
of instruction at least for the first few years of primary school at a minimum.

Second, this paper recommends the incorporation of mother languages in the curriculum
implementation given that learner’s opportunities to reach higher levels of
comprehension in Mathematics and Science require a variety of linguistic skills that
second-language learners may not have mastered. Such a curriculum would scaffold the
development of mathematical and scientific languages. This is possible since according to
Bamgbose (2000), the use of indigenous languages in primary education has been
successful in Nigeria. African languages have also successfully been used in education, for
example, in South Africa with her 11 official languages (Desai, 2003), Oromo in Ethiopia,
and Somali in Somalia (Griefenow-Mewis, 2002). Similarly, a revolutionary approach
where learners' home languages are used as media of instruction with other languages
being subjects is also recommended. This is in line with Prah’s (2003) argument that all
African learners, "from primary to tertiary level, should be educated in local languages,
home languages, mother languages" (p.23).

Further, we recommend a shift of attitude towards Gĩkũyũ (and other home languages)
by learners in the classroom. For example, although most parents want their children to
gain access to the socioeconomic benefits for their children that come with being
competent in English, we argue for a deliberate, proactive and strategic use of the
learners’ home languages as a transparent resource in the teaching and learning of
Mathematics and Science in multilingual environments. In addition, people should shun
stigmatizing Gĩkũyũ (and other home languages) since according to Setati (2002) and
Kobia (2007) when English is used as the sole language; the learners are restricted in
terms of classroom engagement and discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

The statistical analyses above have shown that there is a significant improvement in
performance in the classes that apply Gĩkũyũ in the teaching of Mathematics and Science.
The findings enhance the validity of the Vygotskian claim concerning the relationship
among language use, social interaction and reasoning development. In classes where
Gĩkũyũ is used, test scores improved significantly. Thus, the study concludes that the use
of home languages give learners an opportunity to participate in a range of discourses
that are essential for learning Mathematics and Science. We also conclude that not only is
language used by teachers to communicate information to learners, language is necessary
for the complete formulation of Mathematical and Scientific concepts and principles.
Thus, Gĩkũyũ (and perhaps other home languages) should be adopted as a legitimate
language of mathematical and scientific communication in Grade one classes in Kenyan
primary schools.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 143

REFERENCES

Adler, J. (1998). A language of teaching dilemmas: Unlocking the complex multilingual

secondary mathematics classroom. For the learning of mathematics, 18(1), 24-33.
Adler, J. (2001). Teaching Mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Anstrom, K. (1997). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students:
Standards, measures and promising practices. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Bamgbose, A. (2000). Language and exclusion: The consequences of language policies in
Africa. Hamburg: LIT.
Bartolini, B, M. (1998). Verbal interaction in the Mathematics classroom: A Vygotskian
analysis. In H. Steinbring, M. G. Bartolini & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and
communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 65-84). Reston: NCTM.
Barton, B., & Neville-Barton, P. (2003). Language issues in undergraduate Mathematics:
A report of two studies. New Zealand Journal of Mathematics, 32, 19-28.
Begi, N. (2014). Use of mother tongue as a language of instruction in early years of school
to preserve the Kenyan culture. Journal of Education and Practice,5(3).
Berluti, A., Njenga, J & Embeywa, H. (2003). Science in action: Pupil’s book 1. Nairobi:
Oxford University Press.
Clarkson P.C. (1991). Mathematics in a multilingual society. In K. Durkin & B. Shire (Eds.),
Language in mathematical education: Research and practice (pp. 235-246).
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cohen L. & Manion L. (1994). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five
traditions (3rd Ed.). California: Thousand Oaks.
Cuevas, G. J. (1984). Mathematics learning in English as a second language. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 15 (2), 134-144.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18–36.
Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1996). Bilingualism in education. London: Longman.
De Avila E. (1980). Relative language proficiency types: A comparison of prevalence,
achievement level, and socioeconomic status. Report submitted to the RAND
Corporation.
Desai, Z. (2003). A case for mother tongue education?. In B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai & M.
Qorro (Eds.), Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA) (pp.
45-68). Dar es Salaam: E & D Limited.
Durkin, K. (1991). Language in mathematical education: An introduction. In K. Durkin &
B. Shire (Eds.), Language in mathematical education: Research and practice (pp. 1-
3). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Eisen-hardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ellerton, N. F., & Clarkson, P. C. (1996). Language factors in Mathematics teaching. In A.J.
Bishop et al. International handbook of mathematics education (pp.3-29). Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Ellerton, N., Clarkson, P., & Clements, M. A. (2000). Language factors in mathematics
education. In K. Owens & J. Mousley (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in
Australasia 1996–1999 (pp. 22-36). Sydney: MERGA.
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 144

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence: Brown University.

Gacheche, K. (2010). Challenges in implementing a mother tongue-based language-in-
education policy: Policy and practice in Kenya. POLIS Journal, 4.
Government of Kenya (1999). Totally integrated quality education and training. Report
of the commission of inquiry into the education system of Kenya. Nairobi. Kenya.
Griefenow-Mewis, C. (2002). Experiences in the use of Kiswahili, Somali and Oromo as
media of instruction. In F.O. Rew (Ed.), Speaking African: African languages for
education and development (pp. 189-194). Cape Town: CASAS.
https://prezi.com/.../learning-approaches-theory-and-practice/
Howie, S. (2002). English language proficiency and contextual factors influencing
mathematical achievement of secondary school pupils in South Africa (Unpublished
doctoral thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Howie, S. J. (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, 1-20.
Kioko, A. (2015). Why schools should teach young learners in mother language. Voices.
Nairobi: British Council.
Kobia, J.M. (2007). The challenge of mother tongue education in Kenya. A Journal of
Contemporary Research, 4,101-119.
Koech, D. (1999). Report on the commission of inquiry into the education system of Kenya.
Nairobi: Government Printer.
Langa, M. (2006). An investigation of leaners’ home language as a support for learning
Mathematics (Unpublished Master of Mathematics Education). University of
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Magesha, N. (2014). Forget mother tongue. Editorial. Nairobi: Daily Nation.
Mestre, J. P. (1988). The role of language comprehension in Mathematics and problem
solving. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on
learning Mathematics (pp. 201–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source
book (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moll, L. C. (1994). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Standards and principles in
school Mathematics: An overview. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Nderitu, S., Kihara, J & Ong’uti, S. (2011). Mathematics: Pupil’s book 1. Nairobi: Longhorn
Publishers.
O’Halloran, K.L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images.
London: Continuum.
Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms.
London: Routledge.
Prah, K.K. (2003). Silenced voices: Studies on minority languages of Southern Africa. Cape
Town: CASAS.
Raborn, D. T. (1995). Mathematics for students with learning disabilities from language
minority backgrounds: Recommendations for teaching. New York State Association
for Bilingual Education Journal, 10, 25-33.
Rollnick M. (2000). Current issues and perspectives on second language learning of science.
Studies in Science Education, 35, 93-121.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 145

Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25 (1), 16-
27.
Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in
mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 623–660). New York: McMillan.
Setati, M. (1998). Code-switching in senior primary class of second language learners. For
Learning of Mathematics, 18(2), 114–160.
Setati, M. (2002). Researching mathematics education and language in multilingual South
Africa. The Mathematics Educator, 12(2), 6-20.
Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2001). Between languages and discourses: Code-switching practices
in primary mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 43, 243-269.
Setati, M., & Barwell, R. (2006). Discursive practices in two multilingual mathematics
classrooms: An international comparison. African Journal for Research in
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10 (2), 27-38.
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, 14-25.
The Republic of Kenya (2012). Sessional Paper No. 14 of 2012 on reforming education and
training sectors in Kenya. Nairobi: Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher
Education, Science & Technology.
Thurston W.P. (1995). On proof and progress in Mathematics. For the learning of
Mathematics, 15, 29-37.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Webb, L. (2010). Searching for common ground: Developing Mathematical reasoning
through dialogue (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Port Elizabeth, Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University, South Africa.
Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Whale, S. G. (2012). Using language as a resource: Strategies to teach Mathematics in
multilingual classes (Unpublished master’s thesis). Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University, South Africa.
Williams, M., & R. L. Burden. (1997). Psychology for language teacher: A social
constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
www.ukessays.co.uk › Essays › English Language
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yushau, B. (2004). The role of language in the teaching and learning of Mathematics
(Unpublished master’s thesis). King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,
Saudi Arabia.
Zevernbergen, R. (2001). Mathematics, social class, and linguistic capital: An analysis of
mathematics classroom interactions. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz & B. Nebres (Eds.),
Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp.
201-216). London: Ablex Publishing.
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 146

Appendix A: Mathematics Test

1) There were two birds on a tree. Three more birds came. How many birds are there
altogether?
2) Mutuku drank 4 bottles of soda and James drank 5. How many bottles of soda did
they drink altogether?
3) Luyombo had 4 bags of maize. He bought 4 more bags. How many bags did he have
altogether?
4) Jeska’s cow gave her 5 tins of milk in the morning and 4 in the evening. How many
tins did Jeska get that day?
5) Eunice brought 4 cans of water in the morning. She brought 2 cans in the evening.
How many cans of water did she bring altogether?
6) The shopkeeper sold 2 packets of tea on Monday. He sold 5 on Tuesday. How many
packets did he sell in the two days?
7) Atieno bought a pen at 10 shillings. She also bought a book at 5 shillings. How
much money did she pay for the two items?
8) Rahab bought a sweet at 7 shillings and a cake at 4 shillings. How much did she
pay?
9) Maria had 12 eggs. John gave her 3 more eggs. How many did she get in total?
10)Twenty plus thirteen is equal to?
11)Eight oranges take away five oranges is…………………oranges.
12)Simbwa had 6 goats. He sold 2. How many goats does he have now?
13)Nangoli had 3 bananas. She ate 3. How many bananas were left?
14)Juma had 7 books. He gave Ali 4 books. How many books are left?
15)There were 39 pupils in a class. 3 pupils came late. How many were not late?
16)There are 3 sweets. Remove 2. How many remain?
17)There are 6 glasses. How many are left when 3 are subtracted?
18)There were 5 pencils on the table. John took 1. How many were left?
19)Kamau made 6 carvings. He sold 3. How many were left?
20)In Nafula’s class, there are 13 pupils in the choir. 6 stand at the front. How many
stand at the back?
Appendix B: Mathematics Test in Gĩkũyũ

1. Nĩkwarĩ na nyoni igĩrĩĩ mũtĩ igũrũ. Ingĩ ithatu igĩũka. Nĩ nyoni cigana ciothe
hamwe?
2. Mutuku anyuire cuba inya cia soda na James ithano. Manyuire cuba cigana cia
soda?
3. Luyombo arĩ na mĩhuko ĩna ya mbembe. Akĩgũra mĩhuko ĩngĩ ĩna. Arĩ na mĩhuko
iigana yothe?
4. Ngombe cia Jeska imũheiire ndoo ithano cia iriia rũcini na inya hwainĩ. Oniire ndoo
cigana mũthenya ũcio?
5. Eunice agũrire mĩtungi ĩna ya maĩi rũcini. Acoka agũra ĩĩrĩ hwainĩ. Agũrire ĩigana
yothe?
6. Mwendia nduka endirie mbagiti igĩĩrĩ cia macani mwambĩirĩrio. Akĩendia ithano
wakerĩ. Endirie mbagiti cigana ciothe?
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 147

7. Atieno agũrire karamu siringi ikũmi. Agĩcoka akĩgũra ibuku siringi ithano.
Ararĩhire mbeca cigana ciothe?
8. Rahabu agũrire thwiti siringi mũgwanja na keki siringi inya. Arĩhire mbeca cigana?
9. Maria arĩ na matũmbi ikumi na merĩ. John akĩmũhe matumbĩ mangĩ matatũ. Ena
maigana mothe?
10. Kĩbau kũongerera ikũmi na ithatũ nĩ cigana?
11. Macungwa manana kũruta macungwa matano nĩ macungwa maigana?
12. Simbwa arĩ na thenge ithatũ. Akĩendia igĩrĩ. Ena thenge cigana rĩu?
13. Nangoli arĩ na marigũ matatũ. Akĩrĩa matatũ. Matigarire maigana?
14. Juma arĩ na mabuku mũgwanja. Akĩhe Ali mana. Matigarire maigana?
15. Kwarĩ na arutwo mĩrongo ĩtatũ na kenda kĩrathi kĩmwe. Arutwo atatũ magĩũka
macereirwo. Nĩ aigana matacereirwo?
16. Hena thuiti ithatũ. Ruta igĩrĩ. Ĩgũtigara cigana?
17. Hena ngirathi ithathatũ. Hegũtigara cigana ithatũ ciarutwo?
18. Harĩ na tũramu tũtatu metha igũrũ. John akĩoya kamwe. Twatigarire tũigana?
19. Kamau athondekire mĩhiano ĩtandatũ. Akĩendia itatũ. Yatigarire igana?
20. Kĩrathi kĩa Nafula kĩna arutwo ikũmi na atatũ kwayaini. Atandatũ marũgamaga
mbere. Nĩaigana marũgamaga thutha?
Appendix C: Marking Scheme for Mathematics Test in both English and Gĩkũyũ

1) 5 Ithano
2) 9 Kenda
3) 8 Ĩnana
4) 9 Kenda
5) 6 Ĩtandatũ
6) 7 Mũgwanja
7) 15 Ikũmi na ithano
8) 11 Ikũmi na ĩmwe
9) 15 Ikũmi na matano
10)33 Mĩrongo ĩtatũ na ithatũ
11)3 Ithatũ
12)1 Ĩmwe
13)None Noti
14)3 Matatũ
15)36 Mĩrongo ĩtatũ na atandatũ
16)1 Ĩmwe
17)0 Noti
18)2 Twĩrĩ
19)3 Ithatũ
20)7 Mũgwanja
Appendix D: Test on Science

1) We wash our hands with water and ------------(soap, flour)

2) We must wash our hands our hands after visiting……………….(friends, the toilet)
3) Dirty hands will make us…………………….(sick, fat)
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 148

4) We should keep our fingernails……………………(short, long)

5) Washing hands makes us………………………(clean, good)
6) Toes must be cleaned to avoid………………..(smell, pain)
7) When we wake up, we………………our faces. (wash, paint)
8) We use a………………to wipe our faces (towel, blanket)
9) When washing the face with soap, our eyes should be ………(open, closed)
10)We use a handkerchief to…………………our noses (clean, block)
11)Handkerchiefs should not be………………(shared, burnt)
12)We comb our hair using………………….(fingers, a comb)
13)……………..hair is easy to keep clean. (short, long)
14)……………hair is difficult to keep clean. (short, long)
15)Tidy hair looks……………..(bad, good)
16)We wash our bodies………………..(every day, once a week)
17)We clean our bodies to………………..diseases. (bring, avoid)
18)We clean our teeth using……………………(toothbrush and toothpaste, soil and
water)
19)Clean teeth do not………………………….(shine, smell)
20)Bleeding gums are……………………….(brown, sick)

Appendix E: Test on Science in Gĩkũyũ

1) We wash our hands with water and…………………………….(soap, flour)

Twĩthambaga moko na maĩ na…………………………………(thabuni, mũtu)

2) We must wash our hands after visiting…………………………(friends, the toilet)

Twagĩrĩirwo nĩ gwĩthamba moko thutha wagũcerera……………(arata, kĩoro)

3) Dirty hands will make us………………………………………..(sick, fat)

Moko mena gĩko no matũtue …………………………………..(arwaru, anoru)

4) We should keep our fingernails…………………………………(short, long)

Twagĩrĩirwo nĩ kũiga ndwara ciitũ ciĩ…………………………………(nguhĩ, ndaihu)

5) Washing hands makes us………………………………………..(clean, good)

Gwĩthamba moko gũtũtuaga…………………………………….(atheru, eega)

6) Toes must be cleaned to avoid………………………………….(smell, pain)

Ndwara ciagĩrĩirwo gũthambio nĩguo kũgirĩrĩia…………………(mũnungo, ruo)

7) When we wake up, we………………our faces. (wash, paint)

Tũokĩra, tu………………mothiũ maitũ. (thambia, kũhaka rangi)

8) We use a………………to wipe our faces. (towel, blanket)

Tũhũthagĩra………….kũhura mothiũ maitũ. (taurũ, mũrĩngĩti).
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(8) 149

9) When washing the face with soap, our eyes should be ……… (open, closed)
Tũgĩthambia ũthiũ na thabuni , maitho maitũ magĩrĩirwo. (kũhingũrwo, kũhingwo).

10)We use a handkerchief to…………………our noses. (clean, block)

Tũhũthagĩra ngacibũ gũ…………………….maniũrũ maitũ. (gũthambia, kũhinga)

11)Handkerchiefs should not be………………………………………(shared, burnt)

Ngacibũ citiagĩrĩirwo………………………………………………(kũgayanwo, gũcinwo)

12)We comb our hair using…………………. (fingers, a comb)

Tũcanũraga njũĩrĩ ciitũ na………………………………………….(ciara, gĩcanũri)

13)……………………..hair is easy to keep clean. (short, long)

Njuĩrĩ…………….nĩ raithi kũiga ĩĩ theru (nguhĩ, ndaihu)

14)……………hair is difficult to keep clean. (short, long)

Njuĩrĩ ……nĩ nditu kũiga ĩĩ theru (nguhĩ, ndaihu)

15)Tidy hair looks……………………………………………………(bad, good)

Njuĩrĩ theru ikoragwo ĩĩ…………………………………………...(njũru, njega)

16)We wash our bodies……………………………. ………………...(every day, once a week)

Twĩthambaga mĩĩrĩ iitũ……………………………………………..(omũthenya, rĩmwe wiki)

17)We clean our bodies to………………..diseases. (bring, avoid)

Twĩthambaga mĩĩrĩ iitũ……………….mĩrĩmũ. (kũrehe, kũgirĩrĩria)

18)We clean our teeth using………………………………(toothbrush and toothpaste, soil

and water)
Twĩthambaga magego na……………………….. …. (mũkinyĩ na ndawa ya magego, tĩĩri na maĩ)

19)Clean teeth do not………………………………………………….(shine, smell)

Magego matheru mati……………………………………………..(henagia, nungaga)

20)Bleeding gums are…………………………………………………(brown, sick)

Kĩini kĩroira nĩ ……………………………………………………..(gĩtĩrĩ, kĩrwaru)

Appendix F: Marking Scheme for Science Test in both English and Gĩkũyũ

1) Soap Thabuni
2) The toilet Kĩoro
3) Sick Arwaru
4) Short Nguhĩ
5) Clean Atheru
Efficacy of Using Mother Language in the teaching of Mathematics and Science in … 150

6) Smell Mũnungo
7) Wash Thambia,
8) Towel Taurũ
9) Closed Kũhingwo
10)Clean Gũthambia
11)Shared Kũgayanwo
12)A comb Gĩcanũri
13) Short Nguhĩ
14)Long Ndaihu
15)Good Njega
16)Every day Omũthenya
17)Avoid Kũgirĩrĩria
18)Toothbrush and toothpaste Mũkinyĩ na ndawa ya magego
19)Smell Nungaga
20)Sick Kĩrwaru