Original Research

Analysing teachers’ discourse and language patterns during sharing-based fraction instruction in isiZulu-medium Grade 3 classrooms

Lindiwe Tshuma, Liztie Prinsloo, Corin D. Mathews

Received: 02 Feb. 2026; Accepted: 11 June 2026; Published: 19 Aug. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: Mother Tongue-based Bilingual Education (MTBBE) aims to strengthen learners’ home language while developing English as an additional language. However, the historical marginalisation of African languages in mathematics education means that teachers may use everyday expressions that do not communicate mathematical meanings precisely. Limited research has examined how language choices in African-language classrooms shape learners’ early mathematical understanding.

Aim: This study examined how teacher discourse constructed fraction concepts during sharing-based lessons in isiZulu-medium Grade 3 classrooms, with implications for MTBBE in Grade 4.

Setting: The study involved two Grade 3 classrooms in South African township primary schools.

Methods: Guided by a language-as-resource orientation, this qualitative study analysed observations of two fraction lessons taught by mathematics subject advisers during a Lesson Study. Multimodal discourse and thematic analyses examined how language and teaching practices shaped mathematical meaning-making.

Results: Both lessons introduced fractions through equal-sharing contexts. However, some translated expressions conveyed meanings more closely associated with division than with fractions as parts of a whole. One teacher emphasised fairness and equivalence, while the other used comparative and relational language, including more, less, fewer and larger parts.

Conclusion: Teachers’ language choices influenced how learners encountered and interpreted fraction concepts.

Contribution: The study shows how instructional discourse shapes mathematical meaning-making and highlights the need to develop mathematically precise isiZulu terminology and expressions for MTBBE classrooms.

Keywords: fractions; isiZulu mathematics register; language as a resource in mathematics; mathematics meaning-making; Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual Education.

Introduction

Improving mathematical learning in South African primary schools remains a national priority, particularly because early mathematics performance continues to fall below international expectations. Learners in the early grades consistently demonstrate weak foundational numeracy understanding, and large-scale assessments show that these challenges persist throughout their schooling (Fritz et al. 2021). The expansion of Mother Tongue-based Bilingual Education (MTBBE) up to Grade 7 (Department of Basic Education [DBE] 2025) reflects an acknowledgement that early mathematical understanding is shaped by the linguistic resources through which concepts are introduced and negotiated. Language plays a central role in all early mathematical activity, as learners build understanding through talk, comparison, explanation and reasoning. Research emphasises that African language-speaking learners often do not struggle because of lack of ability but because linguistic forms used in classrooms do not align with the cognitive structures of mathematical concepts (Essien 2018). When instructional language does not provide access to mathematical meaning, learners may experience confusion, anxiety or reduced participation (Madonsela 2015). These realities underscore the urgent need to understand how African languages mediate conceptual access in early mathematics, particularly in multilingual settings.

In many primary classrooms, teachers rely on flexible bilingual practices such as code-switching or translanguaging to support learners’ comprehension of mathematical tasks (Moschkovich 2019). While such practices can be pedagogically valuable, they do not replace the need for a coherent and well-developed mathematical register in African languages (Feza 2016). Curriculum materials often assume monolingual norms that fail to reflect the linguistic diversity of South African classrooms, creating a mismatch between everyday language use and the formal language of school mathematics (Essien, Sapire & Taylor 2023). This mismatch is problematic because it can distort the meanings of foundational concepts when linguistic expressions carry everyday interpretations that differ from their mathematical intent. Fractions are a particularly demanding area of early mathematics, requiring learners to develop part–whole reasoning, abstraction and symbolic fluency. Research shows that when fractions are explained using everyday linguistic forms associated with sharing or dividing objects, learners may adopt interpretations that diverge from the formal mathematical meaning of equal parts of a defined whole (Fritz et al. 2021). Understanding how linguistic practices support or hinder the development of these concepts is therefore essential for advancing equitable mathematics teaching and learning.

Although language in mathematics education has received increasing scholarly attention (Barwell, Wessel & Parra 2019; Peng et al. 2020; Phakeng 2016; Planas, Morgan & Schütte 2018; Planas & Pimm 2024; Radford & Barwell 2016), research focusing specifically on early-grade African-language mathematics classrooms remains limited. Studies examining African languages such as isiXhosa and isiZulu reveal that everyday terms used to express comparison, quantity and relational meanings often carry multiple interpretations, which can create ambiguity in mathematical contexts (Mostert & Roberts 2022). Mostert (2020) demonstrates that specific linguistic structures in African languages influence how learners interpret mathematical meaning, yet these insights have rarely been extended into detailed analyses of live classroom interaction. Existing studies highlight that African languages lack fully developed mathematical registers, leading teachers to rely on familiar but mathematically imprecise expressions (Essien 2018; Feza 2016). Despite this, little empirical work has examined how such linguistic practices shape learners’ understanding of fractions in the early grades. The landscape analysis conducted by Essien et al. (2023) further identifies that research on African-language mathematics teaching still lacks depth in exploring how teachers frame concepts through language.

This study addresses this gap by providing a fine-grained analysis of how teacher language choices in isiZulu-medium Grade 3 fraction lessons shape the development of learners’ mathematical meaning. The focus on Grade 3 is particularly important in the South African context because it is the final year of the Foundation Phase and the grade at which formal division is first introduced in the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS), a structured curriculum policy that guides teaching, learning and assessment through prescribed content, skills and timeframes for classroom instruction (DBE 2011). This means that linguistic cues can strongly influence whether learners construct division or fraction schemas. Grade 3 is also a transitional year for many learners, as the shift to Grade 4 historically involved a change in the Language of Learning and Teaching to English, a shift that has been shown to contribute to declines in mathematical performance because of linguistic discontinuity and cognitive load (Essien et al. 2023; Madonsela 2015). Even under the new MTBBE policy direction, which extends home-language instruction to Grade 7 (DBE 2025), the conceptual foundations laid in Grade 3 remain crucial because limited constructions of mathematical concepts formed at this stage persist and become difficult to remediate in later grades (Fritz et al. 2021).

How African language mathematics instruction influences mathematical reasoning remains inadequately documented in the literature. This study shows that the way language is used in mathematics teaching can sometimes change the meaning of mathematical ideas without teachers intending to, which may lead to misunderstandings that persist into the Intermediate Phase. This contributes original insight into how linguistic structures can reframe mathematical concepts unintentionally, thereby generating difficulties that endure across the transition into the Intermediate Phase. The study adds to existing research by illustrating how mathematics meaning-making unfolds in real time as teachers and learners negotiate mathematical ideas through isiZulu. This focus on live classroom discourse demonstrates the need for more nuanced analyses of the relationship between language, pedagogy and conceptual development in African-language-medium classrooms.

The lessons analysed in this study formed part of an international collaboration focused on strengthening Grade 3 learners’ understanding of fractions through a structured Lesson Study (LS) cycle. The broader lesson sequence was designed around sharing scenarios intended to support learners’ reasoning about relationships between quantities, number of sharers and the size of shares. The original international task involved learners comparing how brownies were shared across different tea party situations where either the number of friends or the quantity of brownies changed. Because this context was considered unfamiliar to many South African learners, the mathematics subject advisers adapted the task into a locally meaningful bread-sharing scenario involving ‘Zanele’ sharing slices of bread with friends across different days (see full questions under the ‘Research methods and design’ section). The mathematical structure of the task remained unchanged, but the context was redesigned to make the sharing situation more accessible and culturally familiar for learners. Within this article, the task served as a context for examining how teachers’ discourse and linguistic questioning patterns constructed fraction concepts during classroom interaction.

The aim of this article is to analyse how teachers’ discourse and language patterns construct fraction concepts during sharing-based mathematics lessons in isiZulu-medium Grade 3 classrooms. The research question is: How do teachers’ discourse and language patterns construct fraction concepts during sharing-based mathematics lessons in isiZulu-medium Grade 3 classrooms?

The transition from Grade 3 to Grade 4 represents a particularly important moment for mathematics learning in South Africa. Within CAPS, learners move from encountering fractions primarily through sharing situations and equal partitioning in the Foundation Phase to engaging with fractions as quantities, parts of sets and regions and equivalent relationships in the Intermediate Phase (DBE 2011). At the same time, the implementation of MTBBE from Grade 4 places increased emphasis on learners using both their home language and English to access and communicate mathematical ideas. This means that the conceptual and linguistic foundations established in Grade 3 become critical for later learning. If fraction concepts are constructed through language that foregrounds sharing and distribution without sufficiently supporting part–whole reasoning, learners may enter the Intermediate Phase with understandings that are not fully aligned with the mathematical demands of the curriculum. Such challenges are likely to be amplified when learners are expected to engage with mathematical concepts across two languages within MTBBE classrooms. Understanding how fraction meanings are constructed through instructional discourse in Grade 3 is therefore important not only for Foundation Phase teaching, but also for supporting learners’ mathematical and linguistic development in the Intermediate Phase. This raises important questions about whether the language used in mathematics classrooms merely translates concepts from English into isiZulu or whether it intentionally versions mathematical ideas in ways that preserve disciplinary meaning.

Versioning as the core conceptual tension

Prinsloo and Zondi (2020) found that concepts expressed in one language do not always have direct equivalents in another. This means that translating mathematical ideas across languages can result in subtle shifts in meaning, highlighting the need for careful linguistic versioning rather than relying solely on direct translation. In some cases, a specific concept is known in the target language, but the target language has no word for it, or the concept itself may be unknown in the target language, which implies that the language will also not have a word for such a concept. Table 1 illustrates the isiZulu equivalents of the mathematical terms share, part, whole, equivalence and inverse operations.

While the provision of African language equivalents for mathematics terms is a positive step towards MTBBE, it is noteworthy that the list of terms does not include complex Mathematics terminology. The effective use of these equivalents in isiZulu-medium mathematics classrooms for meaning-making is crucial. While Table 1 illustrates that equivalents of the basic terms exist, the equivalents for terms such as ‘share’ that can be used in both fractional and division concepts need to be considered in the development of more precise African language mathematics dictionaries. Furthermore, equivalents for isiZulu mathematical terms that refer to even more precise concepts such as sharing by distributing one by one need to be developed.

Versioning has emerged as a critical concept within recent discussions of MTBBE, particularly as policymakers and scholars recognise that African languages must be developed in ways that support the teaching of specialised academic domains. Mother Tongue-based Bilingual Education does not simply advocate teaching in African languages but calls for the deliberate creation of discipline-appropriate linguistic forms that preserve the conceptual integrity of school knowledge (August-Mowers 2025). In mathematics, where technical precision is essential for conceptual development, this distinction becomes especially important. Versioning refers to the intentional design of mathematical expressions in African languages that convey the specific meanings required by the discipline. It recognises that mathematical ideas are not always directly transferable from one language to another without conceptual loss. In contrast, translation often relies on familiar everyday meanings that may not align with the underlying structure of mathematical concepts. This tension between translation and versioning is central to understanding how learners access mathematical meaning in isiZulu-medium classrooms.

Translation assumes that languages map neatly onto one another and that equivalent words can be substituted without shifting conceptual meaning. This assumption is problematic in multilingual mathematics classrooms, where every day linguistic expressions frequently carry interpretations that differ from their intended academic meanings. Studies in African languages have shown that terms used for comparison, quantity or division as a mathematical concept hold multiple everyday meanings that are not mathematically precise (Essien 2018; Mostert & Roberts 2022). In the case of fractions, classroom discourse often draws on terms associated with sharing or distributing objects, because these expressions are culturally familiar and accessible for young learners. However, these linguistic choices may lead learners to conceptualise fractions through the logic of fair division rather than through the mathematical idea of partitioning a whole into equal parts. Without intentional versioning, teachers may inadvertently reinforce interpretations that diverge from curriculum aims, resulting in conceptual distortions. This demonstrates why translation alone cannot support epistemic access in mathematics.

Versioning acknowledges that mathematical concepts may require re-expression in ways that restructure linguistic forms to preserve disciplinary meaning. Rather than importing everyday meanings from the home language, versioning involves shaping new or revised linguistic forms that reflect the conceptual relationships needed for mathematical reasoning. This approach aligns with theories of language as a resource, which argue that linguistic practices must be intentionally designed to enable deep learning rather than simply reflecting conversational norms (Essien et al. 2023). In MTBBE, versioning therefore becomes a process of building the academic literacy of African languages so that learners can encounter mathematical concepts on their own linguistic terms. This development is essential because African languages were historically excluded from formal domains of scientific and mathematical discourse, creating gaps in their academic lexicons (Leeuw 2025). By engaging in versioning, educators contribute to the long-term project of linguistic development and epistemic justice. The concept thus operates not only as a pedagogical strategy, but also as a transformative practice within multilingual education.

In the absence of versioning, critical mathematical ideas become flattened or reinterpreted through everyday schemas that do not support conceptual progression. For example, when learners only learn fractions through sharing activities, they may later struggle to understand fraction symbols, how the top and bottom numbers work together and what the whole or unit represents. Research on early mathematics learning indicates that such misconceptions can persist over time, influencing performance in upper primary grades and beyond (Fritz et al. 2021). These misunderstandings are not simply the product of ineffective teaching but arise from the linguistic framing through which mathematical ideas are introduced. Mother Tongue-based Bilingual Education advocates argue that effective bilingual education requires intentional linguistic design so that learners can develop both conceptual understanding and the academic language needed to express it (August-Mowers 2025). Without this intentionality, the benefits of teaching in the home language are compromised because everyday language is not adapted to meet the cognitive demands of mathematics. This reinforces the argument that versioning is central to achieving the goals of MTBBE.

The context of teaching fractions

Teaching fractions in the context of multiple languages globally

Research from multilingual contexts across the world shows that language plays a significant role in how learners understand fractions and mathematical relationships. Studies comparing Korean, Croatian and English-speaking learners found that Korean fraction terminology explicitly embeds the part–whole relationship within the language itself, supporting learners’ conceptual understanding of fractions before formal schooling (Miura et al. 1999). Unlike English fraction terms such as ‘third’, Korean terminology directly communicates the relationship between the whole and its divided parts. Similar findings have been reported in bilingual mathematics classrooms in Germany and Malta, where learners used multiple languages to negotiate fraction meaning and mathematical reasoning (Farrugia 2022; Schüler-Meyer 2017). In Australia, research on Indigenous language mathematics programmes has further highlighted the importance of collaboratively developing appropriate mathematical terminology in local languages rather than relying only on direct translation from English (Edmonds-Wathen & Gumurdal 2024). Together, these studies demonstrate that multilingual mathematics education requires more than translation alone, particularly when teaching abstract concepts such as fractions.

Internationally, multilingual mathematics education is increasingly recognised as a global issue shaped by migration, colonisation, indigenous education and changing language policies (Barwell et al. 2019). Research across contexts consistently shows that mathematical meaning is shaped through relationships between language, discourse and classroom interaction, especially when learners move between everyday language and formal mathematical meanings. In multilingual classrooms, teachers often rely on translanguaging, code-switching or everyday linguistic forms to support comprehension, yet these practices may also unintentionally shift mathematical meanings if not carefully structured (Farrugia 2022; Schüler-Meyer 2017). Within this broader international context, the South African challenge of teaching fractions through isiZulu reflects similar tensions between everyday language, translation practices and the development of mathematically precise discourse. However, limited research has examined how these linguistic processes unfold during live classroom interaction in African-language mathematics classrooms in the early grades.

Fractions in the South African curriculum assessment policy statement

The Foundation Phase Mathematics CAPS outlines key guidance for teachers by stipulating essential skills to be taught in numeracy and specifying the focus and weighting of different content areas (DBE 2011). Within the CAPS curriculum, fractions are introduced through practical tasks involving equal sharing and grouping, which provide the conceptual foundation for division (DBE 2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements emphasise that learners must regularly encounter situations where wholes are partitioned into equal parts, since this supports early number sense and prepares learners for symbolic fraction notation used in Grade 3. The Numeracy Handbook developed by the South African DBE similarly stresses that early grade learners’ fraction understanding must arise from identifiable concrete wholes such as bars of chocolate or slices of bread, because learners often misinterpret pre-partitioned drawings or half-filled objects in everyday contexts (DBE 2012). According to the policy documents (CAPS and Numeracy Handbook), sharing and grouping problems with remainders are essential from Grade R so that learners do not develop the belief that division always results in whole numbers, and so that fractions emerge naturally when remainders are shared. In Grades 2 and 3, learners progress from unitary fractions, such as one third, to non-unitary fractions such as two thirds, through sharing leftover remainders equally among sharers (DBE 2011, 2012).

Fractions in early mathematics education

Early mathematics research consistently shows that fractions pose unique conceptual challenges because they require a shift from whole number thinking to relational reasoning. Gabriel et al. (2013) note that learners’ fraction understanding depends on coordinating two quantities simultaneously, and that many difficulties arise when learners rely on whole number strategies. Kieren (1992) argues that fractions contain multiple sub-constructs, including part-whole, quotient, measure, ratio and operator, and that instruction limited to one interpretation restricts conceptual growth. Learners often display whole number bias, where they incorrectly assume that larger denominators imply larger quantities, demonstrating the cognitive conflict involved in rational number learning (Gabriel et al. 2013). Research also shows that learners need extensive experience with equal partitioning and equivalence in order to develop robust fraction concepts, particularly before engaging with formal notation (Hallett, Nunes & Bryant 2010). Literature therefore recommends teaching approaches that foreground meaning-making, flexible interpretation and the relational structure of fractions, rather than focusing solely on procedures or symbolic forms.

Fractions as intended in the current study

In this article, the intended mathematical meaning of fractions centred on equal parts of a defined whole, with explicit attention to how the size of each part varies when either the whole or the number of sharers changes. The original brownie problem and the contextualised bread-sharing problem were designed to support reasoning about the relationships between whole, parts and number of sharers (see the ‘Data collection’ section for task). The task aimed to encourage learners to identify the unit, partition it into equal parts and compare fractional amounts across scenarios, thereby promoting early equivalence reasoning. This design aligns with early mathematics literature that emphasises attention to partitioning, unitising and reasoning about magnitude, rather than interpreting fractions solely through fair sharing procedures. It also reflects CAPS expectations that Grade 3 learners engage with unitary and non-unitary fractions arising naturally from sharing remainders, with conceptual grounding preceding symbolic representation (DBE 2011). Within the context of this article, the task therefore served as a lens for examining how linguistic framing in isiZulu either supported fractional reasoning or shifted learners towards division-based interpretations.

Language orientations: Language as a resource in mathematics teaching and learning

This article is informed by Ruíz’s (1984) Language Orientations Framework, which provides a theoretical lens for understanding how languages are valued and positioned within educational contexts. Ruíz conceptualises language orientations as underlying beliefs and value systems that shape language policies, educational practices and societal responses to multilingualism (Hult & Hornberger 2016). He proposes three orientations towards language: language as a problem, language as a right and language as a resource. These orientations represent different ways of understanding linguistic diversity and have been widely used to interpret language practices in education, including mathematics teaching, learning and assessment.

The language-as-problem orientation views multilingualism and linguistic diversity as challenges that need to be managed or overcome (Hult & Hornberger 2016; Ruíz 1984). Within this perspective, minority languages are often perceived as barriers to educational achievement and participation. In the South African context, prior to the promotion of MTBBE, multilingual learners were frequently positioned as disadvantaged because they were not proficient in the dominant language of learning and teaching. McLachlan and Essien (2022) describe this orientation as privileging English or Afrikaans for mathematics instruction while viewing indigenous African languages as inadequate or problematic for communicating mathematical ideas.

In contrast, the language-as-a-right orientation focuses on the linguistic rights of individuals and communities. Central to this perspective is the right of learners to receive education in a language they understand and to be protected from language-based discrimination (Ruíz 1984). This orientation aligns with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), which recognises the right of learners to be educated in their home language where reasonably practicable. However, Planas and Setati-Phakeng (2014) argue that policy recognition alone does not guarantee meaningful implementation within classroom practice.

This article adopts the language-as-resource orientation. Ruíz (1984, 2009) conceptualises linguistic diversity as an educational, cultural and social asset rather than a barrier to learning. From this perspective, learners’ home languages are viewed as intellectual resources that support participation, communication and meaning-making. The language-as-resource orientation, therefore, challenges deficit views of multilingualism and recognises that multilingual learners bring valuable linguistic resources to the classroom. Alstad and Sopanen (2021) further argue that this orientation promotes the recognition and acceptance of linguistic and cultural diversity within educational settings.

Within mathematics education, the language-as-resource orientation has been extended by researchers who emphasise the role of multiple linguistic resources in supporting mathematical understanding. Planas and Setati-Phakeng (2014) argue that multilingual learners draw on a range of linguistic resources to construct mathematical meaning. Similarly, Moschkovich (2015) contends that learners’ home languages support not only the acquisition of mathematical vocabulary, but also the communication of mathematical ideas through gestures, intonation, representations and manipulatives. Barwell (2018) further argues that mathematical meaning emerges through interactions among different languages, discourses and voices present within multilingual classrooms. From this perspective, language is not merely a vehicle for communicating mathematics but a resource through which mathematical understanding is constructed.

The language-as-resource orientation has also been associated with heteroglossic approaches to multilingual mathematics classrooms. Sapire and Essien (2021) argue that recognising and drawing on multiple languages in classroom interactions expands learners’ opportunities to participate in mathematical reasoning. This perspective acknowledges that learners move between different linguistic resources as they make sense of mathematical concepts. Consequently, language as a resource extends beyond the language of instruction itself to include the linguistic, cultural and discursive resources that learners and teachers draw upon during mathematical activity.

While some interpretations of language as a resource focus primarily on the coexistence of multiple languages, Planas and Setati-Phakeng (2014) caution that attention should also be given to the learners who use these languages and the meanings they construct through them. Consequently, this article focuses not only on the use of isiZulu as the language of instruction, but also on how specific isiZulu mathematical terms and discourse practices influence learners’ understanding of fraction concepts. These learners are described by Setati (2005) as learners who are simultaneously learning mathematics and learning the language through which mathematics is taught. The key components of the language-as-resource orientation in multilingual mathematics classrooms are summarised in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: Cluster notions of language as resource.

Figure 1 presents Planas’s (2018) conceptualisation of language as a resource in multilingual mathematics classrooms. The framework highlights the interaction between learners’ home languages, community languages and the mathematics register. These linguistic resources are shaped by cultural contexts, social discourses and learners’ developmental characteristics, all of which influence opportunities for mathematical meaning-making and learning. According to Planas (2018), mathematical meaning develops through interactions among the mathematics register, learners’ home languages and the broader linguistic practices of their communities. The cultural and discursive meanings associated with these languages influence how learners interpret mathematical ideas and generate new understandings. Consequently, language becomes a key resource for reducing inequalities in multilingual mathematics classrooms and creating opportunities for more equitable participation in learning (Planas 2018; Sapire & Essien 2021).

Drawing on Ruíz’s (1984) language-as-resource orientation and its application within multilingual mathematics education, this article conceptualises language as a resource across four interconnected dimensions. These dimensions reflect the principal ways in which language functions as a resource for mathematical meaning-making, namely through teaching practices, the communication of mathematical concepts, classroom discourse and opportunities for learners to demonstrate understanding. The first dimension is pedagogical practice, which positions isiZulu not merely as a medium of communication but as a resource for conceptual understanding. Within this dimension, teachers use isiZulu to connect mathematical ideas to learners’ everyday experiences and to support the development of mathematical meaning. The second dimension is conceptual anchoring, which refers to the ways in which mathematical concepts and terminology are translated, explained and contextualised through isiZulu. Conceptual anchoring includes the use of instructional terms such as ‘ingxenye’ [part] and ‘ihhafu’ [half], as well as explanations that connect fraction concepts to familiar cultural practices such as ‘ukwabelana ngesinkwa’ [sharing bread]. Through these linguistic and cultural connections, abstract mathematical ideas become more accessible to learners.

The third dimension is discourse practice, which focuses on how teachers use language to structure classroom interaction and support mathematical meaning-making. Particular attention is given to questioning practices as a discourse resource. Within this article, questioning practices refer to the extent to which teachers use questions to structure classroom interaction, elicit learner responses, probe understanding and support the construction of mathematical meaning (Barwell 2018; Moschkovich 2015). A more interrogative-oriented questioning pattern is characterised by the frequent use of questions to guide reasoning, stimulate discussion and make learners’ mathematical thinking visible. In contrast, a less interrogative-oriented pattern relies more heavily on explanations, demonstrations and declarative statements to communicate mathematical ideas. Consistent with multimodal discourse analysis, questioning practices are examined as part of the broader discourse through which mathematical meanings are negotiated during classroom interaction (Royce 2002).

For analytical purposes, interrogative questioning patterns were examined in terms of the frequency, function and sequencing of teacher questions. A stronger interrogative questioning pattern was characterised by frequent use of open and probing questions, follow-up questions that extended learner reasoning, opportunities for learners to justify responses and sustained dialogue around mathematical ideas. Such patterns positioned learners as active contributors to mathematical meaning-making and created opportunities for learners to articulate, refine and negotiate mathematical understandings. In contrast, a weaker interrogative questioning pattern was characterised by fewer questions overall, limited probing of learner thinking, brief initiation–response exchanges and greater reliance on teacher explanations, demonstrations and declarative statements to communicate mathematical concepts. These indicators served as the analytical criteria for comparing the two teachers’ questioning practices and examining how their discourse created opportunities for mathematical meaning-making during classroom interaction.

The fourth dimension is assessment practice. From a language-as-resource perspective, assessment extends beyond evaluating correct answers to creating opportunities for learners to communicate and demonstrate mathematical understanding through their home language. This includes opportunities for learners to explain their reasoning, describe mathematical relationships and justify solutions using isiZulu. Such practices provide insight into how learners interpret mathematical concepts and the extent to which instructional language supports conceptual understanding.

These four dimensions provide the analytical lens through which the article examines Grade 3 fraction lessons taught in isiZulu. The analysis investigates how pedagogical practices, conceptual anchoring, questioning practices and assessment opportunities support or constrain learners’ mathematical meaning-making. Particular attention is given to how isiZulu mathematical terminology, translation practices and questioning patterns shape learners’ understandings of fractions. Through this lens, the article explores how language and discourse jointly influence the meanings learners construct and whether these meanings support conceptual understanding or inadvertently contribute to misconceptions about fractions.

Research methods and design

Study design

This article employed a qualitative design that combined the principles of LS with multimodal discourse analysis to investigate how language mediates the teaching and learning of fractions in early-grade isiZulu mathematics classrooms. Lesson Study is a collaborative professional development model in which teachers jointly plan a research lesson, teach it in a live classroom and observe how learners respond to the instructional approach (Perry & Lewis 2009; Xu & Pedder 2014). Lesson Study is particularly well suited to studies of mathematical meaning-making because it foregrounds the iterative refinement of teaching, the close observation of pedagogical decisions and the collective interrogation of learners’ sense-making processes. Subject advisers were intentionally selected because of their curriculum leadership role within the South African education system, where they support curriculum implementation, teacher development and instructional leadership across large clusters of schools (Department of Arts and Culture [DAC] 2013; Mbanjwa 2014; Sithole & Tachie 2024). In many districts, a single subject adviser is responsible for supporting between 50 and 150 schools, each with multiple Foundation Phase mathematics teachers. Using subject advisers within the LS process therefore allowed the article to examine instructional discourse that has the potential to influence teaching practices across a broader network of classrooms beyond a single school context. During the research lessons, the subject advisers assumed the role of classroom teachers and taught the lessons directly to Grade 3 learners. Although the lessons were presented by subject advisers rather than classroom teachers, the instructional interactions occurred within real Grade 3 classroom settings with learners engaging in authentic mathematical discussion and problem-solving activities. The article therefore does not position the lessons as representative of all everyday classroom practice, but rather as analytically valuable examples of how mathematically focused instructional discourse is constructed within isiZulu-medium fraction teaching. The LS structure further supported this by creating carefully planned lessons designed to surface learners’ mathematical reasoning and classroom interaction.

The article does not claim to provide direct evidence of learners’ internal cognitive processes. Rather, the focus of analysis is on how mathematical meaning was constructed through instructional discourse during classroom interaction. The primary unit of analysis was therefore the isiZulu linguistic patterns, explanations, comparisons and mathematical terms used within subject adviser (serving as a teacher)–learner and learner–learner interactions during the fraction lessons. To analyse these interactions, the study adopted a qualitative multimodal discourse analytic approach, drawing on social semiotic understandings of classroom communication. Multimodality recognises that mathematical meaning is conveyed not only through spoken language, but also through gestures, representation, material artefacts and other resources that interact simultaneously (Kress 2009; Royce 2002). According to Royce (2002), verbal and visual modes work intersemiotically to project meaning, each providing complementary dimensions of mathematical understanding. Sommer and Bembnista (2024) argue that qualitative research must extend beyond text to consider the multimodal combinations, speech, gesture, diagrams and inscriptions that co-produce meaning in instructional contexts. Given that fraction instruction frequently involves pointing, partitioning, modelling and using manipulatives, multimodal analysis enabled a fine-grained examination of how meaning was constructed across multiple semiotic channels. The intended contribution of the article is therefore primarily directed towards mathematics education researchers, teacher educators, subject advisers and policymakers working within MTBBE contexts, particularly those concerned with the development of mathematically precise African-language instructional discourse in the early grades.

Research site

This article is based on a study conducted in two Grade 3 mathematics classrooms located in two public primary schools situated in township communities within the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality in the Gauteng province of South Africa. Both schools are classified as quintile three schools, reflecting their placement within lower-resourced public schooling contexts. In both schools, isiZulu is the Language of Learning, Teaching and Assessment (LoLTA) in the Foundation Phase. The classrooms reflect typical South African multiple-monolingual environments (Sapire & Essien 2021), in which isiZulu is widely used for both everyday communication and formal instruction, despite the presence of learners who speak different African home languages within the same classroom. This linguistic configuration is common in township schools, where one dominant African language is used institutionally, while multilingual repertoires are drawn on informally by learners and teachers. The learner participants consisted of Grade 3 learners, aged between 8 years and 9 years old, drawn from two intact classes. Each class comprised approximately 30–40 learners, reflecting typical Foundation Phase class sizes within the participating schools. Learners participated as intact class groups, enabling the observation of mathematical engagement and learning processes within authentic classroom contexts, rather than through isolated or experimental groupings.

Sampling procedures

The study population comprised two Foundation Phase mathematics subject advisers (serving as teachers) and two Grade 3 mathematics classes. Both subject advisers were female, isiZulu home-language speakers, with more than 5 years of experience in their roles as Foundation Phase mathematics subject advisers and more than 10 years of teaching the Foundation Phase. Their professional responsibilities included curriculum support, teacher development and monitoring of mathematics teaching and learning in primary schools, positioning them as key informants in relation to curriculum implementation and pedagogical practices. Thus, mathematics teacher language practices in this article refer to the mathematics subject adviser language practices as they designed and taught the research lesson on comparing fractions through real-life sharing scenarios, in lieu of teachers. The mathematics subject advisers also selected and prepared the teaching resources used to present it, including visual models and manipulatives. It is important to remind the reader that the subject adviser served as a teacher in this article.

The sampling strategy was purposive and guided by four inclusion criteria. Firstly, the lessons had to be taught in an African language, specifically isiZulu, to align with the study’s focus on linguistic mediation. Secondly, participating classrooms had to represent typical South African multilingual contexts. Thirdly, the grade level needed to match the developmental point at which formal introduction of fractions occurs. Fourthly, isiZulu was selected because it is the most widely spoken home language in South Africa; recent census reports show that isiZulu speakers increased from 22.8% in 1996 to 24.4% in 2022, reaffirming its national dominance (Statistics South Africa 2025).

Data collection

The lessons analysed in this article formed part of a broader international research collaboration focused on strengthening Grade 3 learners’ understanding of fractions through LS. The international research team collaborated directly with the South African research team throughout the planning, implementation, observation and data collection processes. Both the South African and international researchers participated in the classroom observations and collection of lesson data. Ethical clearance was obtained through the relevant institutional processes by both research teams, and all members of the South African and international teams were formally included within the ethics applications and approval procedures. The original international problem posed to learners was: Whenever I have friends round for a tea party, I insist they share the brownies equally. On Monday I had a tea party. I invited a group of friends and bought some brownies for them which they shared equally. On Tuesday I have another tea party and I invite more friends than I had on Monday but have the same amount of brownies as I did on Monday. How does the amount of brownies each friend gets on Tuesday compare to Monday? On Wednesday I have another tea party. I invite the same number of friends as I did on Monday but buy more brownies than I did on Monday. How does the amount of brownies each friend gets on Wednesday compare to Monday?

Since this scenario was unfamiliar to many South African learners, the mathematics subject advisers adapted the task to create a more culturally meaningful version. The contextualised problem presented during teaching was: Zanele loves to share slices of bread with her friends. On Friday she bought a loaf of bread and shared the slices equally with some friends. On Saturday she bought the same size loaf as on Friday but shared them equally with more friends than she did on Friday. How does the number of slices of bread each friend gets on Saturday compare to Friday? On Sunday she invites the same number of friends as on Friday but buys more slices of bread to share equally with this group than she did on Friday. How does the number of slices of bread each friend gets on Sunday compare to Friday?

This adapted version maintains the mathematical structure of the original task while embedding it in a familiar food item and cultural practice, which research shows can enhance learners’ mathematics meaning-making for African language-speaking learners (Essien 2018).

Data were collected during the LS research lessons and consisted of full video recordings of the subject advisers teaching the contextualised fraction lesson. The subject advisers’ involvement in task adaptation, lesson design and presentation in this article is directly linked to their everyday practice of guiding teachers in curriculum implementation, including lesson design and presentation. Video was used because it enables repeated viewing and careful analysis of gesture, gaze, manipulation of objects and other semiotic features that influence mathematical reasoning (Sommer & Bembnista 2024). Capturing these multimodal features made it possible to examine how verbal and visual modes interacted to convey mathematical meaning. Each recording was transcribed verbatim in isiZulu and English, with annotations describing gestures and actions such as pointing to the board, demonstrating equal sharing or moving manipulatives. The dual language transcripts also strengthened reliability by allowing the research team to validate meaning across isiZulu and English. For the purposes of analysis, the primary data source was the annotated transcripts, although the videos were consulted to verify multimodal details and ensure interpretive accuracy.

Data analysis

The analysis followed a combination of thematic analysis and multimodal discourse analysis. Thematic analysis involved iterative coding to identify recurring linguistic and pedagogical patterns in the lessons. Multimodal discourse analysis examined how spoken language, gesture, material resources and visual representations worked together to shape learners’ interpretations (Kress 2009; Royce 2002).

The coding process was conducted as follows: Both transcripts were translated from isiZulu to English. After producing the transcripts, the researchers developed a coding rubric. Throughout both transcripts, the researchers examined words and ideas related to sharing and fractions. Two spreadsheets were then designed, with the main categories being concept, line number and quotation from the transcript. Subsequently, sharing and fractions were assigned specific categories as the analysis of the transcripts progressed. Each time a quotation matched a category, a mark was assigned. In a few instances, a quotation encompassed more than one idea, and each relevant category was assigned a mark. The purpose of allocating these marks was to subsequently determine the predominant ideas within each transcript under each sharing and fractions category.

The analysis of sharing discourse includes categories such as the aim of the lesson (context for sharing fractions), translation-based sharing language, knowledge of sharing, sharing equally, sharing as equivalence, questions about sharing, sharing as an action, sharing as a statement and comparing when sharing, each reflecting different pedagogical and linguistic perspectives on fractional intent. The discourse on fractions incorporates categories such as the introduction to fractions as comparison, fractions related to the idea of a whole, fractions related to half, fractions related to wholes and halves, fewer people equals more parts, more people equals less parts, fewer idea not linked to fractions, a lot and more, few and less, relationship between a lot and few and more and less, relationships between quantities, quarters and translation-based fraction language, each reflecting varied conceptual and linguistic approaches to fractional intent. Reliability was enhanced by using dual language transcripts to cross-check interpretation. This alignment across isiZulu and English helped ensure that linguistic nuance was preserved and that analytical claims were grounded in accurate representation of teacher and learner talk.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (Non-Medical) (Protocol no. H24/11/31). The lessons formed part of a broader international research collaboration, and both the South African and international research teams were formally included in the ethical clearance and approval processes. Permission to conduct the study was also granted by the Gauteng Department of Basic Education and by the principals and teachers of the participating schools. Parental consent and learner assent were secured prior to data collection. Both the South African and international research teams participated in the classroom observations and data collection processes. To minimise risk to learners, the video camera was positioned to focus primarily on the subject advisers rather than the learners. Data sharing between the collaborating research teams occurred only within the scope of the approved ethical agreements, with all shared data anonymised and used solely for research purposes related to the project. All data were stored securely in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines.

Results and discussion

This article interprets the findings presented in the analysis of Lesson 1 (L1) and Lesson 2 (L2), with particular attention to how teachers’ discourse and linguistic questioning patterns identified in Table 2 and Table 3 constructed fraction concepts across two isiZulu-medium Grade 3 mathematics lessons. Although both lessons were intentionally designed to develop fractions through sharing contexts, the discussion demonstrates that the teachers used different discourse patterns to linguistically frame fraction concepts (Table 4 and Table 5). One lesson more strongly foregrounded comparative language, explicit relationships between few, more and less, and sustained articulation of inverse relationships such as ‘fewer people get more’ and ‘more people get less’. The findings therefore illustrate how teachers used questioning structures, comparative language and relational discourse to construct mathematical meaning during sharing-based fraction instruction.

Table 2 presents a thematic analysis of teachers’ discourse and linguistic patterns related to sharing in Lesson 1 (L1) and Lesson 2 (L2) during isiZulu-medium Grade 3 mathematics lessons. The table was developed by coding recurring words, phrases, questioning structures and mathematical explanations associated with sharing and equal distribution (Kress 2009; Royce 2002). Rather than quantifying discourse through percentages, the analysis describes how teachers linguistically constructed mathematical ideas within classroom interaction. The table identifies key discourse themes, including sharing as the focus of the lesson, translation and everyday language, activating prior knowledge, sharing equally, sharing as equivalence, questioning around sharing, comparative language, sharing as action and sharing as statement. Each theme was then interpreted across the two lessons to examine similarities and differences in teachers’ mathematical discourse.

The analysis highlights how teachers structured sharing through different linguistic approaches, such as fairness-oriented explanations, action-focused descriptions, comparative phrasing, questioning structures and translation-based language. The final column interprets the pedagogical significance of these linguistic patterns within fraction instruction. The comparison between L1 and L2 demonstrates how teachers constructed fraction concepts differently through discourse patterns related to sharing and equal distribution. L1 foregrounded fairness, equivalence and links between sharing and familiar social experiences, while L2 relied more strongly on questioning, comparative language, action-oriented discourse and translation-based explanations to structure mathematical discussions around sharing situations and outcomes. In other words, L1 focused more explicitly on fairness, equal sharing and the relationship between portions and wholes, whereas L2 used stronger interrogative and comparative questioning to explain how sharing changes according to quantity, grouping and equal distribution (Essien 2018; Gabriel et al. 2013).

Table 3 presents a thematic analysis of teachers’ discourse and linguistic questioning patterns related to fraction concepts across Lesson 1 (L1) and Lesson 2 (L2) during isiZulu-medium Grade 3 mathematics lessons. The table was developed through the coding of recurring mathematical expressions, comparative language, questioning structures and explanations associated with fractions, sharing and equal distribution (Barwell 2018; Royce 2002). Instead of measuring discourse quantitatively, the analysis examines how teachers used language to construct and communicate mathematical ideas during classroom interactions. The table identifies key discourse themes, including fractions introduced through comparison, fractions related to wholes, halves as dominant fraction language, relationships between wholes and halves, inverse relationships in sharing, comparative-magnitude language, relationships between quantities, additional fraction terminology and the use of translation-based and everyday language.

Each theme was interpreted across the two lessons to examine similarities and differences in teachers’ mathematical discourse. The analysis highlights how teachers structured fraction understanding through different linguistic approaches, such as whole-part explanations, comparative discourse, questioning patterns, inverse reasoning and everyday language linked to sharing situations.

Attention is given to how comparative language, including more, less, bigger, smaller, few and whole, was used to explain sharing relationships and fraction concepts. The final column interprets the pedagogical significance of these linguistic patterns within fraction instruction. The comparison between L1 and L2 demonstrates that L1 constructed fraction concepts more strongly through whole-part relationships, halves, fairness and equivalence discourse, while L2 relied more heavily on questioning, comparative language, inverse relationships and translation-based explanations to structure mathematical discussions around quantity and sharing outcomes. In other words, L1 explained fractions mainly through halves, equal parts and fairness, whereas L2 focused more strongly on using comparison and questioning to demonstrate that when more people share, each person receives less, and when fewer people share, each person receives more (Hallett et al. 2010; Mostert & Roberts 2022).

Table 4 examines the ways teachers linguistically framed sharing within Grade 3 mathematics lessons across L1 and L2. Using thematic analysis, the table identifies discourse themes that emerged from classroom interaction, including fairness discourse, action-oriented explanations, questioning structures, comparative language and equivalence language (Kress 2009; Moschkovich 2015). The table compares how each teacher organised sharing mathematically through spoken language and classroom explanation. Rather than focusing on numerical frequencies, the analysis highlights the differing discourse structures used to communicate ideas related to equal sharing and fractions. The final column interprets how these linguistic patterns contributed to the organisation of mathematical meaning within the lessons.

Overall, the table demonstrates how teachers’ language choices shaped the explanation and communication of sharing concepts during mathematics instruction. The comparison between L1 and L2 illustrates that L1 constructed fraction concepts through fairness discourse, equivalence language and prior knowledge of sharing, while L2 relied more strongly on questioning structures, action-oriented explanations, comparative language and everyday discourse to linguistically frame equal sharing and mathematical relationships during fraction instruction. In other words, L1 focused more on explaining fractions through fairness, sameness and familiar sharing experiences, while L2 used more questioning, comparison and everyday language to help structure ideas about equal sharing and relationships between quantities (Essien et al. 2023; Fritz et al. 2021).

Table 5 provides a comparative interpretation of teachers’ discourse related to fractions in L1 and L2. The analysis identifies recurring linguistic themes within the lessons, including whole-part relationships, comparative magnitude language, inverse relationships, quantity relationships and the use of everyday and translation-based language (Planas & Setati-Phakeng 2014; Royce 2002).

The table examines how teachers used mathematical and everyday discourse to explain fraction concepts within sharing contexts. Emphasis is placed on how language was used to express relationships between people, quantities and parts of a whole during classroom discussion. The interpretive column highlights the significance of these discourse patterns in foregrounding particular mathematical ideas related to fractions. Overall, the table illustrates how different linguistic structures were used to communicate fraction concepts during isiZulu-medium mathematics lessons. The comparison between L1 and L2 shows that L1 constructed fraction concepts through whole-part relationships, halves and explicit coordination between wholes and parts, whereas L2 relied more on comparative-magnitude language, inverse relationships, quantity comparisons and everyday discourse to explain how sharing changes with the number of people involved. In other words, L1 mainly explained fractions through halves, equal parts and whole-part relationships, whereas L2 more strongly used comparative and relational language such as more, less and fewer people receiving larger or smaller shares to construct fraction concepts during sharing activities (Barwell 2018; Gabriel et al. 2013).

Sharing equally: From fairness to relational structure

Table 3 shows that sharing equally was central to both lessons, confirming that both lessons used sharing contexts to introduce fraction concepts rather than focusing only on procedural division (DBE 2011; Hallett et al. 2010). However, the table also reveals important differences in how teachers linguistically structured sharing within classroom discourse. For L2, sharing equally was closely connected to questioning patterns, comparative language and action-oriented explanations, suggesting that the teacher repeatedly used discourse to foreground changing relationships within sharing situations.

This pattern is evident in teacher prompts such as: ‘When there are more people sharing, do they get more or less bread?’ (L2). While the action of sharing remained visible, the questioning structure and comparative language positioned sharing as a relationship between quantities rather than simply an act of fairness. In contrast, L1 also foregrounded equal sharing, but the discourse more frequently framed sharing as a condition of sameness to be achieved. For example, the teacher focused on ensuring that ‘everyone gets the same’ (L1), which emphasised fairness and equivalence within the sharing process. In contrast, L1 also foregrounded equal sharing, but the discourse more frequently framed sharing as a condition of sameness to be achieved. For example, the teacher focused on ensuring that ‘everyone gets the same’ (L1), emphasising fairness and equivalence in the sharing process. The comparison between the two lessons therefore demonstrates that teachers constructed sharing differently through discourse patterns related to questioning, comparison, fairness and action-oriented explanations (Essien et al. 2023; Moschkovich 2015).

Few and more as indicators of fractional reasoning

One of the clearest distinctions between the two lessons emerges in Table 4, which shows differences in how teachers used comparative magnitude language such as few, more and less within fraction discussions (Fritz et al. 2021; Gabriel et al. 2013). In L2, the teacher repeatedly linked these comparative terms through questioning structures and relational explanations, foregrounding the relationship between the number of people and the size of shares during sharing activities. The discourse consistently connected changing quantities to changing outcomes within the sharing context.

This pattern is evident in teacher prompts such as ‘Are there few people or many people?’ followed by ‘So do they get more or less bread?’ (L2). Through these paired comparisons, the teacher explicitly verbalised relationships between quantities and sharing outcomes. In contrast, while L1 also contained references to more or less, the discourse tended to be more descriptive and less relationally linked. For example, statements such as ‘They have more’ (L1) described outcomes without consistently connecting them to the number of people sharing. The comparison between the two lessons therefore illustrates how teachers used comparative language differently to structure fraction concepts during sharing discussions (Barwell 2018; Mostert & Roberts 2022).

Inverse relationships: Discursive construction through comparative language

The importance of inverse relationships in fraction discussions is evident in Table 4, which shows differences in how teachers linguistically constructed the relationship between the number of people sharing and the size of the shares. While both lessons referred to the idea that more people receive smaller shares, L2 more consistently embedded this idea within comparative and relational discourse patterns. The teacher repeatedly connected quantity relationships through explicit comparative language, questioning structures and relational explanations during sharing activities, reflecting research that highlights the importance of relational reasoning in fraction learning (Gabriel et al. 2013).

This pattern is illustrated in the statement, ‘Because there are few people, each one gets more’ (L2), where the inverse relationship between the number of people and the size of the share is directly verbalised. Throughout the lesson, the teacher repeatedly linked few, more and less within explanations of sharing situations. Such discourse aligns with Barwell’s (2018) view that mathematical meaning is shaped through relationships between language and classroom discourse practices. In contrast, L1 tended to imply inverse relationships indirectly, as in ‘Now they are many, so it is different’ (L1). Although mathematically relevant, the discourse relied more on implied comparison than explicit relational language. This distinction reflects Mostert and Roberts’ (2022) argument that comparative terms in multilingual mathematics classrooms may remain descriptively everyday unless intentionally structured mathematically. The comparison between the lessons therefore demonstrates how teachers used different discourse patterns to linguistically construct inverse relationships during fraction instruction.

Fractions as parts of a whole: Comparative versus static framing

Table 4 shows that both lessons constructed fractions through whole-part relationships within sharing contexts, confirming a shared instructional focus on fractions as parts of a whole. In L1, the teacher explicitly referred to the whole and repeatedly linked wholes and halves during explanations of sharing situations. The discourse foregrounded equal parts, fairness and the relationship between the whole and divided shares, reflecting CAPS expectations that learners develop an understanding of fractions through equal partitioning and identifiable wholes (DBE 2011).

In contrast, L2 integrated references to the whole within broader comparative and relational discourse patterns. Even when the whole was not directly named, it remained implicit within explanations of changing sharing relationships, as seen in the statement, ‘The bread is the same, but there are more people’ (L2). Here, the teacher linguistically maintained the whole as constant while foregrounding changes in the number of sharers and the size of shares. This type of relational explanation aligns with research by Hallett et al. (2010), which argues that learners’ fraction understanding develops when they engage with relationships between quantities rather than isolated fraction labels. L2 also occasionally introduced additional fraction terminology such as quarters within comparative sharing discussions. Furthermore, Moschkovich (2015) argues that mathematical meaning emerges through discourse practices that connect language, context and mathematical relationships. The comparison between the lessons therefore demonstrates how teachers differently used whole-part language and comparative discourse to construct fraction concepts during sharing-based mathematics lessons.

Language as a resource theory emphasises that learners’ full linguistic repertoires such as their home languages, everyday language and translation practices, all contribute to learners’ meaning-making. By activating learners’ prior knowledge at the beginning of the lesson, the teachers provide opportunities for learners to recall cultural sharing practices such as family meals. This validated the learners’ prior knowledge while connecting the sharing practice to classroom concepts.

The study findings indicate that observed teachers positioned sharing as central to the mathematical discussions conducted in class. This position is aligned to the language as a resource theory, which frames sharing not only as a mathematical or social concept, but also as a linguistic one. In both lessons, equal sharing was highlighted as an important mathematical idea. Through expressions such as ‘shera ulanganise wonke umuntu’ [share equally among all] (L1), learners were able to express the concept of sharing in their isiZulu language, reinforcing inclusivity and deeper comprehension of the concept. The language as a resource theory supports using comparative expressions across languages to show that different ways of saying the same concept, such as ‘shera’ (isiZulu versioning of ‘share’), reinforce the mathematical idea. Furthermore, the expression provided learners with an opportunity to describe ‘everyone gets the same’ in isiZulu before associating this to the mathematical concept of division.

Translations and everyday language use as observed in the lessons highlight the use of learners’ home languages to explain the concept of sharing in daily life. The translation ‘… ma bebaningi bathola isinkwa esincane’ [when many learners share a loaf of bread, each learner gets fewer slices] (L1) bridges abstract mathematics vocabulary with familiar, lived experiences. Such bridging is aligned to the language as a resource theory. Both lessons used comparative language such as ‘kuningi’ [more], ‘kuncane’ [less] or ‘kuyalingana’ [equal] as illustrated in Figure 2, a group activity conducted in the observed lessons. Figure 2 presents a sample task on sharing 12 pieces of paper among 6, 3, 2 or 12 friends.

FIGURE 2: Sample written task on sharing 12 pieces of paper among 6, 3, 2 or 12 friends.

The use of comparative language complies with language as a resource’s construct of strengthening both linguistic awareness and mathematical reasoning.

Implications for mother tongue-based bilingual education on language of instruction

Taken together, Table 3 and Table 4 demonstrate how teachers’ discourse and linguistic patterns constructed fraction concepts differently during sharing-based mathematics lessons in isiZulu-medium Grade 3 classrooms. The analysis shows that the construction of mathematical meaning was shaped not only by the sharing task itself, but by how teachers used language to foreground relationships between quantities, people and parts of a whole. In L2, comparative terms such as few, more and less were repeatedly connected through questioning structures and relational explanations, illustrating how everyday language can function as a mathematical resource when explicitly linked to fraction relationships. This supports MTBBE research advocating for versioning rather than direct translation, where everyday language is intentionally shaped to communicate mathematical meaning (August-Mowers 2025; Setati 2005). Such findings also align with Barwell’s (2018) argument that mathematical meaning emerges through relationships between language, discourse and classroom interaction.

In contrast, L1 more frequently relied on fairness discourse, equivalence language and descriptive explanations of sharing. While these linguistic patterns supported equal sharing, the relational connections between quantities were often less explicitly verbalised. This distinction reflects Mostert and Roberts’ (2022) argument that comparative terms in multilingual mathematics classrooms may remain at the level of everyday description unless intentionally structured mathematically. Furthermore, Moschkovich (2015) emphasises that multilingual mathematical discourse becomes meaningful when teachers intentionally connect everyday language with mathematical relationships and representations.

The discussion has shown that teachers used different discourse patterns to construct fraction concepts during sharing discussions. L1 mainly foregrounded fairness, wholes, halves and equal parts, while L2 more strongly relied on comparative language, inverse relationships and questioning patterns to explain how changes in the number of people affected the size of shares. These findings align with Gabriel et al. (2013), who argue that learners’ fraction understanding depends on coordinating relationships between quantities, as well as Hallett et al. (2010), who emphasise the importance of relational reasoning in early fraction instruction. The findings also support Planas and Setati-Phakeng’s (2014) view of language as a resource in multilingual mathematics classrooms, where discourse practices shape access to mathematical meaning. Overall, the article highlights the central role of comparative and relational language in the linguistic construction of fraction concepts within multilingual mathematics classrooms.

Conclusion

This article argues that the challenge in multilingual fraction instruction is not simply whether learners are taught in an African language, but how mathematical meaning is linguistically constructed within that language. The findings suggest that isiZulu instructional discourse can either open or constrain epistemic access to fractions depending on how relationships between quantities are modelled by teachers. In this sense, the article moves beyond viewing language as a neutral carrier of mathematical ideas and instead positions language as constitutive of mathematical meaning itself (Barwell 2018; Moschkovich 2015), and as a resource in mathematics instruction. The contrast between the two lessons demonstrates that learners’ fraction understanding is shaped through the discursive organisation of relationships such as more, less, whole, part and inverse comparison, rather than through the use of African language terminology alone.

The study therefore views versioning not merely as translation into African languages, but as the intentional restructuring of discourse to preserve the conceptual integrity of mathematics. Within the stronger lesson, comparative and relational language functioned as semiotic tools that positioned fractions as relationships between quantities. In contrast, translation-based instructional language in the weaker lesson reproduced familiar everyday meanings that shifted mathematical attention toward division procedures and fair sharing outcomes. This finding suggests that mathematical discourse in MTBBE classrooms operates along a continuum between descriptive everyday language (learner languages) and relational mathematical language. The effectiveness of multilingual mathematics instruction therefore depends on how teachers move learners from socially familiar meanings toward mathematically structured meanings.

The findings further suggest that the development of African language mathematics registers cannot be separated from teachers’ conceptual understanding of mathematics itself. While the expansion of African language mathematical terminology remains essential for the implementation of MTBBE, linguistic development alone cannot guarantee conceptual access. Teachers require strong disciplinary understanding to intentionally select, structure and version language in ways that preserve mathematical relationships. African language mathematics registers should therefore be understood not as replacements for teacher knowledge, but as pedagogical resources that support mathematically precise discourse within multilingual classrooms.

While the sample size of this study (two teachers) is relatively small to make generalisations, the study deepens understanding of how teachers’ language choices in an isiZulu-medium classroom shape learners’ grasp of fractions, a difficult concept in early-grade mathematics (Dyson et al. 2020; Jordan et al. 2017). The article’s contribution to MTBBE, specifically isiZulu-medium instruction, is documenting how indigenous languages function in formal mathematics teaching, contributing to the broader debates on language-in-education. The analysis of teacher discourse provides empirical data on teacher language patterns and how these influence learner understanding. The article informs policymakers about the realities of teaching mathematics in African languages, which is useful in supporting curriculum development and teacher development initiatives.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on data from a Lesson Study on fractions, conducted in three schools and generated through a collaboration between the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Nottingham and the Gauteng Department of Education. No other articles have been published from the study. This article addresses a distinct research question focusing on how teachers’ discourse and language patterns construct fraction concepts during sharing based mathematics lessons in isiZulu medium grade 3 classrooms.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Lindiwe Tshuma: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Liztie Prinsloo: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Corin D. Mathews: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available because of ethical and contextual considerations. The dataset consists of classroom lesson transcripts derived from video recordings involving young learners and practising educators, where anonymity cannot be fully guaranteed even after de-identification. In addition, the transcripts are highly context-specific, closely tied to particular classroom interactions, linguistic practices and lesson designs, which limit their interpretability and reuse outside the analytical framework of this study. For these reasons, the data do not have broad public reuse value beyond the purposes for which they were collected. Access to the transcripts may be granted upon reasonable request to the corresponding authors, Lindiwe Tshuma, Liztie Prinsloo and Corin D. Mathews. Approved access will be provided via a password-protected OneDrive folder, subject to ethical clearance conditions and institutional data governance requirements.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References