Competency in Malayalam among B.Ed students of Kerala

77

COMPETENCY IN MALAYALAM AMONG B.Ed. STUDENTS IN KERALA

Send to Endeavours in Education

K. Abdul Gafoor

&

Sujilarani.V.M

[8 October 2012 ]

Draft sent to Endeavors in Education. Readers are suggested to verify the content with

the original publication

Competency in Malayalam among B.Ed. Students K. Abdul Gafoor & Sujilarani.V.M

78

COMPETENCY IN MALAYALAM AMONG B.Ed. STUDENTS IN KERALA

Background. This study was conducted in the context of increasing fissure

between policy perspectives at national level which give priority to the

development of student teacher’s language competence and communication

skills and the teacher education curricula, practices and research that neglect

development of the required skills.

Aims. This study examines how far B.Ed students in Kerala are competent in

their mother-tongue

Method. Survey method was adopted by using a test of competency in

Malayalam prepared at par with the language competencies to be developed and

acquired by standard VIII pupils in Kerala.

Sample. A representative sample of 800 Student-teachers from thirteen Teacher

Education colleges of Malappuram, Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala

Results. One quarter or more of the student-teachers require furthering their

competency in regional language. Female student-teachers who are ninety

percent of the student-teacher population have significantly better competency

in Malayalam, than male student-teachers. Students of every subject of

specialization have their own stronger and weaker areas of competence in

mother-tongue too.

Conclusion. Student-teachers lack sufficient language competency needed at

secondary school level. Gender and subject of specialization makes difference in

competency in Malayalam

Language, communication and education are inter-related processes. When

engaged in teaching, assessment, and tutoring, every teacher pays attention to both

subject matter and linguistic expression. Since knowledge is constructed, processed

and communicated through language, all teachers irrespective of their subject of

specialization are language teachers. A teacher tries to explain the content of

instruction in his/ her own words first. To do this soundly, teachers need a good oral

and written vocabulary and functional knowledge of grammar of the language of

instruction. The level of knowledge of the teacher in the language and the mastery in

the use of language, referred to as competence and performance respectively, are

bound to influence the quality of teaching (Kumar, 2003).

Knowledge of mother-tongue is in one way the first step to all other subjects of

learning. Intellectual development and personality development of a student is greatly

influenced by one's opportunities to develop the competencies in mother-tongue. A

child having competency in mother-tongue can easily grasp other subjects. But it is a

distressing truth that, even after 10 years of schooling, children fail to become

minimally proficient even in their mother-tongue and fail to acquire at least minimal

reading and writing skills. The problem lies not with the learning abilities of the

children but with the education system, the teacher and their teaching methods. Are


79

our future teachers proficient in the language through which they are required to

teach?

It is well established that a child proficient in his or her mother-tongue is better

able to learn additional languages and is more likely to succeed academically. It is

taken for granted that children acquire the basic skills of mother-tongue by the end of

primary education and strengthen it further all through his/her secondary education.

Therefore, teachers at these levels must be competent to communicate, nurture, and

reassure basic skills at least in the language of instruction, which is most often the

mother-tongue of the student. That is, teachers irrespective of their subject and level

of teaching need to have functional knowledge in mother-tongue of children whom

they teach. Sometimes, when teachers lack in vocabulary and grammar, the students

may identify the mistakes and that will affect the teachers’ image. Worse, at times the

students model after the teachers to develop faulty language, too. Both the situations

are undesirable. To be able to justify their professional and social responsibility and

to convince their students, teachers need to have good command of the instructional

language. Unfortunately, till recently the entire teacher education system in India has

taken the competence in mother-tongue of future teachers as granted.

National curriculum framework (2005) identifies that the language proficiency

of the teacher needs to be enhanced, but laments that existing programmes do not

recognize the centrality of language in the curriculum. Consequently, National

Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (2010) incorporated Language

Proficiency and Communication as one of the curricular areas under curriculum

studies in its suggested teacher education curriculum, in order to meet its

recommendation that irrespective of stage specificity and subject specialization, all

teacher education programmes must focus on and accord high priority to the

development of student teacher’s language competence and communications kills.

Researches elsewhere as well point out that levels of content knowledge about

language among teachers are typically very low (Bos, et al.,2001; Moats & Foorman,

2003; Spencer,Schuele, Guillot, & Lee, 2008) and hence recommend the need to

improve proficiency of teachers in first and second languages (Grunt, 1997).

Specifically, teachers committed large percentage of error in vocabulary (Dhar, 1967)

though vocabulary is the most crucial aspect in writing (Tercanlioglu, 2004). But

teaching is not solely dependent on writing (Leroy, 1999). So as to improve the

teacher competency, teacher education programmes must be capable of inculcating

communication competence (Onukaugu, 2000) in general. Explicitly, researches

support the need to provide word-structure information in teacher preparation (Louise

& Brucker 2006) as teachers cannot teach well what they do not understand

themselves. Relationship between language of instruction and performance (Vygotsky,

1962) is well accepted. This is true not only for student outcomes but also for teacher

performance. The persisting elusiveness of foundational concepts of language may

affect teachers’ attitudes about their instructional responsibilities as a positive


80

relationship between teachers’ language performance and scores in the qualifying skill

test (Atkinson, 1987) is evidenced.

Further, with the adoption of a policy of inclusion in education, consequent to

the adoption of education as a fundamental right of all children, a good percentage of

students in secondary and even higher secondary school classes, if not talking about

primary school classes, are having one or more difficulties which can be classified as

learning disability related to language. Teachers, especially at secondary level, often

feel unprepared to address the instructional needs of students with language, reading,

and writing problems. The situation get aggravated if teachers themselves are facing

difficulties in language competencies.

Considering the above factors, competency in Malayalam (Mother-tongue) is

important for future teachers of Kerala. Language, at teacher education level, has not

received the attention it deserves. Present study, hence, attempts to examine how far

the Student-teachers who are stepping on to the teaching profession at secondary

school level are competent in their mother-tongue.

Objective of the study

To gauge the competency in Malayalam of student-teachers in the total sample and to

find out the relative standing of student-teachers on various areas of language

competency, and also to examine whether there exist significant difference among the

student-teachers in their competency in Malayalam based on their a) Gender and b)

Subject of specialization.

Methods

Participants

A representative sample of 800 Student-teachers from thirteen Teacher

Education colleges of Malappuram, Kozhikode and Wayanad Districts of Kerala is

drawn with 125 males and 675 females giving proportionate representation to gender,

subjects of specialization (viz., mathematics, physical science, biological science, social

studies, commerce and four languages- Hindi, English, Arabic and Sanskrit) and type

of management of institution (viz., government, government-aided, private, and

university teacher education centres).

Instruments

A test of competency in Malayalam prepared on the basis of thorough analysis

of language competencies aimed to be developed and acquired up to standard VIII in

schools of Kerala was used. Competencies included in the test are 1) alphabets 2)

symbols 3) spelling 4) pronunciation 5) vocabulary 6) opposites 7) verbal reasoning 8)

one word 9) sentence comprehension 10) sentence structure 11) proverb 12) phrase

meaning 13) translation 14) Reading comprehension 15) writing. Items with

comparatively low difficulty level were prepared and retained on the assumption that if

the student-teachers have difficulty with these items, it could be concluded that they

have not adequately acquired the competency involved. Test – retest reliability co-

efficient of whole test (0.86) as well as the alpha co-efficient (0.83) (N=100) indicate

reliability of the test.


81

Procedure

The study explores competency in Malayalam from four dimensions. First, the

extent of competency in Malayalam (total) among student-teachers is found out.

Then, the extent of competency in select areas was estimated to identify the areas

where the B.Ed students are relatively stronger or weaker. Thirdly the, analysis of

variance is used to find out whether competency in Malayalam (total) and areas of

competencies vary according to subject of specialization and gender. Fourthly and

finally, mean difference analysis is used to find out the strata of B.Ed students (based

on gender, and subject of specialization) stronger or weaker on competency in

Malayalam (total) and its select areas.

Results

1. Student-teachers have not attained required mastery in Malayalam

Student-teachers have acquired 79 percentage of total competency in

Malayalam. Average would-be secondary teachers are unable to attain the one by forth

(¼) of the competency in Malayalam expected from a student of secondary school. One

in four of student-teachers have less than mastery level competency in Malayalam

expected by the end of secondary education. What is more, one in every 10 student-

teachers has 66 percent or less of the competency in Malayalam, expected in their

students by the end of Secondary Education.

2. Higher order competencies and alphabet pose highest difficulty

The areas were student-teachers scored poor are reading comprehension (43%),

phrase meaning and alphabet (59%), writing (64%), translation (75%), and sentence

structure (76%). Areas of language where performance of student-teachers near

mastery level are as follows: symbols (96%), proverb (93%), pronunciation (92%),

vocabulary (91%), one word (86%), opposites (85%), spelling (85%), sentence

comprehension (85%), verbal reasoning (83%).


82

Figure 1: Graphical Representations of Mean Percentage Scores of Select Areas in

Malayalam among Student-teachers

3. Female student-teachers have advantage over male ones in Malayalam

Significant difference exists in the mean scores of competency in Malayalam (total)

of male and female Student-teachers (t=-4.02, p<.01). The result of gender-wise

comparison of each of the 15 competency areas is summarized in table 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Difference between the Mean Scores of select areas

in Malayalam of Male and Female Student-teachers

Sl. No. Competency Male (125) Female (675)

‘t’ value M SD M SD

1 Alphabet 0.49 0.44 0.61 0.41 -2.841

2 Symbols 0.92 0.16 0.96 0.12 -3.000

3 Spelling 0.82 0.14 0.86 0.098 -2.695

4 Pronunciation 0.89 6.17 0.93 0.13 -2.811

5 Vocabulary 0.89 0.10 0.92 0.098 -2.814

6 Opposites 0.81 0.22 0.86 0.21 -2.038


83

7 Verbal reasoning 0.80 0.21 0.84 0.18 -1.628

8 Sentence comprehension 0.80 0.25 0.86 0.19 -2.687

9 One word 0.79 0.24 0.87 0.20 -3.358

10 Sentence structure 0.74 0.20 0.77 0.18 -1.591

11 Proverb 0.93 0.18 0.93 0.18 -0.144

12 Phrase meaning 0.60 0.19 0.59 0.20 0.306

13 Translate 0.76 0.28 0.75 0.26 0.259

14 Reading comprehension 0.39 0.24 0.43 0.26 -1.552

15 Writing 0.59 0.26 0.64 0.28 -1.800

Table 1 show that female student-teachers are significantly better to male

student-teachers in eight of the fifteen areas included in the test of competency in

Malayalam. Advantage of female student-teachers over male ones emerges especially

from former being better with alphabet, symbols, spelling, and pronunciation, opposite

words, sentence comprehension and use of one-words (p<.05). But female advantage

over male is not visible with respect to verbal reasoning, sentence structure, proverb,

translation, phrase meaning, reading comprehension and writing (p>.05). Findings of

this study in this respect matches with those of Manoj (1976) and Nair (1965).

4. Subject of specialization makes difference in competency in Malayalam

There is significant difference in competency in Malayalam, based on various

subject of specialization [F=6.596, df (8,791), p<.01]. There is significantly higher

competency in Malayalam for Sanskrit student-teachers in comparison to 1) Hindi

(t=2.58, p<.01) 2) Arabic (t=3.97, p<.01) student-teachers. English student-teachers

have significantly higher competency in Malayalam in comparison to Arabic student-

teachers (t=4.60, p<.01). There is significantly higher competency in Malayalam for

Physical science student-teachers and Natural science student-teachers in comparison

to Mathematics student-teachers [Physical science student-teachers /Mathematics

student-teachers (t=2.89, p<.01); Natural science student-teachers /Mathematics

student-teachers (t=2.58, p=.05)]. There is significantly higher competency in

Malayalam for Commerce student-teachers in comparison to Social Studies student-

teachers (t=3.58, p<.01).

Further comparison of competency in select areas of Malayalam of student-

teachers belonging to various Subject of specializations (Between Languages, Between

Sciences, Between Social Sciences, Between Sciences and Languages, Between

Languages and Social Sciences, Between Sciences and Social Sciences groups)

revealed significant group differences in competencies like Alphabet, Spelling,

Vocabulary, Opposites, Verbal Reasoning, One-word, Sentence Comprehension,

Sentence Structure, Proverb, Phrase Meaning, Translation and Reading

Comprehension. For want of space the results of scores of one-way analyses of


84

variances and around 525 comparisons of means between independent samples are

not detailed here.

Generally, Science students are higher in competency in Malayalam than

language (except Sanskrit Student-teachers) and Social studies students; Arabic

Student-teachers are poorer in competency in Malayalam. Sanskrit Student-teachers

are higher to other student-teachers on alphabets. Mathematics student-teachers and

Physical science student-teachers have higher competence with opposites. Science

student-teachers and Social science student-teachers are high on verbal reasoning.

Science student-teachers and Social science student-teachers show higher

competencies with sentence structure and comprehension. Commerce student-

teachers show significantly higher on phrase meaning. Subject-wise difference is

significant in translation, where English and Arabic student-teachers do better than

others. Natural science student-teachers show mastery in Reading comprehension.

Conclusion and Suggestions

This study, as also indicated by the literature reviewed, reveals that student-

teachers lack sufficient language competency needed at secondary school level. Based

on the results obtained from present study that some of the language areas have very

high rate of difficulty (student- teachers lack required level of competency), and that

competency even in the areas where student-teachers performed well can further be

improved, some practical suggestion are offered here to be helpful for student-

teachers, teacher education institutes and educationalists. Teacher educators must

realize that their students lack sufficient competence in language and they should

work to change this situation. Special efforts need to be taken to identify and remedy

the lack of language competency in student-teachers. Teacher education programmes

must consider the following in this regard.

1. Institutions should provide a space for collaborative competency development

through an interaction of students having competencies in different areas of

language.

2. Student-teachers must feel that they themselves are responsible for development

of their competence in mother-tongue and other languages

3. Teacher education programmes must include book reviews of authentic books on

education and student-teachers must be encouraged to make a report of it. Book

reviews will help in improving reading comprehension and writing competencies.

4. Literary and language clubs can be established to organize various activities

connected especially to mother-tongue. Teacher education institutions should

conduct competitions like essay-writing, reading, and other literary activities

under these clubs. These clubs make awareness in student-teachers about the

importance of a good command of mother-tongue for the acquisition and

production of knowledge and for personal growth and development.

5. As part of entrance test or during the beginning of the course itself, language tests

should be administered to find out difficulties in different areas of language for all


85

student-teachers; which will make student-teachers and teacher educators aware

of the weaker areas in their language.

6. Teacher trainees can administer language tests to school students during their

practice teaching to find out the difficulties of secondary school students. They

should prepare a report on this, which can be discussed among them.

7. Researches on instruction of mother-tongue at school and teacher education level

should get more attention. It is clear that languages form the backbone of all

subjects - including Mathematics; for, without the requisite language skills it

becomes difficult to understand and tackle or write statements in word problems.

8. In all teacher education programmes, special attention be paid to the importance

of language, and mother-tongue in particular, as an instrument for intellectual

growth and learning.

Finally, it must be realized by every educational practitioner that lack of

competency in one’s own mother-tongue even for those who are to become teachers is

a mark of a deeper malady of our system of education. Language is the thread that

connects a society and hence is required by everyone, and is not a special

requirement of teaching profession only. Hence, school teachers should also

concentrate on the above suggested measures at their level also and have to find time

and effort to make use of proper learning material, language lab and tests and to

provide a variety of learning opportunities to assist student’s vocabulary

development. Providing in-service training for in-service teachers for language

competence is as important as focusing on pre-service preparation of future teachers.

References

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother-tongue in the classroom a neglected resource? ELT

Journal, 41 (4): 241-247.

Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D.(2001). Perceptions and

knowledge of preservice and inserviceeducators about early reading instruction.

Annals of Dyslexia, 51,97–120.

Dhar, K.L. (1967). Some interesting frequencies of common errors in the English

trained matriculates and trained graduate teachers. The Journal of English

language Teaching, 3, 36-42.

Grunt, L. (1997). Testing the language proficiency of bilingual teachers: Arizona's

Spanish proficiency test; Language Testing, 14(1), 23-46.

Kumar, N (2003). A study of English language teaching competencies and Training

needs of private and Government school teachers of Allahabad. Fifth Survey of

Research in Education Vol. 2 New Delhi: NCERT.

Leroy, Kemp. (1999). Relationship among Afro-American pre-service teachers

competency in writing, critical thinking, and learning to teach effectively. ERIC

No.ED 340704.

NCERT. (2005). National curriculum framework. New Delhi: NCERT

NCTE (2010). National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education. New Delhi:

National Council for Teacher Education


86

Onukaugu, Chukwuemeka Eze. (2000). The role of teaching competence in the

inculcation of communication in a Nigerian University. ERIC No. ED 346444.

Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of

language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.

Spencer, E. J., Schuele, C. M., Guillot, K. M., & Lee, M. W. (2008).Phonemic

awareness skill of speech-language pathologists and other educators. Language,

Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 39, 512–520.

Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Pre service CFL teachers belief about foreign language

learning and how they relate to gender. Electronic Journal of Research in

Educational Psychology; 5 (3), 145-162.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT press.

Competency in Malayalam among B.Ed students of Kerala

Documents

Transcript of Competency in Malayalam among B.Ed students of Kerala