Kate Wilson & Linda Devereux University of Canberra

1. Developing tertiary literacy practices in context: Inducting first year students into the academic and professional genres of their chosen course Kate Wilson & Linda Devereux University of Canberra

2. A collaboration between • Linda: Course convener, Literacy for Teachers Linda.devereux@canberra.edu.au • Kate: Director, Academic Skills Program Kate.wilson@canberra.edu.au

3. Higher Education Context • Massification of higher education • increase in numbers of non-traditional students • Students less well prepared for academic discourse • Managerial environments • emphasis on productivity • Cost cutting • Pressures on staff and students • Importance of first year (Kift, 2010)

4. Teacher Education • Future teachers of literacy (Zipin & Brennan, 2006) • High proportion of low SES students (Louden & Rohl, 2007) • Professional vs academic preparation (Dovey, 2006)

5. Our Own University • Financial crisis – what’s new! • Drop in entry requirements • Cutbacks • Student/teacher ratios increasing • Increasing class sizes • Decreasing teaching hours per unit • Only two assessment tasks per unit BUT • Additional funding for first year student support ($5000 for Literacy for Teachers)

6. Literacy for Teachers • First year, first semester subject (early childhood, primary and middle school students) • 250 students • High proportion of alternative entry pathways • Content – Introduction to theory of literacy and grammar • Many students non readers (Nettles, 2006) • An existing ‘soft’ and popular assessment task – in-class story-telling

7. Aims of Collaboration • Enable students to make successful transition to university learning. • Offer inspiring content relevant to students’ profession. • Set students on pathway towards becoming excellent teachers and successful students themselves. • Survive!

8. Professional & Academic Literacies • Northedge (2003 a & b) – everyday, academic and professional literacies • Delpit (1993), Gee (1990) – Discourses of power • Lea & Street (2006) – academic literacies - beyond a normative approach • Lillis & Scott (2007) – engendering a sense of ownership and participation in academic literacies. • Lillis (2001) – talking students into ‘essayist literacy’

9. High Challenge High Support (Mariani, 1997)

10. High Challenge High Support Dumbing down Scaffolding up

11. High challenge • Content – introduce students to new and challenging concepts • Quantity, variety and complexity of readings • Assessment tasks: • In-class essay (Week 4) • End of semester exam including three short essays and text analysis questions. • (dropped the popular story-telling assessment >> tutorial task only!)

12. An integrated network of support HIGH SUPPORT

13. An integrated network of support Managing student expectations HIGH SUPPORT

14. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations HIGH SUPPORT

15. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations READING SCAFFOLDS HIGH SUPPORT

16. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations READING SCAFFOLDS HIGH SUPPORT WRITING SCAFFOLDS

17. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations READING SCAFFOLDS HIGH SUPPORT WRITING SCAFFOLDS Notes pages

18. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations READING SCAFFOLDS HIGH SUPPORT WRITING SCAFFOLDS Adjunct workshops Notes pages

19. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations READING SCAFFOLDS HIGH SUPPORT FEEDBACK ON WRITING WRITING SCAFFOLDS Adjunct workshops Notes pages

20. An integrated network of support Sequencing Managing student expectations Individual meetings READING SCAFFOLDS HIGH SUPPORT FEEDBACK ON WRITING WRITING SCAFFOLDS Adjunct workshops Notes pages

21. Outcomes • Improved pass rate (81.82% in 2008; 91.34% in 2009) • 100% agreed that they had learned new skills • 99% satisfaction with adjunct workshops • 97% thought notes pages were useful (‘enforced study’) • 94% agreed that deconstructing a previous essay was helpful • ‘I learned a completely new standard of literacy... It was challenging yet extremely rewarding’ • University unit satisfaction rating 88.9% (as opposed to 76.4 for university as a whole) • Generic skills scale 88.9% (compared with 71.7%)

22. Conclusion • Despite the challenging new cohort and managerial context, high challenge-high support scaffolding led to stimulating and satisfying outcomes • No need to give in to the ‘popularity factor’ in setting a high challenge-high support curriculum

23. References Delpit, L. (1993). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. In L. Weiss & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race and gender in United States schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dovey, T. (2006). What purposes, specifically? Re-thinking purposes and specificity in the context of the 'new vocationalism''. English for Specific Purposes, 25 (4), 387-402. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: The Falmer Press. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: the contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30. Kift, S. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE - a case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. International Journal of First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1-10. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The 'Academic Literacies' model: theory and applications. Theory into practice, 45(4), 368-377. Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student writing: access, regulation, desire. London and New York: Routledge. Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5-32. Louden, W., & Rohl, M. (2006). 'Too many theories and not enough instruction': perceptions of preservice preparation for literacy teaching in Australian schools. LIteracy, 40(2). Mariani, L. (1997). Teacher support and teacher challenge in promoting learner autonomy. Perspectives 23 (2) Retrieved 16 April 2005, from http://www.learningpaths.org/papers/papersupport.htm Nettles, D. (2006). Comprehensive literacy instruction in today's classrooms: the whole, the parts and the heart. Boston, MA: Pearson. Northedge, A. (2003a). Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 169-180. Northedge, A. (2003b). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 17-32. Zipin, L., & Brennan, M. (2006). Meeting the literacy needs of pre-service cohorts: ethical dilemmas for socially just teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 333-351.