BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY
4.2 Students’ Entry into the Academic Arena
Upon entry into HEIs, students need to become acculturated into the university culture and to acquire epistemologies relevant to their chosen fields of study (Issues of becoming members of the discourse community and epistemological access have already been noted earlier in this study). Students who enter tertiary institutions in South Africa bring with them a history of reading, writing and speaking conventions that they had experienced, acquired or learnt from their secondary schooling. These literacies, as well as mathematical and scientific competencies, are expected to be a solid foundation to facilitate further learning at HEIs. With all these literacies and competencies present, it is assumed that HEIs can proceed with its teaching and learning practices from the point where secondary schooling has ended.
However, the teaching and learning process at university does not necessarily unfold as easily. Its students hail from differing educational backgrounds and experiences which invariably impact on the way in which they learn at university. With the disparate education system prevalent in South Africa and the articulation gap at secondary school levels in South Africa, a large number of students arrive at universities ‘poorly prepared’ or
‘underprepared’ for the rigours of academic study. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that students can automatically manipulate the academic discourse of HE studies. Students who are underprepared for tertiary studies enter the HE environment with a number of challenges (which have already been alluded to earlier in this dissertation). Upon entry into the tertiary sector, students are expected to “manipulate language academically, a skill which presupposes a constellation of acquired abilities” (Mgqwashu, 2011: 22). Mgqwashu (2011) elaborates that “these abilities … can be learned only if interaction between students and lecturers is underpinned by … an explicit teaching practice driven by a view that pedagogic communication needs to signal the discourse’s constructedness … [which] is fundamental for epistemological access in higher education” (22).
110
In the Faculty of Science at a number of South African tertiary institutions, the establishment of foundation and augmented programmes has enabled students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds with academic potential an opportunity to pursue further studies in science (Chapter 1 offered a presentation of these programmes). These, effectively, address the call for the country to produce more black graduates in the under- represented fields of science, engineering and technology. Students involved in the study of university science need to become familiar with scientific discourse.
4.2.1 Discourse Participation
As outlined in the preceding Chapter, when students enter university, they should become members of the university community. This means that they need to acquire epistemologies necessary for them to participate in their chosen disciplines. In other words, they are expected to acquire and learn the discourse of disciplines. Gee (1990) defines Discourse as
“a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network’, or to signal (that one is playing) a socially meaningful role” (143). He adds on that Discourses govern how we talk, think and interact as members of a culture. It is this discourse that integrates ways of talking, listening, writing, reading, acting, interacting, believing, valuing, and feeling. “Discourse is a ‘sort of identity kit’ – a way of belonging and being recognized as belonging to a particular group”
(Gee, 1996: 127). This definition of Discourse implies the need for participation in the Discourse, in the sense of acquiring an identity within it. To be a member of any group means behaving in a manner acceptable to the group, allowing one to remain an insider of the group. The concept of Discourses is evidently significant in this study which draws attention to the discourses needed by students in the FP to not only acquire and display scientific knowledge, but to be able to belong to the community of science.
Gee (1989) distinguishes between primary and secondary discourses. “Primary discourses are acquired through face-to-face interactions in the home and represent the language of initial socialization. Secondary discourses are acquired in social institutions beyond the family (e.g. school, business, religious and cultural contexts), and involve acquisition of specialized vocabulary and functions of language appropriate to those settings” (5). Gee (1990) draws attention to the fact that Discourse he refers to “does not just involve talk or
111
language” (142), it involves the use of language within contexts which informs its members how the language is to be used. Although secondary discourses can be acquired in any domain, for example, the fields of economics or theology, it is often associated with schooling as schooling determines acquisition, learning and language. The university is an example of a social institution where secondary discourse is acquired. Understanding the language and the specialized vocabulary used in various discourses requires academic language proficiency. Secondary discourse is relevant in this study.
Gee (1989) explains that secondary discourses build on primary discourses and he defines literacy as “control of secondary uses of language” (6) or “mastery of a secondary discourse” (Gee, 1996: 143). He goes on to say that “any discourse (primary or secondary) is, for most people, most of the time only mastered through acquisition, not learning. Thus, literacy is mastered through acquisition, not learning. That is, it requires exposure to models in natural, meaningful and functional settings” (1989: 6). In seeking to explain how discourse is mastered, the distinction between acquisition and learning is necessary. Gee (1989) states:
Acquisition is a process of acquiring something subconsciously by exposure to models and a process of trial and error, without a process of formal teaching.
It happens in natural settings which are meaningful and functional in the sense that the acquirer knows that he needs to acquire the thing he is exposed to in order to function and the acquirer in fact wants to function. This is how most people come to control their first language.
Learning is a process that involves conscious knowledge gained through teaching, though not necessarily from someone officially designated a teacher.
This teaching involves explanation and analysis, that is, breaking down the thing to be learned into its analytic parts. It inherently involves attaining, along with the matter being taught some degree of meta-knowledge about the matter (3).
“A learner who enters the Discourse of a discipline has to ‘acquire’ the language, social practices and functioning of the group by participation involving trial and error in natural settings. Alongside acquisition, learning can occur, but learning is primarily a process of gaining meta-knowledge, primarily about the difference between secondary Discourse to be acquired and the learner’s primary Discourse” (cited in Rollnick, 2010: 155). This study intends to show how students ‘get’ these discipline-specific literacies in science. This, therefore, necessitates an understanding of the practices and strategies that the DSs implement to help students to ‘achieve’ these. Evidence of this is shown in the responses to critical research question 3.
112
This notion of Discourse is particularly relevant in this study. Students entering the discipline of science, for example, need to become participants in the discourse of science.
They need to take on an identity of the membership of science. They would therefore have to think and act like scientists. Students pursuing science studies learn the disciplinary content knowledge, but also need to acquire the literacies used in the disciplines within the field of science.
4.2.2 Distinguishing between Academic Discourse and Social Discourse
Academic discourse used in HE studies differs from social discourse. Lee and Fradd (1998) define “social discourse as the language used when participating in concrete, context- embedded interactions where students learn by observing, imitating, and interacting with others so that no single student is responsible for a particular outcome. In contrast, academic discourse refers to the language used in abstract, decontextualized activities requiring students to work independently, to rely on their own understandings of both the language and the content of the task, and to be singly responsible for an outcome” (15).
4.2.3 Cummins’ (1984b) notion of context-embedded and context-reduced communication
Cummins (1984b) expresses two ways in which meaning is expressed or received. These are “context-embedded” and “context-reduced” communication. Context-embedded communication occurs when the participants actually negotiate meaning, usually in a face- to-face situation. The opportunities for immediate feedback to clarify meaning in context are evident. This type of communication derives from interpersonal involvement in a shared reality which does away with the need for explicit linguistic elaboration of the message. With context-reduced communication, the reliance is primarily on linguistic cues to derive meaning. In this type of communication, a shared reality cannot be assumed:
language needs to be elaborated precisely and explicitly to minimize misinterpretation.
Everyday interpersonal communication is context-embedded as opposed to lectures and written academic communication, which are context-reduced. In this study, there is reliance on context-reduced communication as science discourse is particularly dense and abstract which, as stated in the previous Chapter, is conveyed by means of the “elaborated code”
(Bernstein 1971). The issue of misinterpretation of context-reduced communication on
113
account of its language being elaborate and specialized is fathomed through critical research question 2.
4.2.4 Academic Language
Students who enter the academic arena are exposed to academic language. Academic language is the language used for purposes of learning. “Academic language refers to forms of oral and written language and communication – genres, registers, graphics, linguistic structures, interactional patterns – that are privileged, expected, cultivated, conventionalized, or ritualized, and, therefore, usually evaluated by instructors, institutions, editors, and others in educational and professional contexts” (Duff, 2010: 6). For Schleppegrell (2009), “academic language construe multiple and complex meanings at all levels and in all subjects of schooling ... becoming more dense and abstract as students advance” (3). “Academic language is used by teachers and students for the purpose of imparting new information, describing abstract ideas, and developing students’ conceptual understandings” (Chamot and O’Malley, 1994: 40). Angélil-Carter (1994) describes the language of academia as being specialized discourse; “every task performed requires a certain level of proficiency” (Gasa et al., 1994: 48).
As outlined in the definitions above, academic language used in oral and written academic communication can be cognitively demanding, differing from everyday language and interpersonal communication which are cognitively undemanding. In reference to Cummins’ (1984b) distinction between context-reduced and context-embedded communication explained earlier in this Chapter, academic texts are context-reduced, and thus cognitively demanding, in contrast to interpersonal communication, which is context- embedded. Interpreting meaning of any form of communication requires some degree of proficiency in the language of communication.
This distinction between the two types of communication ties up with Cummins’ (1984b) explanation of two types of language proficiency, viz. BICS and CALP (which have been outlined in Chapter 2). BICS refer to conversational fluency in a language while CALP refers to students’ ability to understand and express, in both oral and written modes, concepts and ideas that are relevant to success in school. Cummins’ (2000) associates CALP specifically with the social context of schooling, hence the term ‘academic’. He
114
defines academic language proficiency as “the extent to which an individual has success to and command of the oral and written academic registers of schooling” (67).
Krashen and Brown (2007) propose that CALP or academic proficiency can be analyzed as containing specific components which are:
1. knowledge of academic language, characterized by complex syntax, academic vocabulary, and a complex discourse style;
2. knowledge of academic content (subjects and disciplines) and;
3. strategies that serve to make input more comprehensible and thereby help in the acquisition of academic language (1).
Academic proficiency is essential for learning. According to Krashen (1981), language is acquired and literacy is developed by understanding messages, not by consciously learning about language and not by deliberate memorization of rules of grammar and vocabulary.
This mirrors how Gee (1987) views the acquisition of literacy, a point already referred to earlier in this Chapter.
Since academic language is dense and complex; is used to explain abstract concepts and higher order thinking required for academic success; it is far more demanding than basic, conversational communication and can pose a greater challenge, especially when it is used by students for whom English is a second or additional language. In relation to this study, learning content knowledge in science means that students need to become exposed to academic language, and thus CALP. The way in which the presence of any perceived challenges experienced by the FP students as a consequence of limited or underdeveloped CALP is transmitted in this study through the interrogation of data obtained to critical research question 2.
4.2.5 Discourse of Disciplines
Engagement with the discourse of a discipline is not only about the acquisition of knowledge but also its standards and practices. Each discipline in HE has its own register, conventions, genres and a set of ground rules that require mastery. These conventions define the way in which knowledge is construed. At university level, students in a discipline need to know what counts as knowledge and how new knowledge is constructed, disseminated and contested. Dison and Rule (1996) explain the notion of discourse in a discipline:
115
The discipline itself is like a sub-culture and its discourse is made up of: codes (linguistic, intuitive, creative, etc.), conventions (essay structure, research, referencing, reporting, etc.), concepts (main ideas and debates in the discipline, etc.), values (what qualifies as knowledge or evidence, and caring, etc.), canons (primary texts and theories/authorities), and skills (both cognitive and linguistic) (87).
To succeed at university, novice students, especially, need to “acquire both ‘cognitive competence’ (modes of analysis, key concepts) and ‘linguistic competence’ (terminology, style, convention, codes)” (Rule, 1994: 100). Being initiated into the academic culture of the university and the sub-cultures of the various disciplines is what Ballard and Clanchy (1988: 19) view as “acculturation, learning to read and write the culture”. In addition to this, as stated by Langer (1987), is the need to develop the structure of values, attitudes and way of thinking and doing necessary for success within the discipline. In terms of science, according to Lee and Fradd (1998), this means “acquiring scientific knowledge of the world and scientific habits of the mind, especially where the latter means acquiring scientific values, attitudes and a scientific world view” (15). The way in which students in the FP become acculturated into the ‘sciences’ is revealed via the responses from the DSs to critical research question 3.