This part of the analysis will be a discussion on how students conceptualized the ALUGS module and what they understood the module to be. In this regard, findings from interviews with students will be used for the purpose of the analysis. Two of the student participants, when asked
78
about their understanding of the ALUGS module, felt that the module was interesting. Simple, the first student participant, stated that the “module is quite interesting because it teaches us how to write academically and the way we use academic language. A close examination of what makes the module interesting to Simple is her claim that she learnt how to write academically and the use of academic language in the module. Arguably, this statement is an eye-opener that students feel fulfilled when they are able to manipulate academic discourse (language), a discourse which Bourdieu (1994) describes to be no one‟s mother tongue. Thus, it seems that the student finds the module interesting because it is within the ALUGS module that issues about the use of academic language and the acquisition of academic discourse are discussed and taught.
The student may have enjoyed this module given that it was the only module that addressed academic writing. She confirmed this by saying: “…I find this very effective because it helps us because we are always writing in this university”. From this student‟s perception, it seems that writing is the privileged literacy at the university under study. Thus, this agrees with Bazerman‟s (1988) assertion that knowledge in HE is cast in written language. In essence, this student perceived writing, particularly academic writing, to be the heart of the teaching-learning activities at the HEIs. Arguably, the reason for this student‟s perception of the module as being effective is the fact that every student is required to write at HE, no matter the discipline they belong to. Thus, Simple created a link between the module under study and her writing.
Following on from the foregoing, given that university learning is all about writing (Bazerman, 1988) and the ALUGS module is teaching the students how to write academically, Simple therefore concluded that the ALUGS module was effective.
Closely related to this is a response from Florey, the second student. Florey added that the module was „interesting‟ and said it has taught her „a lot on how to write academic text. It depends on how you see it. To me it‟s not that difficult‟. Following these two responses, it seems that these two students find the module interesting and effective because it taught them “a lot on how to write academic texts” (Florey).
However, Pint, the third student, described the module as being difficult. She stated: “it is difficult” even though she later added that the module taught her how to write essays. She claimed to have found it “to be (about) how we write essays”. In contrast to the first two students, Pint‟s perceptions about the nature and purpose of the module might have been
79
responsible for the conclusion that the module is difficult. Her understanding of the module as a module on how to write an essay might be the main reason why she believed that the module is difficult, given that she is a Technology student. She confirmed this by saying that Technology is not about writing, but about machines. She stated that: “it (technology) talks about machines…
and not about writing”. This therefore alludes to the notion that the generic teaching of writing always decontextualizes literacy practices from the students‟ own disciplinary discourses (see chapter 2, section 2.2.1) and renders literacy practices asocial. Pint‟s position is informative in that the module has nothing to do with her disciplinary discourse. Such modules cannot boast of any discipline or discourse to call their own, but can only create pseudo discourses of their own (Gee, 1990; Jacobs, 2005). The implication then is that the pseudo-discourses embedded in such a generic programme may have been responsible for Pint‟s conclusion that the ALUGS module was difficult.
Admittedly, Lea and Street (2006) have also stated that when an academic literacy module is being taught in a generic manner it is likely to view literacy as an entity and a technology of the mind (see chapter 2, section 2.8.2), where learning is perceived to be uniform, discrete, homogeneous and stable. These characteristics of a generic literacy programme seems to have manifested in Pint‟s response in that she declared that what is being taught in the ALUGS module differs from what she is expected to do in her discipline. Hence, it seems that the kind of learning that takes place within the ALUGS tutorials is divorced from students‟ disciplinary discourses. One can hence describe the ALUGS module as a module that creates pseudo- discourses of its own. Such a practice obliges students to learn within a social space that is unfamiliar to their affinity group (disciplines) (see Jacobs, 2006, chapter two).
Surprisingly, it appears that the three students were of the opinion that the module was useful.
Although Pint earlier disagreed with the other two students because she found the module as being difficult, nonetheless, she later agreed that she had learnt much from the module. This therefore is an indication that the module was perceived as being useful to the students. Pint stated:
“…I learnt how to write an introduction and conclusion and to also write something you understand” (Pint).
80
Contrary to Pint‟s earlier disagreement with her colleagues, it seems they all agreed that the module taught them how to write essays. However, it appears that the students were of the opinion that the focus of the ALUGS module was on writing, as there was no reference to reading or any other form of literacy in their responses. The module also privileges writing over other forms of literacy such as reading, and more importantly, the findings also revealed that the teaching of writing within the ALUGS module was on the structure of writing (text-structure).
Thus, the students described the teaching of writing within the ALUGS module structure- oriented. These responses therefore revealed that the teaching of writing within the ALUGS module revolved around the essay type of literacy (academic essay writing) and nothing more.
This approach to the teaching of writing seems to lend itself to the deficit model where writing is being taught as a set of skills such as the teaching of linguistic features of text, spelling, grammar and organization of texts (Lea and Street, 2006).
If writing is being taught this way, it therefore appears that the approach being used within the ALUGS module is the study skills approach. This then reveals that the ALUGS module privileges the autonomous model of literacy. As discussed in chapter two, this approach holds a deficit or remedial view about the teaching and learning of writing. Green, Hammer and Stephens (2005) describe the deficit approach as the one that positions students to be relatively passive in the teaching-learning process, and on the other hand, views knowledge to be transparent and stable. Thus, such approach offers a kind of generic form of literacy. In this view, whatever is learnt from such a generic platform is taken to be relevant to every discipline within the university.