









































McGhie, V. & Dos Reis, K.. Global Journal of  
Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4   
pp 43-55  DOI  10.14434/gjte.v4i1.35408

Open Access

Published by the Global Insitutute of Transformative Education (http://www.gite.education)
© McGhie & Dos Reis 2024. Open Access This journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 
NonCommercial NonDerivative 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which 
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction without revision in any non-commercial medium, provided you 
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,

Translations as a Transformative Form of Language Support 
to English Additional Language Speaking Students at a 
South African University

Venicia McGhie1 and Karen Dos Reis2

Abstract
This paper reports on an innovative translation intervention strategy piloted in the first semester of 2017 

in the business faculty at a historically black university in South Africa. The pilot study covered the imple-
mentation and monitoring of translating instructions, questions and explanations into two of the students’ 
first languages in the formative assessments in the first-year Management 131 subject. The pilot project was 
situated within a qualitative, interpretive research paradigm. The research design used for the pilot project 
was a case study design. A total of 259 first-year students (both English home language and additional lan-
guage-speaking students) completed a survey. The findings show that the translations in their home languages 
assisted the students in comprehending the instructions and course content. In so doing, it levelled the playing 
field and enabled them to perform optimally, resulting in an increased pass rate in the subject. Additionally, the 
English-speaking students felt the intervention was a much-needed innovation. Also, other additional lan-
guage-speaking students requested translations to be done in their home languages as well. The findings pro-
vide evidence that students who are English additional language speakers need innovative and transformative 
language interventions to succeed in their respective degree programmes at post-secondary institutions. The 
implication is that other colleges and universities should consider doing the same for their students to increase 
the retention and success rates of undergraduate students in higher education.

Keywords: First-year students; English additional language; Translations; Language support, 
         Intervention strategy; Academic success.

Full listing of authors and contacts can be 
found at the end of this article.

Introduction
The South African constitution recognises eleven 

official languages for its multi-racial and multi-cultural 
population (Department of Basic Education, 2013; Re-
public of South Africa, 1996). IsiZulu (one of the eleven 
languages) is the most spoken language, with 11.58 
million speakers (23%), followed by IsiXhosa, 8.15 
million (16%), and Afrikaans, 6.85 million (13.5%). En-
glish is spoken by 4.89 million people (10%), followed 
by Sepedi with 4.62 million (9.1%), and Setswana with 
4.07 million (8%) (Census, 2011; South Africa Informa-
tion, 2018). However, based on South Africa’s colonial 
past, English, as the fourth most spoken language in 
South Africa, is perceived as a ‘global language’, and 
hence, it is the preferred mode of communication and 
interaction in academia, trace, the economy and tech-

nology (Brenzinger, 2017; Hurst & Mona, 2017; Xue & 
Zuo, 2013; Xuyen & Trang, 2021). Consequently, English 
is used as the medium of instruction in primary schools 
(from Grade 4 onwards) and most high schools and 
post-secondary institutions in South Africa (Council on 
Higher Education, 2014; Department of Basic Educa-
tion, 2013).

The preference for English as the medium of in-
struction in schools and tertiary institutions in South 
Africa is problematic on at least three accounts. Firstly, 
it goes against the language policy and developmen-
tal plan for South Africa because it does not promote 
mother-tongue education. Globally, much research has 
been done on the issue of having to learn and construct 
new knowledge in one’s home language versus in an 
additional language (Bada, 2017; Brock-Utne, Desai & 
Qorro, 2006; Gentry, 2022; Mgqwashu, 2011; Xuyen & 
Trang, 2021). The research findings show that

43



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 44

learners who learn and construct new knowledge in 
their home language achieve a greater degree of aca-
demic success than learners who are English additional 
language speakers (Bada, 2017; Hoxha & Sumner, 2021; 
Hurst & Mona, 2017; Mgqwashu, 2011).

Secondly, the multilingual language policy is hin-
dered by public funding constraints and a lack of 
educational resources (such as a lack of libraries and 
technological equipment in some schools) (Brenzinger, 
2017; Heugh, 2013). Hence, not adhering to and imple-
menting the approved language policy makes it contra-
dictory as the intention is “praiseworthy,” but action is 
lacking. More recently, the education policy debate has 
gradually shifted from access to schooling to improving 
the quality of learning and teaching at post-secondary 
institutions because more students are failing nation-
ally than succeeding in their respective degree pro-
grammes (Council on Higher Education, 2014; 2016; 
Masino & Nino-Zarazua, 2015; Pather, 2018).

Thirdly, it is also about social justice imperatives 
because the emphasis on English, which is the colonial 
language, is to the detriment of developing the indige-
nous languages in South Africa (Hurst & Mona, 2017; 
Masino & Nino-Zarazua, 2015; Mgqwashu, 2011). From 
a social justice perspective, the authors advocate for the 
liberation and empowerment of the poor and margin-
alised groups in society and for the provision of quality 
education that could lead to economic emancipation 
and development for all (Council on Higher Education, 
2014; 2016; Leibowitz, 2009; Masino & Nino-Zarazua, 
2015).

It was for the above reasons, among others, that 
the post-apartheid government in 1995 embarked on a 
transformation process to eradicate the inequalities of 
the past through the acknowledgement of eleven offi-
cial languages (Ministry of Education, 2001). However, 
while the intention was good in theory, the status quo 
remains three decades after democracy. The 2015 and 
2016 student protests highlighted the need for decol-
onisation, and the #RhodesMustFall movement spe-
cifically foregrounded the language issue and the fact 
that the colonial language still dominates the medium 
of instruction at most higher education institutions in 
South Africa.

The authors argue that transformative learning 
theory principles should be applied in post-secondary 
education in South Africa. Transformative learning is 
based on the premise that human beings interpret their 
experiences uniquely and that how they see the world 
results from their perceptions and experiences (Cran-

ton & Taylor, 2012). It is a process of examining, ques-
tioning, and revising those perceptions, so critical 
thought and self-reflection are part of it. The goal 
should be to teach students to become self-aware and 
critical, to question norms and perceptions and, in the 
process, to be transformed (Cranton & Taylor, 2012).

Based on the above context, this paper reports 
on a pilot project conducted during the first semester 
of 2017 in the business faculty at a historically Black 
university in South Africa. The pilot project covered the 
implementation and monitoring of translations as an 
innovative intervention strategy that aimed to provide 
language support to new first-year students who were 
additional language speakers of English in the facul-
ty. Hence, the paper attempts to fill the gap of English 
additional language speaking students’ challenge 
to construct meaning in a language that is not their 
mother tongue (Landsberg, 2005; Mgqwashu, 2011). 
While much research has been done on the challenges 
that these learners face in the learning process, not 
many studies focus on providing intervention strate-
gies to assist them (Bada, 2017; Heugh, 2013; Hurst & 
Mona, 2017; Pather, 2018). The authors contend that 
these students need language support to succeed at 
post-secondary institutions in their respective degree 
programmes. The innovative translation support in-
tervention strategy discussed in this paper is one such 
attempt.

Context of the Pilot Project
The university where the pilot project was conduct-

ed is one of four institutions of higher learning in one 
province in South Africa. The apartheid government 
established the university to provide for the higher 
education needs of the Coloured population in South 
Africa. The university’s language of learning and teach-
ing was Afrikaans, one of the eleven official languages. 
However, because this university was directly involved 
in the struggle against apartheid, it became known as 
the “University of the Left” (Walker & Badsha, 1993) 
and opened its doors to African and Asian students as 
well (Letseka & Maile, 2008; Volbrecht, 2002). Most of 
these students came from working class communities 
and under-resourced public schooling (McGhie, 2012; 
Mgqwashu, 2011; Venter, 2020). To accommodate the 
African students who had different home languages, the 
university changed its language policy to a bilingual one 
with Afrikaans and English as the languages of learning 
and teaching (Academic Development Centre, 1998).

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 45

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4

As a result of a steady increase in the number of Af-
rican students over the years, there was a gradual move 
to English as the only language of learning and teaching 
at the university, but it was not without disparities and 
concerns among the university staff and management 
(Academic Development Centre, 1998; Volbrecht, 
2002). In order to resolve the issue, the university man-
agement accepted a multilingual approach at its Council 
meeting held in June 1992 that reads: “Regarding the 
lingua franca to be used particularly by students, it was 
generally agreed that students be encouraged to write 
in the language they feel comfortable with” (Volbrecht, 
2002, p. 217). Despite this decision, the university 
moved overwhelmingly to English as the only language 
of learning and teaching by the end of 1992.  According 
to Dyers (1996), the reasons for the shift to English 
were:
• Most lecturers perceived English as the most viable 

academic lingua franca at that point in history;
• The majority of the lecturers were English-speak-

ing or bilingual (English and Afrikaans), and only 
a small minority of the lecturers were IsiXho-
sa-speaking;

• Most students at the time were IsiXhosa-speaking 
(44%), and surveys conducted among students 
suggested that most IsiXhosa-speaking students 
preferred receiving instruction in English rather 
than in IsiXhosa.

English as the official language of instruction and 
communication meant that only English was used 
in lectures and tutorials, tasks, assignments, tests 
and examinations, and written material and learning 
resources used by staff. Ironically, the language of the 
colonisers and the oppressors who instigated discrim-
ination and injustice became the language of teaching 
and language at this university and still is to this day.

This situation poses language learning challenges 
for the students (Hurst, E. & Mona, 2017; Landsberg, 
2005; McGhie, Moodley & Naidoo, 2015). Since 1993, 
students who are additional language speakers of En-
glish have to learn and construct meaning in English at 
an advanced level. It is no wonder, then, that the overall 
throughput rate of the university’s students is below 
the national South African benchmark mark of 29% 
(Council on Higher Education, 2016; 2017). It is against 
this backdrop that the authors advocate that transfor-
mative learning should take place where the status quo 
is challenged and students be empowered through the 
use of language support interventions in their home

languages. Such interventions can provide students 
with extra assistance to understand better the content 
of their different subjects and the instructions, ques-
tions and explanations they receive for tasks, assign-
ments and tests. In this way, they will know what is 
required to complete these assessments correctly and, 
as a consequence, strengthen their chances of passing 
their assessments and their subjects well. Moreover, 
first-year students need more academic support than 
senior students, as they also have to deal with transi-
tional and adjustment challenges (Council on Higher 
Education, 2017; Letseka, Cosser, Breier & Visser, 2010; 
Pather, 2018).

Aim and Objectives
The aim of the pilot project was two-fold. First, 

the authors wanted to provide translations as a trans-
formative intervention strategy in the students’ home 
languages to aid new first-year students’ understand-
ing of instructions, questions and explanations in their 
assignments so that they would know what and how 
to do their assignments correctly. Secondly, by imple-
menting the intervention strategy, the authors wanted 
to strengthen first-year students’ chances of succeeding 
academically. The objectives were to:
• legitimise the other two official languages used in 

the province (Afrikaans and IsiXhosa) in order to 
strengthen students’ understanding and academic 
integration; and 

• increase students’ academic performance and suc-
cess in their different subjects.

To achieve the aim and objectives, the main re-
search question was: 

Can the provision of translations as a transfor-
mative intervention strategy enhance students’ 
academic success?

Literature Review
The student movements, #FeesmustFall and 

#RhodesmustFall in 2015 and 2016, were outcries from 
the students to South African universities’ management 
and the Department of Higher Education to adhere to 
the Bill of Rights in the South African constitution and 
the language policy (Republic of South Africa, 1996). 
Tinto (2009, p. 2) explains, “To be serious about student 
retention, universities would recognize that the roots of 
student attrition lie not only in their students and the 
situations they face, but also in the very character of the 
educational settings in which they ask students to



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 46

learn, namely the classrooms, laboratories, and studios 
of the campus.”

This quote implies that university management and 
staff should be mindful of the learning contexts they 
create for their students and the institutional culture 
and practices that could alienate them. It means that 
university management should place the students first 
and provide the necessary resources and support to 
assist students’ social and academic integration into 
the university environment (Tinto, 2006, 2009). The 
authors agree with Tinto that student success does 
not happen by chance (Tinto, 2009). According to him, 
student success results from an intentional, structured 
and proactive set of coherent, systematic, and careful-
ly aligned strategies, with the first year of university 
studies as the most critical period to make it happen 
(Tinto, 2009). As a consequence of this commitment, 
providing translation as a transformative language 
intervention strategy to English additional language 
speaking students is one form of language support that 
could increase students’ pass rates.

Cummins (2007, 2008) explains that a minimum 
of five to seven years is needed for English additional 
language learners to catch up academically, that is, to 
acquire the language proficiency needed in English to 
succeed at the tertiary level. Cummins (2007, 2008) 
distinguishes (based on research that was conducted 
into the role of language proficiency and bilingualism in 
academic achievements) between conversation pro-
ficiency (what he used to term BICS – basic interper-
sonal communicative skills) and academic proficiency 
(formerly termed CALP – cognitive academic language 
proficiency).  

Cummins (2008) further explains that language 
proficiency in a social situation (BICS) is characterised 
by interpersonal interaction and requires only basic 
interpersonal language proficiency from the com-
municator. Meaning is negotiated by the participants 
in the conversation and conveyed through language. 
The context within which the communication takes 
place supports conveying meaning. Interpretations 
are embedded in the situation and often associated 
with non-verbal clues. He explains that CALP is usually 
language in its primary and written form, and it is not, 
for example, possible to obtain additional information 
from non-verbal clues (Cummins, 2008). He argues that 
more advanced language skills than those required for 
an informal, personal conversation are needed to read 
or write a scientific report or academic assignment 
(Cummins, 2008).

As such, the shortcomings in additional language 
speaking students’ language skills would inhibit their 
achievements in academic tasks much more than it 
would in the case of interpersonal communication 
(Cummins, 2007, 2008). For this author, academic 
language proficiency refers to an absolute concept of 
expertise in understanding and using the specific lan-
guage employed in an educational context and required 
to complete academic tasks (Cummins, 2008). Conse-
quently, he argues that academic language proficiency 
means that one has ‘the language knowledge together 
with the associated knowledge of the world and meta-
cognitive strategies necessary to function effectively in 
the language of communication and instruction at the 
university level (Cummins, 2008).  

An inference can be made from Cummins’ explana-
tion of what ‘knowing a language means’ - that English 
additional language speakers have a demanding and 
daunting task ahead of them when they embark on the 
learning journey at the post-secondary level. Most of 
these students have difficulty achieving good grades in 
their subjects, not because they are ‘dumb’ or ‘weak’ 
or ‘lazy’ (labelling terms often ascribed to these stu-
dents by some academics), but simply because English 
is not their home language (Gentry, 2022; Hoxha & 
Sumner, 2021; Masino & Nino-Zarazua, 2015). Hence, 
the English language proficiency of additional language 
speaking students is not developed sufficiently to 
enable them to perform well in their different subjects, 
which is why they need transformative and innovative 
language intervention support.

Methods
The pilot project was situated within a qualitative, 

interpretive research paradigm (Creswell & Creswell, 
2018; Yin, 2014). There were two reasons for this 
choice. The first was based on the fact that the authors 
wanted to assist English additional language-speak-
ing students in their daily lived experiences of having 
to study and construct meaning in English, which is 
referred to as their ‘natural setting’ (Babbie & Mou-
ton, 2010; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Yin, 2014). The 
second reason was that qualitative research acknowl-
edges that reality is socially constructed, as people’s 
experiences happen within personal, cultural, historical 
and social contexts (Babbie & Mouton, 2010; Hennink, 
Hutter & Bailey, 2011). The students’ meaning-making 
process happened within a colonised set-up where they 
had to acquire and construct advanced knowledge in 
English. This meant that their own personal,cultural,

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 47

historical and social contexts had to be replaced with 
a ‘foreign one’ as they had to learn the English lan-
guage and the associated knowledge and metacognitive 
strategies necessary to function effectively, as Cummins 
(2008) explains. These principles are also in line with 
transformative learning theories – that meaning is 
negotiated and should be questioned and critically an-
alysed to effect change and allow students to use their 
agency (Cranton & Taylor, 2012).

The research design used for the pilot project was a 
case study design (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2014). A case study 
design assisted in understanding and gaining insights 
into first-year, English additional language speaking 
students’ language needs, and in decolonising the usage 
of English as the medium of instruction at the univer-
sity (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2014). The authors’ approach to 
decolonising the usage of English through the provi-
sion of translations was based on Le Grange’s (2016) 
notion that decolonisation is the phenomenon that 
encompasses providing language support to first-year 
students. Thus, the authors propose that the provision 
of translations as a language support intervention strat-
egy for English additional language speaking students 
can be used as an initial step towards the decolonisa-
tion of the use of English in higher education institu-
tions in South Africa and globally.

The pilot project was rolled out in all the first-year 
subjects in the university’s business faculty at the 
beginning of the first semester in 2017. The lecturers 
teaching first-year subjects were invited to send their 
instructions, questions and explanations of their differ-
ent tutorial assignments (which form part of the forma-
tive assessments during the course of the semester) to 
the teaching and learning specialist who coordinated 
and facilitated the translation thereof into Afrikaans 
and IsiXhosa (the two dominant languages spoken in 
the Western Cape Province where the university is 
situated). Notices were placed on the university’s on-
line student learning platform inviting the students to 
download the translated assignments. Announcements 
about this service available to the students were also 
made in the different lectures during the semester.  

The teaching and learning specialist sent the tuto-
rial assignments to a team of translators recommended 
by the subject lecturers and selected based on a profi-
ciency test. Regular meetings with the translators and 
the different lecturers were held to ensure that the 
translations were on par with the English versions. In 
addition, there was ongoing email communication be-
tween the teaching and learning specialist and the

lecturers to monitor and quality assure the process. 
Lecturers from six different departments in the faculty 
participated in the process. At the end of the semester, 
a report was drawn from the students’ learning man-
agement system that indicated how many students 
downloaded the translations in the six departments. 
The report reflected that the most downloads (782) oc-
curred in the Management (Man 131) first-year subject. 
Based on the fact that the most downloads occurred in 
this subject, the authors decided to use the information 
of all the first-year students who were registered for 
Man 131 as data for this paper. The results are divided 
into five data sets.

Data Set 1 consists of a breakdown of how many 
IsiXhosa-speaking students and how many Afri-
kaans-speaking students downloaded the instructions 
in the Man 131 subject. Data Set 2 presents a break-
down of the students’ home languages, and Data Set 3 
gives an account of the two tutorial assignments, which 
were translated into IsiXhosa and Afrikaans.

Finally, two surveys were conducted towards the 
end of the first semester to establish the students’ 
and academics’ views and experiences of the language 
support intervention strategy. In keeping with ethi-
cal principles, the staff and students were invited to 
participate voluntarily in the survey. The surveys were 
sent to all the academics and first-year students in the 
faculty. For this paper, only the students’ responses are 
analysed and discussed. The responses of the staff will 
be discussed in another paper. A total of 259 first-year 
students (both English home language and additional 
language speaking students) completed the survey. 
The students had to indicate if they were English home 
language or additional language speaking students. 
However, only 100 of the students answered all the 
questions and provided explanations for their answers. 
Thus, only the 100 responses (23 English home lan-
guage and 77 additional language speaking students) 
were analysed and reported on in this paper. 

Four questions were asked in the student survey. 
These ask whether or not students:
1. Were aware of the language support programme; 
2. Downloaded the translated instructions, questions 

and explanations of the tutorial assignments from 
the university’s student learning management sys-
tem;

3. Thought that the translated instructions, questions 
and explanations in the tutorial assignments im-
proved their understanding of the content of their 
subjects (they had first to tick a box, (Yes or No),

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 48

 and then explain their answers); and
4. Whether they thought there was a need for such an 

intervention (again, they had to tick a box (Yes or 
No) and then explain their answers).
The students’ responses to the four questions were 

quantitative (yes/no answers) and were entered into 
Excel software to present the number of similar and dif-
ferent responses visually. These responses are referred 
to as Data Set 4. 

The students’ explanations to the last two questions 
were qualitative in nature and analysed through con-
tent analysis, using a three-stage, open coding process 
(Henning, 2004). The first stage involved a general 
reading and noting of the explanations on a Word docu-
ment. The second stage involved a second, closer read-
ing where similar responses were categorised under 
main themes and entered on another Word document. 
The last stage of the open coding process involved a 
further reduction of the responses into sub-themes on a 
new Word document. The authors worked through the 
responses carefully and requested another colleague to 
check and verify that the responses were correctly doc-
umented on the three Word documents. These explana-
tions are referred to as Data Set 5. 

Results
The results from the four quantitative data sets are 

presented first and, after that, the themes and sub-
themes identified in the qualitative data set. 

Data Set 1: Downloaded IsiXhosa and Afrikaans 
translated tutorials in Management 131

As stated in the previous section, 782 downloads 
were made. Of these, 263 downloads were made by 
the IsiXhosa-speaking students for tutorial assignment 
1 and 243 for the second tutorial, while the Afri-
kaans-speaking students made a total of 164 down-
loads for tutorial 1 and 112 downloads for tutorial 2. 
Table 1 reflects the downloads in percentages. 

The percentages for the IsiXhosa downloads are 
more or less on par with the number of students who 
reported that IsiXhosa is their first language (refer to 
Data Set 2). This, however, is not the case for the num-
ber of Afrikaans downloads made, as only 47 students

declared that Afrikaans was their first language (refer 
to Figure 1). Possible reasons for the discrepancy are 
discussed in the next section.

Data Set 2: Language distribution of registered 
first-year students in Management 131

A total of 735 first-year students was registered in 
Management 131 in the first semester of 2017. Of the 
735 students, 47 indicated on their registration infor-
mation that they were Afrikaans-speaking students 
(6.39%), 252 IsiXhosa-speaking (34.29%), 280 English 
(38.10%), and 156 other language speakers (21.22%). 
Figure 1 gives a visual presentation of the percentages.

Figure 1 shows that 61.90% (that is 6.39 + 34.29 + 
21.22) of the students registered in Management 131 
were English additional language speaking students, 
and 38.10% were English home language speakers. 
This finding reflects the university’s general trend of 
language distribution (Institutional Planning Office, 
2017).

Data Set 3: Comparison of students’ performance in 
the two tutorial assignments

Figure 2 illustrates the students’ performance 
averages in the two tutorial assignments translated 
compared with the English-first-language-speaking 
students’ average results.

The results indicate that the Afrikaans-speaking 
students’ average was 78.6%, the IsiXhosa-speaking 
students was 71.90%, and the English mother tongue 
students’ average was 76.21%.

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 49

Data Set 4: Quantitative responses from the stu-
dents’ survey

Table 2 reflects the 100 students’ responses to the 
four questions asked in the survey.

The results show that 71 students (71%) were 
aware of the language support programme, while 29 
said they were unaware. Thirty-nine of the 100 stu-
dents downloaded the translated tutorials, and 61 did 
not. One can infer that the 23 English home language 
students were part of the 61 who did not download the 
translations because there was no need to do so. Hence, 
the remaining 38 were English additional language 
speaking students, which could mean that they consid-
ered downloading the instructions as ‘extra work’ and 
decided not to download the translations. Alternative-
ly, it could have been some other language-speaking 
students who did not download the translations as they 
were not in their first languages. However, it should be 
noted that the other Afrikaans downloads (see Table 1) 
could have been made by some of the remaining 159 
students whose responses were omitted, as explained 
in the Methods section.

The results further reflect that the students who 
used the translated assignments’ instructions, ques-
tions and explanations indicated that the transla-
tions assisted them in better understanding the work 
covered in the module. Lastly, most students (92%) 
thought there was a need for such an intervention, and 
they provided reasons for their stance in Data Set 5.

Data Set 5: Students’ explanations of the answers 
given to the last two questions 

Two main themes were identified from the stu-
dents’ explanations for their answers to Questions 
3 and 4: (i) positive explanations and (ii) challenges 
identified. Four sub-themes were identified under the 
first theme and two under the second theme. These are 
described below.

Theme 1: Positive explanations.
Sub-theme 1: Better understanding of the  
subject matter
The thirty-nine students who downloaded the 

translated assignments explained that it assisted them 
in understanding the content of the subject better. Be-
low are examples of pertinent responses received:

•	 It	helps	me	a	lot	as	I	did	not	understand	at	first.	
• It helps because I understand the work better. 
• I understand the work much better.

Thus, the fact that students felt that the translations 
assisted them in better understanding the content of 
the subject could be one of the contributing reasons 
why the Afrikaans-speaking students’ performances 
in the two tutorial assignments were better than the 
English mother tongue students’ performance.

Sub-theme 2: Receiving translated assignments 
was advantageous
Thirty-two students responded positively and said 

receiving the assignments in their first language was 
‘great’. Below are specific sentiments expressed by the 
students:

• The program is doing a great job!
• The translated tutorials are a good idea.
• This is a great service and students are lucky to 

have this service available.

These comments imply that the students were 
satisfied with the intervention. In addition, the third 
response implies that the students did not think of the 
intervention as a right they had. Instead, receiving the

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 50

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4

tutorial assignments in IsiXhosa and Afrikaans was per-
ceived as ‘being lucky’, which could be inferred as ‘being 
privileged’. An inference can be made that the students 
did not expect to receive translations in their first 
language as they knew that the university used English 
as its medium of instruction. Also, language support in-
terventions in the form of translations are not standard 
practice at the school level (the policy does not require 
schools to implement such interventions), which could 
be another reason why the students regarded it as a 
‘privilege’ (Department of Basic Education, 2019).

Sub-theme 3: Empathy showed by English home 
language speaking students
Another positive response was that the 23 English 

home language speaking students who completed the 
survey showed empathy towards students who were 
additional language speakers of English. They explained 
that having the tutorial assignments translated into 
IsiXhosa and Afrikaans was an innovative idea because 
these students would better understand what the as-
signments were about, which could assist them in doing 
better in their modules. Certain students provided the 
following recommendations for the way forward:

•	 I	feel	it	will	benefit	second	language	students	
tremendously. 

• I think the translated tutorials do assist students, 
as	English	is	not	their	first	language.

• Basically, I think translated tutorials are good 
because some students struggle to understand in 
English.

Moreover, one student felt that this initiative could 
lower the dropout rates. An inference can be made that 
the student was aware that learning in English is chal-
lenging for additional language speaking students and 
that it could be one of the reasons why many students 
fail and do not complete their degree programmes 
on time. Thus, the student thought that receiving the 
tutorial instructions and explanations in Afrikaans or 
IsiXhosa would aid the students’ understanding and 
strengthen their chances of passing their subjects, 
which correlates with the aim and objectives of this 
paper.

Sub-theme 4: Creating equality
One student noted:
• I think they are a good venture, they create a 

sense of equality.
The comment from the student implies that he/she 

thought that the translations levelled the playing field.

That is, students who were additional language 
speakers of English could make sense of and under-
stand the tutorial assignments better because it was in 
their mother tongue (similar to students who received 
it in English and who were English home-language 
speaking students). In this instance, an inference could 
be made that this response alluded to decolonising the 
curriculum and breaking the dominance of English in 
the classroom, on the one hand, and providing these 
students with an equal opportunity to pass their re-
spective subjects, on the other hand.

Theme 2: Challenges identified
Sub-theme 1: A need to translate the assignments 
into other languages
Nine students suggested that the assignments’ 

instructions, questions and explanations should also 
be translated into other languages and not only into 
IsiXhosa and Afrikaans. Below are some of the students’ 
suggestions:

• IsiZulu must be catered for.
• I think all 11 languages should be catered for.
• Consider adding other languages.
These students’ responses indicate a need for lan-

guage support and that IsiXhosa and Afrikaans speak-
ing students benefited from the support, but they did 
not. It thus provides evidence for the argument in this 
paper, which is that English additional language speak-
ing students need transformative language support 
interventions to improve their understanding of in-
structions, questions and explanations given in tutorial 
assignments, tests and examinations in their different 
subjects. 

Sub-theme 2: Not making use of the translation 
provided
Seven students indicated that they did not down-

load the translated assignments because they were 
“lazy” and thereby not “creating more work” for them-
selves. The students concurred with the response 
below:

• I was too lazy to download the translations.
This response is not uncommon, as there will be 

students who do not want to make the extra effort to 
help themselves. At least they were honest in explaining 
why they did not use the support provided



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 51

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4

Discussion
The analysis in the previous section focuses on 

three main issues, namely: 
1. The language distribution of the first-year students 

who were registered for the Management 131 sub-
ject; 

2. The results of the students in the two tutorial as-
signments that were translated, and 

3. The students’ survey responses, which can be 
grouped into three findings: First, the translations 
aided the students’ understanding of the content 
in the module. Second, it was an innovative trans-
formative idea to provide language support in the 
form of translations to English additional language 
speaking students. Third, translations of the forma-
tive assessments should also be provided to stu-
dents who speak other South African languages.

Figure 1 shows the language distribution of the 
first-year students registered for the Management 
(MAN 131) subject in the first semester of 2017, where 
most of the downloads occurred. However, if one com-
pares this finding with the results in Table 1, it is only 
the IsiXhosa finding that correlates with the number 
of students who reported IsiXhosa as their first lan-
guage. Table 1 reflects that only 47 students indicated 
that Afrikaans is their first language, but 163 Afrikaans 
translations were downloaded for the first assignment 
and 112 for the second. 

A possible reason for the discrepancy in the Afri-
kaans downloads could be that the same students could 
have downloaded the translations more than once. It 
could also be that some of the students who indicated 
that they were English home language speakers down-
loaded the translations as well because they came from 
Afrikaans-speaking home environments. This inference 
points to the dominance of English and the fact that it is 
regarded as the ‘language of choice’ (Bada, 2017; Heu-
gh, 2013; Xue & Zuo, 2013). Moreover, both students 
and their parents regard English as ‘superior’ to the 
other indigenous languages, as it is seen as the ‘global 
language that can open doors’ and as a result, parents 
would intentionally use English to communicate with 
their children so that the children can become fluent 
in the English language (Dyers, 1996, 2001; Xue & Zuo, 
2013). That is why the children, when they come to uni-
versity, regard English as their first language, despite 
their parents speaking Afrikaans (Dyers, 1996, 2001). It 
could be argued that the preference for the English lan-
guage is one of the reasons why the other indigenous

languages in South Africa are not further developed and 
strengthened (Masino & Nino-Zarazua, 2015; Matsinhe, 
2004; Mgqwashu, 2011).

However, this inference also speaks to Cummins’ 
(2008) division of BICS and CALP and his explanation 
of language proficiency in a social situation (BICS), 
which is characterised by interpersonal interaction and 
requires only basic interpersonal language proficiency 
from the communicator because meaning is negotiated 
by the participants in the conversation and is conveyed 
using language. As such, students who come from an Af-
rikaans-speaking background and switched to English 
only will have BICS that is better developed than their 
CALP. As a result, they will think that they have mas-
tered the English language and will regard themselves 
as English mother tongue students. However, when it 
comes to CALP, they will need assistance, which could 
be why more Afrikaans downloads were made (163 and 
112) than the number of students (47) who reported 
they were Afrikaans-speaking. 

The second finding that emerged from the data is 
the results presented in Figure 2. The results reflect 
that the Afrikaans-speaking students’ performance 
(78.6%) was higher than the English-speaking students 
(76.21%), followed by the IsiXhosa-speaking students’ 
performance (71.90%). Thus, the results validate what 
the students reported in the survey – the translated 
tutorial assignments improved their understanding of 
what was required of them and, in so doing, enhanced 
their performance in the two assessments. In addi-
tion, the fact that their results compared favourably 
to the results of their English counterparts is further 
proof that the transformative translation intervention 
strategy produced the desired result. When students 
are empowered to understand better instructions, 
questions and explanations given in formative assess-
ments, they could perform close to, or better than, the 
English mother tongue students, as the results showed. 
This finding is also in line with what Cummins (2008) 
argues for - that English additional language speaking 
students require language support to succeed academ-
ically since they have to learn the language of instruc-
tion and, at the same time, learn the academic content. 
It also speaks to an element of transformative learning 
in that the students were provided with the opportuni-
ty to read and understand the instructions in their own 
language, and not in the colonial language.

However, the authors are mindful that other factors 
(such as having sufficient time to complete the tutorial 
assignments and consultation with the lecturer and



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 52

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4

tutors) could have also contributed to the students’ 
good performance. Also, since this was a pilot project, 
there were no previous findings that could be used to 
compare or benchmark the students’ performance. 
The only comparison that could be made was with the 
overall pass and failure rates of the MAN 131 subject in 
2016, where there was a 74.2% pass rate and a 25.8% 
failure rate. The pass rate of MAN 131 in 2017 was 
89.5%, and the failure rate was 10.5% (Department 
of Management, 2017). This means that there was an 
increase of more than 15% in the pass rate in 2017. The 
authors propose that the provision of translations in 
the students’ mother tongues contributed to the in-
crease in the pass rate in the module in 2017.

Lastly, the fact that the English home language stu-
dents and the students who downloaded the translated 
assignments felt that the intervention strategy was an 
innovative and much-needed step, underscores the 
need for students to be taught in their native language 
as it will improve and enhance their understanding of 
what they read and learn (Cummins, 2008; Department 
of Basic Education, 2018, 2019; Whiteside, Gooch & 
Norbury, 2017). This need for mother-tongue education 
is further highlighted by the nine students who indi-
cated that translations into their first languages should 
also be provided since they spoke some of the other 
eleven languages. 

Smith (1999) and Chilisa (2012) advocate that the 
concepts of “deconstruction and reconstruction” ques-
tion that which is understood as “the norm” in order 
to rewrite history so that indigenous people’s norms, 
traditions and cultures rightfully be acknowledged as 
legitimate and valid. Similarly, transformative learning 
pedagogy emphasises the need to question and chal-
lenge experiences and perceptions from a colonial na-
ture. These should be critically analysed, and students 
should be empowered and encouraged to exercise their 
agency in a transformative manner. In this regard, the 
additional language-speaking students exercised their 
right to construct meaning in their home languages, 
which form part of their culture, values and traditions. 
They were pleased that they were provided with the 
opportunity to receive the instructions, questions and 
explanations of the tutorial assignments in their moth-
er tongues. Therefore, the translation intervention 
strategy validated the students’ knowledge and lived 
realities, which is what Gentry (2022), Hurst and Mona 
(2017) and Cranton and Taylor (2012) also argued for.

Equally important is the comment by another stu-
dent - “…they [the translated instructions, questions 

and explanations] create a sense of equality.” The two 
responses (an innovative idea and equality) drive the 
message home – that indigenous languages should be 
acknowledged, respected, and embraced so that trans-
formative learning can occur. The authors propose that 
students and the broader communities in South Afri-
ca and elsewhere should be allowed to practise their 
right to be taught in their home languages. If that is not 
feasible (as is the current situation in South Africa), 
transformative language support interventions should 
be in place to assist these students, which is what Tinto 
(2009), Cummins (2007, 2008), Strydom and Mentz 
(2010) and Whiteside et al. (2017) (amongst others) 
suggest should happen.

Conclusion and Recommendations
Three overall findings could be inferred from the 

analysis and discussion of the data collected for this 
pilot project. 
• There are still more students who are English addi-

tional language speaking students in the business 
faculty at the university than those who are English 
mother tongue speakers;

• The translation intervention strategy aided the 
English additional language speaking students’ 
comprehension of the instructions, questions and 
explanations received in the tutorial assignments. 
In so doing, it levelled the playing field and enabled 
them to perform optimally, which increased the 
pass rate in the Management 131 subject.

• The acknowledgement from English-speaking stu-
dents that the intervention strategy was an inno-
vative idea, together with the additional language 
speaking students who suggested that it should be 
done for their languages as well, is a strong indica-
tion that there is a need for transformative language 
support for students whose first language is not 
English. 

Therefore, it is recommended that more language 
support interventions be created and implemented for 
additional-language-speaking students of English to 
assist them in better understanding the content of their 
different subjects.

A second recommendation is that the faculty and 
the university management attempt to provide more 
financial support so that translation interventions are 
also offered to students who speak the other official 
languages.



McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 53

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4

The last recommendation is that the translation 
support intervention should also be extended to second 
and third-year students so that they, too, can bene-
fit from an enhanced understanding of instructions, 
questions and explanations in their assignments and be 
able to perform as well as the English home language 
speaking students and even better, as was the case for 
the Afrikaans-speaking students.

The authors acknowledge that this was a pilot proj-
ect, and they did not have a control group or a pre-and 
post-test to compare the results. However, the fact that 
the students passed the two assignments well, none 
of them failed, and the overall pass rate in the module 
increased by 15% demonstrates that language support 
interventions are essential enablers for students who 
are not mother-tongue speakers of English at post-sec-
ondary institutions. 

Therefore, the findings discussed draw attention 
to the fact that higher education institutions globally 
should take the lead in supporting and advocating for 
language support interventions in the form of transla-
tions for both formative and summative assessments 
for their students who are non-native speakers of 
English. In so doing, undergraduate students’ retention 
and success rates would increase. Finally, providing 
innovative translations as a form of language support 
will instil a sense of equality among all students regard-
less of their home languages. Such provisions will assist 
with the quest for transformative education.

References
Academic Development Centre, University of the West-

ern Cape. (1998). UWC’s Language Policy – Draft 
Discussion Document. AD Issues, 6(1), 2–10.

Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2010). The practice of social 
research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Bada, A. (2017, March 24). Redesigning the curriculum 
for the 21st century. University World News (Africa 
Edition), 193. 

Brenzinger, M. (2017). Eleven official languages and 
more: Legislation and language policies in South Af-
rica, Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language 
and Law, 67, 38–54.

Brock-Utne, B., Desai, Z. & Qorro, M. (2006). Focus on 
fresh data on the language of instruction debate 
in Tanzania and South Africa. Cape Town: African 
Minds.

Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. 
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Census. (2011). Western Cape Province. (Strategic De-
velopment and Information and GIS Department). 
City of Cape Town, South Africa.

Council on Higher Education. (2014, January). Frame-
work for Institutional Quality Enhancement in the 
Second Period of Quality Assurance. Pretoria: Coun-
cil on Higher Education.

Council on Higher Education. (2016). South African 
Higher Education Reviewed. Two decades of democ-
racy. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Council on Higher Education (2017, March). Quality 
Enhancement Project Phase 2 Focus Area and Institu-
tional	Submission	Specifications	(Public	Universities). 
Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design. 
Qualitative, quantitative & mixed methods approach-
es (5th ed). Los Angeles: Sage

http://www.universityworldnews.com/paper.php?story=20170321104538732
http://www.universityworldnews.com/paper.php?story=20170321104538732


McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 54

Global Journal of Transformative Education (2024) Vol 4

Cranton, P., & Taylor, E. W. (2012). Transformative 
Learning Theory: Seeking a More Unified Theory. 
In: Taylor, E. W. & Cranton, P. (Eds). The Handbook 
of Transformative Learning Theory, Research, and 
Practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Cummins, J. D. (2007). The Relationship between Amer-
ican Sign Language Proficiency and English Aca-
demic Development: A Review of the Research. 

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and The-
oretical Status of the Distinction. In Hornberger, N. 
(ed). Encyclopedia of Language an Education 

Department of Basic Education. (2013). Education Sta-
tistics in South Africa 2011. Pretoria: Department of 
Basic Education.

Department of Basic Education. (2018). National Senior 
Certificate	Examination	2017	(Diagnostic	Report.	
Part 1). Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.

Department of Basic Education. (2019). Annual Perfor-
mance Plan 2018/2019. Pretoria: Department of 
Basic Education. 

Department of Higher Education & Training. (2013). 
Statistics on Post-School Education and Training in 
South Africa: 2010. Pretoria: Department of Higher 
Education & Training.

Department of Management. (2017). Management 131 
first	semester	results.	Faculty	of	Economic	and	Man-
agement Sciences, University of the Western Cape, 
Bellville.

Dyers, C. 1996. Language attitudes among first-year 
students at UWC. AD Issues, 4(1), 27–29.

Dyers, C. (2001). Language, identity and nationhood: 
Language use and attitudes among IsiXhosa students 
at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of 
the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. 

Gentry, C. (2022). Literary review of translanguaging, 
translating, and interpreting in education. Global 
Journal of Transformative Education, 3.

Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative 
research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Hennink, M.; Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative 
Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. 

Heugh, K. A. (2013, March). Multilingual education pol-
icy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and 
historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied 
Linguistics, 33. 

Hoxha, D. & Sumner, E. (2021) Examining cognitive, 
motivational and environmental factors that relate 
to reading performance for children with English as 
a first or additional language, The Language Learn-
ing Journal. 

Hurst, E. & Mona, M. (2017). “Translanguaging” as a 
socially just pedagogy. Education as Change, 21(2), 
126–148.

Institutional Planning Office. (2017). Registered un-
dergraduate students’ statistics. University of the 
Western Cape, Bellville.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H. & Whitt, E. J. (2011). 
Fostering student success in hard times. Change: 
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(4), 13–19.

Landsberg, E. (Ed.). (2005). Addressing Barriers to 
Learning. A South African perspective. Pretoria: Van 
Schaik Publishers.

Le Grange, L. (2016). Decolonising the university cur-
riculum. South African Journal of Higher Education, 
30(2), 1–12.

Leibowitz, B. (2009). Towards a pedagogy of possi-
bility. Teaching and learning from a ‘social justice’ 
perspective. In: Bitzer, E. (Ed.), Higher education in 
South Africa. A scholarly look behind the scenes (pp. 
85–101). Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA.

Letseka, M. Cosser, M. Breier, M. & Visser, M. (2010). 
Student retention & graduate destination: Higher 
education & labour market access & success. Cape 
Town: HSRC Press.

Letseka, M. & Maile, S. (2008). High university drop-out 
rates: a threat to South Africa’s future. Pretoria: 
HSRC Press.

Masino, S. & Nino-Zarazua, M. (2015). What works to 
improve the quality of student learning in develop-
ing countries? 

https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/24999/mhb_03_075.pdf
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/24999/mhb_03_075.pdf
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/24999/mhb_03_075.pdf
 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36
 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36
Gentry, C. (2022). Literary review of translanguaging, translating, and interpreting in education. Global Journal of Transformative Education, 3, doi: 10.14434/gjte.v3i1.32233
Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Hennink, M.; Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. 
Heugh, K. A. (2013, March). Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33. doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000135.
Hoxha, D. & Sumner, E. (2021) Examining cognitive, motivational and environmental factors that relate to reading performance for children with English as a first or additional language, The Language Learning Journal. 
Gentry, C. (2022). Literary review of translanguaging, translating, and interpreting in education. Global Journal of Transformative Education, 3, doi: 10.14434/gjte.v3i1.32233
Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Hennink, M.; Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. 
Heugh, K. A. (2013, March). Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33. doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000135.
Hoxha, D. & Sumner, E. (2021) Examining cognitive, motivational and environmental factors that relate to reading performance for children with English as a first or additional language, The Language Learning Journal. 
Gentry, C. (2022). Literary review of translanguaging, translating, and interpreting in education. Global Journal of Transformative Education, 3, doi: 10.14434/gjte.v3i1.32233
Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Hennink, M.; Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. 
Heugh, K. A. (2013, March). Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33. doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000135.
Hoxha, D. & Sumner, E. (2021) Examining cognitive, motivational and environmental factors that relate to reading performance for children with English as a first or additional language, The Language Learning Journal. 
Gentry, C. (2022). Literary review of translanguaging, translating, and interpreting in education. Global Journal of Transformative Education, 3, doi: 10.14434/gjte.v3i1.32233
Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Hennink, M.; Hutter, I. & Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publications. 
Heugh, K. A. (2013, March). Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33. doi: 10.1017/S0267190513000135.
Hoxha, D. & Sumner, E. (2021) Examining cognitive, motivational and environmental factors that relate to reading performance for children with English as a first or additional language, The Language Learning Journal. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.11.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.11.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.11.012


McGhie & Dos Reis, Translations as Language Support 55

Matsinhe, S.F. (2004). Dwindling numbers of students 
enrolling for African language courses: Problems 
and possibilities. In: Brock-Utne, M., Desai, Z. & Qor-
ro, M. (Eds.). Researching the language of instruction 
in Tanzania and South Africa (pp. 13–24). Cape 
Town: African Minds. 

McGhie, V., Moodley, P., & Naidoo, H. (2015). The Chang-
ing Landscape: Exploring the dichotomy between 
academia and first-year students’ transition from 
school to university. Higher Education Development 
Journal (ZFHE), 1 (4), 189–208.

McGhie, V. F. (2012). A Social Cognitive View of Academic 
Literacy:	Factors	impacting	on	first-year	students’	
academic progress at a South African university. 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch 
University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 

Mignolo, W.D. (2007). Coloniality and Modernity/Ratio-
nality. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 155–67.

Ministry of Education. (2001). National plan for high-
er education in South Africa. Pretoria: Ministry of 
Education.

Mgqwashu, E. M. (2011). Academic literacy in the 
mother tongue: A pre-requisite for epistemological 
access. Alternation, 18(2), 159–178.

Pather, S. (2018). South Africa: The high drop-out rate 
of first-year university students.

Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Re-
public of South Africa. Act No 108. Pretoria: Republic 
of South Africa. 

Smith, L. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research 
and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.

South Africa Information. (2018). The 11 languages of 
South Africa. 

Stake, R.E. 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: 
The Guilford Press.

Strydom, J. F. & Mentz, M. (2010). South African survey 
of student engagement. Focusing the student ex-
perience on success through student engagement. 
Council on Higher Education. Pretoria: Council on 
Higher Education.

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student re-
tention: What next? College Student Retention, 8(1), 
1–19.

Tinto, V. (2009, February 5). Taking student retention 
seriously:	Rethinking	the	first	year	of	university. 
Keynote speech delivered at the ALTC FYE Curricu-
lum Design Symposium, Queensland University of 
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Venter, A. (2020). The provision of epistemological ac-
cess for successful learning at university: Towards a 
readiness model for Business, Commerce and Man-
agement Sciences learners in the Further Education 
and Training phase (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, 
South Africa.

Volbrecht, T.E. (2002). Plot and practice. Narrative 
inquiry into academic development, language policy 
and lifelong learning as framework for literacy 
development at the University of the Western Cape 
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of 
the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.

Walker, M. (2006). Higher education pedagogies. Berk-
shire: Open University Press.

Walker, M. & Badsha, N. (1993). Academic development 
and the challenge of curriculum change at the Uni-
versity of the Western Cape: An overview. , 1–13. 

Webb, V. (2002). Language in South Africa. The role of 
language in national transformation, reconstruction 
and development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub-
lishing Company.

Whiteside, K. E., Gooch, D. & Norbury, C. F. (2017). En-
glish language proficiency and early school attain-
ment among children learning English as an addi-
tional language. Child Development 88(3), 812–827. 

Xue, J. & Zuo, W. (2013). English dominance and Its 
influence on international communication. Theory 
and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2262–
2266.

Xuyen, V.T. M & Trang, N.H. (2021). Effects of task based 
speaking activities on EFL learners’ oral perfor-
mance. European Journal of English Language 
Teaching, 6(6), 17–36.

Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research. Design and meth-
odology. (5th ed). California: Sage Publications. 

1 Venicia McGhie (vfmcghie@uwc.ac.za) is an Associate 
Professor in the Faculty of Economic and Management 
Sciences, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South 
Africa.

2 Karen Dos Reis (kdosreis@sun.ac.za) is a Research 
Associate as the University of Stellenboch, Stellenbosch, 
South Africa.

Authors

https://www.insideeducation.org/featured/south-africa-high-drop-rate-first-year-university-students/
https://www.insideeducation.org/featured/south-africa-high-drop-rate-first-year-university-students/
https://southafrica-info.com/arts-culture/11-languages-south-africa
https://southafrica-info.com/arts-culture/11-languages-south-africa

