BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY
2.1 Students’ Entry into the Higher Education (HE) Environment
47
the development of academic literacy as the area for discussion and paying specific attention to SCOM as a consequence of its inclusion in the BSc4 (Foundation). Academic Literacy (AL) is explored with specific reference to perceptions of it and the different models implemented to facilitate its acquisition and development. The third issue explained here is academic writing, a crucial domain in higher learning contexts. This is followed by a presentation of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956), a model frequently used in the learning contexts to formulate module objectives and direct assessment practices. The final issue clarified in this Chapter is discourse facilitation.
48
(1985) takes this point further when he writes, “Every time a student sits down to write for us, he has to invent the university for the occasion ... he has to learn to speak our language ... to appropriate (or be appropriated by) a specialized discourse” (273)31. Shay et al. (1994) refer to this as “inviting students to join the academic conversation as equals, an act that is daunting for new students ‘who are not yet insiders’ of disciplines, and thus cannot converse so quickly or easily with authority” (27) on the subject matter. A relevant view in respect of the double-edged sword facing EAL students in respect of the LoLT and the complexities of academic writing is expressed in the following comment:
[T]he language of instruction for many of those identified as being academically illiterate is a second, third or even fourth language, the roots of this illiteracy is often perceived to lie in a lack of knowledge of the additional language compounded by a lack of familiarity with the way in which academic text is structured rhetorically, syntactically and lexically (Boughey, 1994: 22).
Students often have adequate conversational skills, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds who have had greater exposure to oral culture than print media (at home) but these skills are not adequate to cope with the language of academia. Goodier and Parkinson (2005) note that “the discourse features of a language in specialised disciplines, both at a macro and a micro level, differ significantly from the discourse features of everyday language” (67).
2.2 Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
Cummins (1979) distinguishes between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Cummins (1979; 1984b) argues that the language required for CALP is immensely different from BICS. BICS refer to conversational fluency in a language, the surface skills of listening and speaking which are typically acquired quickly by many students 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.
31 Similarly, in respect of the dominance of English in English-speaking countries, Lankshear (1997) draws attention to a ‘double loss’ facing indigenous and migrant peoples: by having to go along with practices of formal education grounded in language, dialect and Discourses of dominant groups, they stand to lose their language(s) and cultures, the latter being a result of cultural assimilation; while at the same time failing to achieve educationally. Thus, spurring on the need for education to promote bilingual or multilingual competence; and languages other than English should feature as both a medium of instruction and as curriculum subjects (34-35). Although the ‘double loss’ has parallels with ‘double jeopardy’, it is neither the intention of the study to explore the viability of bilingualism/multilingualism in FP nor the understanding of the FP students’ culture/cultural loss.
49
On a continuum devised by Cummins (1984a), he illustrates the range of contextual support available for expressing or receiving meaning. The extremes of this continuum are defined in terms of types of communication: context-embedded communication and context-reduced communication. BICS are context-embedded communication where “the participants can actively negotiate meaning and the language is supported by a wide range of paralinguistic and situational cues” (136). BICS involve face-to-face conversations and offer cues such as facial expressions and gestures and concrete objects of reference which assist in understanding and imparting information. “The opportunities for immediate feedback to clarify meaning in context are evident. Context-embedded communication derives from interpersonal involvement in a shared reality which does away with the need for explicit linguistic elaboration of the message” (Starfield, 1990: 84). BICS involve conversational skills and are grasped more easily.
“CALP is context-reduced communication which relies primarily on linguistic cues to meaning” (Cummins, 1984b: 136). In CALP there are fewer non-verbal cues and the language is more abstract. With CALP, a shared reality cannot be assumed and the language used must therefore be elaborated precisely and explicitly to minimize the risk of misinterpretation (Cummins 1984a). Within the continuum, is the degree of active cognitive involvement in a task or activity (Starfield, 1990: 84) which is either cognitively undemanding or cognitively demanding. Cummins (1984a) claims that context-embedded communication is cognitively undemanding (BICS), compared to cognitively demanding, context-reduced communication (CALP). While cognitively undemanding language has a simple language structure and is easy to understand as it deals with everyday language and social conversation, cognitively demanding language has a complex language structure, refers to abstract concepts and uses more specialized vocabulary. Cummins’ (1984a) framework drew attention to the interplay between language and cognition.
Cummins (1984b) states that while many children develop native speaker fluency (i.e.
BICS) within two years of immersion in the target language, it takes between five to seven years for a child to be working on a level with native speakers as far as academic language is concerned. Thus, students are more likely to gain control of BICS more easily than that of CALP.
50
CALP was introduced by Cummins (1979) in order to draw educators’ attention to the timelines and challenges that second language learners encounter as they attempt to catch up to their peers in academic aspects of school language (Cummins, 1979 in Street and Hornberger, 2008). Cummins (2008) comments that the notion of CALP is specific to the social context of schooling, hence the term ‘academic’. Academic language proficiency can thus be defined as the extent to which an individual has access to and command of the oral and written academic registers of schooling (Cummins 2000). Moore et al. (1998: 12) cite Cummins (1984a) who states that students who have English as a second or additional language often appear fluent at the interactive communicative level, which is the BICS but they may not have the more advanced language skills necessary for developing conceptual understanding in the academic context (CALP). Schlebusch (2002) states that “[students’]
ability to participate meaningfully in [school] learning activities is intimately linked to their proficiency in the language of learning” (1). By the same token, Starfield (1990) claims that “linguistic competence cannot be separated from the cognitive demands of [a] [task]”
(86). Moore et al. (1998) draw support from Cummins’ (1984a) theory about students’
language skills and illuminate the fact that linguistic competence cannot be separated from the cognitive demands of a task. As a result, an explicit focus on language needed to be embedded in the teaching of mainstream courses (12). This study, in determining the issue of the acquisition of discipline-specific literacies in the foundation modules offered in the BSc4 (Foundation) programme, sees the need for CALP to engage with science content in the FP.
2.3 Defining Literacy
Being able to read and write can contribute effectively to higher learning but in no way implies having achieved literacy. The varying connotations of literacy are especially valid for this study that seeks to understand the acquisition of discipline-specific literacies in science. Traditionally, literacy has been viewed as the ability to read and write. Roberts (1995) problematizes “the surface notion of literacy as 'the ability to read and write' as an incomplete statement simply because questions regarding what one reads and writes, and 'how much' ability in reading and/or writing is required in order to be considered literate, are left unanswered” (143). New understandings of literacy (Draper, 2002; Street, 2003;
Lee, 2004) have extended its meaning to encompass more than the ability to read and write.
51
The concept of literacy has thus evolved from being viewed in this single, monolithic light to being a multi-faceted practice shaped by context, culture, participants and technology.
Draper (2002), for example, notes that narrower definitions of literacy, which give preference to reading and writing traditional print material, have been rejected by many literacy educators as not honoring the role of listening, speaking, and experiencing in the comprehension and understanding of texts … not convey[ing] the importance of context and the situatedness of the reader/writer and/or the text (359). Langer (1987) summarizes literacy as:
an activity, a way of thinking, not a set of skills. And it is a purposeful activity – people read, write, talk and think about real ideas and information in order to ponder and extend what they know, to communicate with others, to present their points of view, and to understand and be understood” (4).
Likewise, the view put forward by Scribner and Cole (1981) is that “[l]iteracy is not simply knowing how to read and write a particular script but applying this knowledge for specific purposes in specific contexts of use” (236).
Lankshear (1999) draws attention to Green’s (1988) three dimensional view of literacy where the components i.e. the operational, the cultural, and the critical interlock, bringing together language, meaning and context. The operational dimension of literacy points to the manner in which individuals use language in literacy tasks in order to operate effectively in specific contexts. Addressing literacy from this perspective, refers to the ability of individuals “to read and write in a range of contexts, in an appropriate and adequate manner”, i.e. to focus on the language aspect of literacy. The cultural dimension involves the “meaning aspect of literacy”, and “competency with the meaning system of social practices” (Green 1988: 160). This is to recognise that literacy acts and events are context specific and content specific. The cultural aspect of literacy is a matter of understanding texts in relation to contexts - to appreciate their meaningand the appropriateness of ways of reading and writing. The critical dimension of literacy has to do with the socially constructed nature of all human practices and meaning systems. In order to be able to participate effectively and productively in any social practice, humans must be socialised into it (Green 1988; Lankshear, 1999). According to Lankshear (1999), an integrated view of literacy in practice and in pedagogy addresses all three dimensions simultaneously.
52
Draper (2002) adds to the definition of literacy, the inclusion of multiple activities such as reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing and symbolizing; with multiple associated texts like print, digital, video, symbolic, images, diagrams, graphs and conversations (359).
The argument that literacy is constantly evolving is put forth by Colombi and Schleppegrell (2002) who explain that “continual changes in technology and society means that literacy tasks themselves are always changing” (2).
Cunningham et al. (2000) illustrate that most definitions of literacy share three commonalities which are “the ability to engage in some of the unique aspects of reading and writing; contextualisation to some extent within the broad demands of the society; and some minimal level of practical proficiency” (64). Gee (1989) defines literacy as the mastery of secondary or formal institutional, often academic discourses (Gee, 1989). These secondary discourses typically involve ways of describing, explaining, and questioning that differ from ordinary conversation. The discourses typical of academic disciplines may be regarded as literacies (Michaels and O'Connor, 1990).
Researchers have distinguished between content area literacy and disciplinary literacy.
Bean et al. (2008) define content area literacy as the ability to use reading and writing effectively as tools for thinking about and learning from texts across different content subjects. Shanahan and Shanahan (2012) emphasize two presumptions of content area literacy: the cognitive requirements of learning and interpretation are essentially the same irrespective of the content; and, the major difference among the subjects is the content matter. Fang (2012) is of the view that content area literacy emphasizes the acquisition of skills and/or strategies such as basic reading skills(e.g. fluency), cognitive text processing strategies (e.g. predicting) and generic learning strategies (e.g. highlighting texts) which can assist students to extract information from any content area text, helping to promote learning and retention of content.
“Disciplinary literacy involves the use of reading, reasoning, investigating, speaking, and writing required to learn and form complex content knowledge appropriate to a particular discipline” (McConachie and Petrosky, 2010: 16). Disciplinary literacy is built on the premise that each subject area or discipline has a discourse community with its own language, texts, and ways of knowing, doing, and communicating within a discipline (O’Brien et al. 2001). Disciplinary literacy situates literacy as an integral part of content.
53
Students learn how disciplinary experts read and write texts in their field and “how the disciplines are different from one another, how acts of inquiry produce knowledge and multiple representational forms (such as texts written in particular ways or with different symbolic systems or semiotic tools), as well as how those disciplinary differences are socially constructed” (Moje, 2008: 103). In support of the focus on disciplinary literacy as a benefit to students, Rainey and Moje (2012) state that:
[it is] what students need to usher them into the ways of thinking and knowing and communicating in the disciplines ... teachers can reveal for students what the underlying practices and values and assumptions are of [their] disciplines so that they [students] may fully engage in them (77).
Similarly, Shanahan and Shanahan (2012) agree that the aim of disciplinary literacy is to
“find ways of teaching students to negotiate successfully the literacy aspects of the disciplines ... [a]s an effort, ultimately, to transform students into disciplinary insiders who are able to approach literacy tasks with some sense of agency and with a set of responses and moves that are appropriate to the specialized purposes, demands, and mores of the disciplines” (8). “Being literate in a discipline means both deep knowledge of disciplinary content and keen understanding of disciplinary ways of making meaning” (Fang, 2012: 20).
Fang (2012: 20) goes on to state that “literacy development involves simultaneous engagement with disciplinary content (e.g. core concepts) and disciplinary habits of mind (e.g. reading–writing, viewing–representing, listening–speaking, thinking–reasoning, and problem-solving practices consistent with those of content experts)” (20). The concepts of literacy and disciplinary literacy are relevant in this study, which critical research question 1 seeks to answer.