“Connection error! Consult the user manual”: The dissonance between ‘digital natives’ and the intentions of mother-tongue instruction policies

Abstract

The dissonance between ' digital natives' and the intentions of mother-tongue instruction policies Mvuyo Maduna & Muchativugwa Liberty Hove IntroductionA 2008 research study by the Human Sciences Research Council revealed that 35-45% of South African students do not complete their undergraduate studies at university, and only about 15% complete their studies within the allocated time (Moeketsi & Maile, 2008). None of the reasons presented for such statistics suggested that the language of learning and teaching was a factor in the poor throughput rate. However, almost annually, a call for compulsory mother-tongue instruction is raised, often alongside some review of the poor throughput in graduation or matriculation statistics. Within the past few years, all ministers of education in South Africa have called for the consideration of mother-tongue instruction. In 2006, Minister Naledi Pandor suggested making mother-tongue instruction compulsory in the first six years of schooling (Pandor, 2006). The principal arguments are that learning is more achievable in one's mother tongue than in an additional language. In 2011, the Minister for the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) Blade Nzimande added that the use of mother tongue as the instruction medium should be used in all higher educational institutions to preserve and promote indigenous languages (Hawker, 2011). The call for the use of indigenous languages as liberating and enabling instruction media has been a contested one. Mayaba, Ralarala and Angu (2018:4) argue that "education is a crucial site where students gain a public voice and come to grips with their own power as individuals and social agents". They further submit that students need to critically engage with the knowledge that addresses power, culture and historical issues. The terms 'cultural citizenship' and 'digital citizenship' provide a broader and more critical approach to citizen engagement. In the meantime, numerous studies examine the different forms and effects of participation on the Internet and its limitations (Fuchs, 2014;Norton, 2010). Critical voices show that 'agency' and 'participation' have long been buzz words, often related to one-sided, positive perspectives: applauding the possibilities of user engagement while ignoring issues such as marginality, information politics and a digital divide, based not only