LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

content knowledge through an additional language.

      Who are the teachers?

      As with the students, this project is concerned with the work of all

      University staff. Again, the concern here is the label used to describe us. There are many ways of distinguishing between the various roles we occupy, many of which denote some form of hierarchical status or leadership role. Many of these titles are also highly culturally bound, not only within UK HE, but more specifically within a particular University and do not immediately or directly translate to other institutions. This is particularly pertinent within roles which are centred on student education. For example, within the field of EAP, there has been some discussion (BALEAP JISCmail.ac.uk 03/2017) around the names used to identify with the profession, from Language Teacher, Lecturer in Applied Linguistics to EAP Practitioner, with many expressing a desire to distance themselves from ‘lecturers’ (because, naively, we do not ‘lecture’) and a tendency to label ourselves as ‘other’ than academics within a discipline.

      However, although the names we choose for ourselves speak clearly about our own identity and position within the academy, most of these titles are also meaningless to, and possibly ignored by, our students6.

      What is important to our students in the context of this project is our role as teacher and how we contribute to their education. This is true regardless of the position we hold. Therefore, throughout this book, I will use the term ‘teacher’ to denote all involved in the education of students, regardless of status in the academic hierarchy. I will distinguish between the type of teaching undertaken by separating ‘content teaching’ (of a particular discipline or field) from ‘EAP teaching7, but when this separation is not relevant, the blanket label of ‘teacher’ will be used to encompass the interactions that any staff member might have with a student that involves learning taking place – including learning development and student support around, for example, careers advice and personal tutoring.

      Within Case Study site one, the EAP teaching participants were all involved in teaching those students who were intending to, or already were, studying in Case Study site two. This included those responsible for the development and leadership of the summer pre-sessional programme as well as twelve of the thirteen teachers who taught on it; I met 11 as a group (LC3 – LC11) and another individually (LC1). I also met the six teachers who taught students in this School on the insessional programme as a focus group (LC1; LC2; LC9; LC12 and LC13), speaking to the programme leader both within the group and individually.

      Via an email request, I received written consent to interview each of the programme leaders of the eight TPG programmes in site two individually as well as members of the School leadership team. One of these interviews took place via email, the rest being face to face and recorded. I also observed classes given by three of these teachers. These participants were coded from M1 to M11.

      In site three, I observed three different teachers, and was able to interview one of these, as well as another senior member of staff. I also took part in meetings that involved one of the programme leaders and student support staff. I chose to code these as S1 through to S5.

      As with the student participants, although the bulk of the data used for analysis was provided by the individuals listed here, the field notes I took throughout the investigation included commentary and observations based on interactions with a wider range of staff across the three sites as well as the wider institution. The intention of the project was not to highlight the experiences, approach and attitudes of individuals but to aim to create a nuanced picture of the ‘norm circles’ developed within each Case Study, where a norm circle ‘consists of a group of people who are committed to endorsing and enforcing a particular norm’ and they have ‘the causal power to produce a tendency in individuals to follow standardised practices’ (Elder-Vass, 2012 in Ding, 2016: 12). This is only possible to do by drawing from a range of data sources.

Chapter Summary and Practical Lessons Learned for SoTL

      In this chapter I have provided an overview of the external influences on the development of this book, ones that are influencing Higher Education globally. This includes the movement towards evidence informed teaching and learning in Higher Education through scholarship. I considered the ethical implications of engaging in any SoTL project, and how this might impact both positively and negatively on both student and teacher participants as well as the wider institution. I also connected SoTL to the metrics involved in measuring teaching excellence and suggested that this can act as a push for institutions to support those who wish to engage with scholarship more formally, but also highlighted that with this push comes the need for specific support around developing expertise in SoTL methods and processes – giving my own case as an example.

      The second half of the chapter then provided details of the scholarship project itself, positioning the researcher within the project, outlining the methodology, data collection and analysis methods as well as providing descriptions of the different sites of study and the participants involved. I end with key points of learning that can be taken from this chapter, and questions that readers, particularly EAP practitioners, might wish to consider for their own scholarship projects.

      • You are investigating your own practice, much of which is likely to have developed through experience. You are therefore likely to experience a personal resistance to theory and theorising around your practice. My own approach was to be a magpie; to use a range of theories to explain different phenomena. It is necessary to engage with theory, but it is possible to begin with practice and look outward rather than to fix on a theoretical framework from the outset.

      • SoTL itself is still under-defined and unclear. Use this to your advantage. Be part of the definition.

      • Work on questions that are relevant to you, for the benefit of your context and your students.

      • Collaborate. Draw on the expertise of others. If you have identified an issue that resonates with you, you will be amazed at the buy in you get from others.

      • EAP teachers (and others) who often have a lower status within HEIs can, through SoTL and collaborations, make it clear that you have something to offer that others are not able to provide. It is, as Ding and Bruce (2017) have already argued, through SoTL that you are able to find your own academic authority and become a central part of a university’s endeavour to improve student education.

      • SoTL is an investment and commitment, and therefore requires investment and commitment on a personal level (as well as preferably from an institution). It is personal and the commitment is therefore emotional as well as intellectual. This is in equal amounts draining and incredibly rewarding.

      2 Tracing a Student Journey: The Stories of Mai and Lin

      In telling the stories of two students, Mai and Lin, I hope to create ‘red thread’ narratives of two student participants that weave through the rest of the thematic data presented in following chapters. In presenting this data, I try to use the students’ own words as much as possible whilst providing my own understanding and interpretation of the background and context that created their own particular circumstances. I have chosen, from the many students I spoke to, to highlight the stories of Mai and Lin for a number of reasons.

      Firstly, there are clear external parallels between their journeys. Both students were female and from mainland China. Neither had travelled outside China prior to the commencement of their studies in the UK. Both had only recently completed their undergraduate degree in China but had done some volunteer work within their chosen fields – Mai as a teacher within her discipline and Lin producing marketing materials for her province’s internal tourism campaign. Both students attended a pre-sessional in the EAP unit prior to beginning their TPG programme, needing to do so in order to meet the language requirement of their academic programme because they had not met the overall 6.5 in IELTS requirement stipulated by their School’s admissions policy.

      The second reason for choosing these two students are the differences between them, the most obvious one being that they were studying in different Schools and different disciplines. While I am not suggesting that these two individuals

Скачать книгу