BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY
3.12 Pedagogic Practices
99
regarding the connection between literacy skill and the learning of content knowledge in specific disciplines. Meltzer and Hamann (2005) distinguish between “two types of content-based literacy instruction strategies: generic literacy strategies that can be applied in similar ways across the content areas and literacy strategies that differ greatly depending upon the particular subject. They add that discipline-specific literacy strategies are “heavily dependent on the particular content being studied” (44).
Lee (2004) defines disciplinary literacy as the ability to understand, critique, and use knowledge from texts in content areas and is the primary conduit through which learning in the academic disciplines takes place. Meltzer and Hamann (2005) suggest that “in order to apprentice students into the disciplinary demands of a content area, teachers themselves must be cognizant of the literacy demands specific to their discipline and the range of strategies they might use to teach others to meet those demands” (45). As stated throughout this Chapter, this study also explores ways in which disciplinary specialists assist students with discipline-specific literacies in science.
Framing genre pedagogy in this study is achieved through critical research questions 1 and 3. The first critical research question seeks to find out the discipline-specific literacies required in science. Reference to ‘genre’ in science, viz. scientific genres of laboratory report writing, academic essays, scientific posters and oral presentations has been made in the Chapters before this. If genres are constructed using specific register, then critical research question 1, which pays attention to literacies required for science, should attempt to isolate those literacies needed for the specific scientific genres in required by students in FP. This can then lead to the ways in which these genres are acquired by students which can then be answered by critical research question 3. Genre pedagogy links with the NLS especially since literacy is dependent on social contexts.
100
necessary for students in the foundation programme who are from disadvantaged backgrounds and are EAL speakers.
Vygotsky’s (1978b) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is commonly referred to as the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of scaffolding as a teaching and learning strategy.
ZPD is defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers”
(Vygotsky, 1978b: 86) or “what the child is able to do in collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1987: 211). Chaiklin (2003) simplifies this to mean that the ZPD presupposes an interaction between a more competent person and a less competent person on a task, such that the less competent person becomes independently proficient at what was initially a jointly-accomplished task. van der Valk and de Jong (2009) state that the more capable person who guides the learner through the tasks, is in essence, “guid[ing] the learner through the ZPD towards a new actual development level in the gradual process of scaffolding” (832). Figure 6 below offers a diagrammatic representation of progress through ZPD. It indicates how at the initial stage, learning begins with guidance by a competent other to aid with developing new concepts and understanding; with the eventual aim of acquiring knowledge and skills independently.
Figure 6: The genesis of a performance capacity: Progression through the Zone of Proximal Development and beyond (Gallimore and Tharp, 1990: 183).
101
In Figure 6 above, stage I demonstrates the reliant interaction between the learner and the more competent others in performing the task. Gallimore and Tharp (1990: 185) express the point that “during the earliest periods of the ZPD, the [learner] may have a very limited understanding of the situation, the task, or the goal to be achieved; at this level the parent, teacher, or more capable peer offers directions or modelling” (185) and the child's response is acquiescent or imitative (Wertsch, 1979). In stage II, the [learner] carries out a task without assistance from others. However, this does not mean that “the performance is fully developed or automatized” (Gallimore and Tharp, 1990: 185). The ZPD occurs between the first and second stages. In stage III, the task is performed automatically after being internalized, and according to Vygotsky (1978b), is fossilized. Task execution is smooth and integrated. It has been internalized and automatized. Assistance from the adult or the self is no longer needed. At stage IV, deautomatization of performance leads to recursion through the ZPD. The lifelong learning by any individual is made up of the same regulated, ZPD sequences – from other-assistance to self-assistance – recurring over and over again for the development of new capacities (Gallimore and Tharp, 1990).
ZPD is an important concept in this study. The philosophy of FP and SCOM rely on supported learning as a way of helping students to eventually be able to complete tasks without assistance and allow for the capacity of new self-learning. Critical research question 3 should be able to cast light on the mechanisms used by the DSs to assist FP students to reach Stage IV of ZPD. The responses in this question are a consequence of those perceived challenges in the discipline-specific literacies in science fielded in critical research question 2.
3.12.2 The Concept of Scaffolding (Wood et al. 1976)
The concept of scaffolding (Wood et al. 1976), which reflects ZPD, has been extensively used in a number of institutional contexts as an instruction strategy to assist students to achieve specific goals through the aid of support. Scaffolding has been widely significant in teaching and educational research and has been particularly used in the teaching of academic literacy. The concept of scaffolding was originally used by Wood et al. (1976) to describe how learning takes place in families to portray the temporary, but essential nature of parental support in the language development of young children. It followed the social learning model of Vygotsky (1978b). Wood et al. (1976) explain that:
102
Discussions of problem solving or skill acquisition are usually premised on the assumption that the learner is alone and unassisted. If the social context is taken into account, it is usually treated as an instance of modelling and imitation. But the intervention of a tutor may involve much more than this.
More often than not, it involves a kind of "scaffolding" process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts. This scaffolding consists essentially of the adult "controlling" those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner's capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence. The task thus proceeds to a successful conclusion. We assume, however, that the process can potentially achieve much more for the learner than an assisted completion of the task. It may result, eventually, in development of task competence by the learner at a pace that would far outstrip his unassisted efforts (90).
The concept of scaffolding has been increasingly used as a metaphor by several researchers to describe and explain the role of adults or more knowledgeable peers in guiding [children's] learning and development (Stone, 1998; Verenikina, 1998; Wells, 1999;
Daniels, 2001; Hammond, 2002). Since ZPD is the “area between what children can do independently and what they can do with assistance” (Clark and Graves, 2005: 571), Rosenshine and Meister (1992) have stated that this area must be considered when initiating scaffolding techniques as scaffolds are only useful within the student’s own ZPD.
Wiseman et al. (2005) hold the view that students’ background should be considered to ensure they are able to learn a new strategy or grasp a new tool and teachers should use scaffolding to help students navigate their ZPD and extend current knowledge and skills.
Graves and Braaten (1996) clarify scaffolding as the process by which an expert provides temporary support to learners to “help bridge the gap between what [the learner] know[s]
and can do and what [he or she] need[s] to accomplish in order to succeed at a particular learning task” (169). Scaffolding has been increasingly used as “a metaphor for the particular kinds of support given to students to enable them to successfully complete a task
… that alone, he or she would be unable to complete” (Gibbons, 2007: 703). Upon completion of this task, a learner is better able to make the connection between prior knowledge and internalize new information. Rose et al. (2003) elucidate on scaffolding support which they say enables learners to successfully practise complex skills; and, as the learners become independently competent, scaffolding is gradually withdrawn (42).
Scaffolding is intended to bring learners closer to a state of competence which will enable them eventually to complete the task on their own. It involves the teacher structuring the
103
learning activity such that the teacher’s own support and expertise can be gradually withdrawn until the learner can complete the task independently.
Wells (1995) distinguishes between two levels of scaffolding which are the macro and micro levels of scaffolding. The macro level involves the overall design of the unit of work to achieve specific outcomes including the sequence of tasks within each lesson and types of resources to be utilized. It takes account of the teacher’s goals; understanding of the language demands of the planned tasks; knowledge of students’ current abilities, understanding and interest; sequencing of tasks to achieve the outcomes and planning for handover which is mainly when the student is in charge of completing the task. The micro level refers to the moment by moment interactions within the lesson between the teacher and students and students with each other. This type of scaffolding at the ‘point of need’
provides opportunities of support for students’ understanding of the task or topic through discourse strategies such as questioning or relating to students’ previous experiences and multimodal strategies (Wells, 1995).
Sharpe (2006) explains that discourse and multimodal strategies constitute the nature of scaffolding. Discourse strategies include repeating, recasting and appropriating language to develop technical vocabulary and recontextualize the content; increasing the prospectiveness of questions to extend or reformulate students’ reasoning; cued elicitation to encourage joint construction and ‘track’ students’ understanding; use of analogy to draw on students’ existing background knowledge; and ‘metacomments’ to summarize key concepts. Multimodal support is provided through visual (maps, diagrams pictures), gestural and actional cues. Discourse and multimodal strategies aid in mediating students’
learning process (211). This study intends to outline the strategies used by DSs.
The advantage provided by the technique of scaffolding is that it allows support for a student to work on and complete a task that would otherwise have not been possible to complete. On the benefits of scaffolding strategies for reading and writing, Rose et al.
(2003) note that they are designed to:
Focus learners’ attention on patterns of language and to recognise the meanings they express. In academic reading and writing these language patterns are highly specialised, and often involve dense abstract concepts and technical terms that are part of academic fields. [T]hrough the use of scaffolding strategies, a teacher can support learners to read and write far more complex texts than they normally could on their own. This supported practice
104
allows learners to develop reading and writing skills that they can then use independently (41).
The strategy of scaffolding is used to teach academic reading and writing. Rose et al.
(2003) explain that this technique enables [students] to pay attention to the highly specialised patterns of language and dense abstract concepts and technical terms which characterise academic reading and writing. As an instructional technique, scaffolding strategies help support learners to read and write far more complex texts than they normally could on their own. This supported practice allows learners to develop reading and writing skills that they can then use independently.
Explicit modelling, as a type of scaffolding, is a way of guiding, supporting and apprenticing students into academic discourse communities. In the sciences, skills and procedures can be modelled using laboratory reports, research papers, notes, posters charts, graphs, and diagrams as models (Galguera, 2003). Parkinson et al. (2008) highlight the offering of advice and questioning as other techniques of supporting the acquisition of new competencies (14). Scaffolding is intensively used in the SCOM module offered in the FP to teach students to read and understand complex academic texts in science; to acquire and display knowledge of science genres. Responses to critical research question 3 serve to show whether scaffolding features as a learning support mechanism in the FP.
Conclusion
Chapter 3 explored New Literacy Studies (NLS) (Street, 1984; Gee, 1990) as a theoretical framework underpinning this research. It outlined the two models of NLS, the autonomous and ideological models of literacy and offered an explanation as to how the ideological model of literacy to underpins this study. This Chapter emphasized the importance of social practices in the acquisition of literacy. In doing so, issues such as Discourse, discourse practice, discourse community and the distinction between primary and secondary discourses (Gee, 1990) were explained. Chapter 3 included an outline of “primary” and
“secondary” codes (Gee, 1999); language codes, distinguishing between the “restricted and elaborated codes” (Bernstein, 1971) as well as the concept of “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1977).
105
Owing to the need to be able to use academic language appropriately, this Chapter paid attention to the nature of three different academic literacies models (Lea and Street, 2006), i.e. study skills model, academic socialization model and the academic literacies. An understanding of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (1978; 1985a) was provided as was the nature of Grammatical Metaphor (GM) (Halliday and Martin, 1993), paying specific regard to nominalisation and lexical density. The concept of “construal”
(Langacker, 1987) was discussed, in terms of grammar and meaning. The relevance of genres and genre pedagogy (Hyland, 2002) were discussed. The Chapter offered comments on pedagogic practices such as Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978) and scaffolding (Wood et al. 1976).
Chapter 4 discusses language in science and for science.
106
CHAPTER 4
EXPLORING THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE
Introduction
Chapter 3 explored the New Literacy Studies (NLS) (Street 1984; Gee, 1990) as a theoretical framework underpinning this study. It explored the nature of two models of NLS which are the autonomous and ideological models of literacy and offered reasons for the choice of the ideological model of literacy to undertake this study. It drew attention to the importance of social practices in the acquisition of literacy. In doing so, issues such as academic discourse, discourse practice and the distinction between primary and secondary discourses were explained. In Chapter 3, Bernstein’s (1971) language codes, namely the distinction between the ‘restricted’ and ‘elaborated’ codes as well as Bourdieu’s (1977) concept of ‘cultural capital’ were explained. The Chapter also focused on the link between content and literacy. Because of the need to be able to use academic language appropriately, the nature of three different academic literacies models were outlined, i.e.
study skills model, academic socialization model and the academic literacies (Lea and Street, 2006) Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1978; 1985a) and the essence of Grammatical Metaphor (GM) (Halliday and Martin, 1993) were extensively discussed. The relevance of genres and genre pedagogy were discussed. The Chapter offered commentary on pedagogic practices such as Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978a; 1978b) and scaffolding (Wood et al. 1976).
Chapter 4 engages with the discourse of ‘science’ and science as a discipline in four demarcations. The first part explores the need for graduates in science, engineering and technology, with a view to enhancing South Africa’s economic and social development.
This is followed by a discussion on acculturating students into the science environment in the HE arena, drawing specific attention to the significance of creating an identity in science. This entails a detailed explanation of academic discourse and the discourse commanded by science.
The second part in the Chapter highlights the nature of the language used to convey science discourse. It discusses the nature of science discourse, detailing how it differs from everyday discourse. An outline of the scientific register, sentence and grammatical
107
structures relevant to science is provided. This is relevant as this study explores the
‘language’ used in science and seeks to draw attention to the presence of any perceived challenges with discipline-specific literacies in science.
The third part notes the specific literacies required for the foundation modules offered in the FP in science, viz. biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. It highlights the conceptual and procedural knowledge, as well as the problem solving literacies required for effective learning of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics in relation to the
‘language’ of science.
The final part offers a review of literature outlining the articulation gap between secondary schooling and the higher education sector, with particular reference to the issue of students’
underpreparedness for tertiary science, by referring to studies at both secondary education and tertiary levels. Finally, Chapter 4 ends with a discussion of studies specific to literacies in science.
4.1 The Role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Contributing to Development