LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

even all International or Chinese students in these different sites, their stories do highlight some of the conflicting tensions and possibilities that surround approaches to teaching and learning in an increasingly diverse higher education landscape. I have attempted to represent both students as unique individuals while drawing on key elements of their stories that represent the tensions within the internationalised higher education system. Remaining conscious of the ‘danger of a single story’ (Adichie, 2009), I have attempted to consider the story of the students’ journeys from multiple perspectives, questioning motives, reasons and outcomes. I am confident that readers will recognise and be able to draw parallels between these stories and the stories of students they have encountered in their own teaching contexts. I begin with Mai’s story.

Mai

      Mai’s story highlights the complex tensions involved in one individual student’s situation as they struggle, and ultimately fail, to meet the expected academic and communication standards of their taught post-graduate academic programme. Through her story I hope to show that this failure cannot be attributed to one incident, to one breakdown in support systems, to a language deficit, a culture or educational system in isolation, or even to luck. Rather, each student experiences, succeeds or fails as a result of a unique and nuanced combination of factors. We need to consider these factors holistically; by breaking them down and trying to fix one aspect that we identify as being broken, we inevitably shift a problem onto a new or different area.

      Mai began studying at my institution in January 2016. She arrived with a relatively low IELTS score, 5.0 overall, and had chosen to study in the United Kingdom for a year in order to develop her academic English via a longer pre-sessional programme rather than stay in China and continue to take repeated IELTS tests. She had had an offer to join her chosen TPG programme in the previous academic year which she had chosen to defer, I assume because she had not met the language requirement within the offer. She studied in the EAP teaching unit over three 10-week terms. At the end of each term, she submitted assessments and took part in tests which would allow her to progress to the next level of pre-sessional study. These assessments were intended to provide formative feedback to students that would enable them to learn and apply this learning as they moved onto the following terms of study, but also to provide an indication of their current language proficiency. The criteria used for the language element of the assessment was carefully mapped against both the CEFR and IELTS as these are the current most widely accepted units of measurement for language proficiency in the UK. Criteria also focused on the extent to which a student was able to fulfil the literacy and communication requirements of a specific academic task.

      Mai struggled at each assessment point and progressed to the next level of pre-sessional with clear and strong warnings that she would find the following term difficult and may want to reconsider her choices and options for future study. All of the EAP teachers who were involved in working with Mai expressed at some point their belief that she would struggle with her chosen TPG programme and that she did not currently have the academic attributes that would enable her to succeed. Despite this, when measured against the criteria which were primarily focused on general academic language proficiency, Mai continued to progress towards her final goal of joining her TPG programme.

      Having studied on three terms of English for general academic purposes (EGAP), for the summer, Mai was placed on a pre-sessional programme that was focused specifically on STEM disciplines. This was the first year that this STEM pre-sessional had run and the programme leader had reported difficulties in creating a cohesive programme that covered the needs of a still wide-ranging set of TPG programmes, covering five different faculties. The majority of the students on this pre-sessional were moving onto engineering programmes or food science and nutrition. Therefore, this is where the majority of the content focus was aimed. Mai was the only student on the pre-sessional who was going onto her specific programme, with only two other students moving into her Faculty.

      Again, Mai met the expected level of proficiency at the end of programme, scoring 56 overall and no less than 55 in any of the components, with the standard expected level being 55 for students who, like Mai, were required to demonstrate a language proficiency level of IELTS 6.5 or equivalent in all four skills. Mai was allowed to join her chosen TPG programme, with the suggestion that she might want to consider continuing to develop her EAP skills by joining a general insessional programme. At the time, this insessional programme ran in four-week blocks of two hours per week, with students being asked to select the area of EAP they felt they most needed to focus on, the choices being: Academic Writing; Academic Reading and Critical Thinking; Academic Language Development; Academic Lecture and Seminar Skills; Academic Speaking and Presentation Skills; Grammar for Academic Writing. However, there was no absolute requirement either that the School act on this suggestion, or that Mai enrol for any of the classes provided. Frequently, timetable clashes would prevent Mai or any other student from being able to attend their class of choice.

      The School that Mai had joined had very few structural links or connections with the EAP teaching unit. However, over the summer I had begun to have conversations with the Faculty’s Student Education Service Manager and an academic member of staff who had taken on responsibility for all international students within the Faculty. The Faculty had very recently begun to consider the best ways to support international students, and I was being asked for advice around the development of a Faculty run series of classes for undergraduate students that would provide them with extra support around academic expectations. As a result of this contact, I was sent an email in early November with the following message from Mai’s programme leader and personal tutor:

       • I have just marked her X piece and it is completely incomprehensible. I think her English is at such a poor level she does not understand anything. She has been in two coursework surgeries with me where she has said nothing and written very little and only spoken when asked a direct question. I spoke to her afterwards and she finds it difficult to understand what we say. She had a copy of the paper we were working on and she had made notes in Chinese all over it. She did not understand the (written) instructions for the flow diagram so did not bring a draft to the second coursework surgery and then when she sent me her draft it was clear she didn’t understand what she was being asked to do, despite having sat through the two CW surgeries where we discussed the figures and the other students presented their drafts which we discussed. I had a personal tutorial with her and advised her to get more support through the language centre but I don’t think this will be enough. She came through the presessional English course so I don’t know how her English can be so bad but I really don’t think she is going to be able to cope. (S3)

      Analysis of the content of this email highlights multiple intersecting and contradictory threads that I will return to repeatedly throughout the rest of this book. Within this message, there are questions raised about the following in relation to all, but specifically EAL/international students:

      • Is language proficiency and therefore ability to linguistically de-code, the knowledge, instructions and tasks students engage with the main issue?

      • Is academic ability – i.e. the level of knowledge that is required at TPG study – regardless of language a key issue for students?

      • Do students have the required foundational knowledge in a discipline upon which to build the new information they are expected to work with?

      • Do teachers approach face to face sessions in a way that helps students to feel comfortable and voice their (lack of) understanding? Are teacher’s expectations fair and reasonable?

      • Do teachers speak to EAL students in a manner and using language that enables them to understand what is being said and respond with ease? How do they check this?

      • Are the instructions that students are required to follow clear and easy to understand?

      • Is there any questioning around students’ choices to make notes in languages other than the one of instruction? Should this be seen as a problem at all? Does it necessarily demonstrate a lack of understanding?

      • What role do EAP teachers play in the success or failure of students once they move beyond the pre-sessional programme? Do pre-sessionals inadequately prepare students for a TPG programme?

Скачать книгу