Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 September 2023 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Kaleidoscope
VC Prof Petersen
Prof Francis Petersen is Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Francis Petersen, Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of the Free State.


In the South African higher education landscape, there has for several years now been a comprehensive and very welcome emphasis on decolonising the curriculum, with tertiary institutions systematically and deliberately including indigenous knowledge systems in their teaching and learning ambits and incorporating views and comments from individuals and communities that have been excluded or marginalised in the past. But what is often overlooked is the necessity to also incorporate local indigenous languages. These should, in fact, form an integral part of the decolonisation process, as they not only promote inclusivity, but also facilitate more effective teaching and learning. Heritage Month is the perfect opportunity for us as institutions of higher learning to take stock, and to critically evaluate what we are doing to introduce and promote multilingualism on our campuses, and to develop the use of indigenous languages in the academic and scientific spheres, says Prof Francis Petersen. 

When it comes to language diversity, South Africa is a global frontrunner. Only Zimbabwe, India, and Bolivia have more official languages. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent amendment of the Constitution to introduce Sign Language as South Africa’s twelfth official language emphasises the government’s commitment to cultivating a multilingual society. Section 29 of the South African Constitution stipulates that everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of his/her choice in public educational institutions, where such education is reasonably practicable. Regrettably, the reasonably practicable stipulation is often used as an excuse by many learning institutions to focus on English only, since there is still a widespread lack of learning resources in indigenous African languages. The recent Language Policy Framework for Public Higher Education Institutions states that: “It is apparent that there has been little progress made in exploring and exploiting the potential of African languages in facilitating access and success in higher education institutions.” This serves as an indictment against the entire higher education sector. I believe it is our duty as institutions of higher learning to not only create, develop, and implement indigenous language resources, but to come up with innovative policies and strategies to actively advance multilingualism on our campuses.  

Necessity of a multilingual approach

Language continues to be a barrier to access and success for many students at South African higher education institutions whose proficiency in English simply does not match that of their mother tongue. Research has shown that language proficiency and the pursuit of knowledge are closely intertwined. Ultimately, languages are tools to navigate better understanding. 

There is a renewed emphasis at many institutions of higher learning – including here at the University of the Free State (UFS) – to have research that addresses the needs and challenges experienced in the communities that surround us, as well as in the wider global environment. An essential component of this is how the knowledge we produce are communicated to and taken up by the global scientific community, but also by the ordinary citizens whose lives it aims to impact. The important role that language plays in this cannot be denied.

Against this backdrop, it is essential that African universities re-intellectualise African languages to contribute meaningfully to the knowledge community – using technology and innovation in our efforts to do so. Indigenous languages may be afforded the status of official languages, yet they have clearly not been adequately developed or utilised as academic and scientific languages.

Multilingualism practices promote inclusion

Apart from the fact that multilingualism helps to remove teaching and learning barriers, as well as to facilitate better communication, understanding, and uptake of the knowledge we produce, linguistic variety also serves a very important role in ensuring inclusion and a sense of belonging on our campuses.  This, in turn, works towards generating the social cohesion that we cherish so deeply on our campuses. By implementing multilingualism practices, we embrace diversity in academic and social spaces, foster a positive attitude towards linguistic diversity, and nurture students’ pride in their native languages.

An encouraging example of this is the Philippolis Public Speaking Competition, which the UFS has been hosting for learners from small Southern Free State towns for several years now. Each year the participants are invited to share their thoughts on a heritage-related topic and are encouraged to do so in their mother tongue – which in this area is mainly Sesotho, Afrikaans, Setswana, and isiXhosa. The feedback from schools is that the confidence and pride this initiative has sparked in young mother tongue speakers has led to a renewed interest in and appreciation of their heritage.  

Ways of introducing multilingualism in higher learning pedagogies

But how do we introduce multilingualism at universities when an overwhelming portion of learning material and references are written in English? An important departure point can be to create multilingual academic glossaries, forming the bedrock for further language development. When it comes to developing multilingual strategies, it is furthermore vital that, instead of just implementing a few random initiatives, higher learning institutions have a systematic, integrated approach across faculties, campuses, and knowledge spheres.

At the University of the Free State, our Language Policy expresses the university’s commitment to multilingualism, with particular emphasis on Sesotho, Afrikaans, and isiZulu – the languages spoken by a significant part of the student population. We want to create a language-rich environment, ensuring that language is not a barrier to equity of access, opportunity, and success in academic programmes – or to accessing the UFS administration. A direct outflow of this is the Academy for Multilingualism, which was established with the express purpose of promoting indigenous languages on institutional and social levels through various academic and community-based projects and initiatives. Among the academy’s successful strategies are the production of PhD abstract translations, providing multilingual voice-overs for digital lessons, and training personnel in teaching within multilingual classrooms. 

Introducing innovative translanguaging practices

One of the most promising focus areas is the facilitation of translanguage tutorial sessions in various faculties. Translanguaging is a pedagogical practice where one receives input in one language and gives output through the medium of another language in order to maximise learning and to promote full understanding of the subject matter. It also serves the important function of developing what speakers perceive to be their ‘weaker’ language. In a university context, this would entail that lectures are presented in English, while students get a chance to discuss the subject matter and ask or answer questions in tutorial groups, using another language in which they feel more or equally comfortable. This results in the dynamic and fluid use of multiple languages in teaching, learning, and communication within lecture rooms. 

The value of these practices is not only in expanding cultural horizons and students’ exposure to different languages – it, in fact, also promotes better understanding and knowledge retention. In a monolingual teaching situation, it is for instance very possible for students to answer questions or complete assignments without full understanding, because processing for meaning may not have actually occurred. Sections from textbooks can merely be copied or adapted, without reflecting solid comprehension. This is, however, less prevalent with translanguaging, because reading a topic in one language and then discussing it in another requires the subject matter to be processed and digested first.

Internationalisation and developing indigenous languages 

It is important to note that the development of indigenous languages should never be at the expense of expanding students’ proficiency in English as the language of instruction. English is undoubtedly the primary language of modern international scientific communication, with an estimated 98% of all scientific publications written in this language. For all academic purposes, plus to facilitate effective international collaboration, it remains essential that students are well versed in English. At the UFS, indigenous language initiatives dovetail with programmes that develop English writing and language skills. By creating a truly multilingual environment in this way, we equip students for the demands of diverse working environments – both locally and abroad.  

The importance attached globally to multilingualism is abundantly clear. One of the ways in which this is reflected, is the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has proclaimed the decade from 2022 to 2032 as the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. 

As South African institutions of higher learning, we should latch on to and support this important global drive – and in the process, promote both academic success and inclusivity by implementing innovative multilingual strategies. 

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept