141
Chapter Five
5.0 Discussion of Findings, Implications of the Study and Future
142
were constructed as tabula rasa- empty vessels waiting to be filled. This therefore negates the notion of socio-cultural nature of literacy where literacy is seen as a function of social interaction. In reaction to the foregoing, taking the ideological perspective of literacy, it is argued that academic writing cannot be successfully acquired as a set of skills devoid of the culture and context in which learning takes place (see Street, 1995). It is against this that Barton and Hamilton (2000) contend that literacy is not an entity but a social practice. These scholars describe academic writing and reading as literacy practices. Hence, it is argued that academic writing within the context of this study (having being described as a social practice) should be conceived as what people do with literacy, and not an isolated entity. From the foregoing, positioning students as receivers of information did not provide them with opportunities to practice writing both in the lectures and during the tutorials.
Similarly, the findings also show that the ALUGS module was taught as a generic programme where skills that are acquired within a particular context, such as a discipline, are believed to be transferable to other contexts. This study sides with Gee‟s (1996) position, that literacy is not singular, but multiple, and what counts as literacy for a particular context may be unacceptable in another context. Understood in this way, if all students who were registered for the ALUGS module, who also were participants of this study, all came from different disciplines, it is argued that the ALUGS module, run in a generic way, would not lead to a successful acquisition of disciplinary discourses, since a generic module cannot offer something more than pseudo- discourses (Jacobs, 2006; Gee, 2001a). In this regard, it has been argued that the ALUGS module focus on essay structure is not beneficial to the students‟ writing practices, particularly in situations where their disciplines have no need for essay writing.
Hence, until the Faculty as well as AL practitioners undergo a paradigm shift away from viewing academic writing as a technology of the mind (Street, 2003) to viewing it as a practice, the acquisition of academic discourse may remain an impossible task. Findings on why the module is taught the way it is currently taught, will be discussed in the next section.
143
5.1.2 Why is writing taught the way it is being taught within the ALUGS module?
The rationale for teaching the module the way it is currently being taught is twofold; the tutors and the contents (course pack and the curriculum). Firstly, it was found that the practitioners‟
state of preparedness is a determinant factor impacting on how the module was being taught. The findings showed that some of the tutors were not well prepared for their lessons and as a result they taught differently to hat students had been given during lectures. In agreement with one of the students‟ view about this situation, it is argued that there should be proper monitoring of what tutors are teaching in their tutorials to avoid confusion amongst the students . In relation to the tutors, another finding that emanated from the study revealed that some tutors were under- qualified for the teaching of academic writing. One of the lecturer participants confirmed this and said that some of the tutors did not have the necessary skills to teach students. As argued in the review of the literature, no one can give what he or she does not have. If this is the case, then the process through which tutors are being selected should be done carefully as this will determine the quality of what is being taught to the students.
It was also found that the lack of tutors‟ training was one of the reasons for the way writing was taught in the ALUGS module. The findings revealed that the Faculty has never organized any form of training, either pre-service or in-service training for those appointed as tutors. Chokwe (2011) argued that there are instances where some tutors are not trained to teach the modules they were to teach. Indeed, the lack of training evident in the running of the ALUGS module has contributed to the way writing was taught in the module. In line with this argument, one of the tutor participants stated that some tutors taught whatever they wished due to the lack of training and monitoring. Unfortunately, it seems that until provision is made for training tutors before their engagement with the teaching of writing within the module, the trend of teaching differently from the lecturers will remain unchanged.
The curriculum as well as the content of the course packs, on the other hand, has been found to be part of the reasons for teaching writing the way it is currently taught in the ALUGS module.
In the first place, the present version of the course pack was found to lack learning outcomes and objective. It was argued that this might have contributed to how writing was being taught, as tutors themselves were not informed of the objective; they may end up teaching without any
144
outcome in mind. With the information received from one of the lecturer participants that the present ALUGS module originated from the former ALE module, the researcher consulted the module template of the latter. Findings showed that the focus of the latter was language oriented, and as such it was revealed that the new module has adopted the learning outcome of the old version. However, it is argued that such outcomes should have been included in the new course pack, since every tutor did not have access to such a document. Nonetheless, it was also argued that the teaching of writing within the module focused on the acquisition of skills because the module contents positioned it that way.
Finally, findings revealed that there were some inconsistencies with the content of the module. It was found that the referencing style students were taught both in the tutorials and during lectures, was contradictory to what students found in their course packs, thus leading to confusion. Not only that, it was also revealed that reading was not well addressed in the new academic module (ALUGS) and as a result, students lacked exposure to different genres of writing which ought to serve them as models in their writing development. The findings also revealed that tutors were fond of providing students with vague feedback comments which did not provide talkback to students on how they were to improve on their future writing.
5.1.3 What impact does the way writing is taught have on students’ writing practices within the ALUGS module?
The findings of this study showed that the way writing was taught within the ALUGS module has both a positive and a negative impact on students‟ writing practices, both within and outside the ALUGS module. Starting with the positive findings, it was found that many students have improved on their writing practices particularly in structuring their essays. A tutor participant admitted that students have been able to transfer this knowledge of structuring essays into other generic programmes, such as Educational Studies and Professional Studies. Moreover, two of the student participants also acknowledged that the module has equipped them with the skills for writing essays, particularly in areas like paragraph structuring, writing a good academic introduction and conclusion. They added that the essential components of introduction such as thesis statement, background information, and plan of development were not taught in their high schools. Thus, the module, to these students, has had a positive impact on their writing practices.
145
Surprisingly, the respond from another student participant contradicted what the others said about the module. From this student‟s perception of the module, it was revealed that students still struggle with structuring their essays despite all they were taught in the tutorials. This student participant insisted that they still continue making mistakes despite the tutors‟ efforts to fix their problems during assessments. To corroborate this, the findings from the analysis of students‟
assignment scripts also confirmed that students continue to make mistakes, particularly in areas like essay structure and referencing. Another factor found to be responsible for these unending mistakes has to do with the inconsistencies in information given in the classroom with those found in the course materials. For instance, students were taught APA 6th edition style of referencing, while the referencing in the course packs follow after the MLA style.
This, arguably, alongside with other mistakes of students, persisted due to the kind of approach through which academic writing was taught within the ALUGS module. In other words, students seemed to have continued making mistakes because they were not shown the processes involved in writing development, but were only told (through overt instruction). It is against this notion that Gee (2001) argues that academic writing (discourse) cannot be acquired through overt instruction, but through the process of apprenticeship. Findings further revealed that students were positioned at the receiving end of learning, thus defining the tutors as repertoire of knowledge. Cast in this way, the teaching of writing within the ALUGS module was through overt instruction which is tantamount to seeing writing as a product rather than a process. One way of teaching students the process of writing is by exposing them to a wide range of genres of writing. These will serve as models for them to imitate. The foregoing are the findings that emanated from the analysis of data for this study.