|
| [ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ] |
The research reported in this paper was not only guided by fundamental principles of social cultural language theory, but also informed by those theorists and teachers who have researched the instruction of writing within a tertiary society and culture. The literature on tertiary writing instruction and writing across the curriculum (Langer and Applebee 1987, Young and Fulwiler 1986, Taylor et al 1988, Moffett 1983, and Walvoord 1990) provides extensive research on the role of writing and its links with developing thinking skills. This literature and its associated research also reinforces: the importance of context; the developmental nature of learning to write in an academic context; the role of the discipline lecturer as the role model and teacher for students who are "professionals in training" (Walvoord and McCarthy 1991, p9).
The overall research project described and explored tertiary literacy policy, definition and practice within one university with the view to examining the relationship between language theory and actual practice within a tertiary institution. Specifically, this paper discusses the findings related to definitions of literacy given by staff and students, that is, 'what is counting as literacy' (Luke, 1992); lecturers' feedback on aspects of literacy which are of most concern, and lecturers' perceptions of the practicality of specific writing practices. The data is then discussed in the light of what is "taken for granted" (Lo Bianco 1989) in language theory.
All four Schools prepared their students for professional accreditation, and had identifiable strategies (formal units) in place which contributed to the development of literacy. As indicated in Table 1.0 each School varied in staff and student population. The Schools with the greatest number of students from non English speaking backgrounds were School A and D with 35% and 30% respectively, followed by 22% in School B and 15% in School C.
| Case Studies | F/T Staff | U/G Students | Staff in Study | Students in Study |
| School A | 27 | 870 | 16 | 52 |
| School B | 47 | 1151 | 18 | 40 |
| School C | 36 | 1061 | 24 | 52 |
| School D | 20 | 600 | 13 | 41 |
| Definition | School A Staff Students | School B Staff Students | School C Staff Students | School D Staff Students |
| Professional: Being able to communicate and or function within the chosen career or discipline of the School. | 8%-15% | 13%- 4% | 0%-11% | 36%-35% |
| Comprehensive: Being able to communicate and express fluently, clearly and concisely a high level of cognitive skills, using extensive vocabulary and with few mechanical errors. | 92%-37% | 87%-53% | 100%-45% | 64%-35% |
| Functional: Being able to understand the content and fulfil the university course requirements. | 0%-48% | 0%-43% | 0%-44% | 0%-30% |
All staff completing the questionnaire were also asked to a respond to a statement which read "the definition of literacy for students in our School should be strongly linked with the demands of their chosen profession". It was immediately after this statement that space was provided for staff to give their own definition. The responses to this statement when compared to the above table require some reflection. A majority of staff, between 64% in one School and 80% in another, agreed that tertiary literacy should be linked with a student's chosen profession.
From the data gathered there seems to be consensus on two issues regarding definitions of literacy. Firstly, academic staff related tertiary literacy to the ability to express clearly and fluently the high order cognitive skills. Secondly, there was consensus amongst staff at this University, that definitions of tertiary literacy should be closely linked with the demands of the professions for which students were being trained. There was nothing in the comments of staff to indicate that they believed the comprehensive definition was one that led to being professionally literate, although, one could speculate that this might be so. Speculation, however, is not sufficient and further discussion would be necessary with the staff of each School to extrapolate exactly what they perceive the link to be. The understanding of such a link would provide further cognisance of what constitutes literacy in the specific social cultural contexts of different disciplines and professions within the University.
| Descriptors | School A | School B | School C | School D |
| strongly agree | 3 - 30% | 6 - 46% | 6 - 32% | 3 - 33% |
| agree | 2 - 20% | 4 - 31% | 2 - 10% | 2 - 22% |
| undecided | 2 - 20% | 2 - 15% | 0 - 0% | 0 - 0% |
| disagree | 2 - 20% | 1 - 8% | 6 - 32% | 2 - 22% |
| strongly disagree | 1 - 10% | 0 - 0% | 5 - 26% | 2 - 22% |
The staff survey showed that a majority of staff in three Schools believed that literacy development was more the domain of Schools rather than universities. When interviewed many staff expressed the opinion that literacy development was certainly essential at the University because high schools and in some cases primary schools had 'not done their job'. Both staff and students in the case studies were asked if they believed students' literacy skills and specifically writing, improved whilst completing their undergraduate degree. The majority of staff (71%) and students (66%) believed that improvement did take place. Students commented that having to organise and express their ideas logically had helped them improve. Both students and staff cited practice as an important contributor to improvement, and staff also commented that a student's growing interest in the course encouraged the development of literacy skills.
| Components of effective writing | Staff response in order of priority | Student response | Priority of student response |
| 1. Grammar and usage | 59% | 56% | 4 |
| 2. Development of ideas and concepts | 41% | 68% | 3 |
| 3. Spelling | 39% | 39% | 9 |
| 4. Use of appropriate vocabulary | 35% | 54% | 6 |
| 5. Expression of ideas and concepts | 35% | 69% | 2 |
| 6. Use of appropriate referencing | 33% | 51% | 8 |
| 7. Use of appropriate style | 31% | 55% | 5 |
| 8. Organisation of ideas and concepts | 31% | 72% | 1 |
| 9. Use of appropriate format | 12% | 53% | 7 |
The above data indicated some interesting discrepancies between staff and student perceptions. Staff complained that grammar and usage was an area where students showed low ability, whereas students rated that component of writing as fourth in their concerns. Spelling was viewed as the third most important concern for staff and it was rated as being of the least concern for students, being rated ninth. Expression of ideas or concepts was rated fifth by staff, whereas students rated this as their second most important concern. Glaringly different was the response to organisation of ideas or concepts. Staff were not as preoccupied with the ability students showed in this area, rating this component as second last. Students, however, rated the organisation of ideas or concepts as their most serious concern. This mismatch of perceptions may point to a lack of communication between staff and student regarding expectations and priorities involved in producing written work.
| Strategies | Case study A | Case study B | Case study C | Case study D | Total staff Nos |
| Giving students models that have been written by lecturers or past students which show what is expected in written assignments | 70% | 62% | 59% | 33% | 45% |
| Allowing students to prepare and present in groups | 10% | 23% | 32% | 25% | 24% |
| Setting students written tasks which emphasise planning and process | 80% | 54% | 74% | 88% | 72% |
| Setting students written tasks that are commented on rather than assigned a mark | 56% | 31% | 53% | 25% | 43% |
| Allowing students time in class to discuss in groups how to plan and develop a written assignment | 30% | 54% | 50% | 25% | 43% |
| Showing a class a plan of how you would plan and develop a written assignment | 70% | 62% | 75% | 50% | 67% |
| Allowing students to set their own topics and questions for written assignments | 11% | 15% | 32% | 13% | 20% |
| Allowing students to prepare a first draft of their written work and then edit after lecturer comment, then submit | 60% | 39% | 60% | 50% | 53% |
As the last strategy is particularly recognised as a valuable method of improving writing skills of undergraduate students, lecturers' perceptions of this method were probed even further. The table below presents lecturer feedback on the practice of allowing students to draft, edit and re-submit written work.
| Comment | Case study A | Case study B | Case study C | Case study D | Total staff response |
| It is a worthwhile process which I follow | 30% | 15% | 53% | 38% | 35% |
| It is a worthwhile process but too time consuming to be practical | 80% | 69% | 52% | 75% | 67% |
| It is an unrealistic expectation | 50% | 54% | 45% | 38% | 47% |
| Students should work it out for themselves its part of the demands of the assignment | 60% | 39% | 33% | 38% | 41% |
| It would be giving students a second chance which would not give an accurate assessment of their ability | 40% | 62% | 22% | 38% | 39% |
| I don't know enough about the process to have an opinion | 10% | 15% | 12% | 0% | 11% |
Giving students models of written work, setting assignments that emphasise process and showing the class a plan of how to write an assignment received support in terms of their use to lecturers. Although the method of drafting, editing and resubmitting assignments did not receive overall support. The results indicate that most lecturers were aware of the above writing strategy, but it was not a process that had wide support and used as a teaching tool. As a teaching method it was seen as too time consuming, and as stated elsewhere many times in this research, lecturers often expressed a frustration about knowing 'what to do' to improve literacy, but not having the time to do it.
The definitions proffered by staff emphasised generic skills which focused on the ability to express the high order cognitive skills. This is no doubt that this definition is valuable as a starting point for discussion and exploration. However, in order to have an accurate, more meaningful definition for practice within specific disciplines, context must be considered. At some point in an undergraduate course it is appropriate for teachers to discuss and consider the context in which the student is studying. That is, the discipline specific requirements and professional literacy demands that make up the social cultural context of a course, and how this might impact on teaching practice.
Another factor that influences tertiary literacy practice is the general opinion held by university staff that literacy should be a concern for schools rather than universities. This belief illustrates a significant gap between the theory that "literacy develops by degrees" (Taylor et al 1988) and in context. The awareness that literacy develops throughout one's life responding to the demands of specific contexts is essential, especially in the case of developing tertiary literacy in the nineties. With the ever increasing diversity in class, gender and culture on our campuses, it can no longer be taken for granted that students arrive with the necessary skills and readily adapt to the social cultural environment of tertiary institutions. Because of this diversity, the needs of tertiary students have changed over the last twenty years and therefore teaching practice must reflect these changes.
The discrepancy between what staff and students perceive as concerns in literacy, demonstrates the need for more co-operation and communication between staff and students. The apprentice/teacher model as explained by Gee (1990), in lecturers assisting learning and supporting acquisition necessitates close co-operation between teacher and student. According to Gee (1990), good teachers are aware of both types of learning, acquisition and learning and can, therefore, adapt their teaching methods according to the learning that is taking place. A partnership model is required where both staff and students have a shared goal which is clearly articulated in course objectives, outlines, and teaching practice. The lecturer response to writing strategies reinforces the feeling that there is not time to 'teach' or be involved in strategies which are perceived to take time. Yet theories on the instruction of tertiary literacy demand discipline lecturer involvement. Walvoord (1990) focuses on the need for the discipline lecturer to be involved in the process of teaching students to write. The institutional emphasis on 'quality tertiary teaching' has come none too soon for the development of literacy on our campuses. There can be no doubt that the tertiary environment is one which places increasing pressure on its teaching staff. Reduced funding has increased numbers in teaching groups which in turn have led to unbearable marking loads. However, new perspectives to teaching can be introduced that will not demand time, but do demand the will to change. In this way, theory can be translated into practice. Without forethought and planning it can no longer be taken for granted that literacy development will take place in the majority of students. The views on this issue from employer groups have proven this to be the case. Literacy is a complex issue which requires equally complex pedagogical deliberation and methodology if practice is to bear any relationship to the theory that 'is taken for granted'.
Department of Employment and Training (1991). Australia's Language. The Australian Language and Literacy Policy released by The Hon. John Dawkins MP Minister for Employment, Education and Training.
Freebody, P., Welch, A. (1993). Individualization and Domestication in Current Literacy Debates in Australia. In Freebody, P., Welch, A. (Eds), Knowledge, Culture and Power: International Perspectives on Literacy as Policy and Practice. London: Falmer Press.
Gee, J P.(1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies. Ideology In Discourses. London: The Falmer Press.
Graff, H.J. (1979). The Literacy Myth Literacy and Social Structure in the Nineteenth-Century City. New York: Academic Press.
Graff, H.J. (1986). The Legacies of Literacy: continuities and contradictions in western society and culture. In de Castell, S., Luke, A., Egan, K. (Eds), Literacy, Society, and Schooling. A Reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graff, H.J. (1987). The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. London: Falmer Press.
Hourigan, M. (1994). Literacy As a Social Exchange. University of New York: New York.
Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Langer, J. & Applebee, A.N. (1987). How Writing Shapes Thinking. A Study of Teaching and Learning. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English 1111 Kenyon Rd.
Little, W., Fowler, H.W., Coulson, J. (1973). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Luke, A. (1990). Editor's Introduction in Gee, J. P. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies. Ideology In Discourses. London: The Falmer Press.
Luke, A. (1991). Series Editor's Introduction. In Freebody, P., Welch, A. (Eds), Knowledge, Culture and Power: International Perspectives on Literacy as Policy and Practice. London: Falmer Press.
Luke, A. (1992, November). Literacy in Post Modern Conditions: The New Great Divide. Paper presented Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.
Luke, A. (1992). Literacy and Work in 'New Times'. Open Letter, 3(1). 3-15.
Luke, A., and Gilbert, P. (Ed.). (1993). Literacy in Contexts. Australian Perspectives and Issues. Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Reid, I. (1993). Literacy and Competency. In Voices of Experience: A Professional Development Package for Adult and Workplace Literacy Teachers. Positions on Literacy Theories and Practices Book 2. Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. (1992). Literacies for the New Millennium. Paper presented at the 2nd Joint National Conference of the Australian Reading Association and the Association for Teachers of English. Victoria: Australian Reading Association.
Taylor, G., Ballard, B., Beasley, V., Bock, H., Clanchy, J., and Nightingale, P. (1988). Literacy by Degrees. Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Walvoord, B E., Macarthy L P. (1990). Thinking and Writing in College. A Naturalistic Study of Students and Disciplines. Urbana Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Wickert, W. (1989). No Single Measure: A Survey of Australian Adult Literacy. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Young, A., Fulwiler, T. (Eds) (1986). Writing Across the Disciplines. Research into Practice. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann
| Author: Maria Fiocco, Centre for International English, Curtin University of Technology.
Please cite as: Fiocco, M. (1996). Tertiary literacy: Definition and practice within one university. What is the relationship to language theory? Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/fiocco.html |