Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola [1 ed.] 9781443895408, 9781443885379

Citation preview

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola By

Celeste Ana da Glória Eduardo Sambeny

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola By Celeste Ana da Glória Eduardo Sambeny This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Celeste Ana da Glória Eduardo Sambeny All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-8537-1 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8537-9

In loving memory of Mwalinsi Yolanda Eduardo Sambeny You decided to leave us when we most needed you. You should have thought about how much we loved you and would miss you. You will always be present in our lives. May your soul rest in peace.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................... x List of Figures............................................................................................. xi Abstract ..................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xiv List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................ xvi Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background 1.3 Research Questions 1.4 Aims and Scope of the Study 1.5 Rationale 1.6 Definition of Key Concepts 1.7 Outline of the Study 1.8 Summary Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 17 Contextual Background 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Background to the study 2.3 The Origins, Location, and Development of the Teacher Training Institute nr 200 2.4 Majors and Qualification Requirements 2.5 Origins and Backgrounds of Students and Admission Requirements 2.6 The Lecturers 2.7 Teacher Education Students 2.8 Class Size 2.9 Teacher Education Students’ Backgrounds 2.10 Course Components 2.11 Resource Availability 2.12 Assessment Procedures 2.13 Summary

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 29 Literature Review 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Mapping the Field 3.3 Traditional Approaches to Teaching/Learning 3.4 Progressive Approaches to Teaching/Learning 3.5 Genre Theory 3.6 Six L2 Teaching Writing Pedagogic Orientations 3.7 Writing a Research Report at TTI nr 200 3.8 Towards an Integrated Way of Teaching Writing 3.9 Biggs’s Constructive Alignment and the 3 P Model 3.10 Research Supervision 3.11 Summary Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 68 Conceptual Framework 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Biggs’s Constructive Alignment and the 3P Model 4.3 Ways of Giving Feedback 4.4 Deep and Surface Approaches to Teaching and Learning and the Students’ Level of Engagement 4.5 Cummins’s Differentiation between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) 4.6 Academic Literacy Models 4.7 Models of supervision 4.8 Summary Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 107 Research Methodology 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Research Design 5.3 Research Site and Research Sample 5.4 Sampling Technique 5.5 Research Instruments 5.6 Validity and Generalisability 5.7 Ethical Considerations 5.8 Data Collection 5.9 Data Analysis 5.10 Summary

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

ix

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 144 Data Presentation and Description 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Data from the Questionnaires 6.3 Data from the Interviews 6.4 Classroom Observation 6.5 Document Analysis 6.6 Summary Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 234 Discussion of Findings 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Acquiring Academic and Research Literacy Skills 7.3 Deploying Academic and Research Literacy Skills in the Production of the Research Reports 7.4 Curriculum Alignment and the Production of the Research Reports 7.5 Supervision Practices and the Successful Completion of the Research Reports 7.6 The Role of Academic and Research Literacy Practices in the Successful Completion of Research Proposals 7.7 Contribution to the research knowledge 7.8 Summary Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 257 Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Conclusions 8.3 Limitations of the Study 8.4 Recommendations 8.5 Future Research 8.6 Summary Bibliography ............................................................................................ 271 Appendices .............................................................................................. 286

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Figures from the Deputy Director of Academic Affairs Department (2006–11) Table 1.2 The relationship between the research questions, aims and data Table 2.1 Course components Table 2.2 Subjects taught in English and Portuguese Table 3.1 Summary of the principal orientations of L2 writing teaching Table 3.2 A comparison of genre and process orientations Table 4.1 From learning objectives to intended learning outcomes Table 4.2 Differences between formative and summative assessment Table 4.3 Potential pros and cons of peer feedback Table 5.1 Days and places where the interviews and questionnaires were conducted Table 6.1 Lecturers’ responses about themselves Table 6.2 Lecturers’ responses about resource availability Table 6.3 Lecturers’ responses about research report writing Table 6.4 Lecturers’ responses about assessment procedures Table 6.5 Lecturers’ responses about research practices Table 6.6 Lecturers’ responses about research supervision Table 6.7 Students’ responses about the lecturers Table 6.8 Students’ responses about resource availability Table 6.9 Students’ responses about research report writing Table 6.10 Students’ responses about the assessment procedures Table 6.11 Students’ responses about research practices Table 6.12 Students’ responses about research supervision Table 7.1 An interactive model between the conceptual orientations, and research supervision

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1 The wheel model of genre literacy and pedagogy Fig. 3.2 A process model of writing instruction Fig. 3.3 The teaching learning cycle Fig. 4.1 The 3P Model of teaching and learning Fig. 4.2 A curriculum model Fig. 4.3 Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on assessment Fig. 4.4 Student orientation, teaching method and level of engagement Fig. 4.5 Desired and actual level of engagement approaches to learning and enhancing teaching Fig. 4.6 The four levels of cognitive development Fig. 4.7 The four layers of supervision practices Fig. 4.8 An interactive model between the conceptual framework and research design Fig. 5.1 Interactive model of research design Fig. 5.2 The process of data analysis Fig. 7.1 Constructive alignment and the 4P Model

ABSTRACT

This book focuses on the academic and research literacy practices of final year teacher education students in one of the teacher training institutions, TTI nr 200, in Luanda, Angola. The major purpose was to examine the teaching/learning process, especially with regard to the assessment procedures throughout the coursework and the type of alignment between those assessment procedures and the final assessment, which is the production of the research report. The book is based on the postmodern qualitative paradigm. The researcher chose phenomenology as the main strategy for the research. The main assumption was that the best way of approaching the truth about a specific phenomenon is through exploring the experiences of the people involved in that phenomenon, in this case the academic and research literacy practices of teacher education students. To this end, the stories, experiences, and voices of the participants constituted the medium through which we explored and understood the reality embedded in the teaching and learning of the trainee teachers’ academic and research skills. The research site was TTI nr 200 where teacher trainees are being trained. Interviews were the main research instruments, together with questionnaires, classroom observation, and textual analysis. The interviews provided rich and valid data that gave me solid material for building a significant analysis of participants’ views, feelings, and actions and revealed participants’ expectations (Charmaz 2006, 65). Purposive sampling was used to select both students and lecturers. Because of the participants’ heterogeneity and experiences, groups were selected on the basis of some defining characteristics that made them holders of the data needed for the study. Lecturers’ groups were divided into two groups, one comprising those who are teaching content subjects such as Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology I and II, and those who are teaching general subjects. Students were divided into three groups composed of those who have successfully finished their studies, those who are writing their research proposals, and those who failed to conclude their studies but still have a chance to do so. The Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD) also took part in the study. In the words of Biggs (1999), data revealed that the course components (the curriculum, the objectives, methods, the learning activities, and the assessment procedures) that constitute the teaching and learning system

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

xiii

are not yet aligned. The type of assessment that students have throughout the course is not preparing them for the production of the research report. In other words, there is no relationship between the ongoing assessment and the final assessment. It was found that, most of the time, students use rote learning to survive the difficulties faced during coursework, which helps them complete the four years of coursework but not to produce the research report. Another finding from this study was that research supervision practices need to be reviewed, as this is the area that constitutes the main hindrance to the students’ success in completing their research reports. The study ends with conclusions and some recommendations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank, first of all, my almighty God for giving me the strength and wisdom to complete this long learning process, and also for providing me with hope, faith, and perseverance during the course of my studies, especially during a period when I had personal, professional, and family problems. I owe special thanks and appreciation to my husband, Zacarias Sambeny, who encouraged me to leave my family behind for the third time in order to study in South Africa. Without him I could not have completed this study. He has helped me in countless practical and technical ways, especially with computer use when editing this document. But most importantly, he has given me confidence and helped to keep me going even when I felt discouraged or depressed. Finally, I wish to thank all my children and grandchildren for their support and understanding during the course of my studies, especially Gyasi de Barros who kept complaining that, “Grandmothers do not study; they stay at home and play with their grandchildren.” He was quite reluctant to understand my desire to further my studies and accept my absence in the first stages of my work on this thesis. My deepest gratitude to Dr Ana Sofia Gonzalez for the uncountable hours she spent with me in editing my work and Elvira Gonzalez for being so patient and supportive during the course of my studies. It is such mutual encouragement that has driven me and has contributed significantly to the production of this book. I would like to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of everyone who individually, as part of a group, or institutionally helped me, but due to the extensiveness of this indebtedness it will be difficult to account for every contribution rendered to me, which has helped me shape and reshape my thesis. Therefore, the list of contributors presented here is endless and it is by no means exhaustive. I am very grateful to my PhD supervisor, Dr Dominique Mwepu, for his magnificent support and patience throughout the whole process of writing the thesis from which this book is the result. His critical and constructive comments and professional advice have helped to illuminate my project and introduce me to the world of scientific research. My thesis would not have been completed without him.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

xv

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Hilary Janks, Head of the Applied English Language Studies’ Department, for her help, collaboration, and moral and material support where and whenever requested. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Daniel Mingas, ISCED’s General Director for the support. I express my special thanks to all the students and lecturers in the Modern Languages Department, especially those who participated in and contributed to the success of this study. Without them this research would not have been possible. Special thanks go to Antonio Filipe Augusto for encouraging me to fulfil my own academic and professional dreams, as well as helping me to settle down in South Africa. Thanks to Ana Paula Correia Victor who has contributed immensely to the success of my studies by giving me courage and moral support. My special thanks to Fernanda dos Santos Benedito and Adelina de Kandingi for giving me moral support, and to all my friends and colleagues who, directly or indirectly, have contributed to the success of my studies. Thank you to Nanusa Sambeny, my youngest daughter, for her support in designing tables and figures, as well as sorting out computer glitches. I wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution and support from Professor Mary Scott from the Institute of Education in London. Although she did not know me when I began my PhD studies, she gave me special advice at the editing stage. Her invaluable comments and guidance have made this thesis what it is. The teacher education students and lecturers also deserve my deepest appreciation. I believe this was as much a learning experience for me as it was for them. Teacher education students welcomed me into their communities. It was thus possible to observe the problems they were facing in acquiring and practising academic and research literacy skills. I thank them for understanding that my research was for a good and common cause.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ISCED TTI nr 200 EFP nr 306 HAAD DDAAD BICS MLD CALP TTS EFL ESL ILOs TLAs ATs L1 L2 GSLE CSL S ST STU PCK

Instituto Superior de Ciências da Educação Teacher Training Institute Number 200 Teacher Training College Number 306 Head of Academic Affairs Department Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills Modern Languages Department Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency Teacher Trainees English as a Foreign Language English as a Second Language Intended Learning Outcomes Teaching and Learning Activities Assessment Tasks First Language Second Language General Subject Lecturer Content Subject Lecturer Type 1 Students Type 2 Students Type 3 Students Pedagogic Content Knowledge

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction The teaching and learning process of any group or level of students is always dynamic. It can change its characteristics depending on the context in which it takes place. Accordingly, the process of training teachers is also characterised by several changes dictated by the process itself and its inherent context and conditions. McLeod and Reynolds (2007, 1) contend that, “… we are teaching and learning in times of overwhelming change – changes in the way we know, changes in the way we teach and changes in what is expected of us as teachers and learners.” This being so, it is important for the lecturers at the Teachers Training Institute nr 200, henceforth TTI nr 200, to equip students with the skills they will need to cope with the changing demands of the society in general and education in particular. This research is grounded in the researcher’s 36 years’ teaching experience at different levels, especially at TTI nr 200 in Luanda where she has worked for more than 17 years. As a former student, lecturer, and supervisor, and the Head of the Department of Modern Languages, she has constantly reflected on the high dropout rates of students in this and other departments. However, she has been unable to find a plausible reason to the question regarding dropout rates she had in mind, elaborated in Table 1.1 below. She decided to undertake a study that could help find answers to this question, and also assist in finding some possible ways to improve the situation. It is her conviction that it is important to consider the quality of the lecturers available before one considers the quality of students. The discussion in this study focuses on the academic and research literacy practices of a group of teacher trainees, henceforth TTS, and lecturers in TTI nr 200. In trying to discover the reasons for the students’ failure to produce their research reports, the study also looks at the assessment procedures and the curriculum in use to see whether there is an alignment

Chapter One

2

between coursework assessment and the writing of the research reports (Biggs 1999). The following themes constitute the parameters of the discussion: ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™

Background Research questions Aims and scope of the study Rationale Significance of the study Contribution to the research knowledge Definition of key terms Outline of study, and Summary.

1.2 Background The major aim of the study is to examine the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200. Within an academic community of practice, literacy practices do not mean reading and writing habits only; these practices have a broader meaning based on social and cultural contexts (Street 1993; Ballard and Clanchy 1988).To this end, some academics suggest that literacy is best examined through looking at its social practices (Street 2007; Purcell-Gates 2007; Baynham and Prinsloo 2009). These writers view literacy as “multiple” and social, and believe that it can be best understood in the domains in which it is practiced. Focusing on the multiplicity of literacy practices means, recognising the plurality of reading and writing practices, and within different sociocultural contexts, values and practices for different purposes (Ivanic et al. 2009; Martin-Jones and Jones 2000). Therefore, it is believed that in selecting a particular group of students and examining their situated practices through a socio cultural construct, the current study should be able to identify and reconstruct the academic research literacy practices of these TTS and their lecturers. The outcomes of the research should help to uncover the main hindrances preventing TTS from concluding their research reports successfully and timeously.

Introduction

3

1.2.1 The overarching problem: the high failure rate of TTS The lack of adequate preparation at previous levels of education, and the students’ difficulties in dealing with Academic Reading and Writing, are among the many reasons for students’ high failure rates and delayed conclusions to projects. These problems are not unique to the Angolan TTS mentioned in this book. Table 1.1 below provides the statistical data of TTS’ achievements in either completion, or partial completion, of their research reports in all the subjects of specialisation. Every year, 45 new students are enrolled for each course. These figures were provided by the Head of Academic Affairs Department at the TTI nr 200, which deals with all the statistics related to students’ progress from the time they are enrolled to the end of the course. The figures in the table refer to the period from 2006 to 2011. As indicated in the table, out of the 2,250 students enrolled for five years, only 32.1% (723) succeeded in completing their research studies. Line four of the table summarises the English language TTS’ achievements for the same period. Out of 225 TTS enrolled over a period of five years, only 20% successfully finished their studies. It must be emphasised that in all the subjects, the number of students completing the research report does not include students who were expected to write their research reports in that same year. According to the Head of the Academic Affairs Department, no data is available to determine the year in which students finished their coursework. Therefore, the groups are heterogeneous and include TTS from different final academic years. The present study is the researcher’s first attempt to discover the reasons for the students’ high dropout rates and the failure of many of them to produce their research reports within the allocated time.

Chapter One

MAJORS

Philosophy French History English Mathematics Pedagogy Portuguese Psychology Sociology Total

Nr

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11

2006/7 Nr. % 13 28.8 13 28.8 8 17.7 10 22.2 2 4.4 6 13.3 31 68.8 27 60.0 8 17.7 118 26.2

2007/8 Nr. % 7 15.5 6 13.3 9 20.0 6 13.3 3 6.6 8 17.7 9 20.0 19 42.2 8 17.7 75 16.6

2008/9 Nr. % 11 24.4 9 20.0 10 22.2 6 13.3 9 20.0 7 15.5 8 17.7 29 64.4 12 26.6 101 22.4

2009/10 Nr. % 24 53.3 16 35.5 3 6.6 5 11.1 27 60.0 16 35.5 11 24.4 41 91.1 16 35.5 159 35.3

2010/11 Nr. % 15 33.3 31 68.8 15 33.3 18 40.0 30 66.6 73 162.2 7 15.5 40 88.8 15 33.3 270 60.0

Table 1.1. Figures from the Deputy Director of Academic Affairs Department (2006–11)

4

Nr. 70 75 45 45 71 110 66 156 59 723

% 31.1 33.3 20.0 20.0 31.5 48.8 29.3 69.3 26.2 32.1

Total

Introduction

5

1.3 Research Questions In terms of the problem under investigation, we decided on the following research questions. The first of these is the main one: In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report? ™ In what manners do TTI nr 200 TTS acquire academic and research literacies? ™ In what ways do TTI nr 200 TTS deploy academic and research literacy practices in the production of research reports? ™ To what extent does curriculum alignment affect the production of the research reports? (Biggs 1999). ™ In what ways do supervision practices enable and/or constrain the successful completion of research reports? In the context of this study, academic literacy can be construed as TTS’ ability to read and write within the academic context with a degree of independence, understanding and a high level of engagement with the learning (Biggs and Tang 2007). Academic literacy in this study refers to what Ballard and Clanchy (1988, 7) refer to as, “functions of and demands upon language in a particular social cultural context.”An appraisal of the students’ academic literacy practices requires an investigation into the manner students acquire and deploy the explicit and implicit conventions and methods of inquiry in their specific disciplines for the production of research reports (Leibowitz 1995, 34). An overlap becomes unavoidable with research literacy understood as the students’ ability to locate, understand, evaluate and appropriately utilise resources needed for the production of their research reports. Research literacy also involves the ability to design and successfully carry out a research project (Achilles and Dreyden 2002, 13). Table 1.2 below shows the inter-connectivity between the research questions, the aims and the data used to support the study under investigation:

6

Chapter One

Table 1.2.The relationship between the research questions, aims and methods of data collection Research questions In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report?

Aims

Method

To understand the connection between academic and research literacy practices and the completion of research reports

Interviews, document analysis of students’ research proposals, and classroom observations

(1) In what manner do TTI nr 200 students acquire academic and research literacy?

(1) To identify acquisition loci and processes as well as modes and approaches of transmission

(1) Classroom observations, interviews and survey

(2) In what ways do TTI nr 200 students deploy academic and research literacy practices in the production of research reports?

(2) To understand students’ academic and research literacy practices and identify challenges

(2) Interviews, questionnaires and document analysis of students’ research reports

(3) To what extent does curriculum alignment impact on the production of research reports?

(3) Using Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment I will check alignment within the system and investigate its impact on research report production

(4) In what ways do supervision practices enable and/or constrain the successful completion of research reports?

(4) To identify the strengths and weaknesses of supervisory practices and their impact on the production of research reports using Dysthe (2002) and Grant (2010)

(3) An examination of course content and course material will be conducted to verify the connection between coursework and research report production, together with some classroom observation and semi-structured interviews to the head of the English sector and some teachers (4) Interviews and questionnaires

Introduction

7

1.4 Aims and Scope of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the academic and research literacy practices of final year TTS at TTI nr 200, and the challenges they faced in writing their research reports. In addressing this purpose, the intention in this study is two-fold: to explore issues related to the academic writing and research literacy practices within a foreign English language teaching context and to understand the dropout of large numbers of final year students. The study also seeks to understand the reasons why some students (although very few) succeeded in producing their research reports within or before the time limit, whilst others did not. Special attention is devoted to the writing process, the perceptions of writing, and the academic and research literacy practices of students. Additionally, an examination of the whole course is conducted to investigate the connection, if any, between coursework assessment and research report production. The principal idea is to identify whether all the elements in the system are aligned by looking at them from a critical point of view, as a way of making a comparison with what was actually happening at TTI nr 200 at the time of investigating the problem, how it was happening, and what can be done to improve the situation. Biggs’s (1999) principle of constructive alignment is used as a basis to understand the situation. Therefore, the main aim of the study is: ™ To understand students’ academic and research literacy practices and identify possible challenges. The sub-aims are: ™ To identify which parts within the teaching learning system may not yet be aligned (Biggs 1999). ™ To raise all subject lecturers’ awareness of the need to expose students to more specific academic and research literacy practices and experiences. ™ To identify the strengths and weaknesses of supervisory practices and their impact on the production of research reports (Dysthe 2002; Grant 2010). This study is limited to final-year TTS in the English section of the Modern Languages Department henceforth MLD, as well as their lecturers. The study focuses primarily on the academic and research literacy practices of TTS and their lecturers within the Angolan teaching

8

Chapter One

and learning context where English is a foreign language. The high failure rates of students are of major concern. The researcher confined this study to this specific group because it was felt that this would give her a better opportunity to investigate the problem in more detail.

1.5 Rationale The study has a strategic importance within the Angolan educational context since it constitutes the first one carried out with a twofold objective. On the one hand, it looks at the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200 and the extent of the alignment between the components in the system (Biggs 1999). On the other, it looks at the assessment procedures in place to see whether there is an alignment between the assessment procedures throughout the coursework and the final assessment, which is the production of research reports. At TTI nr 200, prior to the early 1990s, students were selected from the best TTS at the training college “Escola de Formação de Professores” number 306, henceforth EFP nr 306. The teaching and learning process seemed to work well in terms of coursework, because most of the students had a basic knowledge of teaching skills. After the admission of students from other secondary institutions rather than EFP, as previously mentioned, the institution moved into a situation whereby classes are not only larger (going from 25 to 45 students), but also quite diversified in terms of students’ motivation and educational backgrounds. The institution is now enrolling students from different secondary schools regardless of the type of course they took at the previous level. As a result, it could be claimed that there are some difficulties in maintaining good teaching standards, which are translated into students’ high dropout rates in completing their studies. However, if one regards good quality teaching as, “…encouraging students to use the higher order learning processes that academic students use spontaneously,” standards need not decline (Biggs 1999, 5). As Biggs (1999) posits, depending on their attitudes towards the teaching/learning process(es), teachers (and lecturers) can create conditions which are conducive to students’ attainment of the desired academic literacy skills. According to Biggs (1999), in order to get students performing tasks that require higher order skills, teachers and lecturers need to go through a process of reflection so as to discover which parts of their work need to be improved or developed. Biggs emphasises that: “Reflection in professional practice, [contrary to reflection in a mirror], gives back not what is, but what might be, an improvement on the original” (1999, 6).

Introduction

9

Moreover, he posits that teachers and lecturers elsewhere need to be reflective practitioners to create an, “improved teaching environment suited to their own context” (1999, 2). In addition to that, Morell (2008, 222) states that: “Nothing is inevitable as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening.” He emphasises that: Contemplation is important because it forces us to think carefully about our conditions and then to think deeply about alternatives to those conditions. Once we imagine alternatives, we begin to understand the possibilities for transformation, for making the world anew, even if in our cases we are talking about the world of the classroom.

If one looks at the academic and research literacy practices as complex and contextually situated, there are issues that need to be addressed separately because of the complexities of each and every context like the one under study. Therefore, the researcher sees herself as playing an important role within the institution by trying to ascertain the existing situation and discern possible ways to promote academic growth and teacher development among English as a Foreign Language students (EFL), TTS, and lecturers in the Modern Languages Department, and perhaps in other departments and institutions, too.

1.5.1 Significance of the Study There is a lot of research in second and foreign language teaching and learning. Nevertheless, most of the research in the field has been by lecturers and educators who do not share the same educational backgrounds, experiences and cultures of the students. These educators, most of the time, have taught English or French either as second or foreign languages, for quite long periods. Therefore, they have some experience in the field but lack some background knowledge compared to the local lecturers. Thus, a study like this one is of significant importance if one takes into account the researcher’s accumulated experience as a student, a teacher, a lecturer, a teacher trainer, a supervisor and a novice researcher. As a student, it took her more than two years to complete her research report due to changing supervisors. As a teacher she has a lot of accumulated experience regarding some of the problems in teaching and learning at all levels of education. As a lecturer and teacher trainer she has always been conscious about the problems that students might face in their studies and tried to help them when possible. As a supervisor and reflective practitioner, she has discussed this problem with other lecturers

10

Chapter One

and supervisors within the institution, but has not found a good solution. As a novice researcher, she is researching an area where she is still facing problems of various types. This particular aspect makes this research to some extent original within the Angolan context, because although the problem might not be new, it is being analysed from a different perspective. The researcher does understand that the problem is common to other institutions in the country and perhaps internationally, and therefore students in different areas of professionalisation would need different kinds of support in the academic and research literacy practices. However, there will always be areas in academic and research literacy practices that are quite similar to all students regardless of what the courses are and what languages they are using. Hence, this study can be replicated in other institutions and other contexts of a similar type to provide information about the views and practices of other lecturers working with students in and outside the classroom.

1.5.2 Contributions to the Research Knowledge The main focus of this study is the academic and research literacy practices of TTS. However, one cannot look at the research supervision practices (the effect) without first looking at the teaching/learning practices (the cause). Students who are incapable of writing their research reports have been through a four-year period of learning, which means that at the final stage of their courses they should be able to apply in practice what they have learnt in this period of coursework. In other words, research report writing should be viewed as part of the four-year learning process and not an extra and difficult task. It is this task (the production of the research report) that gives a way to students to get the final product, which is the Honours degree. However, in reality the majority of the students are simply not equipped to write them. Therefore, instead of looking at only research supervision practices, a searching look at what is happening in classrooms is essential to understand completely what needs to be changed in the teaching and learning process so that future students are not faced with a myriad of problems in writing their research reports. Thus, a move was made to analyse the academic and research literacy practices being used at TTI nr 200, departing from the point of view that each and every institution functions within a particular context. Every organisation has its own norms, regulations, culture, sets of conventions, and modes of expression (Biggs 1999).

Introduction

11

The results of this research can be compared to other similar studies in the field, in contexts which, although different in the type of course, require students to go through a process of research report writing in order to get the degree, and will help improve the quality of teaching and supervisory practices not only at TTI nr 200 in Luanda, but also at other higher institutions countrywide. It is intended that the results from this research will to some extent be genuine and, therefore, be published with two main objectives: (1) to serve as a resource for further research of the same type; (2) to promote change at all institutions of the same type. The findings of this research will also help raise decision makers’ awareness of the need to take some actions and change the teaching and learning practices required in the four years of coursework, leading to an improvement in the quality and production of students’ research reports. In so doing, they will be saving time, money, students’ and lecturers’ mental efforts, and avoid students’ frustration and de-motivation. Therefore, although the sample for the research might be relatively small, the findings in this study will raise other researchers’ awareness of the need to look at research literacy practices with “magic lenses,” always taking into account that the way we teach and assess our students, and our attitudes to the teaching/learning process, will have a strong influence on the way we supervise our students and on research standards. We believe that this study can be replicated at institutions of the same type and we presume that more research will take place with regard to the supervisory practices at the honours level. In fact, most of the research done in this field has placed emphasis on supervising Masters or PhD students (Belcher 1994; Hockey 1996; Deuchar 2008), when in our humble opinion it should be more concerned with the group of students who, in order to conclude their studies, apart from the ongoing assessment tasks throughout the course, need to complete a lengthy piece of writing to receive a degree and enter a new academic community of research practice and production. This is what makes the latter group of students different from others.

1.6 Definition of Key Concepts The definition of concepts starts from the key concepts in the study such as: literacy, academic literacy, research literacy, and constructive alignment. Other key concepts are defined as they appear in the text.

12

Chapter One

™ Literacy When people talk about literacy they are implicitly talking about reading and writing as central aspects of literacy; therefore, literacy is viewed as a learnt ability from formal education, which resides in people’s heads and which facilitates logical thinking and active participation in the roles of modern society (Hyland 2002, 53). Baynham (1995, 1) offers a broader conception of literacy: “Investigating literacy as practice involves investigating literacy as concrete human activity, not just what people do with literacy, but also what they make of what they do, the values they place on it and the ideologies that surround it.” Street (1995) emphasises the complexity of literacy and argues from a social point of view that there is no single or dominant literacy—what exists is a wide variety of practices relevant to and appropriate for particular times, places, participants and purposes, and those practices constitute an integral part of the individual identity and the social relationships among specific community members (Street 2007; Purcell-Gates 2007; Baynham and Prinsloo 2009). Barton and Hamilton (1998, 7) provide a useful summary of what literacy as social practice means: ™ Literacy as social practice x Literacy is a set of social practices that can be inferred from written texts. x There are different literacies associated with different domains of life. x Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some literacies are more dominant, visible and influential than others. x Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in wider social goals and practices. x Literacy practices change through informal learning and sensemaking. x Literacy is specific to particular historical times.(Barton and Hamilton 1998, 7). The social role of literacy shows how complex the meaning of writing can be, as people can take different roles and identities in different literacy events. It also shows that writing can be situated in unequal social relationships of generation or gender within the home or community (Street 2007; Baynham and Prinsloo 2009).

Introduction

13

™ Academic literacy It is generally believed that language is not simply a neutral carrier of our understandings but is fundamentally implicated in the construction of meaning. Reading and writing are basic educational resources for constructing our relationships with others and for understanding our experience of the world, and as such they are centrally involved in the ways we negotiate meaning, and construct and change our understanding of our communities and ourselves. Leki (2007) defines academic literacies as constituting, “membership in communities of academic readers and writers,” and goes on to relate academic literacies to the activity of the interpretation and production of academic- and discipline-based text, often within important social contexts such as group work projects or written reports, which rely profoundly on students’ experience with the text. However, TTS at TTI nr 200 seem to be facing problems in adapting themselves to the new dominant literacy, with its own norms, nomenclature, sets of conventions and modes of expression, which are dictated by the new academic community (Bartholomae 1986b). Every time a student sits down to write for us, s/he has to invent the university for the occasion—invent the university, that is, or a branch of it, like History or Anthropology or Economics or English. S/he has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding, and arguing that defines the discourse of our community. (Bartholomae 1986, 4)

Because academic ability is frequently evaluated in terms of students’ competence in a given written register, TTS sometimes find it very difficult to produce their own writing practices and then see them marginalised and regarded as useless and meaningless by their lecturers. As a result, fear creates a lack of motivation to produce texts approximate to the ones required within the academic community (Bartholomae 1986a).

™ Research literacy Research is generally defined as a detailed study of something in order to discover new facts, especially in a university or scientific institution (Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners 2002, 1204). Research literacy involves the ability to design and successfully carry out a research project (Achilles and Dreyden 2002, 6). Research Literacy is generally considered as part of academic literacy because its core function is the ability to engage critically with academic texts and produce a specific type of academic text, i.e. a research report, a dissertation or a

14

Chapter One

thesis. In this study, research literacy is understood as the ability to design and carry out research as well as the ability to successfully produce academically acceptable texts.

1.7 Outline of the Study This study addresses an existing problem, which is the failure of TTS at a TTI nr 200 in Angola to complete the required end-of-course research report within the allocated time. Beginning from the actual situation, the thesis focuses on three aspects of completion in time, which are: (i) academic and research literacy practices; (ii) approaches to teaching and learning; and (iii) curriculum alignment (Biggs 1999). Thus, in addition to seeking a solution to the current problem that is not unique to the institution, which is the research site, the study aims to develop new theoretical informed understandings of academic and research literacy practices in relation to teaching and learning at this level of specialisation, and also open the way to further research possibilities. The study consists of seven chapters. Chapter One begins with the provision of some background to the study and presents the research questions, the rationale and scope of the study, as well as the significance of the study and possible contributions to the research knowledge. It concludes with definitions of some key terms and an outline of the study, followed by a summary of the chapter. Chapter Two serves as an advance organiser of the thesis. It provides some background information about the Angolan educational system in general, and a description of the institution (TTI nr 200), with special emphasis on the students’ origins and backgrounds, the lecturers, course components, resources availability as well as the assessment procedures being used. The chapter aims at giving the reader the general context of the teacher training course by showing its aims and constraints. The literature review is presented and discussed in Chapter Three. Three different approaches to teaching writing are presented and discussed, namely the traditional, the progressive and the genre theory, and Richard’s (1996, 2) six teaching orientations for teaching writing to second language learners(L2) and English as a foreign language (EFL) students are presented and discussed. These orientations are contrasted and compared in relation to the teaching context at TTI nr 200. Chapter Four presents and discusses the conceptual framework underlying this study, which is framed within the postmodern qualitative paradigm. The main theory underlying this study is Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment and the 3P Model, together with Cummins’s

Introduction

15

(1996) differentiation between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills(BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP); Lea and Street’s (2006) Academic Literacy; Grant’s (2010) Map for Supervision; and Dysthe’s (2002) Models of Supervision. The research methodology is discussed in Chapter Five and the selected research approach is discussed and justified, together with the research instruments. Issues relating to the validity and confidentiality as well as generalisability of the research findings are also discussed with regards to their strengths and weaknesses. The thematic approach to data analysis is also explained. Chapter Six focuses on the presentation, discussion and analysis of data. Data are presented and discussed under the same categories as included in the data collection process. The discussion concerns respondents’ ideas and opinions about their life experiences, and the way they see the phenomena around them. Chapter Seven presents the responses to the research questions and a reflection on the results arrived at from Chapter Six. The reflection is based on the following research statements that were derived from the research questions: ™ TTI nr 200 students’ acquisition of academic and research literacy practices. ™ TTI nr 200 students’ deployment of academic and research literacy skills in the production of the research reports. ™ Curriculum alignment and the way it affects the production of the research reports. ™ The impact of supervision practices on completion of the research reports. The reflection is conceptualised according to the main findings that emerged from the discussion and analysis in Chapter Six. The explanation of the above statements framed the researcher’s understanding of what the data portrayed. It helped to evaluate Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment and the 3PModel and suggest an improved version the “4PModel” as a contribution to the research knowledge. The last chapter, Chapter Eight, provides a broader view through a summary of the whole study followed by the conclusions and some recommendations. The limitations of the study are addressed and some suggestions for future research are presented.

16

Chapter One

1.8 Summary This chapter has provided an advanced organiser to the research about the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200. The study seeks to understand why the majority of students, especially English language TTS, fail to complete their research reports after successfully concluding the four-year coursework, and why some of them, although, very few manage to achieve this within the set time limit. In so doing, it tries to find some possible solutions to the problem. A rationale for study was provided as well as an illumination of the ways in which the current study may contribute to research knowledge, especially in the field of academic and research literacy acquisition within a foreign language learning environment. It is a common complaint at TTI nr 200 that lecturers of other disciplines leave the burden of teaching academic literacies to content subject lecturers. This study provides some measures to solve students’ problems with academic and research literacy practices. Therefore, some key concepts such as literacy, academic and research literacy, and literacy as power are clarified, and the chapter ends by giving an overview of the thesis followed by a short summary of the chapter. Due to the specificity of the research participants who are EFL TTS, it was felt that the provision of an overview of the contextual background to the study would help the readers understand and position themselves in the discussion. The next chapter provides the background knowledge to the study.

CHAPTER TWO CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Introduction Angola is a multilingual country, in which more than 20 local languages are spoken. Unfortunately, no local languages were taught at schools during the colonial period. Although the language in education policy might favour the teaching of local languages from primary School onwards, this institutional objective is still far from being achieved. For most of the students, Portuguese is the second language (L2) and English their third language (L3) or foreign language (FL). In Angola, Portuguese is the medium of instruction (MOI) at all levels of schooling except for the teaching of English and French as optional languages or languages of specialisation. The teaching of English and French as optional languages starts in Grade 7. In this study, English is referred to as a foreign language. Before independence in 1975, English, French and German were taught at schools, but not many people had access to education before then. The local languages were simply ignored, even forbidden at schools. After independence, the language policy remained the same with a special emphasis on English, because of the need to communicate with people from most of the neighbouring African countries. English is the official language in most of these countries. French was given less importance, but it continues to be taught at all levels of education. The teaching of these two subjects at secondary schools did not stop owing to their importance in the international arena. English became more relevant with the independence of the neighbouring African countries where English was the official language, especially Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, and also with development aid from the British government (1990–8). The new Angolan educational system was introduced in 2005 but it does not differ much from the post-independence educational system. One of its innovations was the introduction of the teaching of local languages. However, it has been difficult to implement this project because of the diversity of local languages. At University level, some changes were introduced regarding the teaching of local languages. At TTI nr 200, for

18

Chapter Two

instance, a course in teaching African languages and African literature is now being taught. For an outline of the Angolan educational system see Appendix B.

2.2 Background to the study As previously stated, the discussion in this study focuses on the academic and research literacy practices of a group of TTS at TTI nr 200 with special emphasis on the difficulties they experience in writing their research proposals and reports. Thus, particular reference is made to the academic and research literacy practices used by these TTS when undertaking research and writing their final research reports. At TTI nr 200, TTS are required to complete an academically approved research study successfully. In addition, they are required to produce a research report of 45–60 pages. However, very few of them manage to accomplish this task. Having studied and faced similar problems at TTI nr 200, as a lecturer, a supervisor, a reflective practitioner and as the Head of Department for Modern Languages, I could not remain indifferent to flaws in the teacher training and learning programmes. Therefore it is hoped that this study will succeed in discovering ways of minimising the challenges faced by students not only in producing their research reports (supervision practices), but also throughout the four years of coursework (teaching practice sessions).

2.3 The Origins, Location, and Development of the Teacher Training Institute nr 200 The TTI nr 200 is the only post-secondary teacher training institution in Angola. It caters for teacher training at all levels of education in the country. During the political turmoil that characterised the arrival of independence in 1975, the vast majority of Portuguese teachers left the country and went back to Portugal. The educational system had to manage with very few Angolan trained teachers, most of whom had been teaching at primary schools. In 1977, the Portuguese Educational System was replaced by the National Educational System. The TTI nr 200 was therefore created with the main purpose of supporting all the teachers who at that time needed to go through an inservice training course (INSET) in order to update their qualifications. In the early 1990s, it changed its goals and now aims at training teachers for

Contextual Background

19

both "Ensino Médio" and "Pre-Universitário" (PUNIV), which are intermediate or secondary level schools. The TTI nr 200 courses started in 1980–1 in Lubango, a town in the south of Angola, and in 1988 in Luanda, the capital of the country. The course takes five years, four of which are dedicated to coursework. In their fifth year of study, TTS are supposed to produce their research reports in order to get an honours degree in education. In the formative years, the TTI nr 200 was part of the “Agostinho Neto University,” which was the only public university in Angola in the early 1980s. In 2009 the TTI nr 200 was officially granted the status of an independent institution. For more details of the Angolan educational system see Appendix B. Currently, there are seven teacher training institutions in seven provinces of Angola: Luanda, Huambo, Benguela, Cabinda, Uíge, Lubango, and Kwanza Sul. For the Angolan map and location of the institutions see Appendix A.

2.4 Majors and Qualification Requirements The TTI nr 200 was implemented to provide teacher training in 13 Majors: Pedagogy, Psychology, History, Philosophy, Biology, Geography, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Portuguese, French, English, and African Languages and Literature Studies. The course aims at training teachers to teach these subjects at upper secondary level schools. However, the TTI nr 200 in Luanda is only offering 10 Majors: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogy, History, Philosophy, Mathematics, African languages and Literature Studies, Portuguese, French and English. Each major requires four years of coursework, after which students are expected to produce a research report.

2.5 Origins and Backgrounds of Students and Admission Requirements TTI nr 200 was been set up to provide continuous training to students from EFP nr 306, a secondary education teacher training college with the aim of contributing to teacher development and improvement of the quality of education in Angolan schools. However, due to the shortage of students coming from EFP nr 306, and the need to cater for a wider student population, the Angolan Government decided that the TTI nr 200 should also admit students from other secondary schools. Currently, most students joining the TTI nr 200 are from various secondary institutions other than

20

Chapter Two

EFP nr 306 and, therefore, have different learning backgrounds. As Biggs and Tang (2007, 1) posit, “...in the days when university classes contained highly selected students, the lecture and tutorial seemed to work well enough. However, the increasingly drastic changes in the tertiary sector have redrawn the university scene….” One of the shortcomings of students coming from other secondary schools is a lack of English language training methodology and teaching practice, which are the core course subjects at both EFP and the TTI nr 200. Therefore, the admission of students from different learning backgrounds also seems to contribute to the hindrances to the teaching learning process at the TTI nr 200. Most of the TTS will need some extra help in order to cope with the above-mentioned main core course subjects and demands of the course because of their learning experiences from the previous levels.

2.6 The Lecturers As mentioned in the introduction of this study, at the beginning of the TTI nr 200 implementation, due to the lack of teachers many non-tertiary level teachers were asked to join the teaching team, as long as they had considerable background knowledge in the profession. Therefore, when TTI nr 200 was established very few lecturers had the necessary qualifications to teach at a tertiary level. However, the situation has improved. Nowadays, most of the lecturers hold Masters degrees and some have PhD degrees. Regarding the Modern Languages Department, the English section has five lecturers with PhD degrees. It is expected that one more lecturer will graduate soon. The English section in Luanda is therefore operating with ten full-time lecturers.

2.7 Teacher Trainees (TTS) The main consideration in any course description is always the students who take that course. There are a number of considerations to account for when describing the type of students. Some of the aspects are the number of students in a year group, students’ backgrounds, their language competence, attitudes and each one’s motivation. The expression “TTS” in this work is used to refer to people attending the teacher training course, who are already teaching somewhere, or to those who are doing work other than teaching. The term also refers to students who are not working.

Contextual Background

21

One of the important aspects in analysing a teacher-training course is the trainees’ starting point. Biggs (1999) refers to important details regarding students at the outset of a course. He calls these “presage” factors. These are among the prime elements recognised in Strevens (1974, 77) that should be considered in order to produce an optimum match for the training. The maximum number of students in Year 1 is 45. As time goes on, the number tends to diminish in such a way that sometimes only half of the group reach the final year (year 4). As already mentioned, students’ backgrounds are different, even though the pre-requisite to enter the course might be some communicative competence in English. It is assumed that all the students come with a positive attitude in terms of joining the course. Internal and external factors that influence the decision to register vary. However, it has been observed during the individual preadmission interviews with every individual student that they all arrive strongly motivated to do the course. It is commonly accepted that, provided that they do not have any serious psychological problems, students all want to succeed in life, particularly as they engage in coursework. Unfortunately, many aspects of the teaching and learning process can contribute towards discouraging students from wanting to learn. It is true that no one wishes to do anything that they perceive as useless. Few people want to do something that, although highly valued and useful, is extremely difficult to achieve. In either case, doing the task will almost certainly be construed as a waste of time. Students tasked with completing such tasks tend to either adopt surface approaches to learning by making the minimum effort to succeed. Alternatively, they will almost certainly give up as a result of repeated failed attempts to succeed. The common sense theory of why students do or do not want to learn is called the “expectancy-value theory of motivation” (Biggs and Tang 2007, 33). The expectancy-value theory posits that if anyone is to engage in an activity, they need to value the outcome and expect success in achieving a pre-determined goal. Expectancy-value plays an important role in the students’ academic engagement, especially at early stages of a block to work, such as at the beginning of a course “before interest has developed to carry continuing engagement along with it” (Biggs and Tang 2007). Many teacher trainees joining the English course arrive with high levels of expectancy-value. However, it has been noticed that as soon as they realise that they lack some background knowledge they start losing motivation.

22

Chapter Two

2.8 Class Size Class size is without doubt one of the greatest influences on course development. The number of students in a classroom often determines the teaching style and methodology employed. Although some attempts have been made to improve the teaching process at TTI nr 200, the dominant style has been the lecturing mode based on the traditional models of teaching. The maximum number of students per speciality class is 45. Working with 45 students in a class would not be a problem provided that the classroom is big enough to accommodate them, and sufficiently large for the lecturer to move around freely and be able to organise the class in pair or group work. However, the classrooms at TTI nr 200 are too small to accommodate45 students and this is perhaps the first constraint that lecturers face in their daily work. Therefore, they tend to stick to the lecturing mode of teaching, with the students sitting in rows one behind another, unable to move around and work differently

2.9 Teacher trainees’ Backgrounds The students’ previous general education, their EFL experience in particular, and their extra-curricular interests and pastimes are of great importance. These details constitute a very important source of information that is needed by both curriculum planners and lecturers. When TTI nr 200 courses started in 1980/81, there were at least three different groups of students: ¾ Those who had completed “Liceu” (a non-professional Upper Intermediate School that aimed at preparing students to join the university during colonial times) and had learnt some English as an optional Language. ¾ Those who attended “Liceu” but could not finish their studies before independence. ¾ Those who attended the Portuguese Primary Teacher Training course, the so-called “Magistério Primário,” with very little knowledge of English. With the implementation of the new educational system after independence in 1975, the Angolan Ministry of Education decided that TTI nr 200 should only cater for training those who had completed their

Contextual Background

23

courses at EFP. However, since there are no rules without exceptions, we now find more than one type of student at TTI nr 200, as follows: ¾ Students coming from EFP English Specialty, who have had four years of coursework and two years of Teaching Methodology and Teaching Practice. ¾ Students coming from EFP but from rather different courses, with some kind of training but not for English teaching. ¾ Students who have attended other upper intermediate schools elsewhere with no teacher training background but sometimes with a good standard of English as compared to those above. Therefore, we can see how heterogeneous the groups of students at TTI nr 200 are. This can be considered as one of the major constraints within the process of training. In most cases, they join the course with very particular objectives and interests, such as: ™ To improve their English for further studies abroad ™ To be able to get a good job or get a better post within the same job ™ To fulfil their personal dreams, such as becoming good translators or interpreters. Becoming a future teacher is therefore the last thing they think about when they join the course. Students’ attitudes to learning are oriented towards goals other than teaching. These different linguistic backgrounds and experiences as well as the different attitudes that students bring to the course seem to be make up the constraints that are hindering the course.

2.10 Course Components Course components contribute, either positively or negatively, to the results of any course. In this study, course components will be grouped into two different categories.

24

Chapter Two

Table 2.1. Course components Special Professional Components x Introduction to English Grammar x Morphology and Syntax x Phonetics and Phonology x Theories of Syntax x Presentation Skills x Academic Reading x Academic Writing x Research Methodology I, II x Introduction to Linguistic Studies x Sociolinguistics x Applied Linguistics x Psycholinguistics x Introduction to Literary Studies x African Literature x Anglo-American Literature x ELT Methodology I, II x ELT Practice I, II x Trainer Training Methodology x Curriculum Development

General Professional Components x General Psychology x Developmental Psychology x Pedagogic Psychology x Education Sociology x General Pedagogy x General Didactics x School Administration and Management x Portuguese I, II, III x French I, II, III x Information Communication Technology(ICT) x Introduction to Bantu Linguistics

Subjects considered to be special professional components are taught through the medium of English and constitute the main body of the course. Subjects considered to be general professional components are supposed to provide students with a broader general knowledge. French is the only optional language for students in the English specialty. As we can see, there is considerable exposure to the English Language. Students spend most of their time listening to English lectures. Regarding the professional components, the only subject that started from year one and continues up to year four is English Language. This is the subject in which the four language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) are supposed to be addressed to students more profoundly. However, this does not seem to be the case. The teaching of the four language skills with special reference to reading and writing at an academic level has been quite neglected. It was probably taught at a surface level only. Concerning

Contextual Background

25

the Research Methodology subject the picture seems to be the same. As a result, a great number of students have concluded their coursework and achieved successful marks but are unable to perform higher-level academic tasks such as writing the research proposal. But it is not only the content subject lecturers who are responsible for the academic development of TTS. It is also assumed that all the lecturers in the department should contribute to the academic growth of the students. Even the ELT Methodology lecturer, for example, has an important role to play by bringing into the classroom materials about reading and writing at a higher level of academic engagement. As Bolitho (1988, 23) puts it: “Teachers whose first Language is not English can themselves be classed as advanced learners of English and the way into a problem area can usefully be through an exercise for learners either one focusing on their level… or one drawn from teachers' resource books.” This means that TTS can act either as advanced learners, or as simply trainees themselves. Woodward (1988) tries to make this process clear by suggesting the “full-loop” process, in which a topic is demonstrated using content about the topic itself. For example, a dictation activity is presented by using a dictation which matches the level of the trainees and the content of which deals with teaching methodology. The following is a table showing the subjects taught in Portuguese and those taught through the medium of English. Table 2.2. Subjects taught in English and Portuguese Subjects taught in English x Introduction to English Grammar x Morphology and Syntax x Phonetics and Phonology x Theories of Syntax x Academic Speaking x Academic Reading x Academic Writing x Sociolinguistics x Psycholinguistics x Introduction to Linguistics x Applied Linguistics x Introduction to Literary Studies x African Literature

Subjects taught in Portuguese x General Pedagogy x General Psychology x Developmental Psychology x Education Psychology x Introduction to Bantu Linguistics x French I, II, III x Portuguese I, II x General Didactics x ICT x Education Sociology

26

Chapter Two

x x x x x

Anglo-American Literature Research Methodology I, II ELT Methodology I, II Trainer Training Methodology Language Curriculum Development x ELT Practice I, II x School Administration and Organisation

It is presumed that students have a lot of exposure to the language, and therefore writing a research report would be more of a problem with the academic writing and research practices and not a problem with the language. This study shows that this assumption is questionable and probably needs further investigation.

2.11 Resource Availability The provision of books for courses is essential, particularly for those which emphasise reading and writing skills. Books are of great and central importance in all education systems. In the case in question they are the determining factor in successful course development. In the MLD, students are both fortunate and unfortunate. They are fortunate to have plenty of English academic textbooks available in the Department’s library. There is also a main library in the institution containing all sorts of books ranging from magazines, articles and storybooks, to academic books and other types of readings. Even for African Literature, a new subject introduced into the curriculum in 1997–8, there is a great deal of books. Most of the English books have been provided by the English Project that functioned in Angola for more than 20 years. Some equipment, such as tape recorders, computers, a photocopier and visual aids, are also available for both lecturers and TTS. There are also two bookshops in town that sell all types of English books ranging from literature to applied linguistics, sociolinguistics to physics, and so on. On the other hand, students are unfortunate because, although there is a good resource centre, they are not making use of it. It should be emphasised that it is not the aim of this study to talk about the physical conditions such as classroom shape, size, the acoustic conditions, seating arrangements, size and weight of furniture, and other constraints that belong to this category.

Contextual Background

27

2.12 Assessment Procedures With regard to the assessment procedures the situation has changed to some extent, although it is not yet satisfactory. The most commonly used method of assessment is still the traditional test at the end of a unit or semester. In most of the subjects, lecturers tend to follow this model of testing. Very few lecturers expose students to problem-solving and decision-making situations, aspects highly relevant in the teaching learning process, especially in a teacher training course. What is interesting in this course is the fact that students are hardly asked to perform highly demanding academic tasks such as summarising a chapter or reviewing a book, aspects that would train them for the production of the research project (Cummins 1996). One cannot expect students to succeed in writing their research projects without giving them practice and supervision during the course of their studies. The problem seems to lie with the type of assessment taking place throughout the four years of coursework, mainly based on the traditional type of assessment consisting of asking students to reproduce what they have learnt. Students need to learn how to perform any given task before they are actually asked to perform it for assessment purposes. It is thought that this lack of practice and awareness of how to perform highly demanding tasks is hindering students’ progress and academic success at TTI nr 200.

2.13 Summary This chapter has presented the contextual background to the study and discussed some of the key aspects inherent in the teacher training courses at TTI nr 200, the only post-secondary Teacher Training Institution in Angola. Special emphasis was placed on the acquisition of academic and research literacies by English language TTS. TTI nr 200 was set up to provide continuous training to students from EFP nr 306, a secondary education teacher training college. However, due to the shortage of students coming from EFP, and the need to cater for a wider student population, the Angolan Government decided that the TTI nr 200 should also admit students from other secondary schools. As a result, classes at TTI nr 200 are heterogeneous with students from different learning backgrounds. With regard to lecturers’ qualifications, as previously stated, all the lecturers in the department hold MA degrees, and five out of ten have PhD degrees. The maximum number of students per class at TTI nr 200 Luanda

28

Chapter Two

is 45. There is considerable exposure to English Language because most of the subjects are taught through the medium of English. Although there is a “good” resource centre, students do not seem to be making adequate use of it. Regarding the assessment procedures, the most commonly used method of assessment is still the traditional test at the end of a unit or semester. Students are hardly ever asked to perform highly demanding academic tasks such as reacting to a text, summarising a chapter or reviewing a book (Cummins 1996). In the next chapter, some of the relevant literature that preceded this study is presented and discussed as a way of illuminating the discussion that will take place.

CHAPTER THREE LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Introduction This chapter begins by offering a broad view of studies in academic and research literacy acquisition, with special emphasis on teaching writing not just as a first but also as a second or foreign language. Since this study is concerned with students learning to write a research report and with the lecturers’ role in that learning, this chapter relates student writing to conceptualisations of learning, and includes suggestions for pedagogy with special reference to the academic and research requirements of the research report expected at TTI nr 200. The genre approach is given particular emphasis as it refocuses issues in a particularly relevant way to the research site. Hyland (2007) gives seven pedagogic orientations to teaching writing as a second language a special place in this study. Biggs’s (1999) concept of constructive alignment is presented and discussed, and finally the process of research supervision is discussed with a brief discussion on Grant’s (2010) map of supervision, and the supervision models by Dysthe (2002) are also discussed in this and the next chapter as they constitute the conceptual framework underpinning this study.

3.2 Mapping the field Academic Literacy The acquisition of academic literacy in a second (L2) or foreign language (FL) learning context is a complex and challenging process. The process requires that students, conscious and/or unconsciously, come to terms with new ways of making sense of academic literacy practices that may be below their level of expressing their own ideas and opinions. In addition, the same students might be further challenged by the limited control they have over the language, which represents both an important linguistic resource for their studies and a form of power. Thus, for the English language TTS at TTI nr 200, whose medium of literacy acquisition is English, the acquisition of academic literacy should be analysed from the

30

Chapter Three

existing perspectives to see how they can contribute to the understanding of the problem being researched. It must be acknowledged that there have been different perspectives with regard to academic literacy acquisition, namely the feminist poststructuralist view, the poststructuralist view, the post colonialist view, Canagarajah’s (2002) concept of local knowledge construction and imagination together with Wenger’s (1998) view of imagination. For the poststructuralists, literacy acquisition is seen as a process of identity and reconstruction (Barton, Hamilton and Ivanic 2000; Collins and Blot 2003; Erdreich and Rapoport 2002; Gee 1996; 2000; Street 1984; 1993). Erdreich and Rapoport (2002) conducted a study of identity and schooling among Palestinian Israeli female college students, and found that even though students may feel excluded from the dominant academic discourse and challenged by new ways of knowing, they uniquely construct academic knowledge by drawing on their lived and living knowledge and experience. They also found that students use new literacy skills to explore and articulate their own ethno-national identities. Reasoned in the same way, Morita (2002) conducted a qualitative case study of graduate students in a TTSOL program and brought to light some of the conflicting aspects that could hinder students’ progress in the L2 academic discourse socialisation. The study provides a rich account of how L2 graduate students’ identities and power are negotiated and reconstituted while participating in academic communities of practice. These two studies suggest that the acquisition of academic L2 literacy is not a unilateral process of socialisation but requires, “the adoption of radically different perspectives” (Kutz, Groden, and Zamel 199629) that leads to the reconstruction and extension of embodied knowledge and learner perspectives (Canagarajah 2002; Spack 1997). Canagarajah’s (2002) concept of local knowledge explains what it takes to acquire and make sense of new academic discourse in a second or foreign language. A great contribution was also provided by Wenger (1998). The telegram was an example of course content attempting to facilitate the smooth process of academic literacy tuition and practice. Wenger defines imagination as, “a process of expanding our self by transcending our time and space and creating new images of the world and ourselves.”He posits that: Throughout imagination, we can locate ourselves in the world and in history, and include in our identities other meanings, other possibilities and other perspectives. It is through imagination that we recognize our own experience as reflecting broader patterns, connections, and configurations. It is through imagination that we see our own practices as

Literature Review

31

continuing histories that reach far into the past, and it is through imagination that we conceive of new developments, explore alternatives, and envision possible futures … imagination can make us consider our own position with new eyes. By taking us into the past and carrying us into the future, it can recast the present and show it as holding unsuspected possibilities. (1998, 178)

The understanding of imagination helps to examine how L2 students engage in academic disciplinary knowledge as well as the way they position themselves in relation to their academic communities. There have also been some empirical studies in the field of academic literacy acquisition; for example, in an unpublished study, Younghee Her, a Korean student, conducted an in-depth, longitudinal case study based on auto-ethnography and ethnography to investigate her own and two Korean colleagues’ experiences with academic L2 literacy. Ellis and Buchner (2000) reported on their experiences with students from different cultural backgrounds enrolled in an American graduate program. In another study, the Department of English for Quality Teaching and Learning Fund reports on academic literacy practices of university science in Cape Town, South Africa, where students were asked to report regularly on their academic literacy practices, as well as the linguistic difficulties and challenges they faced and the strategies they employed to overcome them. One of the main conclusions of that study was that English courses should provide students with the opportunities to reflect on concepts such as audience and purpose to enable them to assess new communicative contexts and evaluate the gender and practices that are specific to those contexts. At the University of Witwatersrand, for example, research related to academic literacy acquisition is in place, and examples follow. Dison (1989) has analysed various approaches to teaching writing to ESL students in South Africa. Linington (2003) made a critique of the process and genre approaches to the teaching of writing and proposed an approach combining both. Leibowitz (1995) has extensively researched academic writing and the concepts of imagination and imaginative writing from the teachers’ points of view. The feminist poststructuralist view of identity, as discursive production and agency, illuminates how identities may be both discursively imposed as well as chosen, and how agency is activated. Second, the poststructuralist view of the inter-relationship between literacy practices and identity construction is useful for exploring the dynamics of literacy, power, and identity. Third, the postcolonial concept of “emotional colonialism” explains the unconscious mindset that constitutes subject

32

Chapter Three

positions and therefore has an impact on the way we engage in new academic discourses. Finally, the notion of local knowledge helps to not only better understand the social and historical construction of imagination but also the way that imagined identities are contested, negotiated, and reshaped when L2 learners manoeuvre within a range of competing academic discourses. It can be concluded that much has been written regarding academic literacy acquisition within a second or foreign language environment. However, it must be recognised that the context under investigation has its own particularities and characteristics and therefore deserves special attention. Ballard and Clanchy (1988) compare literacy to “beauty.” To them, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder and therefore the meanings attached to the concept of academic literacy are diverse and complex. The complexity of academic literacy practices derives from the poststructuralist literacy theorists’ view that sees literacy practices as particularly situated practices of reading and writing within society, involving people’s values, attitudes, and beliefs about literacy and its discourses (Barton, Hamilton, and Ivanic 2000; Collins and Blot 2003; Street 1984; 1993). As with other human activities, literacy practices structure social relations. Those social relations are built into literacy practices that make literacy inherently political and ideological, resulting in broader social relations involving dimensions such as identity, class, race, and gender. Street (1984, 8) asserts that, “literacy can only be known to us in forms which already have political and ideological significance.”Similarly, Gee (1996, 132) points out that social power relations within discourses set people apart from one another by categorising, “who is an insider and who isn’t, often, who is normal and who isn’t, often too many other things as well.” In a language use and child socialisation study, Heath (1983) demonstrates how schooled discourses serve to screen out some groups of students from one social class while promoting others from other classes. To sum up, the study of academic and research literacy practices constitutes a never-ending process, and therefore, in each and every study related to this topic, researchers need to position themselves and delimit the scope of their studies. This suggests that the present study is just an introduction to the topic, taking into account that the population investigated shares the same culture and educational background as the researcher. In other words, both TTS and lecturers have experienced the same difficulties in their studies, although at different moments in time. This prompts us to think that perhaps what need to be deeply examined are the social power relations between students and lecturers in order to see in more detail what really happens in the classrooms and feedback

Literature Review

33

supervisory meetings during the process of research report writing. As a result, it should be possible to determine whether the relationship between students could be influenced by those power relations. In the following part of this work, conceptions and perspectives on writing are grouped under five headings, which together represent a broad map of conceptualisations of writing informing the later discussion of teaching and learning pedagogy and research writing in different ways: (i) Writing as expressive (ii) Writing as a linguistic object (iii) Writing as contextualised; brings in power (iv) Social practice-power (v) Genre theory. Each of the above perspectives on writing incorporates differences of emphasis and modulations. Genre (v) is given particular emphasis as it brings together and relates to (i), (ii) and (iii) in a wider context. (I)

Writing as expressive

For the expressivist view (Elbow 1998; Murray 1985), writing is seen as a creative act of discovery in which the process is as important as the product; writing is learnt not taught, and lecturers should be non-directive and facilitating writers to make their own meanings through an encouraging and cooperative environment. Writing is also seen as a nonlinear, exploratory and generative process, whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to “approximate meaning” (Zamel 1983, 165). To them, writing is a cognitive process (Emig 1983; Zamel 1983). (II)

Writing as linguistic object

A weakness of the expressive approach is that writing as a linguistic object may be neglected, and so too may the different kinds of texts/genres that students need to produce. Also problematic may be the debates about the theory of language that should be used in writing, e.g. conventional grammar or functional linguistics (for example EFL, which draws on Halliday [1994]). However, language in the form of text is undoubtedly socially and culturally situated, and as some theorists posit it has to be, “constituted, deconstructed, reconstructed, produced and reproduced” (Fairclough 2001; Wodak and Meyer 2001; van Dijk 2001).

34 (III)

Chapter Three Writing as contextualised

However, new rhetoric studies have given more emphasis to contextual features and assumptions and to the use of particular forms used by particular communities (Bazerman 1997, 323). Knowledge of the social context that gives life to texts is seen as being more important than the formal patterns in them. Writing is seen as a situated act (Nystrand1989). For example, it is seen as a social act that can only occur within a specific situation and is influenced by the personal attitudes and social experiences that the writer brings to writing, as well as the particular socio-cultural and institutional contexts in which it takes place. Nystrand (1989) does not develop the notion of audience; however, the idea is implicit in his view that: “The process of writing is a matter of elaborating text in accord with what the writer can reasonably assume that the reader knows and expects…” (Hyland 2002, 34). The writer is now seen as a member of a given community. In order to understand a text fully we must go beyond the decisions of individual writers and explore the regularities of a given community’s practices. Brufee (1986) states that the ways we think, and the categories and concepts we use to understand the world, are, “all language constructs generated by knowledge communities and used by them to maintain coherence” (Hyland 2002, 41). Consequently, writing should be viewed as a social interactive process and not simply a cognitive and individual skill. In other words, writing may be produced individually but it is formed within social contexts to serve specific social needs (Butt et al. 2000). Writing as a pedagogic process is the combination of a number of activities (setting goals, generating ideas, organising information, making various drafts, reading and reviewing, revising and editing).Hedge (2000, 302) maintains that, “writing [in an academic way] is neither easy nor spontaneous for many second and foreign language writers. Therefore, writing should be viewed as a complex and never complete process rather than as a mere product (Emig1983b; Zamel1987). (IV)

Social practice-power and ideology

As a human activity, literacy practices are based on social relations. This means that literacy is inherently political and ideological and caught up with broader social concerns involving such dimensions of identity as class, race, and gender (Street 1984, 12). Street (Ibid. 8) asserts that, “literacy can only be known to us in forms which already have political and ideological significance.” Similarly, Gee (1996, 132) postulates that

Literature Review

35

social power relations within discourses set people apart from one another by categorising, “who is an insider and who isn’t, often, who is normal and who isn’t, often too many other things as well.” In a language use and child socialisation study, Heath (1983) demonstrates how schooled discourses serve to screen out some groups of students from one social class while promoting others from other classes. The working of power relations in schooled discourses is best examined using the notion of marchioness (Bucholtz and Hall 2003). Bucholtz and Hall (Ibid. 3), define markedness as, “the hierarchical structuring of difference.” The working of power relations in schooled discourses constitutes a huge area of enquiry and therefore should be studied separately, not in this study. (V)

Genre theory

Writing research has given some evidence of the need to expose students to and practice with various genres in addition to narrative writing (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987; Martin 1989; Perera 1984). Genre-based pedagogies have been applied in a variety of ways and educational contexts, and proponents of the genre school agree in principle on the social mission of the movement, i.e. that students from marginalised social groups need to have access to the discourses or genres of power, and that an explicit pedagogy of those genres is required. However, there have been some divergent opinions along linguistic and pedagogical lines (Cope and Kalantzis 1993). What follows is an account of the three main paradigms to teaching writing and their relevance within this study.

3.3 Traditional Approaches to Teaching and learning The traditional approaches of literacy teaching and learning place the teacher at the centre of the teaching/learning process and are based on the transmission model, where students are required to reproduce the knowledge transmitted by the teacher. One example of the use of the transmission model in the classroom is the “product approach to writing.”Crucial to this literacy pedagogy is the emphasis on the composed product rather than on the composing process. Teaching is based on guided composition where no context is needed but for a few skills, mainly the ability to call up learnt structures. Interpretation is then left out of the beliefs and knowledge writers assume readers will possess (Sperber and Wilson 2001). Young (1978, 31) and Silva (1990, 33) present the main characteristics of these approaches:

36

Chapter Three

™ Analysis of discourse into words, sentences and paragraphs ™ Strong concern with usage (syntax, spelling, punctuation) and with style. The product approach to writing is based on a sequence of events that take place until the final product is achieved. Of these events, planning is regarded as a prerequisite to accomplishing the task. It is argued that this stage consists of predicting and resolving the problems that students may encounter in the task (Dison 1989). Thereafter, the content is suggested and put into a pre-existing outline. Such an approach to writing, according to Grabe and Kaplan (1996, 30), has a very limited tradition of composition teaching and emphasises,” correct usage, correct grammar, and correct spelling,” focusing on the topic sentence, the various methods of developing the paragraph, and the text division (introduction, body, conclusion). This scenario can be found in many TTI nr 200 classrooms. Generally speaking, students joining TTI nr 200 come with little or no experience at all in academic writing matters—not only in English, but also in Portuguese. In this context, a writing syllabus that focuses initially on grammar usage and spelling would be acceptable. However, it is often assumed that once students have mastered the surface features of the language, they should be able to compose written work on their own. Conversely, this is not always a straightforward process. As a result, when students are asked to write assignments their final product always comprises verbatim copies of different sources without acknowledgement, resulting in plagiarism (Angelil-Carter 1998). Angelil-Carter goes further, arguing that plagiarism is evidence that students have not yet been initiated into the academic writing discourse. Zamel (1987, 267) posits that: “methods that emphasise form and correctness ignore how ideas get explored through writing and fail to teach students that writing is essentially a process of discovery.” In fact, students’ awareness of how to approach writing tasks is an important factor in the process of developing and using academic writing skills. Such knowledge helps students understand their interaction with the task in hand and the resulting product is in itself evidence of the conscious effort that the students have gone through to achieve the required goal. Hence the need for transition to a more learner-centred approach to teaching writing, the progressive approach to teaching and learning

Literature Review

37

3.4 Progressive Approaches to Teaching and Learning In contrast to the traditional approaches, progressive approaches are learner-centred. The learner is encouraged to learn by undertaking the task with the teacher acting as a facilitator, rather than the knowledge expert. Progressive approaches are primarily concerned with creating opportunities for students to communicate meanings by using topics that they are interested in, rather than impressing the rules of what is correct. The process approach to writing is an example of a progressive approach to teaching and learning. For the proponents of this approach, writing is seen as a “non-linear” process (Emig 1983). Adopting a casestudy approach, Emig (1983) found for different purposes that while composing, students displayed a range of behaviours that indicated the non-linear nature of writing. His findings revealed that, like first-language skilled writers, second-language (L2) skilled writers exhibited “recursiveness” in their writing. The students’ engagement in the interchangeable tasks of planning, writing, rewriting and revising a text helps them explore, generate and reformulate ideas. This process helps students to approximate meaning (Zamel 1987). Schaughnessy (1977, 234) posits that rather than being the development of some preconceived and well-formed ideas, writing is the, “record of an idea developing. It is a process whereby an initial idea gets extended and refined….” Similarly, Jones (1982) investigated the written products and processes of two writers, one of whom he designated as “poor” and the other “good,” concluding that while “poor” writers rely on the information provided by the text at the expense of their own ideas, “good” writers allow their ideas to generate the text. His main conclusion was that lack of writers’ competence in composing was the main source of difficulty in writing rather than a lack of second-language linguistic competence. Perhaps this is the problem that the TTS at my site are currently facing. Like Jones (1982), Zamel (1983) found that competence in the composing process was more important than linguistic competence. They both postulate that the ability to compose academic texts such as an essay or research report requires explicit teaching, and this might be what participants need. The absence of explicit teaching may confine students to language uses such as those observed in informal settings; that is, in everyday conversation as “the conversation aspects of language proficiency” (Ellis 1990). The process approach views academic writing as creative process where teachers’ roles are to engage students in the task through discussion,

38

Chapter Three

drafting, revision, feedback and informed choices. Feedback plays an important role in the process approach to writing, and, “assessment procedures which only yield scores or grades do not adequately fulfil the needs of classroom based assessment. They may be useful in establishing norms and in clarifying whether standards are being met” (Hedge 2000, 385). Therefore, in order for teachers to get a better understanding of their students’ personal development, the provision of constant feedback is necessary. In addition, Keh (1990) discusses three types of feedback: peer evaluation, conferences (i.e. teacher-student interaction), and written comments (by the teacher). By the same reasoning, Renandya (2005) suggests three types of feedback that are quite similar to the abovementioned. They are “self-response,” whereby students react to their own work. This type of feedback encourages students to be self-sufficient and independent. It is a step towards building students’ autonomy. “Peer response” is another type in which students provide feedback to their peers and share their writings in a non-frightening atmosphere. However, because EFL students lack language competence, teachers must guide and control the activity. Kroll (2001, 252) suggests the use of a checklist with some typical questions, such as: What is the main purpose of the paper? Have all the answers been answered? What do you find particularly effective in the paper? The third type of feedback is “teacher response.” The teacher is the last person to respond to students’ written work. Teachers can gradually employ self and peer response in their classrooms so that students get used to it on one hand, while on the other they can lighten the teachers’ load, especially in large classrooms. The one-to-one conversation between the teacher and the student is normally called conferencing (Kroll 2001), and it is an effective way of providing student feedback. According to Kroll (2001, 259), one advantage of conferencing is that it, “allows the teacher to uncover potential misunderstandings that the student might have about prior written feedback on issues in writing that have been discussed in class.” From the academic writing point of view, the above two approaches have the advantage of drawing students’ attention to the constant need to draft and revise, thus encouraging them to be more responsible for making improvements to their writing. After all, academic writing involves the presentation and manipulation of one’s ideas, and this can be better achieved through process writing. Some research has been conducted to investigate the composing processes that students use while writing their research reports or papers

Literature Review

39

(Shaw 1991; Zamel 1983). Using interviews, Shaw (1991) conducted a survey of the composing techniques of overseas postgraduate students, and found that students benefit more from practice in co-authoring, and from getting feedback from their colleagues. They also benefit more from practice writing on their subject rather than on more general topics. This is to say that the process approach to writing not only applies to teaching writing in the classroom but also to students’ research report writing, where variations of the structure such as preliminary ideas, outline, getting started, pre-writing activities, writing the first draft, revising, editing, and proofreading can be adopted.

3.5 Genre Theory The Genre Theory is a movement that presents a reaction to the process approach to writing, led by some Australian theorists like Martin (1989), Christie (1985), and Kress (1997). Genre theorists cast doubt on the socalled “non-linear” practice in process writing consisting of drafting and revising interchangeably and editing. They feel that such a practice could take students’ attention from the normal aspects of writing and problem solving required by different genres of writing. Exposing students to different genres and involving them in tasks to perform them are just as good to L1 students as to L2 students. Asking students to write a lot in English will not definitely provide them with sufficient practice and awareness in the different types valued for academic writing. Genres are “abstract socially recognised ways of using language” (Martin 1993). When we write we follow certain conventions for organising messages because we want our readers to recognise our social purposes. Genres vary from shopping lists to book reviews. There is a great deal of literature on the structures of many written professional and academic genres in English. Hyland (2002, 19) presents some of them: ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™

Abstracts (Hyland 2000) Business response letters (Ghadessy 1993) Corporate mission statements (Swales and Rodgers 1995) Discussion sections of research articles (Dubois 1997) Grant proposals (Connor andMauranen1999) Method sections of research articles (Paul and Charne 1995) Results sections of research articles (Bret 1994) Sales letters (Bhatia 1993) Theses (Bunton 1998; Dudley-Evans 1993).

40

Chapter Three

To the genre theorists, genre-literacy teaching represents a new educational paradigm that involves being explicit about the way language works to make meaning. It incorporates a balance between form and process in a functional approach to writing development. The focus on the functions of language use, it is believed, accounts for the cognitive and social influences of writing, which are realised through the generic forms of texts that students are exposed to (Grabe and Kaplan 1996). The genre movement emerged out of a social mission to provide equitable access to students, especially those who did not come from mainstream cultures, to the “privileged” genres and “cultures of power.” Since the 1980s, researchers have been concerned with the use of written language in elementary classrooms, and this research goes beyond simply describing the situations and features of the language to proposing strategies and methods that would enhance student performance in various situations at an acceptable level. Some other researchers (Christie 1992; Martin 1989), however, have argued for the relevance of language form and structure as an integral part of meaningful teaching of language use, and this view is now seen as increasingly more important in L2 language teaching situations, such as that at TTI nr 200. TTS at TTI nr 200 would probably have been included in this category because most of them come from educational backgrounds with little or no academic literacy practices. Even students whose medium of instruction is Portuguese could have been included in this category for the same reason. In fact, one would contend that some students may need explicit teaching to access a range of genres. “The primary focus should be on academic discourse genres and the range of academic writing tasks, aimed at helping to socialise the student into the academic context” (Jordan 1997, 166). The types of genres that TTI nr 200 TTS are expected to become familiar with and produce are exam answers, book reviews, reports, essays, research papers and articles, research proposals and finally research reports. Each of these obviously has its own format, style and various conventions that need to be addressed in the classroom. The genre-based approach in the classroom is represented and illustrated in Martin’s (1993) “Wheel Model.” This offers a framework for thinking of the stages and activities involved in learning to write academically. This model was first implemented in disadvantaged schools in Sidney and is divided into three phases: modelling, joint negotiation construction, and independent construction of a text (Cope and Kalantzis 1993).

Literature Review

41

Fig. 3.1. The wheel model of genre literacy and pedagogy

Source: Cope and Kalantzis (1993)

Each stage in the above diagram comprises different activities. For instance, in “the modelling phase,” students are exposed to a number of text samples to exemplify a particular genre. It involves discussion of the functions of the text, how the information is organised, and what lexical and grammatical choices have been used to convey meaning. In the “joint construction phase,” students and teachers participate in the joint construction of a class text with the teacher acting as scribe and the students contributing suggestions.

42

Chapter Three

In the last stage, the “independent construction phase,” students are asked to construct their own texts through talking through the task with the lecturer or peers, and then drafting and critically re-evaluating their texts and editing. Martin’s model was found to be very useful, as it shows the stages that students need to go through in order to write an academic piece. “Teaching genres involves increasing learners’ awareness of the conventions of writing to help them produce tests that seem well formed and appropriate to readers” (Hyland 2002, 48). This approach to teaching writing is a response to the occasional excesses of a process approach that often disregards the importance of the written form and takes power away from the students, particularly those with English as a second or foreign language, and thus from a different educational and cultural background. Replacing the product approach with the process approach neglects direct and traditional ways of teaching writing; nevertheless, students are still assessed by their control of the text features such as text organisation, sentence structure, and paragraph length. It is only when students are asked to talk about texts that they come to better understand how to make a piece of writing more effective and appropriate to the communicative purposes implied in it. This, in turn, helps students to improve their writing skills and become more effective in editing and revising their texts individually or in pairs. Increasing students’ awareness of how different ways of organising written information interact with the purpose of the text is an important step in helping students become more successful academic writers. By discussing the text features of various texts, students learn the language needed to talk about texts, start to understand how and why texts are organised in certain ways, and are able to evaluate their own pieces of writing and participate in peer editing and revision effectively. Kress (1997) contends that the continuous grouping of types of texts into closed clusters, such as narratives or arguments, might lead literacy teaching into pre-packaged genres, which could exclude other genres that are of equal social value. Such an approach to literacy teaching might lead to “a curiously static world, seemingly fixed, immutable; [whose] boundaries are clear, and decisive” (Green 1987, 86). Furthermore, what might be called a discussion genre would inevitably involve a combination of different generic features, and for this reason it is argued that it would seem unjustified to locate it within a particular group. Cope and Kalantzis (1993) are sceptical about Martin’s wheel model. Their main concern is that modelling texts all too easily results in dictating to students how they should write such genres. Success in the task is ultimately assessed in terms of the extent to which students have

Literature Review

43

reproduced the pre-determined structure. Yet, the authors are of the opinion that such pedagogy would bring to life the transmission model. They sought to incorporate another dimension into the genre theory and pedagogy, namely the critical aspect. They argue that: To become “good readers” and “good writers,” students should be encouraged to be critical and not just follow the generic line. The most powerful texts cross generic and cultural boundaries. We might gain new insights if we were to read a logic scientific text on building a bridge as a story, for example, or a technical treatise on a nuclear power as a moral homily. (Cope and Kalantzis 1993, 16).

In a teaching/learning context like at TTI nr 200—where students have hardly had the opportunity to be exposed to different genres, not just in English but also in Portuguese—being able to produce a pre-determined “schematic structure,” as it is termed by Cope and Kalantzis (1993), is a good starting point. Moreover, students can be encouraged to be critical about what they read and what and how they write. This is to say that students should possess the abilities to argue and provide counter arguments, which will encourage them to “resist the power of print” and urge them to not believe everything they read (Janks 1995, iii). It is generally believed that while successful writers distinguish themselves because of the choices they make in their writings, it is unlikely that writers, such as TTS at TTI nr 200, will make choices that are wrong or beyond their academic level of writing (Reid 1989, 2). In other words, students are less likely to add their own voice and style to their writing unless they have gained experience in and practised the different options available in academic writing. Morrell sees teachers and students as critical philosophers, and states that, “philosophy is meant for real people to deal with real problems of real life” (Morell 2008, 206). Morell goes further to state that students must be exposed to multiple genres of literature, use multiple reading strategies to decode texts, and draw upon multiple literacy tools to interrogate the texts they read. At the same time, students should be given, “opportunities…to produce sophisticated texts across multiple genres that include expository essays, poems, plays, short stories, autobiographical narratives, advertising campaigns, letters, and, in some cases, electronic and multimedia texts” (Morell 2008, 217). However, it can be speculated that students at TTI nr 200 face many constraints that probably derive not only from their limited linguistic abilities, but also from the lack of composing competence, partially due to

Chapter Three

44

the “traditional” model of lecturing that some, if not the majority, of lecturers insist continuing with. Therefore, one may contend that an approach to writing that integrates both process and product approaches should be applied for the creation of a genre-based syllabus for academic writing skills. After all, there is no single and perfect approach or method to teaching; we presume that what is missing within the teaching/learning process at TTI nr 200 is not the acquisition of new techniques or teaching approaches and methods, but perhaps an alignment in the system, as well as an improvement of the research supervision practices. So far we have presented and discussed the three main paradigms to teaching writing no matter the context, whether in an L1, L2 or foreign language classroom. In order to better understand the application of the above teaching approaches in the L2 or EFL classrooms, Hyland (2007, 2) suggests six dominant concepts that can guide the teaching of writing in L2 classrooms from different perspectives, “representing potentially compatible means of understanding the complex reality of writing.”

3.6 Six Pedagogic L2 Teaching Writing Orientations As Hyland (2007, 7) posits: “Everything we do in the classroom, the methods and materials we adopt, the teaching styles we assume, the tasks we assign, are guided by both practical and theoretical knowledge, and our decisions can be more effective if that knowledge is explicit.” Taking its cue from that statement, this chapter focuses on the pedagogies presented over time as better ways to equip students in producing the kind of writing required. To cite Hyland (2007, 7) again: “A familiarity with what is known about writing, and about teaching writing, can therefore help us to reflect on our assumptions and enable us to approach current teaching methods with an informed and critical eye.” The starting point in teaching has always been which of the many perspectives on writing to adopt. Although teachers might adopt more than one approach, there will always be one that predominates and is translated into the teaching tasks and learning stages that teachers and students go through. Drawing on different views of writing, like those referred to above, Hyland (2007, 2) presents six “curriculum options” that can help lecturers improve their performance in the writing lessons: ™ Language structures ™ Text functions ™ Creative expression

Literature Review

45

™ Composing process ™ Content ™ Genre and contexts of writing. The above curriculum perspectives should be seen as forming a whole. However, for the purpose of this section, they will be briefly explained separately. ™ Focus on language structures. Based on the traditional approaches to teaching writing, this view sees writing as marks on the page, or screen; i.e., writing as primarily consisting of the correct arrangement of words to form sentences based on the rules of the language. In this view, learning to write in a foreign or second language classroom implies acquiring the linguistic features and the vocabulary choices, syntactic patterns, and cohesive devices that contribute to the production of texts. Essentially, writing is seen as a product constructed from the writer’s command of grammatical and lexical knowledge, and writing development is considered to be the result of imitating and manipulating models provided by the teacher. (Hyland 2007, 3)

There are many EFL and L2 classrooms where students learn to write in this way. For most TTS at TTI nr 200, this is the way they were taught to write at the earlier stages of learning. As a result, the trainees tend to find it difficult to go beyond the writing of a few sentences to writing their own ideas based on their experiences. Thus, this study argues that the goal of teaching writing should not focus on training in explicitness and accuracy. However, it would be unacceptable to regard the rules of language as irrelevant to learning how to write. The principle adhered to should be that texts are always produced in response to specific communicative settings in which people tend to draw on their knowledge, their readers’ knowledge, and similar texts to decide on both what to say and how to say it, bearing in mind that different forms of text convey different relationships and meanings. Students in general and L2, or EFL learners in particular, need an understanding of how words, sentences, and larger discourse structures can build and express the meanings they want to transmit.

46

Chapter Three

™ Focus on text functions. It is widely believed that particular language forms perform certain communicative functions, and students can be taught the functions most relevant to their needs. According to Hyland (2007, 6), functions are the means for achieving the objectives or purposes of writing. This orientation is sometimes called the “functional approach” and it is influential in L2 or EFL situations when students are being prepared for academic writing. One of the aims of this focus is to help students produce and develop meaningful paragraphs, “through the creation of topic sentences, supporting sentences, and transitions, and to develop different types of paragraphs” (Hyland 2007, 7). Based on free writing methods, the process takes the form of reordering sentences in scrambled paragraphs, selecting appropriate sentences to complete gapped paragraphs, and writing paragraphs from information provided. This function is strongly influenced by emphasis on the structures described above, where paragraphs are seen as syntactic units like sentences in which writers can fit particular functional units. Texts are seen as being composed of structural entities, such as “Introduction- Body- Conclusion,” and particular organisational patterns are taught, such as “description, exposition, narration.” Although meaning is involved in this approach, the learning activities that students are engaged in are more concerned with producing coherent patterns rather than with activities related to their purposes and personal experiences. Therefore, this pedagogical orientation would not bring positive results with TTS at TTI nr 200, as it sees texts as objects that can be taught as separate from particular contexts, writers, or readers. Although there is an assumption that by following the structural rules mentioned herein students will achieve the intended learning outcomes, writing should be seen as more than rearranging sentences or paragraphs, and writing instructions is more than helping students to remember and execute these patterns; writing instructions implies looking at the studentwriters as the departure point. ™ Focus on creative expression. This teaching orientation takes the writer as the starting point in producing an academic piece. Students are encouraged to express themselves and produce writing that is fresh and spontaneous. Writing is creative and seen as an act of self-discovery. Personal experiences and opinions are key aspects in the development of arguments and provision of counter arguments. Teaching in this way contributes to self-awareness raising of the students’ social positions and “literate possibilities” (Freire 1974), and also facilitates “clear thinking, effective relating, and satisfying self-expression” (Moffet 1982). From this

Literature Review

47

perspective, writing is seen as nondirective and personal but also as a way of sharing experiences and emphasising the power of the individual to construct meaning. The role of the teacher is to provide students with space to make their own meanings within a friendly and relaxed atmosphere. Teachers try not to impose their views on students or suggest responses to topics; instead, they offer models of writing and encourage students to come up with their own texts based on the examples provided through a developmental process of writing that goes from simple to complex tasks. Hyland (2007, 9) contends that “In contrast to the rigid practice of a more form-oriented approach, writers are urged to be creative and to take chances through free writing.” However, this orientation misses the writer’s social position within the community and its ideology of individualism may disadvantage L2 or EFL students that see selfexpression from a different perspective (Ibid.). One of the biggest shortcomings of this orientation lies in the idea that it neglects the cultural backgrounds of the students, their social positions, and the purpose of communication in the real-world context where writing is to take place. ™ Focus on the composing process. For many years, the most popular model of L2 writing has been the original planning-writingrevising framework devised by Flower and Hayes (1980), and lately improved by Flower (1989). This model sees writing as “a non-linear, exploratory, and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning” (Zamel 1983, 165). Just as with the expressivist orientation, the process approach to teaching writing emphasises the writer as an independent producer of texts, but goes further to address the issue of what teachers should do to help students successfully perform a writing task. “The numerous incarnations of this perspective are consistent in recognising basic cognitive processes as central to writing activities and in stressing the need to develop students’ abilities to plan, define a rhetorical problem, and propose and evaluate solutions” (Hyland 2007, 10). Therefore, in addition to knowing what students must write, lecturers should be concerned with what students need to know, what they do when they write, and how they can be helped to do it better. Hyland (2007, 11) provides a useful process model of writing instruction that can guide L2 or EFL teachers.

Chapter Three

48

Fig.3. 2. A process model of writing instruction

Selection of topic: by teacher and/or students Prewriting: brainstorming, collecting data, note taking, outlining, etc. Composing: getting ideas down on paper Response to draft: teacher/peers respond to ideas, organisation and style Revising: organising, style, adjusting to readers, refining ideas Response to revisions: teacher/peers respond to ideas, organisation, and style Proof reading and editing: checking and correcting form, layout, evidence, etc. Evaluation: teacher evaluates progress Publishing: by class circulation or presentation, notice boards, website, etc. Follow-up tasks: to address weaknesses. Source: Hyland (2007, 11).

As Fig. 3.2 above shows, process writing is a recursive and interactive process that moves forwards and backwards from planning to drafting, to revising and editing until the product is finished. The teacher’s role is to guide students through the writing process and help them develop strategies for drafting, generating ideas and revising their own work. This orientation has helped L2 and foreign language teachers and lecturers in their practices, and although there is considerable research into writing as a process, “we still do not have a comprehensive idea on how learners go about a writing task or how they learn to write,” especially L2 or foreign language learners (Hyland 2007, 13). Knowing exactly what writers do when they write and why they make certain choices constitutes a grey area in the development of process writing. It can be argued that, as with the previous orientations, among many other elements, process writing concentrates on one aspect of writing, “cognition,” and fails to offer a clear perspective between the social nature of the writing, and the role of the language and text structure in effective written communication. “Process approaches overemphasise the cognitive relationship between the writer and the writer’s internal world” (Swales 1990, 220), and encouraging students to make their own points of view and find their own texts does not teach them how to construct the different types of texts they are asked to write.

Literature Review

49

Therefore, there is a need to look beyond one single orientation. Processes approaches have not been helpful enough to guide teachers and lecturers in the writing classrooms, especially at higher levels. As Polio (2001) posits, equipping novice writers with the strategies of good writers does not lead to any development, and Hyland (2007) concludes that students need help in learning how to write, but mainly in understanding how texts are organised by topic, audience, purpose, and cultural norms. At TTI nr 200, for example, lecturers also need to look at the effectiveness of particular teaching methods and assessment procedures used in the different core subjects with special regard to research methodology. This leads to the next orientation, which is a focus on content. ™ Focus on content. Another way of conceptualising L2/ EFL writing teaching has to do with the content, i.e. what students are required to write about. This presupposes that teachers should set up themes of interest in the key areas of the subject matter. Students will have some background knowledge about those topics and will write about them meaningfully. Hyland (2007, 15) maintains that, “themes and topics frequently form the basis of process course, where writing activities are often organised around social issues such as pollution, relationships,… smoking, and so on,” and he argues that L2 and EFL students might be in a disadvantaged position as they may not be familiar with the topics and the types of texts they have to write. For TTS at TTI nr 200 and students in Angola in general, this would not be a problem as they are likely to be familiar with topics such as pollution, corruption, smoking, stress, and juvenile crime. Moreover, exposing students to new topics can be productive as it would encourage them to think about issues in new ways. What teachers and lecturers need to do in these cases is activate the appropriate schemata necessary to perform those tasks. “Schema development exercises usually include reading for ideas in parallel texts, reacting to photographs, and various brainstorming tasks to generate ideas for writing and organising texts” (Hyland, 2007, 15). Content-driven approaches are quite useful in teaching writing to L2 or EFL students due to their flexibility with regards to the level of the students. Thus, while at lower levels much of the information might be provided by the teachers to reduce the level of difficulty in generating and organising material, at higher levels students are required to co-operate in collecting and sharing information as the basis for producing texts. Content-oriented courses tend to rely on reading and exploring the relationship between reading and writing, especially in L2 and EFL contexts, and research suggests that second-language writing skills cannot

50

Chapter Three

be acquired only by practicing writing alone, but need to be supported by “extensive reading” (Krashen 1993). Reading plays an important role in developing students’ writing skills at various stages of proficiency. Both writing and reading are individual meaning-making skills in the activation of the existing knowledge of both structure and content, and also in problem solving situations (Grabe 2003). Reading provides students with new knowledge within different subject areas, but most importantly it helps them spot the conventional features of written texts with regards to grammar, vocabulary, organisational patterns and interactional devices. Therefore, students should be exposed to different types of genres so as to acquaint them with the common characteristics and differences. Although the above-mentioned orientations all focus on the content, to some extent, “content-based orientation” goes further to look at the language, composing skills, and “specific text conventions associated with a particular domain and its content or subject matter” (Hyland 2007, 17). However, such an orientation fails to address the issue of genre. What follows is an account of the genre orientation in teaching writing to L2 or EFL students. ™ Focus on genre and context in writing. Genres are social processes used by members of the same community for communicative purposes. Martin (1993) defines genre as “goal-oriented, staged social practices.”They are goal-oriented because they are employed to achieve things, and staged because the process of meaning making goes through steps, and it usually takes more than one for the writers to achieve their goals. Thus, writing instruction starts from the purpose of communication and moves to the stages of composing a text. Lecturers are expected to help students distinguish between different genres and to write them appropriately. Therefore, knowing the structures of the genres is very important. Teachers who adopt the genre orientation to teaching writing look beyond the content of the subject, the composing stages, and the textual organisation of texts, and see writing as an attempt to communicate with readers. They are mainly concerned with teaching students how to use the language for communicative purposes in a meaningful way. To paraphrase Hyland (2007), the central idea is that we do not just teach writing, we teach students to write something with a purpose and an audience in mind. In genre-based classrooms, teachers do not just focus on the content of texts; they look at the linguistic patterns and go beyond the word on the page to “the social constraints and choices that operate on writers in a particular context”(Hyland 2007, 71).

Literature Review

51

To sum up, a genre-based orientation consists of an integration of discourse and contextual aspects of language use that are usually neglected when attending to structures, functions, forms and processes alone. This means that this orientation, rather than just drawing attention to the students’ needs to produce texts for particular readers, also draws their attention to how texts are composed and how they work and can be used as communication. Classroom practices based on the genre orientation to teaching writing from many years ago were based on the systemic functional linguistics originally developed by Halliday and Hansan (1989), later improved by Halliday (1994). This theory addresses the relationship between language and its social functions and sets out to show the systematicity of the language from which users can make choices to express their ideas, feelings, and opinions. Halliday (1994) argues that, in order for students to accomplish their goals of communicating (whether orally or written), they need to develop very specific ways of using that language, and those specific ways will determine the type of genre in use. The genre-based teaching classroom will always be inspired by the work of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1978) and its interpretation by Bruner (1986). This view emphasises that the intended learning outcomes are better achieved when students are engaged in classroom activities within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the area between what they can do independently and what they can do with the support of the teacher. The learning process evolves from oral communication and task negotiation with a more knowledgeable person, usually the teacher, and they have a central role to play in this development. Fig. 3.3 below illustrates the practical application of Martin’s (1993) wheel model in an L2 or EFL language-learning environment.

Chapter Three

52

Fig.3.3. The teaching learning cycle

MODELING Discuss and analyze text structure, context and language

JOINT CONSTRUCTION teacher and students construct text together

DEVELOPING CONTROL OF THE GENRE Redrafting and editing

Learner writes own text

INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION OF TEXT Teacher-learner conference

Source: Hyland (2007, 21).

Fig. 3.3 above is just an illustration of how the method suggested by Martin (1993, figure 3.1:42) works in L2 and EFL classrooms. The teaching cycle is characterised by a process of contextualisation, modelling, negotiation, and the independent construction of text. The first stage is characterised by direct instruction from the teacher with students trying to assimilate the content of the lesson and perform the learning activities set up by the lecturer. The lecturer’s support is crucial at this stage and they check students’ understanding of the “rhetorical patterns” they need to reproduce and express their meanings. Gradually, the lecturer gives more autonomy to students by increasing their talking time, allowing them to write many different drafts of texts they are likely to produce. As Hyland (2007, 21) posits, “writing is the outcome of activity, rather than an activity itself,” and in the EFL classroom students are supposed to develop their “linguistic metalanguage” that will enable them to describe and control the structure and grammatical features of the texts they

Literature Review

53

produce. Within this approach, grammar is seen as a way of giving students the language they need to construct and produce different genres and to reflect on how language is used to accomplish the communicative needs. Genre pedagogy is based on a belief that learning should be formed by explicit awareness of the language rather than through experiment and exploration of texts (Hyland 2007). Thus, lecturers engage students in learning activities that require them to analyse and react to texts that are carefully selected. Hyland (2007, 22) asserts that the reproductive element of the genres may lead “untrained or unimaginative teachers” to fail to acknowledge variation and choice in writing, and neglect the importance of contextualisation of the language. By so doing, students will see genres as “rigid templates and forms represented as linguistic abstractions” (Hyland 2007, 22). Students might then feel that genres are sets of rules to be followed and learnt, turning into what Freadman (1994, 46) calls “a recipe theory of genre.” To sum up, and using Hyland’s (2007, 22) words: “There is still a tension between expression and repression in genre teaching that is not fully resolved. It is clear, however, that learners must know how to employ conventional patterns and the circumstances where they can change them.”It is therefore important for lecturers in general, and EFL lecturers in particular, to stimulate students’ creativity in the tasks they perform while at the same time calling their attention to the conventional rules that govern the production of different types of genres.

3.7 Writing a Research Report at TTI nr 200 All over the world, becoming a student in higher education means that someone has joined a “new community of practice,” different from the previous one(s). As Lea maintains, learning in higher education involves, “adapting new ways of knowing, new ways of understanding, interpreting, and organising knowledge” (1999, 106). Therefore, learning at university is not just a matter of acquiring skills and information. As Freire and Macedo (1987, 77) postulate: “To study is not easy because, to study is to create and recreate and not repeat what others say”. In addition, Seligmann (2012, 5) states that many students in South Africa study the content of their subjects while they are still learning the language of instruction, in this case English. At our research site, TTS are also experiencing the same difficulties with English being learnt as a foreign language and used as the medium of instruction and communication. As stated in the introductory chapter, the challenges of writing for the TTS at TTI nr 200 increase when they are required to write their research

Chapter Three

54

reports. Writing a research report implies that students draw upon outside sources and adopt the styles and genres of the academic discourse. They have to conduct research on their own, summarise and paraphrase, quote sources, adopt genre conventions that meet the audience expectations and select vocabulary and grammatical items that are more formal and proper to academic writing. It seems, however, that lecturers in general and content subject lecturers in particular at TTI nr 200 are paying little attention to the teaching of this important and lifelong skill, as most of the students in the English department are facing problems in writing their research reports. Success in understanding academic texts is cognitively demanding and depends on conceptual knowledge (students’ background information about specific topics), text structure knowledge (knowledge of how information is organised and presented), and knowledge about text processing (being skilled in using different reading strategies) (Bartholomae 1986). Writing a research report is different from many other types of writing because: ™ The topic is negotiated or chosen from a list of topics ™ Writing is not voluntary; it goes through a process of negotiation between the student and the supervisor ™ The final work is evaluated, not just read (Johns 1997). As in many institutions, the process of research project writing at TTI nr 200 comprises two different stages of writing: ™ The research proposal ™ The research report. The research proposal is a very important piece of work in the process of writing a research report, serving as a starting point. At TTI nr 200, TTS are expected to produce their research proposals in the Research Methodology II subject as the final assessment task. However, experience has shown that there are some difficulties in getting the research proposal written in an acceptable format and content, even though it constitutes the final examination of the Research Methodology subject. As a result, supervisors find it hard to help students write their research reports due to the poor quality of their research proposals, and because of some uncertainty on the part of the students in stating what it is that they really want to investigate. In addressing this issue Lategan (2008: 15) states that: “New research [undergraduate] students often do not know what is required in a research

Literature Review

55

degree … not only in terms of administrative requirements but also in terms of language, thinking and analytical style of research in a particular subject.”This also appears to be the problem of most TTS at TTI nr 200, most of whom are judged as performing well during coursework but find writing the research report a very hard task to complete. Sayed et al. (1998) found that students who “perform well” in coursework are usually those who prefer to work on their own, take ownership of their studies and who do not rely on the supervisor for answers and direction. However, this statement needs to be critically analysed, as the concept of “performing well” may have negative effects on the type of approaches to teaching/learning, i.e. surface or deep approaches (Biggs 1999) that teachers and students use. Surface approaches to learning are based on a student’s strategy to get the task done with minimum effort, using low cognitive levels when higher level activities are required to do it properly. Deep approaches to learning consist in engaging students in tasks that are appropriate and meaningful to their learning, using high cognitive levels of performance. This requires a sound foundation of students’ prior knowledge. Borrowing from Biggs (1999), it can be argued that “good performance” is not always a synonym of “an attainable form of high literacy.” For Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987), it might mean the opposite. In fact, there are occasions when “good performance” is used to mean getting “good marks” in written tests; however, getting good or high marks in tests does not necessarily mean attaining high levels of literacy; all depends on the type of approach to teaching/learning that lecturers and students adopt. In this regard, it has been argued that although writing is both personal and individual, the act of writing for others is interactional and social, expresses culturally agreed purposes, and reflects a particular kind of relationship; it also acknowledges the engagement of a given community. Thus, writing cannot be translated into a set of cognitive or technical abilities by individuals, or just a system of the rules of a language. In other words, learning to write in a second or foreign language goes beyond the ability to draft and revise texts. Therefore, teachers and lecturers should draw on the best of what each orientation offers. One of the conclusions that can be drawn from Hyland’s pedagogic teaching orientations is that L2 or EFL students bring five kinds of knowledge to the production of texts which teachers and lecturers should take into consideration (Hyland 2007, 27): ™ Content knowledge—the ideas and concepts of the topic the text will address

56

Chapter Three

™ System knowledge—the language system, syntax, lexis, and appropriate grammar and vocabulary to use ™ Process knowledge—how to prepare and carry out a written piece of work ™ Genre knowledge—the communicative purposes of the genre and its value in specific contexts ™ Context knowledge—readers’ expectations, cultural preferences and content-related texts. From the perspectives analysed in this section, a number of conclusions can be drawn: that composing is non linear and goal driven; that writing seeks to achieve purposes through recognised ways of using the language; that writing is a purposeful and communicative activity; and that writing is structured according to the demands and expectations of a specific audience, or discourse community. Therefore, lecturers should engage students in planning, writing and revising strategies, provide them with “metalanguage” to help identify genres and their structures, through analysis of authentic texts and modelling genre stages, and encourage students to consider the readers’ expectations by simulating different types of audiences and social contexts. In addition, lecturers need to build on students’ own language abilities, backgrounds, and expectations of writing and help them recognise that different communities use different genres as a way of meaning making. Although there is a close relationship between the teaching approaches to writing and the supervision models here discussed, for the supervision practices, due to their characteristics, there is more to say with regards to what actually happens during supervisory sessions and the kind of language discourse offered by both parties during the research process. It should be clear that, for quality and equality reasons within the interactions between lecturers/supervisors and students, students need to be proactive agents within both teaching and supervision processes and be able to manage not only their own time, tasks, identity and power, but also those of their lecturers and supervisors.

3.8 Towards an Integrated Way of Teaching Writing The different orientations presented and discussed above provide useful insights for writing teachers and lecturers with complementary alternatives for designing their materials and planning their lessons. Table 3.1 below summarises them.

Literature Review

57

Table 3.1.Summary of the principal orientations of L2 writing teaching Orientation

Emphasis

Goals

Structure

Language form

Function

Language use

Grammatical accuracy; vocabulary building, L2 proficiency Paragraph and text organisation patterns

Expressivist

Writer

Individual creativity, selfdiscovery

Process

Writer

Control of technique

Content

Subject matter

Writing through relevant content and reading

Genre

Text and context

Control of rhetorical structure of specific texttypes

Main pedagogic technique Controlled composition, gap-fill, substitution, error avoidance, indirect assessment, practice of rhetorical patterns Free writing, reordering, gap-fill, imitation of parallel texts, writing from tables and graphs Reading, pre-writing, journal writing, multiple drafting, and peer critiques Brain-storming, planning, multiple drafting, peer collaboration, delayed editing, portfolio assessment Extensive and intensive reading, group research projects, process or structure emphasis Modelling-negotiationconstruction cycle; Rhetorical consciousness-raising

Source: Hyland (2007, 23).

As the table shows, there is no complete approach or teaching orientation. All present some shortcomings and there is a need for complementarities for teaching to be effective. Hyland (2007) stresses that there is no specific approach to use in a given classroom. Classrooms are typically characterised by a mixture of the existing approaches to teaching any subject content and writing, and lecturers frequently combine these orientations in creative and effective ways so as to make the most of their teaching. Research has shown that there are still lecturers who tend to stick to a specific approach; however, it is commonly believed that when a

Chapter Three

58

combination is made it favours the process and genre orientations. In this way, the strengths of one might complement the shortcomings of the other. Table 3.2 below shows the complementarities of the process and genre orientations: Table 3.2. A comparison of genre and process orientations Attribute Main idea

Teaching focus

Advantages

Disadvantages

Process Writing is a thinking process; Concerned with the act of writing Emphasis on creative writer; How to produce and link ideas Makes processes of writing transparent; Provides basis for teaching Assumes L1 and L2 writing similar; Overlooks L2 language difficulties; Insufficient attention to product; Assumes all writing uses same processes

Genre Writing is a social activity; Concerned with the final product Emphasis on reader expectations and product; How to express social purposes effectively Makes textual conventions transparent Contextualises writing for audience and purpose Requires rhetorical understanding of texts Can result in prescriptive teaching of texts Can lead to over attention on written products Undervalues skills needed to produce texts

Source: Hyland (2007, 24)

As the table shows, both approaches carry some advantages and disadvantages as well as strengths and weaknesses; however, they represent two sides of the same coin and a careful and thoughtful combination of them will result in productive and effective writing teaching in L2 or EFL classrooms. It can then be inferred that content subject lecturers at TTI nr 200 should adopt this combined orientation to teaching writing if they are willing to improve their teaching. For the combination between process and product there seems to be no correlation as they represent two different and opposite views of teaching writing, and a combination of the two would result in a conflict that can be damaging to

Literature Review

59

classroom practice: “the two are more usefully seen as supplementing and rounding each other out” (Hyland 2007, 23). In fact, writing is a socio-cognitive activity, and in order for students to achieve the skill of academic writing they need knowledge of the language, the purpose of using the language, and the role of the context and the audience in the process of producing the language. They also need to be involved in learning activities that range from the skills of planning and drafting to revising and editing. An effective methodology for L2 or EFL writing classroom should therefore address and incorporate the insights suggested by Hyland (2007, 24) in the following ways: ™ Broaden formal and functional orientations to include the social purposes behind forms ™ Locate the process concepts of strategy, schema, and metacognition in social contexts; respect students’ needs for relevant content through stimulating readings and source materials ™ Support genre pedagogies with strategies for planning, drafting, and revising texts ™ Situate writing in a conception of the audience and link it to broader social structures. Translated into practice, the above points mean that students ought to have an adequate understanding of the “processes” of text creation and production, know the “purposes” of writing and how to express their ideas effectively in a formal, academic way based on the rhetorical text choices, and define the “contexts” within which texts are produced and read and which give them meaning. These three aspects have been broadly discussed in the literature; however, the notion of context in this study deserves a little more detail. Within the perspectives of genre orientation, writing does not take place outside the communities of learning; therefore, the writing we teach should be aligned to the purposes of addressing those communities, whether professional, academic, or social (Brufee 1986). Skilled writers are expected to produce texts that take into account the readers’ background knowledge and anticipate what those readers’ reactions will be in relation to the texts read. In our everyday writing (letters, shopping lists, short descriptions and compositions) we are comfortable with these genres because we are familiar with them, and we are familiar with the readers’ background knowledge as we belong to the same community of practice. In an L2 or EFL classroom, however, things tend to be slightly

60

Chapter Three

different; students may not always be able to predict readers’ background knowledge and their reaction to the texts. Lecturers in process-oriented classrooms have tried to suppress the gap between the writer and the reader by engaging students in pre-writing activities to develop an understanding of vocabulary choice and grammar structure. However, schema knowledge is more than that; it includes knowledge of the context, the interpersonal relations, the roles of writers and readers, and how all these influence the production of the text. In other words, apart from knowing what to write about and how to express ourselves, we also need to know what to include and what to leave out in our texts, the level of formality, and the appropriateness of using a specific genre. Thus, teachers in general and lecturers in particular should help students to develop the socio-cultural schemata they will need to produce their texts and extend their knowledge of form, content, process and discourse community. The notion of context also addresses ideas from new literacy studies that posit that writing and reading only make sense within wider social and cultural practices (e.g. Barton and Hamilton 1998; Lea and Street 2006). From a broader point of view, a context can be seen as the way institutions, societies and cultures influence writing. Such an extended view of contexts has four main implications within the teaching/learning process (Hyland 2007, 26): ™ It recognises that different communities use different genres, conventions, and even varieties of English, and that not all writing has the same standards of acceptability. ™ It takes account of the way English is used as an international language between non-native speakers, and, in many countries, as an international language with local norms and models. ™ It highlights the fact that because socially powerful institutions, such as education and professions, support certain genres and conventions, these become dominant and possess greater prestige. ™ It helps learners to guard against devaluing their own writing and to see so-called superior forms of writing simply as other practices that are open, like others, to scrutiny and challenge. The different writing orientations constitute a strong theoretical basis from which teachers and lecturers can select the best approaches to teaching writing in accordance with the level of their students, the purpose of teaching writing and the institutional context where teaching is taking place. By doing so, teachers and lecturers will select activities that would engage students in reading different text genres and involve them in the

Literature Review

61

production of the same genre types, therefore increasing their experiences of texts and readers’ expectations as well as providing them with a clearer understanding of the writing processes, language, forms, and genres. Lecturers also need to be sensitive to the practices and perceptions that students bring into the classroom and build on them so that students can see the writing process as relative to particular domains and groups. What also seems to be needed is some flexibility from lecturers in exposing students to different genres of writing as they proceed from less to more demanding tasks, from surface to deep approaches to learning, and from essays to writing research reports, always with the idea of constructive alignment in mind. As Martin (1993) puts it, the role of genre in content writing instruction should emerge naturally from the materials used. Rather than asking students to manipulate certain textual features, they should be engaged in tasks that require them to respond to the informational and organisational demands of various genres; students should then progress from less to more academically valued ways of writing, while at the same time learning the content of the materials and having better chances to practice in the classroom. By so doing, students will understand the discourse communities they are likely to write for, while at the same time valuing those of their own communities and cultures. What follows is a brief history of Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment.

3.9 Biggs idea of Constructive Alignment One of the aims in any teaching/learning environment is to keep a fair balance between form and content, and that fair balance depends on the teaching programme, the assessment procedures and the context in which we are teaching. Biggs’s (1999) constructive alignment and the 3P Model were selected to support the conceptual framework in this study because they are suitable to the reality on the ground. Biggs’s idea (1999) of constructive alignment came about as the result of an experiment with portfolio assessment in a bachelor programme with psychology students. Students were used to being evaluated through the typical academic assignment in which the main aim was to see how well the theory and the relationship between the content of the subject matter and education were understood. It was then realised that, although the assignment was academic, it had nothing to do with the experience and working space of the students. After all, the ultimate goal of any professional education course has to do with the experience of the students and helping them improve their professional competence (Biggs 1999, 50–

62

Chapter Three

1). However, this was not happening. In 1994, Biggs returned from study leave in Canada to teach the third year of a part-time BEd. in-service teaching programme where he was very impressed by the use of portfolios in the assessment of elementary students. Therefore, he thought that such a type of assessment would be ideal for the course and give better results. At the beginning, students felt quite apprehensive as they did not know exactly what the teacher wanted them to do and what items to select. Biggs suggested some item types and tried to exemplify them for the students to get an idea of how the process was meant to be. When the students submitted their portfolios, Biggs was astonished with the results. The portfolios were so rich and exciting that the marks the class received were mostly A and B grades. As the author states, at that time he did not know that he was implementing a new way of assessment of outcomesbased teaching and learning. It was only when he came to realise this new type of assessment that he started calling it “constructive alignment” (Biggs 1999, 51). But why did the experiment with portfolio assessment work so well? Biggs answers this question in the following way: “because the learning activities addressed in the intended outcomes were mirrored both in teaching/learning activities the students undertook, and in the assessment tasks. This design of teaching was called ‘constructive alignment’ (CA), as it was based on the twin principles of constructivism in learning and alignment in the design of teaching and assessment” (Biggs 1999, 52). The alignment is constructive because it is based on the constructivist theory, which postulates that students use their own activities to construct their knowledge, their world, or other outcomes. This idea in turn aligns to Shuell’s (1986, 429) statement that what students do is more important than what teachers and lecturers do. The intended outcomes are dictated by the type of learning activities that students are asked to perform as well as the level of engagement required from them. These, in turn, depend on the content of the activities, the tasks designed by the teacher in relation to the intended learning outcomes, and the learning environment where the process is likely to take place. The learning environment is an important factor in the teaching/learning process in that it encourages students to perform the learning activities at a higher level of thinking and then facilitates the assessment procedures that will dictate the learning outcomes while at the same time checking if they match them. Constructive alignment is primarily concerned with what the student does with what is learnt and how well they do it, rather than with what the student learns. “The alignment in constructive alignment reflects the fact that the learning activity in the intended outcomes, expressed as a verb,

Literature Review

63

needs to be activated in the teaching if the outcome is to be achieved in the assessment task to verify that the outcome has in fact been achieved” (Biggs and Tang 2007, 52). Biggs’s (1999) theory constitutes the main aspect underpinning this study, and is discussed in detail in the conceptual framework chapter.

3.10 Research Supervision In any country in the world, research should be viewed as playing the central role in the development of individuals in particular and the society in general. Research supervision is an integral part of any higher teaching context and it has to do with the transference of the Academic Reading and Writing skills into the research. Despite differences in the detail of the supervision processes, most of the principles involved in research supervision are similar across the world (Deuchar 2008). There is a lot of research dealing with the issue of research supervision, and most of that research has been from the supervisors’ perspectives. To take an instance (Belcher 1994; Hockey 1996; Deuchar 2008), look at supervision styles; Delamont, Atkinson, and Parry (2000) and Cryer (1997) offer some “guides to success” for supervisors; Pearson and Brew (2002) and Manathunga (2005) focus on supervisor training and development; and Dysthe (2002), Lee (2007), Makinnon (2004) and Grant (2010) provide models of supervisor-student relationships. There is also a group of researchers who look at the gender and race issues as elements of autonomy and dependency (Johnson, Lee, and Green2000; Boud and Lee 2005; Goode 2007), which according to Holligan (2005) need to be interrogated and placed within a wider political context of governing mentality. Furthermore, there is another group of researchers who focus on supervision as a form of pedagogy, applying different models of learning adults and peers (Haggis 2002; Boud and Lee 2005; Watson 2000), and those who look at it as learning, as well as studies that examine specific aspects of the pedagogy that may or may not take place within supervision (Kamler and Thomson, 2004; Norton et al. 2005) and doctoral examination (Burnham 1994; Hartley and Jory 2000; Morley, Leonard, and David2002; Tinkler and Jackson 2004). Those studies offer important insights that lecturers and supervisors may use to reflect upon and analyse their own contexts and experiences of supervision. As stated in the introductory chapter, most of the students are taking a longer time to get their work completed. Belcher (1994, 25) studied three graduate students’ relationship with their supervisors within different

64

Chapter Three

disciplines and concluded that while there are some students who succeed in becoming fully fledged contributors to their research communities without too much support from their mentors, the cases in her study pointed to the determinant factor that the student/supervisor relationship plays in the academic and professional success of the students. One of the major problems with research supervision is, perhaps, the fact that it is considered as an aspect of research rather than of teaching. Therefore, research supervision is often not given a formal timetable, classroom, or a specific programme to work on. Thus, it becomes something that supervisors have to carry out in their own time rather than in properly allocated time, as in the case of teaching. This, in turn, can result in students being given inadequate supervision times and places. The fact is that for classroom practices there is observation and a multiplicity of participants, who in this case are the students. As for supervision practices, none of the above-mentioned aspects applies. There is no specific classroom and the process is based on one-to-one interaction (Malfoy and Webb 2000, 117). Therefore, as Delamont, Atkinson, and Parry (2000, 134) put it: “[T]here is … a continuing lack of observational data on the actual conduct of the most private supervisory relationships. The data that are available, and that have been reported in recent years, consist almost exclusively of accounts, collected under the auspices of qualitative interview studies.” This makes research into research supervision somehow complex and difficult to understand. As a result, students tend to take longer to get their research reports finished on time, and most of the TTS at TTI nr 200 never get started. It is generally believed that the longer a student spends on doing research, the greater the possibility of its never being completed. Therefore, “If completion within a given time is accepted as an aim—and most universities apparently do accept this since their regulations impose a maximum time within which the thesis must be completed—it follows that both the student and the supervisor must have some rudimentary timetable in their minds from the start” (Rudd 1985, 80). Planning ahead is a key aspect in research supervision, and setting up an action plan constitutes the main organisational start point. However, this is not happening at TTI nr 200. Thereafter comes the setting up of a timetable and place to meet. The relationship between supervisor and student also plays an important role within the process. Some observational studies have been put in place to show the supervisor-student interactions within the supervision meetings and they are beginning to produce some sort of evidence. However, there have been problems, such as students failing or refusing to take turns in talking, and

Literature Review

65

fearing expressing themselves freely. Observational studies are therefore needed to help uncover what actually happens in supervisory meetings, and to build a clearer picture for understanding what “doing supervision” means in practice and how students survive the system from their own point of view. The reality shows that students need to be active participants in the research supervision sessions, not only in managing their time, tasks, and availability, but also their supervisors’ and their interactions with them. Below are Malfoy and Webb’s (2000, 134) suggested roles for supervisors: ™ Facilitator (providing support, advice and monitoring progression) ™ Intellectual catalyst (supporting energy and motivation, developing mutual rapport) ™ Mentor (distant but available, comfortable and supportive) ™ Partner (an equal participant in the research project, a collaborator) ™ Friend (a role characterised by trust, as of a “foster parent”). However, some supervisors at TTI nr 200 seem to be ignoring those roles. In most cases they do not seem to know how much advice and help to provide. As Rudd (1985, 115) postulates: “Some supervisors, not through incompetence or neglect, but through genuine conviction, are adopting procedures for supervision with which most of their colleagues would disagree and which decrease the likelihood of the student completing.” Some supervisors believe that making students responsible for themselves is the best way of ensuring that they learn to do research. There are certainly many things that students cannot be told or taught. However, some sort of guidance is required if one wants students to learn something from the experience of doing research, and the usefulness of that guidance depends primarily on the way the content subject in Academic Reading and Writing and Research Methodology is addressed. Boote and Beile (2005, 14) seem to be reinforcing my idea by assuming that graduate students are introduced into the research community through the reading and writing they do, through instruction in research methodology, and through interaction with faculty and their peers. The literature on supervisory practices has shown the potential difficulties in the studentsupervisor relationship. Mackinnon (2004, 399) provides an overview of the literature on postgraduate supervision, and posits that: Much of the literature relating to postgraduate supervision has focused on its complexity, highlighting issues such as unclear, differing and sometimes incompatible expectations of students and supervisors,

66

Chapter Three problems with interpersonal relationships between supervisor and student, diversity in the roles required of supervisors, lack of institutional policies or guidelines to support postgraduate students and the sense of isolation experienced by postgraduate students.

Good supervision should start from a good relationship between supervisor and student, based on mutual respect and humbleness. According to De Gruchy and Holness (2007), supervising, in a broader context, can be defined as the ability to provide scientific and theoretical advice to students, as well create and maintain the conditions for a good working atmosphere, based on a good relationship between the supervisor and the student. Good supervision will set the student on the road to solving problems or difficulties on their own, and this type of apprenticeship will be provided by the supervisor; however, there are some instances when the supervisor is not a well disciplined and organised person. To this end, Rudd (1985) argues that few supervisors feel the need to make a plan and are therefore unable to convey that idea to their students. In order to meet the supervision demands, Dysthe (2002) and Lee (2007) propose models of supervision, and Grant (2010) provides a map where the supervisory relationships are described. Both models and Grant’s map of supervision constitute the supplementary support to the main theory underpinning this study, and will be discussed in detail in the following chapter.

3.11 Summary In this chapter we have focused attention on the operational concepts related to academic and research literacy practices worldwide and reviewed the literature on Second and Foreign language (L2/EFL) writing research. We have looked at the literature on current trends in L2/EFL teaching and writing research on a global perspective, and shown how early writing models were constructed and how approaches to L1 writing were used to inform L2/EFL writing models. Various studies were cited, and contributions related to academic and research literacy practices and how they relate to this particular problem were addressed. Thus, the chapter started by mapping the field and then discussing the three main approaches to teaching writing. The process of writing a research report by TTS was also augmented and Hyland’s six pedagogic orientations to teaching writing to L2/EFL students discussed, leading to a suggestion of a more integrated way of teaching academic literacy within L2 or EFL contexts. A comparison between process and genre orientations to teaching was made with the final aim of suggesting a more integrated way

Literature Review

67

of teaching writing. Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment was introduced to help understand its role within the study and the main aspects implicit in the supervision practices were presented. The next chapter presents the conceptual framework for this research.

CHAPTER FOUR CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 Introduction As mentioned before, the major purpose of this study is to examine the academic and research literacy practices of final year TTS at a TTI in Luanda, Angola, as well as the main challenges they face when undertaking research and writing their final research reports. One of the aspects taken into consideration is to understand how subject content lecturers are addressing the Academic Reading and Writing subjects to the TTS. Another aspect considered is how Research Methodology I and II prepare them for the writing of the research reports. The organisation of the conceptual framework is guided by the contributions of Maxwell (2005), who advises that a conceptual framework should focus on: (a) What is going on as far as teaching and learning of TTS are concerned in light of: ™ The issues under discussion ™ Improvements under way, and ™ Individuals that are being studied (i.e. TTS). (b) Highlighting theories, beliefs and prior research findings that inform the study, and (c) Preliminary studies that inform the understanding for this thesis. The last two aspects were discussed in the previous chapter. While the point of departure in the previous chapter makes reference to the teaching of writing in general, specific reference was made to the teaching of academic writing. The discussion started in chapter three by clarifying and providing justification of the three main approaches to teaching writing. A discussion of the different pedagogic orientations to teaching writing to L2 and EFL students followed. In this chapter, we refocus the conceptualisations of the earlier chapters in a discussion of the

Conceptual Framework

69

study that is the subject of this thesis. The study is based on a qualitative paradigm and takes interviews as the dominant research instruments to help explore and understand what is actually happening on the site and how TTS see and evaluate their difficulties in producing their final research reports. The conceptual framework underpinning this research is therefore informed by a different deployment of: ™ Biggs’s (1999) constructive alignment and the 3P Model ™ Biggs and Tang’s (2007) deep and surface approaches to teaching and learning and students’ level of engagement ™ Cummins’s (1996) differentiation between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency(CALP) with regard to language acquisition ™ Lea and Street’s (2006) academic literacy models ™ Grant’s (2010) map for supervision, and ™ Dysthe’s (2002) models of supervision. Biggs’s (1999) is the main theory that supported this study, and is complemented by the other theories mentioned above. What follows is an account on each theory and the interconnectedness of this theory for the common teaching goal equipping TTS with the tools they need to effectively produce their research reports.

4.2 Biggs’s Constructive Alignment and the 3P Model As previously stated, constructive alignment is primarily concerned with what the student does with what is learnt and how well they do it, rather than with what they learn. By presenting the principle of “constructive alignment,” Biggs (1999, 11) states that in order to enhance optimum learning for students from impoverished learning backgrounds, opportunities should be given to them to enable them to perform higher order activities that otherwise only “highly competent” students would be able to do. Biggs (1999) suggests what he calls the “3P model” of teaching and learning which consists of Presage, Process and Product, where all the components support each other and cannot work alone. This model illustrates the three main points in the time during which learning related factors are placed: Presage (before learning takes place), Process (during the process of learning), and Product (the outcome of learning). Biggs’s (1999) 3P Model helped me to better understand the teaching and learning system at TTI nr 200, to spot which parts in the system are

Chapter Four

70

not yet aligned and what might need to be done in order to get all the components in place. The following is an illustration of Biggs’s constructive alignment and the 3P model of teaching and learning. Fig.4. 1.The 3P Model of teaching and learning

Source: Biggs (1999, 18)

As the table shows, Presage factors are of two types: x Student based—the relevant prior knowledge and motivation the students bring to the new environment of study as well as ability, interest and commitment to study at a higher level. x Teaching context based—the content to be taught, the way it will be taught and assessed, the teacher’s level of knowledge of the discipline and ability to teach, as well as the classroom atmosphere and the institution’s environment. These components are intrinsically connected to each other in such a way that, if one component fails to support or collaborate with the others, there will be an imbalance within the teaching and learning system.

Conceptual Framework

71

Process factors include the learning-focused activities that students are asked to perform throughout the course, and the type of approach they adopt to learning. The type of approach students adopt to learning is directly influenced by the type of approach lecturers adopt to teaching. Product factors are translated in the intended learning outcomes (ILOs), in this specific case the quantity and quality of students one gets at the end of each academic year and at the end of the four years of coursework. In principle, the students’ learning outcomes at the product stage should enable them to embark on a new teaching/learning stage, which is the writing of their research reports within the allocated time. The alignment in this model derives from students’ background knowledge and abilities, and the teaching context (objectives an institutional procedures), which in turn will determine the level of cognitive processes that students are required to engage in (recognising, relating, applying, generating, and reflecting), and the result will be the learning outcomes (students being able to complete their research proposals and/or research reports). However, this does not seem to be happening at TTI nr 200. For example, the students’ prior knowledge and motivation when they join TTI nr 200 and the type and degree of difficulty of classroom tasks they are exposed to during the four years of coursework do not seem to prepare them for the final assessment, which is writing the research proposal, followed by the writing of the research report; moreover, there is a tendency for students to adopt surface approaches to learning in detriment to deep approaches. The intended learning outcomes should be translated into the academic level achieved by the students after four years of coursework as well as the ability to write the research proposal and the final research report. Taking Biggs and Tang’s (2007) example of driving instruction, the intention is that the learner learns how to drive a car, not receive lectures on car driving. Therefore, “car driving” is the verb phrase to take into account in all components of instruction (the intended learning outcomes, the teaching/learning activities and the assessment procedures). “The alignment is achieved by ensuring that the intended verb in the outcomes statement is present in the teaching/learning activity and in the assessment task” (Biggs and Tang 2007, 52). With regards to education, the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are always translated with a helpful verb (e.g. reflect, apply theory to) that guides the teacher to achieve the outcomes. The specification of these verbs helps clarify the kind of tasks to design, in Biggs and Tang’s words the type of teaching learning activities (TLAs) that students should be engaged in, and determine what students need to perform in the assessment tasks (ATs).

72

Chapter Four

As Biggs and Tang (2007) point out, in a teaching and learning system the teaching and assessment procedures need to be aligned to the learning objectives, and all the components should support each other to achieve a common goal. “As a system, if any component fails to corroborate, it is the whole work that gets jeopardised. Such a failure in the teaching and learning situations leads to poor teaching and surface learning” (Biggs and Tang 2007, 14). Surface approaches to learning are based on students’ strategies to get the task done with minimum effort, using low cognitive levels when higher level activities are required to perform the task properly. Examples of a surface approach to learning in an academic environment are: rote learning, listing points instead of addressing the argument, and quoting secondary sources instead of primary ones. When teaching and assessment methods are not aligned, surface learning is likely to occur. According to Biggs and Tang (2007, 23), the presence of the surface approach to learning is always a sign that something is “out of kilter” in our teaching or assessment methods. When students use surface approaches to learning they tend to focus on what Marton and Booth (1997) call “signs of learning.” They use isolated facts and pre-selected words, and items are treated independently of each other. This fact prevents students from seeing what those signs mean and storing knowledge in a structured way. As the proverb says, students cannot see the wood for the trees, and learning becomes a burden in their lives, something to avoid whenever possible. Anxiety, cynicism, and boredom are some the adjectives that Biggs and Tang (2007) use to describe students’ feelings. Biggs and Tang (2007, 9) provide a comprehensive account of the route that students have to follow towards engaging with higher-order cognitive activities that are compatible with developing academic reading and writing skills. It is worth mentioning at this point that the idea of aligning assessment tasks with the intended learning outcomes dates from many years ago and was very obvious. It is referred to as “criterion-referenced assessment” and translates the assessment procedures that anyone outside educational institutions does when teaching anything. However, educational institutions became more interested in determining the role of the assessment tasks in the teaching/learning process to see “who learnt better than whom” (Biggs and Tang 2007, 53). This was helpful in situations whereby people were trying to select others to occupy a specific job or post or allocate a scholarship to a number of people. For educational institutions, the aim of teaching is more than deciding who is learning better than whom; what educational institutions are looking for is better ways of teaching, to allow students to learn the content of the subjects at

Conceptual Framework

73

an acceptable level, aligning the learning activities with the assessment tasks to the learning outcomes. The theory in any given course is not only meant to be understood and learnt by students but mainly to change the way they see the world and their behaviour within and outside the learning community (Biggs and Tang 2007, 53). It is generally assumed that all “good teachers” have some implicit idea on how they want their students to change on the basis of their teaching methodology and techniques, and all other teaching instruments at their disposition that they use to make their teaching as effective as possible. Thus, whatever lecturers do in the classroom will be oriented towards achieving that change. To sum up, a constructively aligned teaching system systematises what teachers have to do—to state beforehand the intended learning outcomes, but with room for new outcomes to emerge, although they were not anticipated. After all, a constructively aligned system not only focuses on what is pre-determined, it also focuses on the unintended but desirable outcomes. The main difference between a constructively aligned system and other outcomes-based approaches lies in the fact that the connections between the intended learning outcomes (ILOs), the teaching/learning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks (ATs) are so intrinsically aligned that if one is missing it will create a gap in the system and change the intended outcomes. Biggs and Tang (2007, 53) postulate that in most of the outcomes-based models, the alignment exists only between the ILOs and the ATs, not additionally between the ILOs and the TLAs. The problem at TTI nr 200 seems to be more critical as, although the ILOs are well specified and seem to be clear, there is no clear connection between the ILOs and the TLAs and additionally to the ATs. Thus, there is no consistency throughout the system. The curriculum contains lists of content topics that are set up as desirable for students to learn, but those content topics are not translated in outcome statements for both teaching/learning activities, and the assessment tasks performed by the students. For example, the content topics in the curriculum for TTS in the academic writing subject are not taught and assessed in the same way, or towards the same goal. Therefore, the three elements do not support and relate to each other. For that reason, Biggs and Tang (2007) state that when the assessment procedures are not aligned to the intended or other desired learning outcomes, or when the teaching methods do not directly conduct or engage students in appropriate learning activities, students can easily “escape” by engaging in inappropriate learning activities that become a surface approach to learning. Constructive alignment is therefore, “a marriage between a constructivist understanding of the nature

74

Chapter Four

of learning and an aligned design for teaching that is designed to lock students into deep learning” (Biggs and Tang 2007, 55). With regard to the issue of an aligned system, the most important components within a teaching learning system are: the curriculum, the learning or instructional objectives, and the assessment procedures.

4.2.1 The curriculum The term curriculum is a very broad concept, and in this study it refers to the whole content that students acquire in schools. The history of curriculum design in language teaching started with the notion of syllabus design, which is one aspect of curriculum development but is not a synonym of curriculum development. A syllabus is a specification of the content of a course of instruction and lists what will be taught and tested over a period of time, generally for an academic year (Hyland 2001). To this end, a syllabus for a writing course might specify the kinds of writing skills that will be taught and practised during the course, the different stages of writing, the processes to be practised, such as quoting, paraphrasing, referencing, and editing, and the order in which they will appear in the course. Syllabus design consists of the process of developing the syllabus, while curriculum design looks at a more “comprehensive process” (Hyland 2001). Curriculum design includes processes that are used to determine the students’ needs and develop aims and objectives for a programme to address those needs. It also determines the type of syllabus to be used, the course structure and content, the teaching methods and materials, and evaluates the results of the whole process. To paraphrase White et al. (1991), a curriculum covers not only the content but also the goals of the teaching programme as well as the activities that will form part of the learning experiences and practices of a given group of students. To show the dimensions of the term “curriculum,” Rodgers (1989, 26) comments that: “Curriculum is all those activities in which [students] engage under the auspices of the school. This includes not only what [students] learn, but how they learn it, how teachers help them learn, using what supporting materials, styles and methods of assessment and in what kind of facilities” (Rodgers 1989). A curriculum is concerned with objectives, methods and content, and the matching up of outcomes with objectives involves evaluation that will help determine whether the teaching learning system is aligned or not. White et al. (1991, 169) present a diagram that expresses the inter-relation

Conceptual Framework

75

between the content, objectives, methods, and evaluation in a given educational context. Fig.4.2. A curriculum model

Objectives

Content

Evaluation

Methods Source: White et al. (1991, 169).

The specification of the learning objectives followed by a plan on how to achieve them using the human and material resources available constitute key aspects in evaluating a curriculum. The outcomes are evaluated by comparing the achievements with the pre-established objectives. In the specific context of this study, the curriculum model will be based on the content to be taught throughout the four years of coursework with special regards to the core course subject areas (Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology I and II), the kind of methodology in use in order to transmit the knowledge to students, and the main objectives for teaching that content; all those elements together will lead to a stage of evaluation of the product (TTS at the end of the course) given their competence to produce the research reports on time. As previously stated, curriculum development in language teaching dates back to the 1960s; however, issues related to syllabus design

76

Chapter Four

emerged earlier. Most of the changes that have been taking place in the process of teaching learning have been based on teaching methodology. The method concept in teaching—the notion of a systematic set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning— is a powerful one and the quest for better methods has been a preoccupation for many teachers and applied linguists since the beginning of the twentieth century. (Hyland 2001, 3)

Generally speaking, the curriculum at TTI nr 200 has always been attached to course books from the first year to the fourth. The content of the books and its order act as the syllabuses, and constitute the best representations of what should be going on in the classroom. However, despite the fact that some of the books have departed from the traditional curriculum, much of the teaching remains of the transmission model type. Essentially, the role of the lecturers falls between transmitting the knowledge and explaining the tasks prescribed in the texts. Concurrently, TTS at TTI nr 200 are more likely to reproduce the knowledge, adopting surface approaches to learning. There is much pressure on covering the items listed in the book for accountability reasons, instead of students understanding and interpreting what they have learnt. According to Ramsden (1992, 38), “learning is a function of both teaching and the context in which it occurs. It is not a matter of learners engaging with a body of knowledge to which they have been introduced, but how this is interpreted by them and the actions they take as a result of these interpretations.” While the use of course books can, on the one hand, provide lecturers and students with an important tool for teaching and learning, it can on the other be alienating as lecturers might end up teaching the book instead of what is actually perceived to be the learners’ needs. Moreover, “language [teaching] and learning is too complex to be catered for by a pre-packaged set of decisions embodied in teaching materials” (Alwright 1988, 19). From that perspective, it is obvious that students studying from course books throughout the curriculum would have hardly any opportunity to experiment with the more demanding but potentially creative nature of academic tasks. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the TTS at TTI nr 200 that go through this type of instruction fail to accomplish the task when they come to experience the ambiguities and complexities involved in producing the end-of-course research report.

Conceptual Framework

77

4.2.2 Learning objectives Felder and Silverman (2002) regard learning or instructional objectives as statements of specific observable actions or behaviours that students should be able to demonstrate as evidence of having accomplished the objectives. They argue that: Well-formulated instructional objectives are more than just an advance warning for your system to students. They can help you to prepare lecture and assignment schedules and to spot course material that the students can do little with but memorise and repeat. They also facilitate construction of in-class … [and] out-of-class [activities].” (Ibid., 78)

Most of these instructional objectives—rather than being clear, detailed statements of observable actions that students are supposed to act on, i.e. objectives that give them guidance in reading, and expressing themselves in writing, in a variety of genres—will more likely be what they (lecturers) have to do about writing. For instance, it would be important to know which abilities or what level of thinking (e.g. comparing, analysing, synthesising, and evaluating) students are required to engage for each task or year of the course. Detailed instructional objectives can help stratify the goals within each course and among other courses. These in turn can help to avoid both the unwanted duplication of materials and gaps in the curriculum, as well as assist lecturers of subsequent courses in being aware of what their students should have learnt previously. However, Biggs and Tang (2007) call our attention to the need to differentiate between “learning objectives” (LO) and “intended learning outcomes” (ILOs). To them, the term “intended learning outcomes” is more complete/ broad than “learning objectives,” because it “emphasises more than ‘objective’ does that we are referring to what the student has to learn rather than what the teacher has to teach” (2007, 70). Intended learning outcomes refer to what students are able to perform after the teaching that they could not perform before it; it also has to do with what students can do after teaching, even though it was not intended in the outcomes. Therefore, rather than looking at the behavioural objectives only, ILOs are seen from the students’ perspectives of the skills and abilities acquired from the learning process. They go further to argue that verbs such as “to comprehend,” “to be aware of,” and “to understand” are not useful, as they do not translate the level of performance required to meet the demands of ILOs. Even the verb “to demonstrate” does not convey the level of students’ performance within the ILOs’ perspective, as

78

Chapter Four

it leaves some questions unanswered. With ILOs we need to make a statement about what students’ learning would look like after they have learnt (“expectancy-value theory”) the acceptable learning outcomes; defining the outcome of learning is important (Biggs and Tang 2007). Table 4.1 below shows the complexity of the ILOs. The more ILOs a programme has, the more difficult it will be to align them with teaching/learning activities and assessment tasks. Unlike the learning objectives, the ILOs go beyond the stage of asking students to memorise and reproduce the information; they ask students to explain, interpret, analyse, justify, and make their own judgements about the information learnt. Table 4.1.From learning objectives to intended learning outcomes Learning objectives (1) To provide an understanding of the three stages in writing (2) To develop an analytical understanding of the way texts are structured (3) To make students aware of the danger of plagiarism (4) To find authors’ arguments in a text

Intended learning outcomes (1) To describe the basic stages that writers go through in order to produce a text (2) Using different samples of texts that students have to identify the structure of (3) To identify and explain instances of plagiarism in a text (4) To find and provide counterarguments to those of the writer

Source: Biggs andTang (2007, 71).

In most of the teaching situations, students are required to learn the subject matter content and express that knowledge in the written tasks designed by the lecturers. In doing so, lecturers are just checking how well students have learnt the content of a subject rather than how well they can apply that content to different situations (i.e. problem solving). As a result, lecturers are likely to assess their students at the level of the teaching/learning objectives using “surface approaches” to teaching/learning, but not with the ILOs in mind, i.e. “deep approaches to teaching/learning.” Despite the fact that there has been some preoccupation with placing the learning goals in a hierarchical order, there is some evidence of misplacement at TTI nr 200. For example, what has been listed as the second objective in the fourth year (to help students familiarise themselves

Conceptual Framework

79

with the resource centre in order to access the required information) has to come in the first year. Should this misplacement and others actually occur in practice, it may influence the intended learning outcomes of the entire process. Thus, courses in general and a degree programme such as the Teacher Training Programme at TTI nr 200, need to be well determined in terms of the intended learning outcomes and be taught and assessed in their own right using higher levels of understanding, such as reflection, problem solving, making generalisations, and justifying. The problem seems to be based on a lack of alignment between intended learning outcomes and the means of teaching and assessing students. Students in general, and TTS in particular, need to be exposed to new teaching situations of deep approaches to learning, and face new problems and interact with them along the teaching/learning process, reflectively and thoughtfully. Skills such as predicting, reflecting, diagnosing, explaining, and solving real-life problems need to be activated, and lecturers at higher levels of schooling ought to be aware of this. Building such performances of understanding into the ILOs, aligning teaching to them and designing assessment tasks that confirm that students can or cannot carry out those performances are good way to start (Biggs and Tang 2007, 73). It is therefore the aim of this study to come up with some useful suggestions to be implemented in the teacher training courses at TTI nr 200 with regard to the alignment of the ILOs, the teaching methodology, and the assessment procedures in use at the moment, as well as to find ways to raise lecturers’ awareness for the need to be more practical and reflective in their ways of teaching.

4.2.3 Assessment procedures Once a curriculum is in place, and before we start looking at the assessment procedures as they were, a number of important questions emerge: ™ Is the curriculum achieving its goals? ™ What is happening in the classrooms? ™ What kind of teaching methods are being used? Curriculum evaluation is concerned with answering questions such as the above mentioned, and it focuses on collecting information about different aspects of a language program so as to understand how the programme works and how productive it is, leading to a stage of decision making. Issues such as whether the programme is responding to the learners’ needs,

80

Chapter Four

if further teacher training is needed for those who are involved in the process and the overall students’ outcomes are also addressed. Hyland (2001, 287) enumerates the main aspects to consider in evaluating a curriculum. The most important are: ™ The syllabus and program content—for example, how relevant and engaging, and how easy or difficult, it is, along with how successful tests and assessment procedures were ™ Classroom processes—to provide insights about the extent to which a programme is being implemented appropriately ™ Materials of instruction—to provide insights about whether specific materials are aiding student learning ™ The teachers—for example, how they conducted their teaching, what their perceptions were of the program, and what they taught ™ The students—for example, what they learnt from the programme, their perceptions of it, and how they participated in it ™ Learner motivation—to provide insights about the effectiveness of the teachers in aiding students to achieve the goals and objectives of the programme ™ The institution—for example, what administrative support was provided, what resources were used, and what communication networks were employed ™ Learning environment—to provide insights about the extent to which students are provided with a responsive environment in terms of their educational needs ™ Staff development—to provide insights about the extent to which the school system provides the staff with opportunities to increase their effectiveness ™ Decision-making—to provide insights about how well the school staff—principals, teachers, and others—make decisions that result in learner benefits (Hyland 2001, 287). Although it is not the aim of this study to evaluate the curriculum, it is assumed that an understanding between curriculum evaluation and course assessment is needed in order to place the reader in the heart of this discussion. Before I look at the assessment procedures used at TTI nr 200, it would perhaps be better to distinguish between the two terms: evaluation and assessment. The most confusing words often discussed by authors are evaluation and assessment, and they are occasionally used interchangeably. In fact, it is difficult to discern the difference between them, as different authors talk

Conceptual Framework

81

about them in a synonymous way. While Hyland and Hyland (2003, 30), for instance, describe evaluation as being: “The systematic gathering of information for purposes of decision making,” and state that: “The evaluation of individuals involves decisions about entrance to programmes, placement, progress and achievement,” Ur (1991, 33) presents assessment as being used, “to decide whether he or she (testee) is suitable for a certain class.” On the other hand, Hyland and Hyland (2003, 30) assert that: “In language teaching programmes, evaluation is related to decisions to be made about the quality of the programme itself, and decisions about individuals in the programmes,” at the same time stating that: “Assessment is the measurement of the ability of a person or the quality or success of a teaching course, etc.” (1992, 23). Despite the fact that most definitions of evaluation and assessment overlap, it is possible to make a clear and accurate distinction between these terms. It can be asserted that assessment has to do with the students through the learning process; that is, how well they are doing, how far they are, etc. Evaluation has to do with checking the materials and programmes used to make the learning process happen. In other words, assessment corresponds to “learner performance,” and evaluation corresponds to, “innovation or change in, for example, schools organization or a course syllabus” (Ur 1991, 244). Assessment is a multi-faceted concept that links all the elements in a teaching-learning process. “It is the means by which students’ language learning development and achievements are monitored over time” (Hedge 2000, 376). Assessment can be applied for different purposes. From the pedagogical purposes, “formative assessment” is usually applied to help teachers gain information about the students’ progress for further classroom work and improvement. The second purpose of assessment is to measure students’ levels of achievement in a specific subject, and this is “summative assessment.” Summative assessment has to fit into the administrative requirements of an institution, for example a school curriculum in which all the subjects have to be assessed. Sometimes the results from schools and institutions may be compared at local, national or international levels to set up standards. Hedge (2000) presents a table which summarises some of the distinguishing features of formative and summative assessment (see Table 4.2 below). It should be emphasised that, contrary to summative assessment, formative assessment is mainly focused on the learning process and is concerned with the students’ progress as it happens and identifying ways of helping them along the process. For the summative assessment, the main focus is on the results of learning, e.g. identifying the overall levels

82

Chapter Four

of students’ achievement and measuring what they do against them. It can therefore be inferred that while formative assessment has to do with students’ performance along the learning process, evaluation has to do with the curriculum implementation and results, development of school organisation, course syllabus and materials. What follows is a surface description of what seems to be happening in terms of the type of assessment procedures used at TTI nr 200. Table 4.2. Differences between formative and summative assessment Formative assessment x Is prepared and carried out by the class teacher as a routine part of teaching and learning x Is specifically related to what has been taught, i.e. content is in harmony with what has been taught x The information from the assessment is used diagnostically; it is focused on the individual learner’s specific strengths and weaknesses, needs, etc.

Summative assessment x It is necessarily prepared and carried out by the class teacher x It does not necessarily relate immediately to what has been taught x The judgement about a learner’s performance is likely to feed into record keeping and be used for administrative purposes, e.g. checking standards and targets x It is frequently externally imposed by an institution or a ministry of education, for example

Source: Hedge (2000).

The aspects listed above helped me reflect on the teacher training system of trainees in the English speciality and come to conclusions about what is happening and how it can be improved. At TTI nr 200, students are expected to sit for written tests and are seldom asked to write reports and/or long essays, though these constitute the end-of-course examination in each subject. These tests are generally short-form tests that focus on particular aspects of a topic rather than the overall issue. It can thus be said that writing is mostly seen as a tool for testing rather than a tool for learning, and for experimenting with ideas for communicating one’s experiences. However, students do have expectations about the work they do in the classroom. The way they are supposed to be assessed will then influence the choice of learning strategies they consider to best suit their learning

Conceptual Framework

83

context. We therefore need to know, “what approaches to learning students are adopting, what students’ expectations are of different assessment tasks and what they choose to do and what they choose not to do in response to the different assessment regimes which are introduced” (Knight 1995, 39). At this point, it is perhaps useful to recall Cummins’s distinction (1996) between conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency. The former aspects are supported by contextual or interpersonal clues that are less cognitively demanding, while the latter aspects are decontextualised (absence of interpersonal or contextual clues) in that the meaning being communicated is dependent solely on linguistic clues and are therefore more cognitively demanding. Such a distinction conforms to that proposed between basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins 1996). To this end, a question that could be asked is: What aspects of language proficiency are assessed in short-form tests as opposed to essay writing, such as the end-of-course research reports? Most of the short-form tests are generally contextualised exercises. These types of tests, it is believed, require relatively less cognitive effort for students to answer them. If this is the case, it could be possible for students to progress to the fourth year without actually developing the academic aspects of language proficiency. The real challenge comes at the end of the four years of coursework when students, who have always been assessed through short tests, are asked to write the research report. Faced with the real task of identifying a problem, designing the research proposal, reading, gathering information, analysing it and writing up the whole research report, most students, as already stated, just cannot do it. It could then be claimed that this type of ongoing assessment does not build up student writing competence and confidence, making them able to write the final research project successfully. Instead, it could be said that it promotes surface learning strategies such as memorisation and reproduction, which aim to gather marks rather than help students master the skills (Biggs 1999). A student studying in a deep teaching/learning environment will certainly employ some of these strategies depending on the learning moment. However, on their own these strategies fail to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the task, which is likely to make it difficult for students to apply what they have learnt in real-life situations. Learning by doing, which has become the lecturers’ common-sense principle, particularly in writing, over the last few decades, has now attracted attention and changed the assessment direction. As Kutz, Groden, and Zamel (1996, 83) put it: “The more students write as part of their

84

Chapter Four

learning and working with others, the more effectively they will engage in the process of discovery, struggle, and intellectual growth and the more they will be able to articulate what they take out of this process.” The traditional assessment practices at TTI nr 200 have led students to a dependency on the lecturers in making decisions about what they know, preventing them from judging for themselves. Therefore, we need to find ways of giving students opportunities to assess themselves and learn from their own and their colleagues’ mistakes. We need to make a move from “norm referenced” to “criterion referenced” assessment (Knight 1995). As Knight (1995, 39) maintains: “Students must leave University equipped to engage in self-assessment throughout their professional lives. They need to be able to make reliable judgements about what they do and do not know and what they can and cannot do.”Students need to be exposed to learning activities that train them to become more autonomous and independent learners, and this is only possible if lecturers provide them with a lot of practice and feedback. The main goal of assessment should therefore be to develop better assessment practices in order to answer questions such as: To what extent is what we thought to be effective really effective?, and is what we intended to happen is really happening? The problem is that the credibility of our work depends to a large extent on the adequacy of the assessment procedures we have in place. The challenge is therefore to ensure that teaching does not focus only on lower cognitive levels but also on the higher cognitive levels of thinking. These skills must be assessed and not just written in document papers. We need to start practising “good assessment,” which in Knight’s (1995, 42) words, “is that which both closely reflects desired learning outcomes and on which the process of assessment has a directly beneficial influence on the learning process.” Knight calls our attention to the fact that: Assessment is a critical focus of attention in any programme for University teachers, not simply because of the considerable time and effort it demands, but also because of the dilemmas it posits in trying to reconcile the tension between the summative purposes of assessment-for-grading and formative purposes of assessment-for-learning. (Knight 1995, 126)

Biggs and Tang (2007, 169) state that while teachers and lecturers see the intended learning outcomes as comprising the central pillar of an aligned teaching system, students do not. From the students’ point of view, assessment defines what the curriculum is about and they will only learn what they think they will be tested on. Thus, “assessment may determine what and how students learn more than the curriculum does” (Elton 1987,

Conceptual Framework

85

92). Therefore, as with the ILOs, assessment needs to be aligned with the content of the lessons and the lecturers’ methodology; in other words, with what students should be learning and the activities they are engaged in. Fig. 4.3 below illustrates the way assessment should be aligned to the learning activities. Fig.4.3. Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on assessment

Perspectives Teachers’ Intended outcomes

Assessment Teaching activities

Assessment

Students’ Assessment

Learning activities

Outcomes

Source: Biggs and Tang (2007, 169). As shown above, the intended outcomes need to be reflected in the assessment activities, as indicated by the arrows. The teaching activities of the teacher/lecturer and the learning activities of the students are directed to the same goal—the desired outcomes. However, while for the teacher/lecturer the summative assessment is at the end of the teaching, for the students it is at the beginning. Thus, when students prepare themselves for the assessment they will be learning the intended outcomes. This sounds like quite a straightforward process, but it is not so easy to put into practice. In the context of TTI nr 200, problems arise due to lecturers’ different occupations in different institutions that mean they have little time to correct students’ work. Finding time for supervision is another serious problem. As a result, lecturers are not available most of the time for the guidance and orientation of students’ research and, from the institutional side, if not properly supervised the marking of the assessed work will not readily satisfy the quality assurance and other accountability requirements. Therefore, meetings should be set up to check the development of both the teaching and the supervisory processes. Finally, it has to be said that not without reason do lecturers adopt transmission approaches to teaching and short-form testing procedures based on the old learning objectives. The ever-increasing sizes of classes and the shortage of qualified lecturers in some courses force them to teach more than one subject, and these give rise to them employing less demanding strategies to make their lives easier.

86

Chapter Four

Feedback provision. As already stated, this study intends to show not only the important writing issues relating to our students but aims particularly to raise content subject lecturers’ awareness of the need to teach writing as a socially contextualised act by offering students more opportunities to express themselves and react critically to the materials they read. Therefore, lecturers’ goals should be to teach students appropriate writing strategies that would enable them to analyse assignments, gather materials and extract the relevant information from the books they read. Writing academically is a difficult skill to master, and it develops slowly. Its development requires constant practice, response and reinforcement. Informal responses, summaries, and personal experience essays, especially if they lack strong analytical components, do not alone adequately prepare students for research proposal and report writing. Another important aspect regarding students’ academic skill attainment and development is the provision of feedback. “Providing feedback is often seen as one of the ESL writing lecturers’ most important tasks, offering the kind of individualised attention that is otherwise rarely impossible under normal classroom conditions” (Hyland 2001, 177). In the classrooms in general, students usually write for an intended audience (lecturers or peers) and feedback is expected from them, especially from the lecturers. Providing feedback is a useful classroom technique as it helps students identify their main weaknesses and strengths in producing written texts. In other words, this kind of “formative feedback” aims at consolidating the materials and improving the time of texts produced, leading to students’ own development and confidence in writing. The role of feedback in the classroom is always to help students move from the stage of skill attainment to a level of skill use. Writing is seen as a process whereby students first learn how to construct texts based on specific genres, after which they move to a further stage of producing different text genres independently of the teacher. Feedback emphasises a process of learning to write through trial and error until the expected level is achieved; students go through different stages of writing and rewriting, where the text is seen not as a final product on its own but as a starting point for other texts. Issues such as context, purpose, and audience are taken into account not only in the process of writing but also at the feedback stage. Feedback practices can vary from classroom to classroom and from subject to subject, lecturer to lecturer, but in the end they will primarily depend on the type of tasks set up and the effect they are likely to produce on students. Generally speaking, although feedback on written work may contribute to students’ development of writing skills, all will

Conceptual Framework

87

depend on who should provide that feedback, the form it should take, and whether it should concentrate on form or ideas. Hyland presents three types of feedback: ™ Teacher-written feedback ™ Teacher-student conferencing ™ Peer feedback. Teacher/lecturer written feedback has been the central role of the teacher/lecturer in the majority of our classrooms, and many students see it as a crucial aspect in their development as writers. There is a great deal of research questioning the effectiveness of lecturers’ written feedback as a way of improving students’ writing skills. Researchers on first-language learning are of the opinion that much written feedback is of poor quality and is frequently misinterpreted by students (Kroll 2001; Hyland 2000), and is most of the time authoritarian (Hedge 2000). Zamel (1985) believes that the picture is similar to ESL contexts: ESL writing teachers misread students’ texts, are inconsistent in their reactions, make arbitrary corrections, write contradictory comments, provide vague prescriptions, impose abstract rules … and rarely make contentspecific comments or offer strategies for revising the texts… the teachers overwhelmingly view themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers.

Despite the negative findings, it is generally believed that feedback on early students’ drafts can lead to development in subsequent drafts (Kroll 2001), and this is also true in ESL contexts (Hyland and Hyland 2003). Research suggests that ESL students place great value on the lecturers’ written feedback (Hyland and Hyland 2003), and most place more value on the grammar corrections than on content (Leki 2007). For students at TTI nr 200, a major concern has been on the error-free corrections that some lecturers give them. In fact, from some of the feedback sections observed in the classroom, some lecturers just allocate marks to the answers without providing any comments. However, Hyland (2000) argues that although students try to use most of the feedback provided its effect on student writing still needs to be understood and studied extensively. In many cases, students often revise their texts with no real understanding of what to do and how to do things. Thus, although revisions may contribute to an improvement in the quality of the text to be produced, they may not always contribute to future writing development (Hyland 2000).

88

Chapter Four The problem seems to reside in the fact that individual students have their own expectations from the feedback and they make different use of it. Some students want praise, others see it as condescending; some want a response to their ideas, others demand to have all their errors marked; some use teachers’ comments effectively, others ignore it altogether …. (Ibid., 332)

Whatever perceptions and expectations students make, it will be difficult for teachers to accommodate all these perceptions and expectations. Perhaps a dialogue with individual students would help minimise the problem. It should be emphasised that it is not the aim of this study to go deep into analysing the types and forms of writing lecturers’ feedback. What I want to emphasise is the importance of feedback, whether written or oral, and the possible need for lecturers to change their ways of teaching and assessing students’ writing.

4.3 Ways of Giving Feedback Feedback can be given in writing or face-to-face meetings. Among the different ways of giving feedback, lecturer-student conferencing has many advantages in relation to written feedback—lecturers and students can negotiate the meaning of the text trough immediate response, resolve ambiguities, and help the teacher identify the students’ educational and writing needs. It also helps to save time in comparison with the time spent in marking work. For students, writing conferences not only assist them with auditory learning styles, but also give them a clearer idea of their strengths and weaknesses, help them develop their autonomy, allow them to raise questions on their written feedback, and help them construct a revision plan (Hyland 2000; Riley 1997). There are, however, both advantages and disadvantages in using teacher-student conferences. Unlike in written feedback, in lecturer-student conferencing students receive more focused and useful comments (Zamel 1985), and students are more participative and free to ask questions and for clarification on issues they may not understand. Some of the disadvantages might be that they are time consuming and require good interactional skills for both teachers and students. Some researchers have expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of this type of feedback and argued that some students might lack experience, interactive abilities, or aural comprehension skills to understand teachers’ explanations. Another factor that might prevent students from learning and developing their writing skills is that most of the time they do not make the most of this practice, especially ESL and EFL students. “Some learners,

Conceptual Framework

89

have cultural inhibitions about engaging informally with authority figures, let alone questioning them …” (Goldstein and Conrad 1990). As a result, students tend to passively accept and incorporate the lecturers’ suggestions into their work without questioning or thinking about them. Thus, it can be assumed that instead of providing opportunities for students to develop their writing skills and genre awareness, face-to-face conferencing can lead to surface approaches to learning and undermine progress. Therefore, as in any teaching situation, this technique can lead to success or failure and therefore requires careful planning and preparation. Peer feedback. Research that deals withL2 feedback is quite scarce, and “its benefits have been hard to confirm empirically” in those contexts. Peer feedback consists of students getting feedback from their peers. This technique was first applied to L1 learners and has become an important alternative to teacher and lecturer-based forms of feedback in some ESL contexts. The main objective for peer feedback is to promote learning among students and improve the skills of drafting and redrafting texts. Although lecturers have been more positive about this type of interaction, students tend to be sceptical about it and prefer teacher/lecturer/student interaction. One of the advantages of using peer feedback is that writing and learning are social processes, and collaborative peer feedback helps students engage in a community of learning where they respond to each other’s work, creating an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Hyland 2000). In addition, students also acquire the skills of revision they need to critically analyse their work and that of their peers, as well as the ability to create a sense of audience and of what needs to be improved to meet its demands. However, as the students at TTI nr 200 are not yet trained, they may focus their revision at sentence level rather than on ideas and organisation. In addition, their comments might be vague and unhelpful, or even too critical and sarcastic (Leki 2007). Hyland (2000, 329) presents the main advantages and disadvantages of peer feedback. See Table 4.3 below.

90

Chapter Four

Table 4.3. Potential pros and cons of peer feedback Advantages x Active learner participation x Authentic communicative context x Non-judgemental environment x Alternative and authentic audience x Writers gain understanding of readers’ needs x Reduced apprehension about writing x Development of critical reading skills x Reduces teachers’ workload

Disadvantages x Tendency to focus on surface forms x Potential for overly critical comments x Cultural reluctance to criticise and judge x Students unconvinced of comments’ value x Weaknesses of readers’ value x Students may not use feedback in revisions x Students may prefer teacher feedback

It can be inferred from the table that for TTS at TTI nr 200, peer feedback can be a strong source of learning to read and write in the foreign language, but much of the work will still be on the lecturers’ side, especially in the first stages. Students need support and training until they become “good readers, good analysts and good commentators” (Leki 2007). Once again, it should be emphasised that it is not the aim of this study to look at feedback practices profoundly—its aim is to raise lecturers’ awareness of the important role feedback plays within the teaching/learning process. What is emerging from the discussion so far is that it is not only feedback that matters; apart from designing authentic and relevant writing tasks that would gradually engage students in more and more complex tasks, lecturers should also encourage students to react to the situations they find difficult to handle. This can be translated by Biggs and Tang’s (2007, 31) phrase “effective teaching,” that “requires that we eliminate those aspects of our teaching that encourage surface approaches to learning and that we set the stage properly so that students can more readily use deep approaches to learning.” The next section discusses the deep and surface approaches to teaching and learning by Biggs and Tang (2007).

Conceptual Framework

91

4.4 Deep and Surface Approaches to Teaching and Learning and the Students’ Level of Engagement In chapter three we discussed deep and surface approaches to teaching and learning in general. At this stage, more emphasis is put on the teaching at TTI nr 200 in mind, therefore moving closer to what is happening in the classrooms. Biggs and Tang (2007, 4) provide a comprehensive account of the route that students have to follow towards engaging with higher-order cognitive activities compatible with developing the academic reading and writing skills needed for writing a research report. Fig.4.4 below illustrates the students’ orientation and level of engagement in the different learning activities. Fig. 4.4. Students’ orientation, teaching method and level of engagement

Source: Biggs andTang (1999).

Biggs and Tang (2007) suggest that problem-based learning is an active method of teaching that requires students to question, speculate, and generate solutions, so that “surface learning students” can become or adopt “deep approaches” to learning, and the gap between the two can be narrowed. Students at the academic level of thinking and doing things will use more complex thinking verbs, such as explaining, relating, applying and theorising, and at the non-academic level they will perform tasks such as note-taking and memorising, reproducing knowledge in the same way

92

Chapter Four

they acquired it. “Teaching is not a matter of transmitting [knowledge] but engaging students in active learning, building their knowledge in terms of what they already understand” and can do on their own (Biggs and Tang 2007, 21). It should be the aim of the teachers to narrow the gap between the two levels of student engagement so that those who are applying surface approaches to learning can move into deep approaches. However, for that to be possible the teaching and learning activities should be aligned to the intended learning outcomes as previously stated. Biggs and Tangs (2007, 11) posit that: “Good teaching is getting most students to use the level of cognitive processes needed to achieve the intended outcomes that the more academic students use spontaneously.” In other words, good teaching seeks to keep academic-level students at the same level, and move non-academic students to the academic level. This is the challenge we seem to be facing at TTI nr 200. In order for lecturers to minimise/reduce this problem, appropriate teaching is needed and three factors can contribute to the success or failure within the process, depending on the type of methodology, the activities set up, the assessment procedures, and the intended learning outcomes. The three factors are: ™ The students’ levels of engagement in relation to the level of learning activity required to achieve the intended learning outcomes in relation to a particular content and context (ranging from describing to theorising, such as between the dashed lines in Fig. 4.4 above). ™ The degree of learning-related activity that a teaching method is likely to stimulate. ™ The academic orientation of the students. (Biggs and Tang 2007, 9) When students use surface approaches to learning they tend to store knowledge in a structured way and recall it in the same way. They do not connect the new knowledge to the existing knowledge. Conversely, when they engage in deep learning they move from “context-embedded” to “context-reduced” situations and more “cognitively-demanding” tasks, such as writing a research report (Cummins 1996). Deep approaches to learning encourage the need to know, and instil curiosity based on students’ background knowledge. Biggs and Tang (2007, 27) provide a figure in which the desired learning outcomes and actual level of students’ engagement can be translated and discussed.

Conceptual Framework

93

Fig.4. 5. Desired and actual levels of engagement approaches to learning and enhancing teaching Cognitive level of learning activities Stated in intended learning outcomes Reflect Apply: far problems Hypothesise Relate to principle Apply: near problems Explain Argue Relate Comprehend: main ideas Describe Paraphrase Comprehend sentence Identity, name Memorise

Used in teaching

Deep surface Teaching challenge

Reflect Apply: far problems Hypothesise Relate to principle Apply: near problems Explain Argue Relate Comprehend: main ideas Describe Paraphrase Comprehend sentence Identity, name Memorise

Higher level activities missing

Supply activities to support the missing

Discourage inappropriate lower verbs

Source: Biggs andTang (2007).

In order to achieve most of the intended learning outcomes, a range of activities can be designed using verbs ranging from low to high cognitive levels. These verbs need to be activated and the highest verbs should be reflecting and theorising, and the lowest memorising and identifying. When using surface approaches to learning, students handle tasks (low and high) with low-level verbs. When using deep approaches to learning, students use the full range of desired learning activities; they learn terminology and memorise formulae, but move from there to applying these formulae to new examples and situations. The lecturer’s job is therefore to prevent shortfalls from happening, and if they do happen to correct them appropriately and accordingly depending on the students’ level, the teaching context and the intended learning outcomes. Cummins (1996) posits that ways of conceptualising the nature of language proficiency and its relationship to other constructs have been discussed since ancient times. He also refers to misconceptions regarding the nature of language proficiency that are common amongst educators in North America, and which could be applied to the context of this study. Cummins further argues that students who have the ability to communicate fluently in a given language are often misconstrued as having reached all aspects of language proficiency. He proposes that a distinction should be

94

Chapter Four

made between conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency.

4.5 Cummins’s (1996) Differentiation between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) According to Cummins (1996), the distinction between conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency refers to the extent to which the meaning to be communicated relies on contextual and interpersonal cues rather than on linguistic factors solely. In essence, this distinction is about “contextualised” and “de-contextualised” language. He posits that, in any learning situation, students need to progress from less-demanding to moredemanding tasks. In Cummins’s words, students will progress from context-embedded and cognitively undemanding tasks (quadrant A) to context-reduced and cognitively-demanding ones (quadrant D). It should be emphasised that the division between quadrants is watertight and depending on the level being taught, a situation that is context-embedded and cognitively undemanding to one student might be context-reduced and cognitively-demanding to another. Also, a situation that is cognitively demanding to a student might in turn be cognitively undemanding after the student has learnt and understood it. It all depends on the students’ background knowledge, level of engagement, and understanding. Fig. 4.6 below shows Cummins’s (1996) four levels of cognitive development. The four extremes refer to the amount of support available, as well as the cognitive involvement required to accomplish a given task. While in context-embedded situations participants can actively negotiate the meaning by asking for clarification or by providing feedback, in contextreduced situations the meaning and the successful interpretation of the message depends exclusively on the language itself. An example of context-embedded situations is the use of language in the classroom where they are generally informal and typical of out-of-class communication. An example of context-reduced situations takes place when students are required to accomplish a task such as writing a book review or an essay. Students take relatively little time to develop conversational abilities (quadrant A, C) because of the embedded contexts that make these abilities less cognitively demanding. On the other hand, the mastery of academic aspects requires a high level of cognitive involvement because of a lack of interpersonal clues (quadrant B, D). Thus, in the process of learning students will move from quadrant A (context embedded and cognitively undemanding activities) to quadrant B

Conceptual Framework

95

(context embedded and cognitively demanding situations), and so on. The progress from one quadrant to another requires a cognitive challenge, and some support from the lecturers is also needed. If there is no cognitive challenge, students will not move from one quadrant to another. Fig.4.6. The four levels of cognitive development

Source: Cummins (1996, 57).

Cummins (1996, 62–3) reports that, on average, in order for immigrant students to attain the conversational skills for English language proficiency (context embedded and cognitively demanding tasks), no less than two years are required, whereas at least five years are needed for the same students to achieve reasonably good grades in academic teaching/learning contexts of English language proficiency (contextreduced and cognitively demanding tasks). If we assume that these students are living in an English-speaking country, and thus learning English within an English community of practice where it is the official language of communication among people in and outside the classroom, unless alternative measures are taken to help them accelerate the process of English language learning, practice and development, TTS will probably face more difficulties and take more time to attain the academic aspects of language proficiency. In other words, one would contend that perhaps TTS have problems in writing their research reports due to the lack of exposure to language

96

Chapter Four

outside the classroom, and to tasks that are content-reduced and highly cognitively demanding, such as writing long essays. Therefore, the type of activities that students are expected to perform in and outside the class, the level of lecturer support during the class, and the assessment procedures to be used should all contribute to equipping students with the necessary and appropriate tools for academic writing—tools that they will need for writing their research reports. Writing the research reports implies engaging students in academic literacy practices that, compared to the previous levels, are more demanding and complex. Lea and Street (2006) suggest three conceptual, overlapping models that would help lecturers and students achieve an acceptable level of performance in the academic literacy tasks.

4.6 Academic Literacy models Learning in Higher Education, for the students, involves adapting new ways of understanding, interpreting and organising knowledge. In Lea and Street’s words (2006, 158), it involves engaging students in academic literacy practices. From a holistic point of view, academic literacy encompasses the skills of reading, writing, listening, speaking, critical thinking, use of technology, and habits of mind that foster academic success (Lea and Street 2006), and TTS and lecturers should understand it as larger, more holistic and broader than just being a list of discrete skills. In this study, academic literacy practices are primarily characterised by the processes of reading, writing and thinking critically. These competencies should be learnt in the core course subject disciplines in high schools and institutions and should be obligations. Therefore, in order for students in general and TTS in particular to be prepared for writing academic papers and thinking critically, greater exposure to and instruction in academic literacy, especially with regards to the teaching of academic reading, writing and critical-thinking skills, are needed. Critical thinking generally refers to a set of cognitive habits and processes (Lea and Street 2006). Thus, critical thinkers are constantly engaged in probative questions, rigorous analysis, synthesis and the evaluation of ideas. Such thinking ability can and should be acquired through a joint effort between lecturers and students in a process of continuous instruction based on collaborative teaching, in this way acting as a gatekeeper to academic success in all disciplines. Critical thinking as a skill seems to be neglected by most of the lecturers at TTI nr 200. Quite often, lecturers do not engage students in tasks which are context-reduced and cognitively demanding, and that require identifying sources,

Conceptual Framework

97

describing facts and processes, comparing, contrasting, analysing, interpreting, and evaluating—abilities that require higher-order mental processes. This mainly results in surface approaches to teaching where students are asked to perform tasks that require lower-order cognitive challenges, such as memorising and describing. As a result, students are barely able to apply critical -thinking skills in their academic practices. It is widely believed that good writers are most likely careful readers, and that most academic writing is a response to reading. Lea and Street (2006) postulate that reading and writing within disciplines help students learn new subjects and develop their knowledge across disciplines. Students must therefore be taught to be active makers of meaning and learn the strategies all good readers employ in the process of reading; namely, to think critically, to argue, to compare, to own an idea, and to remember. Reading is a skill that stimulates imagination, analysis and inquiry, and thus requires time and reflection. It follows that students are expected to imitate the forms and strategies of the written texts they encounter in their assigned readings. Lea and Street (2006) argue that approaches to students’ academic writing and literacy practices should be conceptualised through the use of three conceptual overlapping models: “the study skills model, the academic socialisation model and the academic literacies model.” The study skills model focuses on the surface features (Biggs 1999) of subject learning, as well as the transfer of the knowledge from one context to another, similar to Cummins’s (1996) context-embedded and cognitively undemanding tasks, such as memorising and note-taking. The academic socialisation model is concerned with students’ acculturation into disciplinary and subject based discourses and genres. In this model it is expected that students will acquire new ways of talking, writing, thinking and using literacy that typify members of specific disciplinary or community areas. Students are expected to recognise, relate, and apply (Biggs 1999) the rules of the language within a specific community. In so doing, they will be moving from less context-embedded and undemanding tasks to more context-reduced and demanding tasks (Cummins 1996). The third model, academic literacies, is concerned with meaning-making, power, identity and authority, and it foregrounds the institutional nature of what counts as knowledge in a particular academic context. This model views the processes involved in acquiring effective and appropriate uses of

98

Chapter Four

literacy as more dynamic, complex and situated (Lea and Street 2006, 369). Thus, it requires the adoption of deep approaches to learning (Biggs 1999) and highly cognitively demanding tasks (Cummins 1996). Therefore, it is expected that lecturers at universities and higher educational institutions should assign writing tasks to get to know how students think, and help them engage critically and thoughtfully with course reading materials to encourage independent and critical thinking, and at the same time to check what students understand from the lectures. As previously stated, for the trainee teachers at TTI nr 200, English is a foreign language. At the same time, it is their language of specialisation, which means that they need academic English to perform their tasks successfully. Academic English involves dispositions and skills beyond those of conversational fluency. In other words, we cannot rely on students’ conversational skills to assume that those who are good at speaking are also good at writing. The classification of foreign language students’ English speaking fluency would imply the assessment of the four language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. However, this is not part of this study. Lea and Street’s (2006) concept of academic literacy is used in this study from the social dimension of academic reading and writing instruction as a way of finding the skills and attitudes that shape academic literacy within TTI nr 200’s teaching context. But how should students acquire academic literacy? In order to prepare for university courses, students need to be exposed to teaching and learning practices that are conducive to the attainment of the academic literacy skills they are going to find at that level. To this end it can be inferred that academic literacy is an obligation at higher-level institutions. Thus, greater coordination of literacy education among subject lecturers within high schools is needed. Just as the focus of teaching at TTI nr 200 is shifting from amassing knowledge to learning how to find and apply it, academic literacy can also be progressively introduced as an experiential learning process and gradually find its place within the teaching/learning process at TTI nr 200 and other institutions. In so doing, lecturers will be preparing students to read, write, think, and communicate not only in their learning community but also in the wider world for which they are being prepared to become educated citizens and problem-solving agents.

Conceptual Framework

99

4.7 Research Supervision The process of supervising graduate students has become the focus of a growing scholarship, and the relationship between students and supervisors has been seen as a complex and difficult task. As Delamont, Atkinson, and Parry (2000, 76) posit, supervising graduate students has to do with their expectations, expertise, efficient use of time, and empathy, which are all important ingredients of the student-supervisor relationship. What follows is an account of Dysthe’s models (2002) and Grant’s (2010) map for supervision.

4.7.1 The three models of supervision Dysthe (2002) investigated student’s and supervisor’s views of what constitutes good supervision, particularly in relation to the development of written texts, and she is of the opinion that, in the supervisory practices, supervisors represent the disciplinary culture and discourse community to which the student is being introduced and socialised. She identified three distinct models of supervision: ™ The teaching model ™ The partnership model, and ™ The apprenticeship model. The first model describes a traditional teacher-student relationship, “defined by an emphasis on asymmetry, status difference and dependency” (Dysthe 2002, 518). This model is often characterised by a joint focus of both student and supervisor in an effort to produce an acceptable research project. In the second model there is more conscious pedagogical concern of the supervisor, where they aim at fostering independent thinking. The last model is characterised by the student learning by observing and performing tasks under the guidance of the supervisor. The student research report is seen as a joint product. Dysthe (2002) notes that there seems to be a more conscious pedagogical philosophy behind this model, and the supervisor’s main role is to engage students in independent and critical thinking. The difference between the last model and the partnership one is that in the apprenticeship model the supervisor assumes a much clearer authority, recognised by both parties, with the student learning by observing and performing tasks in the company of the supervisor.

Chapter Four

100

Dysthe (2002, 536) points out that the conceptualisations of supervision as teaching, partnership and apprenticeship are not mutually exclusive, as elements of one might appear in another. She further posits that in most of the situations the three models overlap, though one of them is dominant depending on which phase the work is in. It is therefore clear that the role of supervision is both “complex and pivotal.” The mutual expectations of both parties are expected and the process requires continuous negotiation and management in order to achieve successful outcomes. Similarly, in looking at different models of supervision, Lee (2007) identified some conceptual models of research supervisory practices: ™ ™ ™ ™ ™

The functional model The critical-thinking model The relationship-development model The enculturation model The emancipation model.

In the functional model, the most important activity of the supervisor is rational movement through the process of engaging students in the tasks prescribed. This model is preferred by most of the lecturers at TTI nr 200. In the critical thinking model, the supervisor is meant to evaluate and challenge the student’s work. Supervisors at TTI nr 200 do this; however, the type of feedback they provide is not always corrective, and they are therefore seen as the “knowers” of the content and unquestionable. In the relationship development model, supervisors act on the basis of their accumulated experience with emotional intelligence and drawing on a range of strategies. The most important aspect in this model is the kind of relationship that exists between the supervisor and the student. The relationship between students and supervisors seems to be quite reasonable, but there are many situations whereby students complain and sometimes ask for a change of supervisor. For the enculturation model, the principal aim is to make the student a member of the academic community (Lee 2007, 685). Here, the supervisor is expected to provide some specific expertise to the student and act as a gatekeeper to many more learning resources, specialist opinions, and academic networks. It is this model that needs to be encouraged among supervisors and students at TTI nr 200. Finally, the main activity of the emancipation model is to support the student in the construction of knowledge whereby they are required to experience personal growth and reframe their knowledge. This model is to some extent similar to the previous one; however, it adds a new aspect of the students’ emancipation,

Conceptual Framework

101

leading to independent academic growth and reshaping the concepts, ideas and opinions about the existing knowledge. The mentoring process involves providing educational tasks and activities, including, “progressing the candidature, mentoring, coaching the research project and sponsoring student participation in academic practice (Lee 2007, 686). It can be inferred that the role of supervision is both pivotal and complex; mutual expectations from both students and supervisors characterise the process and need to be negotiated and managed along the process to achieve the intended supervision outcomes based on a good and respectful relationship. In order to see the complexity and fogginess inherent in the supervisory practices in depth, Grant (2010) presents a map that illustrates the process of supervision with regard to the relationship between supervisors and supervisees.

4.7.2 The four-layered relations of supervision Influenced by the advocates of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1995; Janks 1995; Kamler 1997), Grant (2010) elaborated a map for supervision that reflects the main aspects inherent in the process of supervision, which is explained in detail in the literature review chapter. In his view, the process of supervision has two dimensions: the pedagogical and the personal relationship between supervisors and students. He claims that supervision is a complex and unstable process, an interesting mixture of the personal, the rational, and the irrational, as well as the social and the institutional. Supervision can be a source of pleasure to some students and supervisors, but it can also constitute a source of risk and end up in sad memories (Grant 2010, 89). The map consists of different layers ranging from the simpler to the more complex, and describes the different positions and power relationships that supervisors and students play in that complex process. The first layer of the map is based on the traditional models of supervision where, as in the traditional models of teaching, the supervisor is seen as the “knowing authority” and the student does not know anything and therefore needs guidance from the supervisor, who has total power over them. The relationship has a unilateral quality and is based on the traditional model of supervision where the main goal the supervisor teaching the student something that they do not know (Grant 2010, 85). The traditional model of supervision places the supervisor at a higher position where they talk the most and make the most knowing comments. The student listens, agrees with what is being said, and answers the

102

Chapter Four

questions posed by the supervisor. Within this layer, the student is not expected to react against or disagree with what the supervisor says: “the student is an agreeable and co-operative listener and the supervisor is an authoritative knowing teacher” (Grant 2010, 93). The second layer lies below the first and adds the term “pedagogy,” looking at the pedagogical power relations. Rather than being dyadic, as in the teaching /learning process (between teacher and student), a third element is added—knowledge. Therefore, supervision not only consists of teaching the student skills but also how to become an independent researcher, an academic, and at a later stage a supervisor. Both supervisor and student have the capacity to act and interact with the production of the written piece of work. What is interesting in this layer is the role that the research report plays in the process of interaction between supervisor and student, as it definitely affects their actions and reactions. In other words, they need to work together to accomplish a general and common aim, which is the production of a document that is formal, original and academically acceptable. The third layer is based on the diverse social positions that both supervisors and students can occupy within and outside the institution. This layer is more concerned with the unpredictable relationships that may result from the process of mutual interaction, which can be affected by their identities and stereotypes. As Grant (2010, 96) maintains: “More in the intimacy of supervision, student and supervisor respond to each other as more than student and supervisor, as embodied beings who are seen as gendered, aged, ethnic, sexual and thought to be different, same, other.” These social power relations will have many effects on the supervision process and may result in derailments of communication, supervisors’ lack of availability, feedback delays.

Conceptual Framework F

103

Fig. 4.7. The four layers of supervision s pracctices

Source: Grantt (2010).

The relationnship betweenn “real” peop ple is a comp mplex process whereby individuals always try too impose theirr power on eaach other. Th hat power can take botth directions (supervisor/stu ( udent, or studdent/superviso or). When the student feels more poowerful than the supervisoor, it can lead d to other intricacies ssuch as a delaay in producing the researrch report, or,, in some extreme casees, a change of o supervisor. The fourth layer adds another a elemen nt—unconscioous desires th hat derive from the rellative intensityy and privacy y of supervisioon, where both parties make unconnscious responnses to each otther. Normallyy, the processs of supervisiion is charactterised by sup pervisors’ and studentss’ desires to please, to do well, w to challennge, to take risks, to be recognised aas intelligent,, etc., and can n result in strrange behavio ours from both. Desire annd identity maake supervision n opaque. Theyy are dimensio ons no code can regulate and no n literal readin ng of the body can guard agaiinst. In the delicaate zone betweeen encouragem ment and disciipline that mak kes up much of supervision, thhe workings off identity and ddesire provide fertile ground ffor misreadinggs, resentmentts, confusionss. Most of us u are unprepareed and ill-equuipped to deal with these reesponses when n they happen. (Grant 2010, 1001)

From Grantt’s (2010) maap, it can be inferred i that neither superrvisor nor student can escape the efffects of pow wer because thhey are impliccit within the process oof supervisionn, where both parties have tthe power to act a on and react to eachh other. This map will help p to understannd what is go oing on in the supervision practices at TTI nr 200.

104

Chapter Four

Sayed et al. (1998, 16) state that most supervision problems are predictable and preventable, and most have their origin in the supervisory relationship rather than the research topic. As Mouton (2001, 16) holds, if the relationship between a supervisor and a student is unsatisfactory and the student feels neglected or unattended, the student will feel insecure. As a result there will be delays and even dropouts. Perhaps this is the problem faced by final-year education students. Therefore, in order to successfully carry out supervision, one needs to take into consideration the three models of supervision (Dysthe 2002, 518) and the four layers inherent in the process (Grant 2010) to avoid falling into the negative aspects embedded in them (see Fig. 4.8 below, which shows the inter-connectivity between the four conceptual frameworks and research supervision). Fig. 4.8 shows the different stages that TTS need to go through during the process of teaching and learning, as well as the various types of learning activities that they need to engage in, in order to achieve higher cognitive levels of learning and reach an acceptable academic level. The stages include Presage factors, Process factors, and Product factors (Biggs 1999), and the activities range from memorising to theorising, from surface to deep approaches to learning (Biggs and Tang 2007), from context-embedded and cognitively undemanding to context-reduced and cognitively demanding tasks (Cummins 1996), and from study skills to academic socialisation and academic literacy skills (Lea and Street 2006). It is only by then that students can perform academic and research literacy tasks with relative independence. The inter-connection between the four theoretical frameworks in relation to students’ levels of engagement in the learning activities to be set up and the cognitive levels they go through as they progress in their learning is a complex and hard task, not only for students but also for the lecturers. The move from a lower level to a higher one always requires a cognitive challenge from the students, such as problem-solving or theorising and so forth. On the basis of what has been said, it can be postulated that academic writing is a complex process that involves a series of activities ranging from pre-writing, drafting, revision, re-drafting and editing. Like the moves from one level to another, these activities are recursive, not linear. In other words, instead of moving from one activity to another in discrete stages, writers return to them as many times as necessary during the composition process. Similarly, during research supervision practices, lecturers and students will need to go over the learning activities they have gone through during the teaching learning process.

Conceptual Framework

105

Fig. 4. 8. An interactive model between the conceptual frameworks and research supervision

Source: Maxwell (2005, 9).

Students are therefore required to consider and reconsider additional information or arguments, and reconstruct their texts as the composing process progresses, as a recursive process. We assume that TTS who have adopted deep approaches to learning will be prepared to write their research proposals and/or reports. However, writing is also a way of learning. When students write about the subject matter they are greatly enhancing their understanding of the materials, and showing their level of achievement in that subject matter. In addition, students will be

106

Chapter Four

simultaneously exercising control over the language they use (Kroll 2001). Under the literacy models, the last cognitive level is academic literacy, where supervision practices are likely to take place. For the production of a research report, students must express their ideas clearly and effectively. To this end, they need to make use of varied sentences, choose the appropriate vocabulary for an academic audience, and produce finished papers that follow Standard English conventions of grammar, capitalisation, punctuation, and spelling. Thus, research-report writing includes both rhetorical and editorial skills. Only by understanding the correlation between the conceptual frameworks will one understand the high complexity illustrated in the nature of the academic writing skill. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the division between the conceptual frameworks is watertight and the correspondence among them can go in any direction. This is to say that there are no clear-cut boundaries between them.

4.8 Summary This chapter has presented the conceptual frameworks that help to analyse, understand and interpret the main difficulties faced by TTS when dealing with academic and research literacy practices. The conceptual framework underpinning this research was informed by Biggs’s (1999) constructive alignment and the 3P Model, discussed in detail in this chapter .The other conceptual frameworks discussed in this chapter are Biggs and Tang’s (2007) deep and surface approaches to teaching and learning and the students’ level of engagement, Cummins’s (1996) differentiation between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) with regard to language acquisition, Lea and Street’s (2006) academic literacy models, Grant’s (2010) map for supervision, and Dysthe’s (2002) models of supervision. The chapter starts by presenting each concept separately and culminates with a table showing a holistic interaction between the conceptual frameworks, and research supervision practices. The combination of distinct theories in the conceptual framework enabled the researcher to better undertake the investigation and deal with the phenomenon studied accurately, which is the students’ difficulty in producing their research reports. In the next chapter, the research methodology used in this study is presented and discussed.

CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5.1 Introduction As previously stated, the main purpose of this study is to examine the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200 and investigate the difficulties they experience when undertaking research and writing their final research reports. The major question that guided the study was: “In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report?”In this chapter, the research design needed to carry out the study is discussed and the research instruments are elaborated, including the pilot testing of the instruments. The procedures of data collection and data analysis are presented and discussed. Finally, we conclude with issues relating to the validity and generalisability of the study, a brief account of research ethics, and the limitations of the study.

5.2Research Design The present study addresses a somewhat neglected field of enquiry. Thus, as the study is a new attempt in the field within the Angolan context, and therefore exploratory, the researcher decided on a phenomenological approach. According to Thomas (2009), phenomenology attempts to get insightful descriptions of the ways that members of a specific living community see and interpret their world on the basis of the lived experiences. Drawing from Thomas’s (2009, 76) assumption that, “there is no clear or disinterested knowledge,” it is evident that people have feelings and understandings that affect the way they see and interpret their world, and we have decided to take phenomenology as an approach in this research. The researcher belongs to the same world as the participants. Therefore, in order to see it through different lenses, the researcher was very interested in what students and lecturers thought about the phenomenon under study

108

Chapter Five

to help crosscheck her own assumptions and see if they match with those of the participants. Phenomenology as a research approach helped to understand and interpret the meaning of the phenomena being studied, from the participants’ points of view, and to look at the way they interrelate; it also helped in considering what participants think and how they form ideas about their world; in other words, how they construe their own worlds (Holliday 2007, 16). It is therefore assumed that each and every participant has his or her own experiences that might be similar or different from other participants’ experiences. There are two major assumptions that underlie phenomenology: First, what counts most for phenomenology is the individual’s lived experiences. Human life can only be understood from within a social living context and the ways individuals interact and interpret that world. Second, social life is without doubt a distinctively human product. People can only make themselves understandable within their own contexts. By studying individuals in their own context, the researcher was in a better position to understand their perceptions and the way they perform their activities. In this study, it is believed that there is no single truth that can explain the world, but people can always approximate the real truth by moving from the simple to the complex, and from the particular to the general. Although the study is mainly qualitative, in a loose sense, a combination with quantitative data is used as a starting point for the discussion. Therefore, questionnaires served as a basis for analysing data together with classroom observation and some textual analysis (students’ research proposals and reports). According to Thomas (2009, 49), phenomenological reflection takes place within four dimensions: temporality, which refers to the lived time; spatiality, which refers to the lived space; corporeality, that deals with the lived body, and relationality or communality, which relates to the human lived relations within a community. Therefore, phenomenology is not just interested in, and does not only rely on, the descriptions made by the representatives of a specific group of population. The above-described dimensions are also important in the process of gathering and interpreting data. Phenomenology helped the researcher explore the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200, and transform that experience into textual expression through a continuous process of reading and writing. In other words, the experiences and voices of the participants constituted the most reliable source of information that led us in the

Research Methodology

109

process of exploring and interpreting the teaching learning and supervision practices characterising the educational process at TTI nr 200. As Creswell (2007, 22) says, “if a concept or phenomenon needs to be understood because little research has been done on it, then it merits a qualitative approach.” Hence, this study is based on survey research where the main research instruments used for data collection are interviews. Survey research, as Leedy and Omrod put it, involves obtaining information about one or more groups of people, perhaps about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or previous experiences, “by asking them questions and tabulating their answers”(2010, 187). As mentioned before, as a way of gathering more accurate and reliable data and in order to avoid potential biases, apart from the interviews, another three research instruments were applied in the data gathering and analysing process, i.e. questionnaires, classroom observations and textual analysis, inter alia, students’ research proposals and research reports as well as the current curriculum. Please refer to Appendices AD and AF for the students’ research proposals and research reports respectively. The interviews were semi-structured with an open ended format so as to encourage participants to elaborate on the issues raised in an exploratory manner. An interview schedule was used to help control the process. All the interviews were pilot tested with a different group of respondents before the study took place. The questions were organised under specific categories (for the interview schedule for students, lecturers and the DDAAD see Appendices E, F, G, H, I, and J) and with the participants’ consent (see Appendices Q, R, S and T). The interviews were recorded and transcribed before being analysed. In all the sessions, the researcher played the role of a listener and passive participant, only interfering when necessary. The main categories addressed were: ™ ™ ™ ™

Students’ academic achievements and course expectations Lecture delivery and assessment procedures Availability of resources Research supervision.

Similar to the interviews, the questionnaires were organised under the very same headings. For samples see Appendices K and L. Questionnaires were also pilot tested to help improve the questions asked and guarantee more reliable data and a better quality of the information obtained.

110

Chapter Five

As for classroom observation only core course subject lecturers were observed (Research Methodology and Academic Reading and Writing courses). In all the observed classes, the researcher played the role of a “non-participant” observer (Dörnyei 2007). The observation consisted of a combination of structured and unstructured observation. She entered the classroom with a semi-structured observation scheme, with pre-selected categories to look at. However, she did not often refer to the classroom observation sheet while observing. During the lessons, she tried to take notes as accurately as possible, and soon after the lessons she filled a classroom observation sheet. As most of the lessons were lecturer-centred, she did not have problems in taking notes and following the pace of the lesson. For a sample of a classroom observation sheet see Appendix M. With regard to textual analysis, as stated above, two students’ research proposals and research reports were analysed, taken from the library department without looking at the content or marks. The research reports were then analysed on two different levels: ™ at the sentence level to check the syntactic, morphological and lexical problems that students might have ™ at the discourse level to check their ability to display features of organisation and coherence in their research reports (Kroll 2001). Textual analysis was used as a research instrument to help understand both the academic writing and research practice problems of the TTS. This study was based on a continuous process of reflection through every stage of the study. That continuous reflection allowed us to make critical judgments as the process went on, and this was possible due to Maxwell’s (2005, 9) model of research design that supported the organisation of the process. This model shows clearly the interrelationship between all the components inherent in the process. Fig. 5.1 below shows how the elements interact and influence each other.

Research Methodology

111

Fig.5.1. Interactive model of research design

Source: Maxwell (2005, 9).

As Fig. 5.1 above shows, the various components (goals of the study, conceptual framework, research instruments, and data validity) interact and this leads to a holistic view of the research process. In this model, the starting point is the research question which dictates the goals to be achieved and consequently the research instruments to be applied to collect data. Data analysis starts from the collection of the first questionnaires and interviews at the piloting phase, moving to their improvement and later applying those instruments together with classroom observation and textual analysis. The study is based on a conceptual framework that helps the researcher understand and interpret data with some accuracy in terms of scientific background knowledge about the

112

Chapter Five

phenomenon being investigated. The process of triangulation is used to improve the validity of the findings. Because in qualitative research data is generated as the process develops, the table above helped us not only to reflect holistically on the study but also to find the necessary literature.

5.3 Research Site and Research Sample This research was carried out at one of the higher institutes of education, i.e. TTI nr 200 in Luanda, Angola. TTI nr 200 trains teachers for the intermediate level schools in all subjects. The Department of Modern Languages has been selected for the purpose of this study; this Department comprises two separate sections, the English and the French. The research site is therefore TTI nr 200 and the research venue is the English section in the Modern Languages Department. The research sample of the study includes the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD), ten lecturers and eighteen TTS from the English Department. As for the interviews, six general subject lecturers (GSLE), four content subject lecturers (CSL), and eighteen TTS comprising three different groups participated in the focus group interviews. For the focus group interviews, TTS were grouped into three categories comprising six students each: ™ Type 1 Students—who have successfully completed their research reports (six students) ™ Type 2 Students—who are currently writing their research reports (six students) ™ Type 3 Students—who have not succeeded in writing their research reports (six students). For the questionnaires, all year four TTS (35 students) were selected and all lecturers from the English section.

5.4 Sampling Technique As mentioned above, the research sample for this study is composed of English lecturers and different groups of TTS from the Modern Languages Department. Since the study is mainly qualitative, the main goal of sampling was to find individuals who shared the same experience and therefore could describe their world in the way they perceived it. “Qualitative research focuses on describing, understanding, and clarifying a human experience and therefore qualitative studies are directed at

Research Methodology

113

describing the aspects that make up idiosyncratic experience rather than determining the most likely, or mean experience within a group” (Polkinghorne 2005, 139). This goal was better achieved through the use of “purposive sampling” (Dऺrnyei 2007, 126), which is a synonym of theoretical sampling. In their influential work, Glaser and Strauss (1967) spoke about “theoretical sampling,” emphasising the fact that sampling should be a, “flexible, ongoing, and evolving process” of selecting successive respondents or TTS, directed by earlier findings so that the emerging ideas and theoretical concepts can be tested and further refined. The term “theoretical sampling” was transferred from grounded theory to qualitative research in general and is nowadays typically used as a synonym of purposive sampling (Silverman 2005). Purposive sampling in this study consisted of finding a group that could provide rich and varied insights into the phenomenon under investigation with the purpose of maximising the findings. Therefore, the main issue was not how big the groups were but how representative they were. The selection of a representative sample is an important consideration for every researcher. As Dऺrnyei (2007, 127) argues, when using purposive sampling one can select participants from particular sub-groups who share the same context and experience relevant to the study. Therefore, groups of lecturers and students were chosen and specific participants were selected to represent the population within the department.

5.5 Research Instruments As stated before, the main data collection methods were interviews. Interviews were chosen as the main research instrument because they allowed me to tap into the experiences of both lecturers and TTS. Interviews can provide rich and valid data if well designed, implemented and interpreted by the researcher. According to Charmaz (2006), obtaining rich data means seeking thick descriptions through the compilation of detailed narratives from transcribed interviews. Interviews were basically focus groups with the exception of the interview with the DDAAD, which consisted of a semistructured interview. The informants were to some extent free to express their views, feelings, intentions, and actions as well as suggest some solutions to solve the problem; they could take different directions under the researcher’s guidance and she tried not to interfere and influence their

Chapter Five

114

responses. The interviews and questionnaires were tested before the actual study took place. Among all the research instruments, the interview was the one that provided the most thoughtful and informative answers on sensitive issues, especially from students about their lecturers. As the process of interviewing went on the researcher not only got explanations about issues raised by students but could also could see the feelings and emotions expressed by them. To this end, the interview provided a more complete and in-depth picture than any other instrument.

5.5.1 The interviews According to Hyland (2002, 181), interviews enable informants to discuss their understandings of the world and express themselves freely on how they see the problem(s) from their own points of view. Consequently, in qualitative research they can be a valuable source of information. In this research, the main reason for using interviews was the three main purposes they play in education research: (a) The principal source of information. (b) A means of listing hypothesis and generating new ones. (c) A means of triangulation and cross-checking data. Data from the interviews were collected under specific categories, as referred to earlier. With the exception of the interview with the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department, the interviews were basically informal to create a more relaxed environment and get more information from the participants. Both lecturers and TTS were organised into focus groups, not only to save time but also to create conditions that would facilitate participation in the discussion and generate more varied and solid data. Because the main research instrument was based on qualitative research, participants were helped to express their views of the phenomenon in their own words, with the researcher’s indirect participation (Gall et al. 2007, 245). The role of the researcher was to guide participants in their interaction and to not interfere or speak on their behalf. i.

Interview design

As previously mentioned participation in this research entailed participants taking part in focus group interviews at a time and place convenient for

Research Methodology

115

them and the researcher. As for the design of the interview, the researcher was inspired by Miles and Huberman (1984), who define qualitative research as an interactive process in which data are collected in response to initial questions. Data are then reduced and interpreted, and further specific and clarification questions are set up to generate more data collection and analysis. The interviews in this study were organised under four main headings: (a) Students’ academic achievements and course expectations (b) Lecture delivery and assessment procedures (c) Resource availability, and (d) Research supervision. Questions were then devised under these four main headings, and during the interview respondents were free to randomly discuss the issues depending on the direction they took under the guidance of the researcher. The researcher was mindful to not lead respondents into preconceived answers (Glaser and Strauss 1967). In other words, the respondents guided the direction of the interview by the extent of their willingness and enthusiasm to discuss the topics. Overall, a constructivist approach was taken so as to enable respondents to explain what they meant by using certain terms, as well as elaborate on what seemed to be confusing in terms of meaning (Charmaz 2006, 33). However, the researcher tried to keep a balance between what the respondents said and the information she was looking for. Before analysing and interpreting the data gathered, the researcher transcribed the interviews. Miller and Crabtree (1999, 104) argue that no matter how accurate and elaborate a transcript is, it will never capture the reality of the recorded situation. To them, transcriptions are “frozen interpretive constructs” where the nonverbal aspects of the original communication, such as facial expressions, intonation, and body language, are left out. In the transcription process these materials underwent several editing phases to attain “clarity, completeness and conciseness” (Dऺrnyei 2007, 246). Thus, unnecessary items were omitted. These included the researcher’s own questions and comments, false starts, interjections and so forth. Dऺrnyei (2007, 249), postulates that the transcription process essentially consists of leaving out our questions, using standard spelling, creating a sentence and paragraph structure, leaving out extra things, adding missing things, and possibly reorganising certain sections to keep common subject matters together. For us, this was one of the most

116

Chapter Five

demanding and interesting parts of the research. However, for reasons of practicality we decided to limit the changes we made to the transcripts. The intention was to keep the voices of the interviewees as “alive” and natural as possible, and maintain a sense of their presence. This is the reason why the transcripts are used as appendices. As the language of the Deputy Director of Academic Affairs Department is not English, the original version of the transcript was translated into Portuguese to facilitate the process of interviewing. The translation can be seen in Appendix J. ii.

Pilot testing the Interview Schedule

In any study, research instruments need to be carefully designed and piloted to ensure reliability and avoid ambiguity. The research instruments were tried on similar groups to the ones that took part in the study, and participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the significance of the information they provided (Tuckman 1994).The main objective for piloting the instruments was to avoid the “real” respondents facing difficulties when participating in the study. The wording and format of questions were also checked to see if there was a logical sequence between them, and some changes were made. We also took the opportunity to check small but relevant things, such as the opening and the ending of the sessions as well as the language used to address the participants. In order to pilot the instruments the researcher worked with a group of French lecturers and TTS different from those of the actual study. What follows is the composition of the groups:

™ Four core subject lecturers from the French section (Academic Reading, Academic Writing and Research Methodology I and II)

™ Six lecturers from the French Section ™ The person in charge of the Head of Academic Affairs Department ™ Eighteen TTS from the French section, being: x Type 1 Students—those who have successfully finished their research reports (six students) x Type 2 Students—those who are currently writing their research reports (six students) x Type 3 Students—those who have not succeeded in writing their research reports (six students).

Research Methodology

117

Throughout the interview, the researcher tried to get closer to the respondents by asking questions such as “How long have you been studying at TTI nr 200?”,“When did you finish your coursework?”,“How long have you been writing your research report?”, and “From what you have said you took more than four years to complete your coursework. Why?” The researcher also asked other questions that might to understand the respondents’ experiences and opinions about the process of teaching and supervision, such as “How would you describe the relationship between students and supervisors?”, and “Why do you think some students take longer to complete their research reports?” The interviews were closed with questions that solicited positive responses or respondents suggestions to the problem being investigated. Respondents were also invited to “mention some of the aspects that were not covered during the interview. In summary what would you suggest to minimise this problem?” Table 5.1 below shows the days and places where the interviews and questionnaires were conducted. Table 5.1. Days and places where the interviews and questionnaires were conducted Date

Group

01/09/11

The Head of Academic Affairs Department Lecturers

01/09/11

Type of instrument Interview

Time

Venue

7:00– 8:30

Office

Focus group interviews

9:00– 10:40

Modern Languages Department Modern Languages Department Modern Languages Department Modern Languages Department Room 2/6

05/09/11

Students (Type 1)

Focus group interviews

7:30– 9:00

05/09/11

Students (Type 2)

Focus group interviews

10:00– 11:30

06/09/11

Students (Type 3)

Focus group interviews

7:30– 9:00

07/09/11

Students (Types 1,2,3)

Questionnaires

7:30– 8:30

Hand in day NA

NA

N/A

NA

NA

Same day

118

Chapter Five

At this stage, respondents were assured about confidentiality and anonymity as well as informed about the need for recording the interview prior to their signing the recording consent forms (refer to Appendices O to U). The researcher also tried to create a good and friendly atmosphere, offering water, tea or coffee as well as some sweets and biscuits during the interview. At the end of the interview, the researcher mentioned that the conversation was just the beginning of a discussion that could go further should there be a need to clarify some aspects or get more information. Surprisingly, the majority of the respondents manifested their willingness and readiness to come back to the researcher if necessary, and both lecturers and TTS provided her with rich and varied insights, some of which she was not expecting at all. As the interviews were designed under similar headings, it was quite easy for her to compare different views from different segments of data (lecturers, TTS, DDAAD) about the same issue, facilitating in this way the triangulation of data. The term triangulation relates to, “the use of multiple data-collection methods, data sources, analysis, or theories as corroborative evidence for the validity of qualitative research findings” (Gall et al. 2007, 657). In other words, data from the three main segments were analysed and interpreted, and this helped cross check the information obtained and come up with more trustworthy findings. Piloting the interviews was quite a useful exercise as it helped check if the questions sounded right as well as being clear and understandable (Brace 2008, 164). Therefore, some changes were made, basically based on the combination of two questions that seemed to be addressing the same thing, but there were also some instances where the questions did not provide the expected answers and were therefore cut off. The following are some examples of questions that were combined because they carried almost the same meaning. (1) What do you think about the resources in the library and how adequate are they in helping students write their dissertations? (2) What do you think about the computer lab, and how adequate is it in helping students write their dissertations? (3) How many students have you supervised so far and how many have successfully completed their dissertations? About 10 questions were taken out of the interview schedule and others were re-written to make more sense to respondents. The main changes took place under the research literacy practices section where, with the

Research Methodology

119

exception of the first question, three more were added to address the issue of literacy practices (see appendix D). The focus group interviews were a bit longer because participants were quite excited to discuss the issues, and the researcher just let them speak their minds. The face-to-face interview was more direct and took less time than expected. In general, the feedback helped identify some of the double-barrelled questions as well as the loaded ones. Therefore, some questions were structured better to get the right information from the students. For example, the researcher asked: “What do you think about the resources in the library? Are they helpful?” instead of “What do you think about the library?”, and: “Some lecturers are of the opinion that the research report should be taken out of the course. Do you agree with them?” instead of the previous question, which was: “Do you think the research report should be taken out of the course? Regarding the comments on the layout and type of questions asked, respondents were unanimous in saying that they thought there were no major changes to be made, although two lecturers raised some similarities between some questions as a problem, but did not mention the questions. The researcher then had to double-check the questions and made some changes. For the interview schedule see Appendices E to J.

5.5.2 The Questionnaires Questionnaires also need to be carefully designed and piloted to ensure reliability and avoid ambiguity. That is to say that the questions that one designs for the questionnaire need to be directly related to the phenomenon under investigation. For the questionnaires the research participants were: ™ Lecturers from the French Sector (only five lecturers were available) ™ Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 French teacher trainees. It should be emphasised that, due to a shortage of lecturers, the participants were the same for both questionnaires and interviews. For TTS we tried to diversify the groups and have different participants in the questionnaires and interviews. As there was no similar group to observe, we did not do any classroom observation to test the research instrument. The other reason for not piloting this research instrument was that classroom observation was introduced as a research tool later on, as suggested by the research proposal external examiners. For document

Chapter Five

120

analysis, some students’ final research reports were analysed in terms of general layout and content, looking at the ways they address the research topic, their ability to tell the reader what the information is about, the ability to provide evidence and support the main ideas, the logical sequencing of ideas, and the general structure of the text. It should be emphasised that the research proposals and reports selected during the piloting phase helped me design the research instrument for textual analysis. i.

Questionnaire design

The use of questionnaires in the research field has become one of the most popular instruments applied in the social sciences. The fact that questionnaires are, “relatively easy to construct, extremely versatile and uniquely capable of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily processable has made questionnaires very popular” (Dऺrnyei 2007, 102). However, in spite of their popularity, even in situations where there is some common sense and good word processing software and skills, there is still a lot to learn concerning the theory of questionnaire design and processing. Just as it happens in real life where not every question elicits the right answer, it is also true that in any research not all the questionnaires lead to the achievement of the proposed or needed information. Dऺrnyei (2007) suggests three types of questions that researchers should use depending on the objectives of the study: ™ Factual questions—usually used to find out certain facts about the respondents such as their age, gender, place of birth, marital status, etc. ™ Behavioural questions—used to find out what the respondents are doing or have done in the past, focusing on their actions, habits, lifestyles and personal histories. ™ Attitudinal questions—used to find out what people think about “their world,” including their attitudes, opinions, beliefs, interests and values. In this study, the attitudinal questions constitute the basis for the design of the questionnaire with a combination of behavioural questions. Apart from the timing of questions, there are some aspects that one needs to consider in designing a questionnaire, such as the main themes to be covered, the

Research Methodology

121

length of the questionnaire, the type of questions, and the time needed to complete it. We took into account all these aspects and tried to use the same categories as in the interviews, but with slight differences. Dऺrnyei (2007, 102) posits that, “most questionnaires used in applied linguistic research are somewhat ad hoc instruments, and questionnaires that yield scores with sufficient (and well-documented) reliability and validity are not that easy to come by in our field.” However, the information gathered from questionnaires could complement information from other sources and make the findings more trustworthy. He postulates that; Although most researchers tend to use qualitative and quantitative methods in supplementary and complementary forms, what [they are advocating] is a true interplay between the two. The qualitative should direct the quantitative and the quantitative feedback into the qualitative in a circular, but at the same time evolving, process with each method contributing to the theory in ways that only each can. (Dऺrnyei 2007, 43)

The question is not whether to use one research instrument or another, but to see how they can work together towards the development of a theory. However, for the purposes of this research, there is a combination of interviews (the main research instrument) with questionnaires, classroom observation and textual analysis which constitute a second source of information for data collection. ii.

Pilot testing the questionnaire

As mentioned earlier, before the actual study took place the researcher tested the questionnaire with groups different from those that took part in the study. Before the questionnaires were distributed she had a short meeting with respondents to inform them about the purpose of the study. Respondents were also informed that permission had been given by the General Director, and they also had to sign a consent letter. The issues of confidentiality and/or anonymity were addressed and ensured by explaining that there would not be any way of identifying the subjects as no names would be mentioned should the researcher need to use that data. Unlike the students’ questionnaires that were filled out in the researcher’s presence in their respective classrooms, the lecturers’ questionnaires were handed in the following day and the researcher asked them to provide her with some written comments about the layout, relevance of questions and sequence. Unfortunately, none of the lecturers did that.

Chapter Five

122

The purpose of piloting the questionnaires was to check the time the target audience would need to complete them, to test the clarity of the questions, and to see whether key questions could lead to a varied range of responses as required. In order to get clearer feedback from respondents we decided to set up some follow-up questions to help them evaluate the instruments: ™ ™ ™ ™ ™

Were the instructions clear? Did you object to answering any question? Why? Was the layout of the questionnaire clear and attractive? Do you think the questions match the objectives of the study? Any other comments?

Students complained that the questionnaire was too long and some questions were quite similar in terms of meaning. That was indeed very good input and the researcher had to revise the questionnaire and make some corrections and changes. As previously stated, there was no classroom observation at this stage. Being a novice researcher it must be confessed that piloting the research instruments was a very exciting experience because it helped anticipate problems and correct most of the mistakes found before the study took place. This was a great lesson learnt and the researcher can recommend this process to improve the quality of the instruments used as well as the type of data gathered, and consequently the findings reached. For the questionnaires see Appendices K and L.

5.5.3 Classroom observation Any study that examines how teaching and learning take place in context, uses classroom observation as a research instrument. Wragg (1999) describes classroom research as a key instrument in understanding teachers’ and lecturers’ behaviours during the teaching and learning process. Classroom research dates from the 1920s to 1930s in the United States, with researchers seeking to understand the effectiveness of teacher behaviours and teacher talk. Modern classroom research, however, started much later in the 1950s as part of the teacher training courses when trainers decided that they needed proper observation instruments and quality teaching in order to evaluate their TTS’ performance in the teaching practice sessions. With the emergence of the so-called “methods comparison studies” by Nunan (2005), that consisted of comparing different teaching methods, for

Research Methodology

123

example the direct method, to more traditional approaches in the languageteaching area, classroom research became one of the most commonly used research instruments in educational research. From that time on, a salient move from teacher training to more basic research was noticed. This resulted in a refinement of the instruments used for classroom observation. Observation schedules and schemes which were primarily descriptive were replaced by more elaborate checklists that served descriptive purposes, and a number of standardised observation schemes were published. The most famous scheme published was Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) (Allwright and Bailey 1991). There are many different places that can be considered as classrooms, for example seminar rooms, language labs, computer rooms, and lecture theatres. Therefore, defining a classroom is not a straightforward process, and perhaps the best thing would be to rely on our own concept of the classroom and include in this category any physical space in which planned teaching takes place. It should be emphasised that, in this study, the meaning of the word “classroom” does not cover the notion of classroom research relating to internet-based environments. In this study, the classroom is the physical space where lectures are administered independent of the size, acoustic conditions, illumination, layout, and type of furniture. Dऺrnyei (2007, 174) posits that, “the classroom—and most often the foreign/ second language classroom—is a primary research site in applied linguistic investigations and the unique features of this context have a strong bearing on the way we can conduct research in it.” However, in classroom research a wide range of research tools can be used, such as surveys, ethnographic research, and case studies. Dऺrnyei (2007) presents three aspects to consider in conducting classroom research, which require special attention: ™ The research method of classroom observation, which is a highly developed data collection technique typically used in examining the learning environments. ™ The prominence that most classroom researchers place on conducting mixed methods research, for researchers to understand the “intricate tapestry” of classroom events through mixing methods, is an indispensable methodology in classroom research. ™ The challenges imposed by the use of this research tool. Doing high quality classroom research can be quite challenging and difficult to manage. Dऺrnyei (2007) states that:“Although doing good research is never easy, it appears that the inherent difficulties of classroom

124

Chapter Five

investigations are a salient feature of this particular research type, usually underplayed by research reports and methodology texts” (2007, 177). Classroom observation is a valuable research instrument for any study that examines how teaching and learning take place in context, provided that the researcher takes into consideration the above three main aspects directly or indirectly implicit in it. As Dऺrnyei (2007) posits: “Contemporary classroom research, both in educational psychology and in applied linguistics, is striving for a situated understanding of learning, documenting, and analysing the dynamic interplay of various classroom processes and conditions that contribute to variation in learning outcomes” (178). In her overview of classroom SLA research, Lightbown (2000, 438) states that the various existing classroom research projects share the unilateral intention to identify and understand the roles of teachers and students during class interaction, the impact that a certain type of instruction may have on EFL/SL learning, and the main factors that promote or prevent students’ learning. Classroom observation is a very important tool in data gathering because it allows the researcher to see directly what people do without having to rely on what they say they do, as teachers and lecturers in general tend not to perform well when they are being observed. In addition, observation is a skill that requires some sort of training from the observer/researcher’s point of view. The observer/researcher needs to know how to observe, what to look for and how to make use of the information obtained from the observation. From a research perspective, observation is very different from interviewing as it provides direct information rather than self-accounts from the participants. In this study, the researcher was minimally involved in the class, and played the role of a “non-participant observer.”She observed Morse and Richards’ (2002, 179) argument that, “no observer is entirely a participant, and it is impossible to observe in almost every nonexperimental situation without some participation.” The observation was mainly based on a classroom observation scheme to fill in. However, there were some instances where the researcher combined it with unstructured observation based on field notes. Classroom observation took place during the Second Teaching Semester in 2012, and the subjects observed were Research Methodology II, Academic Reading and Writing. Each class consisted of two sessions lasting 45 minutes each.

Research Methodology

125

This research instrument was meant to provide the necessary information to answer the two main research questions: ™ In what manner do TTI nr 200 TTS acquire academic and research literacies?, and ™ In what ways does curriculum alignment impact on the production of research reports? The first question is related to Biggs and Tang’s (2007) idea of the highlevel engagement of students, and the second is related to Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment and the 3P Model. According to the documents from the Academic Affairs Department for the period between 2006–2011, among the applied competencies and knowledge that TTS should have acquired from the Academic Reading and Writing and the Research Methodology courses are: ™ A comprehensive and systematic knowledge in the field of teaching as well as in-depth knowledge in their areas of specialisation. ™ A strong and critical understanding of the existing theories in education as well as an ability to critique current research and make their own judgements based on evidence. ™ An ability to identify, analyse, compare, and deal with complex real-world problems using evidence and theory driven-arguments. ™ An understanding of a range of research methods and the ability to select them appropriately for a particular research propose. ™ An ability to engage with research and professional literature as well as evaluate quantitative and qualitative data with a critical eye. ™ An ability to make oral presentations for different types of audience. To sum up, the above-mentioned knowledge shows the level of academic and research literacy required from TTS at the end of the fourth year. Therefore, both professional and academic competencies are required. Our main purpose was therefore to check the academic competencies of TTS at the end of their coursework in year four. Professional competencies were also addressed but not as deeply as the academic competencies. We also checked the students’ background knowledge, i.e. the type of knowledge they were likely to achieve in the lessons, the level of engagement and the kind of output they provided. From the lecturer’s side we looked at the process of delivering the content, the kinds of activities students were exposed to, and the kind of work they produced, including

126

Chapter Five

the research proposals as well as the type of feedback and length of time it took for the lecturer to give back their work. At the beginning, we planned to observe all the lessons in all three subjects during the second semester. About 12 lessons were supposed to be observed in each subject; however, due to some constraints, which were out of our control, the researcher could only observe six lessons in Academic Reading, five in Academic Writing, and four in Research Methodology. The reasons for not being able to observe the total number of lessons derive from the fact that, most of the time, the lecturers excused themselves from being observed, and sometimes missed lessons without notice. Lecturers tried to skip the lessons on the days set up for observation because, according to one of them, they were too busy at other institutions and did not have time to prepare their lessons properly, and were therefore not ready to be observed. There were also some instances where the researcher had to leave the class because lecturers, especially the Research Methodology lecturer, decided to set up lessons based on revision by asking students to study their materials and ask for clarification should they need to. The researcher knew they were doing this to escape being observed and did not comment on anything; she just stayed in the classroom until the end of the lesson. It should be concluded that, although classroom observation was used as a secondary data gathering instrument, it is assumed that the information gathered added some extra information to that from the other research instruments and in this way increased the validity and generalisability of the findings. It is worth mentioning that adding structure to the observation through the use of an observation scheme made the process more reliable and produced results comparable across classrooms at TTI nr 200, and perhaps over time. The structured observation guidelines made documenting the process easier and helped focus on specific key aspects of the phenomenon under study (see Appendix M for the classroom observation sheet).

5.5.4 Textual analysis Textual analysis constitutes an important source of information. Rather than relying on what participants say, textual analysis allows us to see what participants actually do in the real world. Qualitative data is typically textual, and the qualitative categories used in textual analysis are, “not predetermined but derived inductively” from the data analysed:“Textual analysis has recently become associated with qualitative research and we can therefore easily forget that it actually originates from a quantitative

Research Methodology

127

analytical method of examining written texts that involves the counting of instances of words, phrases, or grammatical structures that fall into specific categories”(Dऺrnyei 2007, 245). However, for the purposes of this study we are using a combination of the two. As mentioned before, the texts that were analysed were samples of students’ research proposals and research reports. In order to analyse these documents it was necessary to set up some criteria. As textual analysis is mainly based on non-numeric data, we applied a content-based analytical process. Apart from the content of the documents, the general organisation of the chapters and layout of students’ research proposals and projects were analysed at both the sentence level to check the syntactic, morphological and lexical problems that students had (Kroll 2001), and at the discourse level to check their ability to display features of organisation and coherence. At the sentence level, every syntactic, lexical and morphological error was identified and categorised, for example as a verb noun collocation. In order to decide whether an error was made, Kroll’s (2001) criteria in analysing her students’ compositions were used. The procedure to determine an error consisted of identifying what lexical or grammatical items deviated from the Standard English norm (Kroll 2001); then, errors were classified under categories. For the specific purposes of this study, the analysis at the sentence level was left out and the study concentrated on the discourse level analysis, which is typically qualitative. As Dऺrnyei (2007) maintains, one of the serious problems in qualitative research can be too much data collection, which is augmented by the fact that qualitative data are “messy records” (Richards 2005, 34), usually consisting of a mixture of field notes, transcripts of various recordings, and documents of a diverse nature and length. “As qualitative data expands quickly, novice researchers often find that the real challenge is not to generate enough data but rather to generate useful data” (Dऺrnyei 2007, 125). It was therefore thought that analysing the texts at the discourse level would be enough to provide the information needed to complement the information from other research instruments. At the discourse level, the analysis was based on the ability of students to display features of organisation and coherence in their papers. The criteria for analysis were based on Connor’s (1990) topic analysis. This analysis was considered in two different instances: the global coherence (what the essay is about), and the local coherence (how sentences build meaning in relation to each other and the overall topic). This concept was adapted to include Kroll’s (2001) scoring guidelines and resulted in the following assessment rubric:

128

Chapter Five

™ Focus on the topic—the ability to address the essay question. ™ Stressing the main idea—the ability to tell the reader what the issue is about. ™ Supporting the main ideas—the ability to provide evidence to support the main idea/s. ™ Logical sequencing of ideas—in Connor’s words (1990), “local cohesion,” the ability to look at the way sentences build meaning in relation to each other and the overall text. ™ Identifiable schematic structure—to check whether the structure of the text is compatible to the genre in use. (Kroll 2001, 144) Textual analysis helped understand TTS’ academic writing and research practice problems as well as the core subject lecturers’ and supervisors’ assessment procedures

5.6 Validity and Generalisability Every research needs to account for validity and generalisability.

5.6.1 Validity One of the criticisms of qualitative studies is that they are weak when it comes to validating data (Dऺrnyei 2007; Verma and Mallick 1999; Best and Kahn 1993). The challenge for qualitative researchers has been to convince readers to believe in the results of their studies. The problem is that in qualitative studies everything looks so important that novice researchers end up doing “unfocused explorations of the social world” (Silverman 2005, 79) that end up an authentic disaster. This does not mean that qualitative data does not provide valuable results; what Silverman is trying to do is alert us to the dangerousness of collecting too much data, some of which is not necessarily needed. Although researchers need to be careful and selective in collecting data, it is worth remembering that qualitative data is by definition, “less systematic and standardised in its data collection approach” (Richards 2005, 20) than quantitative research. To put it simply, qualitative data can sometimes become “messy” in its content if not well organised and selected. In fact, because the researcher was aware of this dangerousness, she was careful in selecting the information. According to Richards (2005, 20), the messiness of the rich data that researchers are aiming at in qualitative data derives from the fact that the researchers’ reflections are based on complex real-life situations as far as

Research Methodology

129

data collection is concerned. Therefore, multiple strategies and directions at multiple levels help reduce the quantity of data to collect and increase its usefulness in providing relevant information for the study. In planning this study, special attention was given to ensuring the validity of the findings. Thus, the use of multiple research instruments was to not rely on the main research instrument—the interview—only. Using multiple research instruments helps reach converging lines of enquiry. Such convergence of evidence leads to an important aspect, which consists of data triangulation. The use of triangulation increases the validity of the findings because the multiple sources of information provides multiple measures of the same phenomenon. In other words, the researcher could analyse, understand and interpret the phenomenon from different perspectives. According to Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) and Maxwell (2002), the term “validity” in scientific research refers to the degree to which the findings described by the researcher are the real representation of the data collected. Owing to the need to ensure that the findings of the research were trustworthy, the issue of validity was taken into consideration and the major question kept in mind was whether, through the use of the selected research instruments, one could investigate what they wanted to investigate (Henning 2004, 147), and reach the aims of the investigation. While some discourse analysts reject this term, others such as Lupton (1992), Ollerenshaw and Creswell (2000), and Roberts and Sarangi (2005) specify criteria for achieving validity in discourse analysis. Lupton (1992) suggests that there are several ways of validating one’s findings, such as the inclusion of actual textual material (the data) in a report or paper, which provides the opportunity for other researchers to follow their interpretation and reasoning, which should be clearly explained. Ollerenshaw and Creswell (2000) and Roberts and Sarangi (2005) indicate that replicating the methods of data analysis has been represented as a way of ensuring validity in discourse analysis by following a step-bystep method. Maxwell (2002) suggests some types of validity in ensuring the trustworthiness of the findings. In this study, interpretive validity is the main category that was achieved through seeking to understand and interpret the information gathered from the interviewees’ perspective of their own worlds. The researcher was mindful of bias that could distort the meaning of the information obtained. In order to avoid bias, she tried not to force respondents’ views into her own pre-conceived ideas and assumptions. She also tried not to over emphasise some of the questions and also not

130

Chapter Five

suggest positive or negative answers through the use of facial expressions or gestures. It should be admitted that it is impossible to achieve perfect validity in measuring human beings’ experiences and beliefs; however, we should strive to increase that validity. This is what the researcher attempted to do in this study.

5.6.2 Generalisability The term “generalisability” refers to the transferability of findings from a specific piece of research to other contexts of the same type. However, the process of transferability is not as linear as one would think. For example, the research sites might be similar but the target population being studied may be different due to the different worlds in which the research takes place as well as in the participants’ views about the problem being studied. Thus, depending on the characteristics of the contexts to which results might be transferred, there will always be slight differences. However, Richards and Morse (2007, 194) are of the opinion that although generalisability is problematic and complex in qualitative research, “readers will be able to extract from a well-written report those elements of the findings that they find to be transferable and that may be extended to other settings.”Although we acknowledge that generalisation is more complicated for qualitative research, in the light of Richards and Morse’s work we argue that the findings from this research can be extended or adapted to other contexts of the same type. In order to ensure the generalisability of findings, we used triangulation to increase the validity of findings and consequently the transferability of the same findings to other contexts. The purpose of using triangulation, “is usually the generalisation of the results” (Flick 2007, 118). We tried to work within parameters that facilitated the possibility of generalising the findings from this study by keeping in mind such questions as: To which other contexts could the developed arguments be transferred? In which other contexts could the developed argument be valid? Therefore, the steps taken throughout the whole process of selecting the research instruments for data collection, pilot testing the instruments before the actual research took place, and correcting and changing some parts of the research instruments have given us enough confidence to believe that the findings can be transferred and generalised to other contexts and studies. To use Richards and Morse’s (2007, 194) words again, “readers will be able to extract from a well-written report those

Research Methodology

131

elements of the findings that they find to be transferable and that may be extended to other contexts.”

5.7 Ethical Considerations According to Flick (2007, 122), ethical considerations are becoming increasingly relevant in the context of research. Most research has to be approved by institutional review boards. Since qualitative research is almost always research with human beings, it needs to be approved by institutional ethics committees before the study takes place. Even in countries like Angola, where research ethics have not been formally implemented, there is a growing awareness of the need to protect research participants, and set up mutual conditions of respect, confidentiality and anonymity. Dऺrnyei (2007, 63)posits that: “Social research —including research in education—concerns people’s lives in the social world and therefore it inevitably involves ethical issues.”Such issues are more important in qualitative than in quantitative research, because in qualitative research one enters into the private life of the participants by tapping into their personal views, as well as sensitive or intimate matters. Thus, there is a need to address ethical issues not only in qualitative but also in quantitative studies. In order to fulfil the ethical considerations, and make this research more participant-friendly, a letter requesting permission to conduct the research was addressed to the General Director of the TTI nr 200 in Luanda with an information sheet. Because the permission from the General Director did not mean that lecturers and students would promptly support the research, we had to obtain individual consent and permission from both. We also informed them about the objectives of the study and their roles within it. To this end, an information sheet was distributed to participants in addition to the researcher’s own verbal explanation to help them decide whether to participate or not. Letters requesting consent were issued to the participants both for the interviews and questionnaires. As for the participants, they received the following documents: (1) an information sheet, (2) a consent form to participate in the study, (3) a consent form for filling in the questionnaire, (4) a consent form for being interviewed, and (5) a form consenting to be recorded (see Appendices W to AB). Participants were also briefed on the necessity of using a digital recorder during the interview. Participants were promised and assured that their identities were going to be protected and that the recorded information was going to be kept safe

132

Chapter Five

and not used beyond this study. Participants were also encouraged to ask for any clarification they needed and were requested to formally sign a consent form. For the consent to the use of a digital recorder they had to sign the respective consent forms. The issues of anonymity and confidentiality were also taken into consideration. Dऺrnyei (2007, 65) posits that a basic dilemma in educational research concerns the fact that although participants should remain anonymous, researchers often need to identify the respondents, “to be able to match their performances on various instruments or tasks.” It was, therefore, our obligation to maintain the same level of confidentiality as promised to participants at the beginning and end of the study. Dऺrnyei (2007, 68) presents some principles that researchers need to observe in their studies: ™ We must make sure that we do not promise a higher degree of confidentiality than what we can achieve. ™ The right of confidentiality should always be respected when no clear understanding to the contrary has been reached. ™ We must make sure—especially with recorded/transcribed data— that the respondents are not traceable or identifiable. These principles were followed and the participants’ identities were protected, assuring them of confidentiality. Rossman and Rallis (2003) posit that confidentiality has two elements: to protect the privacy (identities, names and roles of the participants within their worlds), and to hold in confidence what they say and share with the researcher and other participants in the research. Therefore, in this study, confidentiality regarding participants’ names and the information gathered in the process of data collection was guaranteed. As a novice educational researcher, I tried to confine myself to the guiding principles of the American Education Research Association (AERA 2002, in Dऺrnyei 2007, 67), describing the researchers’ general responsibilities as: ™ Educational researchers must not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent authorship, evidence, data, findings, or conclusions. ™ Educational researchers must not knowingly or negligently use their professional roles for fraudulent purposes. ™ Educational researchers should attempt to report their findings to all relevant stakeholders, and should refrain from keeping secret or selectively communicating their findings.

Research Methodology

133

Being aware of all these principles we tried to confine ourselves to them, so as to improve the validity of the findings in this study. As the research did not involve vulnerable individuals, such as children aged below 18, there was no need to ask for consent from parents. Although the researcher had a matriculation number (9910494H), an ethics clearance letter was granted by the Committee of the University of Witwatersrand to conduct this research under the protocol number 2011ECE142C (see Appendix O).

5.8 Data Collection Before collecting data, some arrangements were made with the lecturers, the TTS and the DDAAD. For instance, some negotiation with them for the most suitable day and time to meet for the focus group interviews, as well as for the questionnaires, took place. However, there were some challenges in collecting data using questionnaires; for instance, it was quite difficult to include students who had completed their studies and were therefore out of the system. All the sessions were tape-recorded and field-notes for all of them were kept to avoid interference during the interview so as to not distort participants’ attention and concentration in the discussion. The field notes were of great importance as they served to record the progression of the sessions, mainly the behaviour that students displayed during the activities, and also served as reminders to go back to points where some clarification was needed. Particular attention was given to the extent to which students were able to demonstrate their own opinions and ideas about the problem. For data management purposes, the transcripts were dated using a computer word processor and saved in computer files for further reference and/or retrieval. For easier reading and consultation, hard copies were produced and kept safely. Transcripts and field notes were clearly indexed in the files for quick location and easy access. For the interview transcripts see Appendices V, X, W, Y, Z, and AA. Participants in the focus group interviews were not the same as those who filled in the questionnaires. Interviews were conducted over a period of two weeks, and participants were given three weeks to return the questionnaires. During and after the interviews some water, tea, coffee, soft drinks, and snacks were offered to increase participants’ motivation, although participants were not expecting refreshments. This helped to create a friendly and relaxed atmosphere. To sum up, the biggest challenges faced during this period were caused by some lecturers’ delay in handing in the questionnaires, and gathering students together for the focus group

134

Chapter Five

interviews. Being Head of the Department, the researcher tried to be as courteous as possible and resist imposing the authority of her position, and tried instead to reduce the distance between the participants and researcher. The researcher also tried to arrive first and leave last. On the whole, the data collection phase was very positive, based on the cooperation and willingness of participants to contribute to the research. The data obtained from several informants (lecturers, TTS, the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department) were analysed through the process of “triangulation.” In this case, the description of the actual context in which participants live, their experience with the problem, the suggestions and ideas provided by participants, and the researcher’s own experience as a lecturer and trainer were cross checked and contrasted in order to get an approximate picture of what is exactly happening with regard to the major difficulties that students are facing in writing their research proposals and/or research reports, and what kind of solutions they present. As Robson (1993, 383) maintains, triangulation improves the quality of data and accuracy of findings, and this is one of the purposes of this investigation. Another important tool used in the analysis of data was the “explanation building” strategy that, according to Robson, provides an explanation of what is happening on the site, and what should actually be happening. Interviews were basically semi-structured, consisting mainly of open ended questions such as: How many years did you take to conclude the coursework? Why? What stage are you at in writing your research report? What problems did you face or are you facing in writing your research report? What do you think about the assessment procedures during the coursework? What do you think about the resources in the library? What do you think about the computer room? The ideas and opinions obtained from the students at the end of the study constituted an important source of information regarding the actual students’ needs, and some of them were translated into the recommendations and conclusions. It should be emphasised that, given that the sample is relatively small, the information generated from this study, rather than leading to general conclusions, can only suggest some strategies needed for successful academic and research literacy practices at this institution, and serve as a basis for further research in the field. Similarly, such data provides an understanding of what abilities lecturers need in order to assist students in the development of their academic and research literacy practices.

Research Methodology

135

5.8.1 Interview data As mentioned before, four main groups were organised for the interview data. With the exception of the interview with the Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, all the interviews took the form of focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were with three different groups of TTS, core subject lecturers, and general English subject lecturers. TTS groups were divided into three different Types: 1, 2, and 3.

5.8.2 Focus group interview with students and lecturers (1)Interview with students The students’ interviews were organised under four main categories: (a) Students’ academic achievements and course expectations (b)Lecture delivery and assessment procedures (c) Resource availability, and (d) Research supervision. As mentioned before, the three student groups were composed of six students each, and were selected from each corresponding population. The three groups were: ™ Students who have successfully finished their course (six students) ™ Students who are currently writing their research report (six students) ™ Students who finished their coursework some years ago but did not write their research reports (six students). The focus group interviews were organised under the four abovementioned themes. The interviews were mainly informal and semistructured in order to create a more relaxed environment and get more information from the participants. Gall, Gall and Borg (2007, 245) postulate that qualitative interviews tend to be more unstructured because the main goal of using interviews is to help participants express their views of the phenomenon in their own words, with the indirect participation of the researcher. All the interviews were done through the medium of English, but students were allowed to code switch to Portuguese if there was a need to do so. Fortunately, there was no need to code switch. The information

136

Chapter Five

gathered from students permitted the researcher to perceive what was going on and what students felt or thought about their social, academic and professional lives, especially for those in the process of writing their research reports and those who had not yet started. Lecturers’ interviews were a great contribution and helped to understand how much they were concerned with the phenomenon. (2) Interview with the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department The Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department was interviewed in order to see how much he was concerned about students’ noncompletion of research reports and what kind of action he thought should be taken in order to minimise the problem. As de Gruchy and Holness (2007, 121) posit: “Heads of Department play, or should play, a very important role in the supervisory process of graduate students. This is often overlooked or not properly understood by all the parties involved. Many of the responsibilities of the supervisor depend in part on the support and sometimes the initiative of the HOD.” As one of the senior lecturers at the institution, the Deputy Director’s comments and suggestions turned out to be very useful. The interview was basically informal and based on the same themes as stated before. As mentioned, all the interviews were audio recorded for further consultation and a consent letter was distributed and signed by all participants. (3) Focus group interview with lecturers The lecturers’ interview followed the same categories as the students’ interviews. Five general subject lecturers (GSLE) and four content subject lecturers (CSL) were interviewed. Like the students’ interviews, lecturers’ interviews were informal and took the form of focus groups. Lecturers’ interviews helped understand how much they were aware of and concerned with the problem, and the information gathered was contrasted with that from students (triangulation) in order to find an approximate version of the actual truth and come up with more trust worthy findings. The interviews were somehow informal in order to create a more relaxed environment and get more information from the participants. The researcher’s role was to guide participants in their interaction. The information gathered from the interviews with lecturers allowed us to perceive what was going on and what lecturers feel or think about their social, academic and professional lives as well as their students’

Research Methodology

137

difficulties in learning the subjects they teach. All the interviews were conducted through the medium of English. The interviews were transcribed and translated, and data was kept safe and made available for further consultation.

5.8.3 Questionnaire data According to Dऺrnyei (2007, 101): “Survey studies aim at describing the characteristics of a population by examining a sample of that group ….” The main instruments for data collection in survey studies are questionnaires; however, for the purposes of this study, interviews constitute the main data collection instrument, combined with questionnaires, classroom observation and textual analysis. The reason for using these three additional research instruments was to increase the level of reliability and validity of the findings. Cohen and Manion (1996) note novice researchers’ attention to the need for avoiding reliance on one particular research instrument, suggesting instead the use of triangulation, which involves combining different methods and different sources of information. Triangulation helps to analyse and interpret the information from different angles, and allows the researcher to approximate the truth. Brown and Rodgers (2002, 243) state that if one can examine data from at least two research instruments, it will maximise the possibility of getting credible findings by cross-validating them. According to Dऺrnyei (2007, 165), triangulation refers to the generation of multiple perspectives on a phenomenon by using a variety of data sources, investigators, theories, or research methods with the purpose of corroborating an overall interpretation. Triangulation has been an effective strategy to ensure research validity; that is, if a finding survives a series of tests using different approaches, it can be regarded as being more valid than a hypothesis tested on one single method only. It should be emphasised that the term triangulation in this study refers to validation through the convergence of the findings, unlike in some books where triangulation is used as a synonym of a mixed methods approach. Thus, although triangulation has become a common and popular umbrella term with different meanings that can be related to various problems, in this study triangulation means contrasting information from more than one source to find similarities and differences, and therefore to ensure validity of findings. There are different types of triangulation. See, for example, Denzin (1978), Janesick (1994), Freeman (1998), and Brown and Rodgers (2002,

138

Chapter Five

243). For the purposes of this study, two types of triangulation were used: “data triangulation” and “methodological triangulation.” Data triangulation consists of using multiple sources of information, such as people with different roles in the institution (TTS, Lecturers, and the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department), and helps “understand and moderate the natural biases of these people” (Brown and Rodgers 2002, 244). Methodological triangulation implies using multiple data gathering procedures. In this specific context, methodological triangulation was based on the use of interviews, questionnaires, classroom observation, and textual analysis (Brown and Rodgers 2002, 244). As Robson (1993, 383) maintains, triangulation improves the quality of data and accuracy of findings, and this is one of the purposes of this study. Dऺrnyei (2007, 102) presents three types of data that questionnaires can yield: “factual question,” “behavioural questions,” and “attitudinal questions.” In this study, the questionnaire consists of a mixture of closed and open-ended questions, and most of the questions are attitudinal as they helped me find what participants think about the phenomenon being investigated, as well as their opinions, beliefs, interests and values.

5.9 Data Analysis The process of data collection is followed by data analysis. Data analysis is the process of making sense of the data collected and what it says about the phenomenon being studied, in this case the academic and research literacy practices of TTS. Data was analysed under the same categories as in the questionnaires and interviews using the main aspects discussed in the literature review. Using the phenomenological approach to qualitative data analysis, the analysis was based on the interpretive philosophy to understand and interpret the content of the data. In an effort to understand participants’ perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, values, feelings, and experiences, an attempted was made to approximate respondents’ reality to the existing observable reality. This was best accomplished through the use of the “inductive analysis,” of qualitative data where the main purpose is to allow the dominant and significant themes to emerge from the overwhelming raw data. That means that, as we were using a qualitative paradigm as the main research instrument, we were fully aware of submitting ourselves to the emerging patterns of data and were free to engage with the realities that went beyond our pre-established themes (Holliday 2007, 92).

Research Methodology

139

Since this is a qualitative content analysis, the qualitative categories applied in the analysis were derived through the induction process while it was occurring, rather than predetermined as in quantitative approaches. Dऺrnyei (2007, 245) reinforces this idea by stating that, “unlike their preconceived quantitative counter parts, the qualitative categories used in content analysis are not predetermined but are derived inductively from the data analysed.”This explains the need to allow room for the emergent themes. Dऺrnyei (2007, 246) also provides a clear distinction between quantitative and qualitative content analysis by referring to the former as “manifest level” analysis, because it is an objective and descriptive account of the surface meaning of the data, and the latter as “latent level” analysis, because it concerns a second-level, interpretive analysis of the underlying deeper meaning of data. By using latent content analysis, all the collected data were dealt with using a multi-level coding system to allow the analytical process to occur efficiently. Furthermore, memos, vignettes, and interview profiles were produced throughout the process to help the next stage, i.e. interpretation and reflection, run smoothly (Dörnyei 2007, 245–55). In order to organise the data, Holliday’s (2007) thematic approach to data analysis was used. He argues that, “taking a purely thematic approach, in which data is taken holistically and rearranged under themes which emerge as running through its totality, is the classic way to maintain the principle of emergence.” Holliday’s (2007, 90) diagram was used to help organise the data from the interviews. Fig. 5.2 below is adapted from Holliday, and served as a basis for data analysis. In step one, the raw data from participants was gathered using a digital recorder. The information was then elaborated and organised under different themes depending on the type of answers provided by both students and lecturers. In order to allow analytical process to occur efficiently, all the collected data underwent a multi-level coding system. Pre-coding was the first exercise to be done. At this level, the transcripts derived from the interviews were read several times, followed by a reflection on their relevance for the study and gathering of key information (Dऺrnyei 2007).

140

Chapter Five

Fig.5.2. The process of data analysis

Source: Holliday (2007, 90).

In the second step, transcripts were read through to get a general view. Dऺrnyei (2007, 245) alerts us to the need to be unilateral in transcribing interviews and posits that, “we should always be mindful of the fact that using different transcribing conventions to process the same recording can produce very different effects in the reader.”As Roberts (1997, 168) states, “transcribers bring their own language ideology to the task. In other words, all transcription is representation, and there is no natural or objective way in which talk can be written.” Roberts then goes further to emphasise that every decision on how to transcribe tells a story; the question, she asks, is “whose story and for what purpose?”Dऺrnyei (2007) suggests that, as there is no perfect transcription convention one could adopt automatically, we should follow a “pick-and-mix” procedure to select ideas from the various widely used transcriptions. Thus, one can

Research Methodology

141

agree with Roberts, who suggests that transcribers have to use or develop a transcription system that can best represent the interactions they have recorded. The process of reading the transcripts was not straightforward; first, because the researcher is a member of the group, and second because she has her own experience and understanding of the situation. In order to get closer to the participants’ messages and get away from her own preconceived ideas of the situation, the researcher had to re-read the transcripts several times. Re-reading the transcripts helped in their compilation, leading to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon (Richards and Morse 2007, 136). Reading small sections of the transcripts was also a valuable tool in the process and it helped to start organising ideas into small sections. As previously stated, the coding process was the stage in which data was organised, selected, and labelled according to the groups of questions they related to and the respondents’ categories to facilitate the interpretive phase. In other words, the raw data was broken into analysable themes, noting the relevant information and putting it into appropriate categories (Seidman 2006, 125). These themes were then horizontally analysed to help find the main themes that would lead the interpretive stage. While coding the marked passages with terms related to their categories, we also labelled them with codes that designated their original transcripts. We allowed the process to run inductively without interfering with any preconceived hypothesis or any theory from a different context (Seidman 2006, 117). Hence, the interviews were analysed according to the groups of participants first, and then across the groups. In other words, data was analysed separately (questionnaires and interviews apart) and contrasted with the information gathered from both TTS and lecturers. As the main categories in both interviews and questionnaires are the same for both lecturers and TTS, the opinions and feelings were compared to see whether they matched. This is to say that the process occurred in two different distinct phases. The first step comprised the vertical analysis where the data by groups of participants were analysed. The second phase consisted of the horizontal analysis, which consisted of a comparison of data from the different groups. At this stage, more instruments were applied to strengthen the ideas and convert them into the “main interpretable theme(s) of study” (Dऺrnyei 2007, 245–55). The information gathered from the other two research instruments was therefore introduced into the interpretive phase, namely the classroom observation and the textual analysis data, leading to the process of data triangulation

142

Chapter Five

(Denzin1978; Janesick1994; Freeman 1998; Seidman 2006; Dऺrnyei 2007). Finally, interpretation occurs throughout the whole analytical process, i.e. while coding, producing memos, and in interview profiles, and the real interpretation stage—the one after the analytical phase—was the most crucial since it was at this precise point that conclusions were grounded on the salient points from the interpretation done (Seidman 2006, 128; Dऺrnyei 2007, 257). At this stage we let the main themes from the analytical phase speak for themselves, and the researcher posed questions about what she had learnt from the interviews while studying and interpreting the transcripts, coding them and producing files. In addition, she had to find out what was common to the interviewees, and how to understand and explain it. She also had to see whether there was something that she did not know or expect before the study took place, whether there was anything surprising or which confirmed or contradicted my previous instincts, as well as identify how consistent the interviews were (Seidman 2006, 128–9). A summary was produced at the end of the analysis of each of the themes (Dऺrnyei 2007, 257). In order to draw up final conclusions, the most important information from the interpretation of the four research instruments—interviews, questionnaires, classroom observation and textual analysis—was gathered together. Being a reflective practitioner, the researcher was fully aware of the need to review the transcripts to double-check if relevant information had been left out. The transcripts were reviewed with the main objective of finding recurring themes and critical responses (Powel, Francisco and Maher2003). Critical responses are those we did not expect, and which yielded somehow contradictory responses. We began to colour code segments of data as a way of categorising and grouping them, while at the same time reflecting on the meanings and implications contained in them with regards to the research question. Colour coding was a useful technique as it helped in determining data sets that supported or contradicted each other in terms of the themes that emerged (Ibid., 68).This led us to the third step in which we started to set up headings that suited the pre-conceived divisions. These headings were themes that we attached to the divisions, generated from the theoretical research and which corresponded to the headings of the divisions of the interview schedule, and used at the data presentation stage. Finally, the identified themes gave form and structure for the data presentation and enabled us to jump to chapter five. Practically speaking, step four constitutes a bridge from data presentation to data interpretation and writing. From data presentation, thick descriptions were made through the articulation of

Research Methodology

143

interconnections of different data segments from the four sources of information, namely TTS’ and lecturers’ questionnaires, TTS’ and lecturers’ interviews, classroom observation, and textual analysis of some TTS’ research proposals and reports.

5.10 Summary This chapter has outlined the research design, the methods of data collection, and a detailed explanation of the piloting process especially with regards to issues of validity and generalisability. Ethical considerations were addressed and discussed. The methods used are primarily based on what the literature says about survey research and were consistent with the qualitative and quantitative paradigms. While the danger of drawing generalisations on the basis of very few students is obvious, it could be argued that the insight gained from the critical analyses of this intensive process as well as the students’ and lecturers’ accounts is likely to enhance teachers’ sensitivity to other learners’ perceptions about the usefulness of a different approach to teaching academic reading and writing and implementing a new policy to research supervision practices. In the next chapter, a detailed description of the data employed in this study is discussed and interpreted.

CHAPTER SIX DATA PRESENTATION AND DESCRIPTION

6.1 Introduction The data presented in this chapter focuses on the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200. Data is organised under the four research instruments used for data collection, namely, questionnaires, interviews, document analysis, and classroom observation. The interviews are the primary research instruments. For the interviews the main categories used for data collection to structure the presentation and description of data were: (a) lecturer’s manner of delivery; (b) resource availability; (c) research report writing; (d) assessment procedures;(e) research practices; and(f) research supervision. As mentioned in chapter five, segments of data are presented as per respondent; that is, the lecturers, the Head of the Academic Affairs Department, and the three groups of TTS. In the questionnaires four segments were used, namely the English Section Lecturers and the three groups of TTS. It is worth remembering that as there are more students than lecturers, in contrast to the group of lecturers, students who participated in the interview are not the same as those who responded to the questionnaire. The main categories used in the data collection phase structured the presentation and description of data, namely: (a) information about the lecturers ;(b) resource availability;(c) research report writing; (d) assessment procedures;(e) students’ research practices; and (f) research supervision. For this section we were aware of Lester’s (1999, 3) caution that researchers should always, “be faithful to the participants and be aware [as much as possible] of biases being brought to the inevitable editing which was needed.” The researcher was also mindful of ethical issues, such as guarding against misrepresenting, misinterpreting, and distorting or deleting findings provided in good faith by participants. Thus, some quotations from the interview data were used just as they were produced by respondents. In so doing we wanted to conform to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2008, 462), who are of the opinion that researchers need to,

Data Presentation and Description

145

“keep the flavour of the original data, so they report direct phrases and sentences, not only because they are often more illuminative and direct than the researcher’s own words, but also because they feel that it is important to be faithful to the exact words used.” As a result of reporting the participants’ narrations verbatim, the reader is given an opportunity to bring to the text their own interpretations to evaluate the extent to which the explanations and descriptions made by the researcher are plausible. This approach means that the reader is likely to find some grammar errors in the interview transcripts and questionnaire comments, alongside hesitation features and some disconnections within sentences associated with a spoken foreign language. It is therefore worth mentioning that every time participants are cited in the text they are quoted exactly in the way they expressed themselves. Thus, the major aim of data presentation is to describe how participants responded to the guiding questions; that is, how they felt and reacted to the questions posed with regard to the problem being discussed. At this point it is important to point out that the term “participants” refers to all the respondents who took part in the study, mainly lecturers, TTS, core subject lecturers and the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department. Basically, a combination of letters and numbers are used as referents for the respondents in the interviews. General subject lecturers were named GSLE1, GSLE2, GSLE3, GSLE5, and content subject lecturers were named CSL7, CSL8, CSL9 and CSL10; TTS Type 1 were referred to as S1, S2, S3 and so on, Type 2 were named ST1, ST2, ST3, and so on; and Type 3 were labelled STU1, STU2, STU3, and so on. They are sometimes referred to as “one” or “some.” On the other hand, the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department is referred to as DDAAD. In the case of the questionnaires, descriptors such as many, a few, percentages, or just numbers are used, as a larger number of lecturers and students were interacted with. For data presentation and description, this chapter is divided into four sections: questionnaires, interviews, classroom observation, and document analysis. In section one, data from the questionnaires is presented and discussed. In section two, lecturer and TTS interviews are presented and discussed. Section three and four present and discuss what has been observed from the classes and give some data from students’ written research proposals and reports, respectively.

146

Chapter Six

6.2 Data from the Questionnaires One of the secondary sources of information for this study, as presented in chapter four, was questionnaires for both lecturers and the three groups of TTS. For practical reasons, the questionnaires were presented before the interviews. The main aim of using questionnaires in this study was to get a deeper understanding of how participants see and think about the problem under study. Thus, the questionnaire was intended to find out participants’ differing perceptions in answering the same questions. We also wanted to see whether lecturers’ and students’ opinions converged or diverged and find out the reason for that. This section starts with the presentation and discussion of the lecturers’ questionnaire followed by the presentation and description of the questionnaires from the three groups of TTS. For a more detailed presentation and description of students’ and lecturers’ questionnaires see Appendices X and Z. Ten lecturers, fourteen Type 1 students, sixteen Type 2 students, and fifteen Type 3 students responded to the questionnaire. For practical reasons, and in order to save space in the text, the students’ questionnaires are compiled in one single table.

6.2.1 Lecturers’ questionnaire The first category in the questionnaire is about the lecturers, the way they evaluate themselves with regard to their performance, and availability to support students. For each statement in Table 6.1 below, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements and tick the appropriate box next to each one.

Data Presentation and Description

147

Table 6.1. Lecturers’ responses about themselves Opinion Lecturers’ self-assessment

A B C D E F G

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching Most lecturers are not committed to their job Most lecturers cannot supervise students adequately There is a need for some in-service training and refreshment courses for lecturers All lecturers are reflective practitioners Most of the lecturers holding doctoral degrees refuse to supervise students

Agree

Disagree

N

%

N

%

5

50

5

50

7

70

3

30

3

30

7

70

4

40

6

60

10

100

0

0

3

30

7

70

7

70

3

30

Lecturers’ self-assessment: As can been seen in Table 6.1 above, lecturers were asked to provide their own opinions about points relating to their performance, availability and willingness to support students. The table tells us that 50% of the lecturers agreed that they are always available for consultation, that they have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching (70%), and that they are committed to their work (30%). Regarding supervision practices, they seem to be quite positive as 60% of them state that they can supervise students adequately; 70% of the lecturers disagree that all lecturers are reflective practitioners, and they are also of the opinion that lecturers holding doctoral degrees refuse to supervise students most of the time. Interestingly, 100% agree that there is a need for some in-service training and refreshment courses for lecturers.

Chapter Six

148

Table 6.2. Lecturers’ responses about resource availability Opinion Resources availability

A B C D E F G

There are plenty of resources in the library Library material is adequate for students’ research The librarians are well trained and helpful The computer lab does not help students in writing their research reports Students have easy access to the computer lab There are enough computers in the computer lab There is a need for a students’ writing centre

Agree

Disagree

N

N

%

%

3

30

7

70

4

40

6

60

5

50

5

50

7

70

3

30

2

20

8

80

0

0

10

100

8

80

2

20

Resources availability: With regard to resource availability, looking at the figures in Table 6.2 above, 70% of the lecturers agree that there are not enough resources in the library, and library material is not adequate for students’ research (60%). With respect to the librarians, half of the respondents (50%) feel that librarians need some kind of training to make them more skilled; however, they also admit that the librarians are helpful. Concerning the computer lab, lecturers are of the opinion that it does not help students in writing their research reports due to the lack of accessibility (80%). All the lecturers disagree that there are enough computers in the computer lab, and say that there is a need for a students’ writing centre.

Data Presentation and Description

149

Table 6.3. Lecturers’ responses about research report writing Opinion

Research report writing

A

B

C

D E F

The coursework is well organised to meet the demands of research report writing The assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ research report writing The Academic Reading and Writing subjects are not contributing to students’ writing research reports The Research Methodology subject is not contributing to research report writing Writing a research report helps students become independent researchers Students acquire most of their academic literacy skills through the experience of writing their research reports

Agree

Disagree

N

N

%

%

5

50

5

50

2

20

8

80

5

50

5

50

5

50

5

50

5

50

5

50

8

80

2

20

Research report writing: Regarding the production of research reports, 50% of the lecturers are of the opinion that the coursework is well organised to meet the demands of research report writing, but the core subjects are not contributing to students’ writing research reports. With regard to the assessment procedures during coursework, and whether they contribute to students’ research report writing, 80% of respondents disagreed with this idea, and stated that students acquire most academic and research literacy skills through the experience of writing their research reports. With regard to whether writing a research report helps students become independent researchers, respondents were divided into two halves, one agreeing and one disagreeing with that position.

Chapter Six

150

Table 6.4. Lecturers’ responses about assessment procedures Opinion

Assessment procedures

A B C D E

F

Students are given enough time to prepare for essays and tests The essay and test questions are appropriate for their level The assessment criteria are clear and fair Feedback is always provided on time The assessment tasks in the coursework contribute to the final assessment (research report writing) The final research report should not be a requirement for the students to obtain their qualification

Agree

Disagree

N

N

%

%

5

50

5

50

5

50

5

50

2

20

8

80

1

10

9

90

1

10

9

90

0

0

10

100

Assessment procedures: Table 6.4 above presents lecturers’ opinions about the assessment procedures used at TTI nr 200. There is a balance between those who agree and those who disagree with the view that students are given enough time to prepare for essays and tests. The same balance applies to the point about the essay and test questions being appropriate for TTS’ level; 80% of respondents state that the assessment criteria are not clear and fair; 90% of respondents posit that feedback is not provided on time and the assessment tasks in the coursework do not contribute to the final assessment (research report writing). Interestingly, 100% of the lecturers disagree that the final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification.

Data Presentation and Description

151

Table 6.5. Lecturers’ responses about research practices Opinion

Research practices

A B C D E F G H

I

Students are able to read and analyse academic texts with a “critical eye” Students are able to write texts in different genres Students are able to construct an academic argument Students are able to access and select information from different sources Students are able to quote and paraphrase Students are able to find authors’ main arguments and provide counter arguments Students are aware of the dangers of plagiarism Students know how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter Students learn more in writing their research reports than in the four years of coursework

Agree

Disagree

N

N

%

%

4

40

6

60

2

20

8

80

3

30

7

70

6

60

4

40

4

40

6

60

3

30

7

70

4

40

6

60

4

40

6

60

4

40

6

60

Research practices: Research practices are another category in this questionnaire. The purpose of this subheading was to find out lecturers’ views about students’ abilities to do research. As Table 6.5 above shows, 60% of respondents agree that students are able to access and select information from different sources. However, they are of the opinion that students cannot read and analyse academic texts with a “critical eye,” and they are not able to quote and paraphrase sources. For these lecturers,

Chapter Six

152

students are not able to find authors’ main arguments and provide counter arguments, and they are not even aware of the dangers of plagiarism. Lecturers also maintain that students do not know how to structure a research report and to what include in each chapter. The majority (80%) of the lecturers are aware of the students’ difficulties in writing texts in different genres, and think that 60% students learn more in the four years of coursework than in writing their research reports. Table 6.6. Lecturers’ responses about research supervision Opinion

Research supervision

A B C D E F G H

Supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of the research area they supervise Supervisors are always available The relationship between students and supervisors is good Some supervisors are not helpful Research supervision contributes to students’ academic and professional development Supervisors send feedback promptly Feedback from supervisors is adequate Supervisors lack training in supervision skills

Agree

Disagree

N

N

%

%

8

80

2

20

2

20

8

80

6

60

4

40

7

70

3

30

9

90

1

10

3 3

30 30

7 7

70 70

8

80

2

20

Research supervision: Table 6.6 above shows that, in general, lecturers agree that research supervision contributes to students’ academic and professional development (90%), and supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of the research area they supervise. However, they also recognise that supervisors are not always available and they lack training

Data Presentation and Description

153

in supervision practices (80%). Although the relationship between students and supervisors might be good (60%), most of the lecturers agree that some supervisors are not so helpful (70%). The provision of feedback and its adequacy is another problematic area mentioned by the lecturers. Summary Most of the lecturers admit that they are not reflective practitioners, and feel that there is a need for in-service training of both lecturers and supervisors. With regards to resources availability, they are of the opinion that there are not enough resources in the library and some of the materials need to be updated. They think that librarians are quite helpful but they lack some training in the area. For the computer lab facilities, they require a bigger computer room and are of the opinion that all students should have access to it. They point out that there is a need for implementing a students’ writing centre. Concerning the issue of research report writing, they posit that the coursework is well organised to meet the demands of research report writing, but that the core subjects are not equipping students with the academic literacy skills they need to succeed in writing their research reports (Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology). They state that students do not learn much in writing their research reports. As for the assessment procedures, they posit that the criteria used are not clear and fair enough for the students to spot what their weaknesses are and how to overcome them. An interesting point that lecturers made is that the research report should not be part of the assessment for students to get their degrees. Responding to the research practices aspect, lecturers recognise that students have serious difficulties in reading and analysing texts with a critical eye. They add that students are not able to identify and write in different genres and find authors’ main arguments and provide counter arguments. More importantly, they state that students are not aware of the dangers of plagiarism and do not know how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter. For research supervision practices, they all admit that they have a sound academic knowledge in the area they are supervising, and the relationship between supervisors and students is reasonably good. However, they were humble enough to confess that supervisors are not always helpful in guiding students’ work, and their availability is another problem. Another negative point they pointed out is the feedback, which is not provided adequately and promptly.

Chapter Six

154

6.2.2 Students’ questionnaire After gathering and organising questionnaire data by groups of TTS, data were combined in a table for each of the six categories: ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™

Information about the lecturers Resources availability Research report writing Assessment procedures Research practices Research supervision.

What follows is the presentation and description of questionnaire data from the TTS. The presentation and description is summarised in a table containing Type 1 students, those who have successfully finished their research reports, comprising 15 students; Type 2 students consisting of students who are currently writing their research reports, with 16 students; and Type 3 students who are trying to write their research reports but are still struggling, with 14 students participating in the study. For each statement in the table, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements and tick the appropriate box next to each statement.

D

C

B

A

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching A high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process Most lecturers are committed to the teaching and research supervision job

Information about lecturers

6

12

12

10

39.99

79.99

79.99

69.66

8

3

3

5

59.99

20.00

20.00

33.33

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

Table 6.7. Students’ responses about the lecturers

13

16

14

10

N

81.25

100.00

87.50

62.50

%

Agree

3

0

2

6

N

18.75

0.00

12.50

37.50

%

Disagree

Current Students

Data Presentation and Description

8

8

7

4

N

57.14

57.14

50.00

28.57

%

Agree

6

6

7

10

N

42.84

42.85

50.00

71.60

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

155

G

F

E

156

Most lecturers cannot supervise students properly The lecturer’s qualification (degrees they hold) contributes significantly to the quality of research supervision Some lecturers need in-service training

Information about lecturers

8

11

11

53.32

73.32

73.32

6

4

4

46.66

26.66

26.66

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

15

10

12

N

100.00

62.50

75.00

%

Agree

0

6

4

N

0.00

37.50

25.00

%

Disagree

Current Students

Chapter Six

14

13

11

N

100.00

93.85

78.56

%

Agree

0

1

3

N

0.00

7.14

21.42

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

Data Presentation and Description

About the lecturers: As can be inferred from Table 6.7 above, successful students state that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation (69.66%). It is common sense among these students that, in general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching (79.99%) and a high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process (79.99%). Students also think that most lecturers are committed to the teaching and research supervision practices (39.99%), and recognise that the lecturer’s qualification degrees contribute significantly to the quality of research supervision (73.32%). However, they are also of the opinion that most lecturers cannot supervise students properly (73.32%), and therefore lecturers need some in-service training (53.322%). Current students are those who are currently writing their research reports and it is therefore expected that they have their own opinions with regard to lecturers’ performance, resource availability, research report writing, and the research-related practices and skills. In all, 100% of these students agreed with the idea that a high standard of work is expected from the lecturers during the supervision process, and some lecturers need in-service training. About 62.50% of the students stated that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation. They stated that, in general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching (87.50%), but in their opinion most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job (81%). However, the majority of the students think that the lecturers’ qualifications contribute significantly to the quality of research supervision (62.50%), and that most of the lecturers cannot supervise students properly (75%). All the students are of the opinion that some lecturers need in-service training. The group of unsuccessful students comprises those who are out of the system, waiting to get started with their research reports. As they are part of the problem being investigated and constitute the overwhelming majority, it was thought that their opinion would be very helpful to this study. It can be noted from Table 6.7 above that for this group of students, lecturers are often not accessible and available for consultation (71.70%), and 50% recognise that lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching and a high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process (57.14%). Students also recognise that lecturer’s qualification degrees contribute significantly to the quality

157

158

Chapter Six

of research supervision (92.85%), but do not agree that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation during supervision practices (71.42%). They also think that most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job (57.14%) and cannot supervise students properly (78.56%). Therefore, they all agree that lecturers need some in-service training (100%). To summarise Table 6.7, successful and current students agree that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation and that, in general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching. Unsuccessful students, however, have a different opinion, probably due to the fact that they could not succeed in their studies, therefore blaming the lecturers for their failure. The three groups agree that a high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process and that the lecturer’s qualification (the degrees they hold) contributes significantly to the quality of research supervision. They also agree that some lecturers need in-service training but are of the opinion that most cannot supervise students properly.

E

D

C

B

A

There are plenty of resources in the library Library material adequate for research writing Most of the books students read are borrowed from other places Students have easy access to the computer lab There are enough computers in the lab

Resources availability

5

3

8

10

8

33.33

20.00

53.32

66.66

53.32

10

12

7

5

7

N

N

66.66

60.00

46.66

33.32

46.66

%

Disagree

Agree %

Successful Students

3

2

14

5

1

N

18.75

12.50

87.50

31.25

6.25

%

Agree

13

14

2

11

15

N

81.25

87.50

12.50

68.75

93.75

%

Disagree

Current Students

Table 6.8. Students’ responses about resource availability

Data Presentation and Description

2

1

12

3

3

N

14.28

7.14

85.71

21.42

21.42

%

Agree

12

13

2

11

11

N

85.71

92.85

14.28

78.57

78.56

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

159

G

F

160

The librarians are well trained and helpful There is a need for a student writing centre

4

7 26.66

46.66 11

8 73.33

53.32 2

10

Chapter Six

12.50

62.50 14

6 87.50

37.50 0

2 0.00

14.28 14

12

100.00

85.71

Data Presentation and Description

Resource availability: Table 6.8 above presents students’ perceptions about resource availability. Successful students are positive and of the opinion that there are plenty of resources in the library (53.32%). About 53.32% of the students recognise that most of the books they read were borrowed from other places than TTI nr 200. Regarding access to the computer lab, only 20% of respondents agreed that they had easy access to it, but that there are not enough computers (66.66%). With regard to the personnel in the library, students are of the opinion that they are not so helpful and lack some kind of training (53.32%).It is interesting to hear from students that there is no need for a writing centre (73.33 %). For current students it is a fact that there are not plenty of resources in the library (94.75%), and most of the books they read were borrowed from other places than TTI nr 200 (87.50%). They also state that the library materials are not adequate for research writing (68.75%). However, 62.50% think that the librarians are well trained and helpful. About 68.75% of the students say that the materials in the library are not adequate for research writing. Regarding the computer lab, 87.50% say that they do not have easy access to it and 81.25% say that there are not enough computers. Like the successful students, they are of the opinion that there is no need for a student’s writing centre (87.50%). Unsuccessful students think that there are not enough resources in the library (78.56%), and they do not have easy access to the computer lab (92.85%). They are of the opinion that the library materials are not adequate for research writing (78.57%). They go further to state that the librarians are not well trained and are not so helpful either (85.71%). They state that most of the books they read were borrowed from places other than TTI nr 200. With regard to the computer lab, they are of the opinion that there are not enough computers (85.71%), and access to the computer lab is difficult (92.85%). This group of students says there is a need for a students’ writing centre (100%). While successful students agree that there are plenty of resources in the library, and that library material is adequate for research writing, current students and unsuccessful students are of the opposite opinion. In principle, all groups agree that most of the books they read are borrowed from other places, and only unsuccessful students favour the need for a students’ writing centre. Successful and unsuccessful students acknowledge that there are not enough computers in the computer lab and that the librarians are not well trained and helpful.

161

Chapter Six

D

C

B

A

The coursework was well organised to meet the research report writing demands I did not learn much from the Academic Reading subject to help me write my research report I did not learn much from the Academic Writing subject to help me write my research report I did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help me write my research report

Research report writing

8

7

9

7

53.33

46.66

59.99

66.66

7

8

5

8

46.66

53.32

46.66

33.33

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

8

9

10

12

N

Agree

50.00

56.25

62.50

75.00

%

8

7

6

4

N

50.00

43.75

37.50

25.00

%

Disagree

Current Students

Table 6.9. Students’ responses about research report writing

162

10

12

2

1

N

71.42

85.70

14.28

7.14

%

Agree

4

2

12

13

N

28.57

14.28

85.71

92.85

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

F

E

Writing a research report helps students become independent researchers I acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing my research report.

Research report writing

13

15

86.66

99.99

2

0

13.33

0.00

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

12

14

N

Agree

75.00

87.50

%

4

2

N

25.00

12.50

%

Disagree

Current Students

Data Presentation and Description

1

12

N

7.14

85.71

%

Agree

13

2

N

92.85

14.28

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

163

164

Chapter Six

Research report writing: The aim of this subheading was to find out students’ opinions with regard to issues related to research report writing, such as its usefulness and difficulties. In order to do so, the first aspect considered was the coursework as a whole and its contribution to the process of equipping students with the skills to write their research reports. About 66.66% of successful students agreed that the coursework was well organised to meet the research report writing demands. Regarding the assessment procedures during coursework, and whether they contribute to students’ writing research reports, 59.66%favoured the idea that the assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ research report writing. One half of the students agreed that they learnt quite a lot from the Academic Reading and Writing courses in writing their research reports (53.33%). Looking at the Research Methodology subject, students confessed that they did not learn much from it in writing their research reports (53.33 %). For this group, 100% agreed that writing a research report helped them become independent researchers. Current students were also asked to reflect on research report writing practices. Table 6.9 shows that, in principle, students agreed that the coursework was well organised to meet the research report writing demands (75%), that writing a research report helped them become independent researchers (87.50%), and that they acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing their research reports (75%). They stated that the assessment procedures during coursework contributed to students writing research reports (62.25%), but felt that they did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing courses (56.25%). While 50% said they learnt much from the Research Methodology subject in writing their research reports, the other half said the opposite. However, 75%recognised that they acquired most of their skills through the experience of writing their research reports. The majority of unsuccessful students are of the opinion that the coursework was not well organised to meet the research report writing demands (92.85%), and they did not acquire most of the skills through the experience of writing their research reports (92.85%). For them, the assessment procedures during coursework did not contribute to the writing of their research reports either (92.85%). They felt that they did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing courses (85.60%), and nor did they learn much from the Research Methodology course (71.42%). However, they agreed that writing a research report helps students become independent researchers (85.71%). Successful and current students agreed that the coursework was well organised to meet the research report writing demands, but they did not

Data Presentation and Description

165

learn much from the Academic Reading subject to help them write their research reports; however, Type 3 students were of the opposite opinion. Current and unsuccessful students felt that they did not learn much from the academic writing subject to help them write their research reports, but successful students acknowledged the opposite. All the groups were of the opinion that they did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help write their research reports, but they think that writing a research report helps students become independent researchers. Successful and current students accept that they acquired most skills through the experience of writing their research reports. However, unsuccessful students do not share the same opinion.

Chapter Six

E

D

C

B

A

I was given enough time for essays and tests The essays and tests were appropriate for my level The assessment criteria were clear and fair Feedback on my work was always provided and appropriate The essays and tests I wrote prepared me for research report writing

Assessment procedures

11

11

12

14

15

66.66

73.32

80.00

93.32

100.00

4

4

3

1

0

33.32

26.66

19.99

6.66

0.00

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

14

10

6

12

10

N

87.50

62.50

37.50

75.00

62.50

%

Agree

2

6

10

4

6

N

12.50

37.50

62.50

25.00

37.50

%

Disagree

Current Students

Table 6.10. Students’ responses about the assessment procedures

166

2

4

3

12

13

N

Agree

14.28

28.57

21.42

85.71

92.85

%

12

10

11

2

1

N

85.71

71.42

78.56

14.28

7.14

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

F

The final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification

Assessment procedures

9

60.00

6

40.00

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

3

N

18.75

%

Agree

13

N

81.25

%

Disagree

Current Students

Data Presentation and Description

12

N

Agree

86.71

%

2

N

14.28

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

167

168

Chapter Six

Assessment procedures: Successful students posit that they were given enough time for essays and tests (100%) and the essays and tests they wrote were appropriate for their level (93%). Around (80%) of the students say that the assessment criteria were clear and fair throughout the course and they are also positive about feedback provided by lecturers (73%). About (66.66%) of these students say that the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for research report writing. With regards to the production of the research report as a final assessment task, (60%) of the respondents think that the final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification. Currently writing students seem to agree that the essays and tests were appropriate for their level (75%) and the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for research report writing (87.50%). They also agree that the final research report should be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification (81.25%). These students seem to agree, in principle that they were given enough time to write essays and tests (62.50%), and feedback on their work was always provided and appropriate (62.50%).However, according to them, the assessment criteria were not so clear (62.50%). Unsuccessful students indicated that they were given enough time for essays and tests (92.85%), and the essays and tests they did were appropriate for their level (85.71%),but the assessment criteria were not so clear (78.56%). Feedback on their work was not always provided and it was not so appropriate (71.42%). In their opinion the essays and tests they wrote did not prepare them for research report writing (85.71%). These students are of the opinion that the final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification (85.71%). With regard to the assessment procedures, all the groups have acknowledged that they were given enough time for essays and tests and the essays and tests were appropriate for their level. While successful students are of the opinion that the assessment criteria were clear and fair, currently writing and unsuccessful students do not think the same. Successful and currently writing students accept that feedback on their work was always provided and appropriate and the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for research report writing. However, unsuccessful students are of an opposite opinion. With regards to whether the final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification successful and unsuccessful students are of the opinion that the final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification, but currently writing students think the opposite. Research practices come in the next table.

E

D

C

B

A

I am able to construct an academic argument I am able to access and select information from different sources I am able to quote and paraphrase I am able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments I am aware of the dangers of practicing plagiarism

Research practices

15

15

13

15

15

99.99

99.99

86.66

99.99

100.0 0

0

0

2

0

0

0.00

0.00

13.33

0.00

0.00

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

15

14

10

13

13

N

Agree

93.75

87.50

62.50

71.25

81.25

%

1

2

6

3

3

N

6.25

12.50

37.50

18.75

18.75

%

Disagree

Current Students

Table 6.11. Students’ responses about research practices

Data Presentation and Description

5

4

4

4

2

N

35.70

28.56

28.56

28.56

14.28

%

Agree

9

10

10

10

12

N

64.28

71.42

71.42

71.42

85.71

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

169

G

F

170

I am aware of how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter I learnt more in writing my research report than in the four years course

14

14

93.33

93.32

1

1

6.66

6.66

11

14

Chapter Six

68.75

87.50

5

2

31.25

12.50

a)

5

a)

35.70

a)

9

a)

64.28

Data Presentation and Description

171

Research practices: Research practices are another aspect that students had to think about. For successful students, all (100%) are of the opinion that they are able to construct an academic argument, can access and select information from different sources, and can find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments. They are all also aware of the dangers of plagiarism. Most of them (86%) say that they can quote and paraphrase authors. The majority (93%) recognise that they are aware of how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter, and say that they learnt more in writing their research reports than in the four years of coursework (93%). For current students, with regards to research practices it can be observed that the overwhelming majority (93.75%) are aware of the dangers of plagiarism, and they also say that they are able to construct an academic argument (81.25%) as well as find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments (87.50%). Accessing and selecting information from different sources does not seem to be a problem for them, as 81.25% state that they are able to do so. They also think that they are aware of how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter (87.50%). They agree that they learnt more in writing their research report than in the four-year coursework (68.75%), and in principle they are able to quote and paraphrase authors (62.50%). Unsuccessful students tended to rank their research practices as their serious problem. Some of the students admitted that they were not able to construct an academic argument (85.70%), and could not quote and paraphrase authors properly (71.42%); they also felt that they were not able to access and select information from different sources (71.42%). They were also not able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments (71.42%). About 64.28% indicated that they were not aware of the dangers of practicing plagiarism and that they were not aware of how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter (64.28%). Regarding the last aspect on the table, Type 3 students made no comment because they were still in the process of writing their research projects. Looking at the information about research practices, it can be inferred from the table that there are no problems for successful and current students; they accepted that they are able to construct an academic argument, access and select information from different sources, and find the author’s main arguments, quote and paraphrase them, and provide counter arguments. They also posited that they are aware of the dangers of plagiarism, know how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter, and even recognized that they learnt more in writing their

172

Chapter Six

research reports than in the four years of coursework. However, unsuccessful students admitted that their research practices are quite poor. They stated that they are not able to construct an academic argument, and cannot quote and paraphrase writers; they also stated that they are not able to access and select information from different sources, and nor are they able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments. They also indicated that they are not aware of the dangers of plagiarism and lack awareness on how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter.

E

D

C

B

A

My supervisor has/had sound academic knowledge of my research area My supervisor is/was always available The relationship with my supervisor was good My supervisor is/was not helpful Research supervision has contributed a lot to my academic and professional development

Research supervision

12

0

13

9

14

79.99

0.00

86.66

59.99

93.33

3

15

2

6

1

15

10

100.0 0

20.00

11

11

13

N

93.75

62.50

68.75

68.75

81.25

%

Agree

1

6

5

5

3

N

6.25

37.50

31.25

31.25

18.75

%

Disagree

Current Students

13.33

40.00

6.66

%

N

N

%

Disagree

Agree

Successful Students

Table 6.12. Students’ responses about research supervision

Data Presentation and Description

4

7

5

4

5

N

28.56

50.00

35.71

28.56

35.70

%

Agree

10

7

9

10

9

N

71.42

50.00

64.28

71.42

64.28

%

Disagree

Unsuccessful Students

173

H

G

F

174

My supervisor does/did send feedback promptly The feedback from my supervisor is/was adequate There is a need for supervisor training 7

7

6

46.66

46.66

40.00

8

8

9

53.33

53.33

60.00

14

9

7

Chapter Six

87.50

56.25

43.75

2

7

9

12.50

43.75

56.25

12

10

7

85.71

71.42

50.00

2

4

7

14.28

28.56

50.00

Data Presentation and Description

175

Research supervision: Table 6.12 above is based on research supervision practices. Looking at the table, most of the successful students were of a positive opinion about the supervisors. In general, they said that their supervisors had a sound academic knowledge of their research area (93%), and the relationship between them and their supervisors was good (86.66%). All of them stated that their supervisors were helpful (100%), and about 80% recognised that research supervision contributed a lot to their academic and professional development. With regards to supervisors’ availability, some students said that their supervisors were always available (59.99%). In response to the type of feedback provided by their supervisors, students said that supervisors did not send feedback promptly (60%), but feedback from their supervisors was adequate (53%); 46.66% reckoned that there is a need for supervisor training, and the remaining 53% thought that there is no need for supervisors training. Current students indicated that their supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of their research area (81.25%), and research supervision contributed a lot to their academic and professional development, although they had not yet finished writing (93.75%).More than 50% of the group indicated that their supervisors are always available (68.75%), and that the relationship between them and their supervisors is good (68.75%), but they did not find their supervisors so helpful (62.50%). They were of the opinion that their supervisors do not send feedback promptly (56.25%), but when they do the feedback is adequate (56.25%). About 87.50% of the respondents were of the opinion that supervisors need some sort of training. The unsuccessful students had some experience in being supervised, but they did not succeed to the point of concluding their studies. Looking carefully at the table, one can read that according to the students their supervisors do not have a sound academic knowledge of their research area (64.28%),and the relationship between supervisors and students is not so good (64.28%). About 71.42% said that their supervisors are not always available and they have not been so helpful (49.99%). In their opinion, supervisors send feedback promptly (50%), and the feedback is adequate (71.42%). However, research supervision has not contributed that much to their academic and professional development (71.42%). They concluded that there is a need for supervisor training (85.71%). Regarding research supervision, the information from the table provides the following results. While unsuccessful students are mainly negative about the points made, successful and current students accept that their supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of their research area, and were always available; the relationship between them and their

176

Chapter Six

supervisors was good and they state that research supervision contributed a lot to their academic and professional development. Successful students posited that their supervisors were helpful but the feedback provided was not adequate, and they also think that there is no need for supervisor training. All the students think that feedback from lecturers was not sent promptly. Unsuccessful students have a feeling that there is a need for supervisor training.

6.2.3 Concluding summary This is the summary of the students’ information gathered from the six questionnaire tables. In principle, with regard to the lecturers, most of the students agreed that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation, and have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching. However, Type 3 students disagreed that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation. The three groups agree that a high standard of work is expected from lecturers during the supervision process and that the lecturer’s qualification and the degrees they hold contribute significantly to the quality of research supervision. They also agreed that some lecturers need in-service training but are of the opinion that the majority of them cannot supervise students properly. Concerning resource availability, while Type 1 students agreed that there are plenty of resources in the library, and that library material is adequate for research writing, Type 2 and Type 3 are of the opposite opinion. In principle, all the groups agreed that most of the books students read are borrowed from other places, but they do not favour the need for a students’ writing centre. Type 1 and Type 3 students think that there are not enough computers in the computer lab and that librarians are not well trained or helpful. Type 1 and Type 2 students agreed that the coursework was well organised to meet the research report writing demands, but they did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing courses to help them write their research reports. All the groups were of the opinion that they did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help them write their research reports, but thought that writing a research report helps students become independent researchers. Type 1 and Type 2 students accepted that they acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing their research reports, but Type 3 did not share the same opinion. With regards to the assessment procedures, all the groups have acknowledged that they were given enough time for essays and tests, and

Data Presentation and Description

177

the essays and tests were appropriate for their level. While Type 1 was of the opinion that the assessment criteria were clear and fair, Type 2 and Type 3 were negative about that. Type 1 and Type 2 students accepted that feedback was always provided and appropriate and the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for research report writing. However, Type 3 students were of the opposite opinion. With regards to whether the final research report should be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification, Type 1 and Type 3 students were of a positive opinion, but Type 2 students thought the opposite. Looking at the information about the research practices, it can be inferred that, unlike Type 3 students, there are no problems for Type 1 and Type 2 students; they accept that they are able to construct an academic argument, can access and select information from different sources, and can find the author’s main arguments, quote and paraphrase them, and provide counter arguments. They also posited that they were aware of the dangers of plagiarism, know how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter, and even recognized that they learnt more in writing their research reports than in the four years of coursework. Regarding research supervision, Type 1 and Type 2 students, in contrast to Type 3 students, accepted that their supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of their research area and were always available; the relationship between them and their supervisors was good and they state that research supervision contributed considerably to their academic and professional development. Type 1 students posited that their supervisors were helpful but that the feedback provided was not so adequate. Type 1 students also thought that there is no need for supervisor training. All the students think that feedback was not sent promptly.

6.3 Data from the interviews 6.3.1 Interview data from lecturers (i) Interview data from general subjects lecturers (GSLE) (a) Lecture delivery

As mentioned in the research methodology chapter, lecturers were named differently in order to maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants. General subject lecturers were referred to as GSLE1, GSLE2, GSLE3, GSLE4 and GSLE5. The main issues raised with regard to lecture delivery were the lecturing method or style of teaching, the type of materials used in the classroom, and the extent to which the subject taught by each of the respondents contributed to the writing of the research

Chapter Six

178

report. In response to the first question about what teaching method lecturers mostly used, the majority of respondents indicated the following: ™ Lecturing method ™ Small discussion ™ Group and pair work. GSLE1 was the first to start the discussion and pointed out that while he found it necessary to use the traditional lecturing mode, he still tries to make the lessons as interactive as possible, and to break every stage of the lesson into practical activities. “You know, it is very productive to stop from time to time and get students to work with each other on something.” Like GSLE1, GSLE 2 also indicated that he never uses one single method in his classrooms and that there is always a mixture of one-way transmission lecturing and classroom active engagement of his students. He said that he gives a lot of opportunities for students to work either individually or in groups. He went further to explain that his subject requires active engagement from students and sometimes they are required to act as “decision makers” and “problem solvers,” and clarified that students have a number of practical activities to complete. GSLE3 also expressed a similar sentiment to the foregoing lecturers. He acknowledged that he does use the traditional method a great deal, “because the level that students bring to the classroom is too low… As a result, students wait for the lecturer to say everything because they think lecturers know everything.” He went further to state that, “sometimes you need to tell them to take notes of the material…but I try to stage my lessons, and play the role of a guide in order to help them learn.” GSLE4 indicated that he could not attach a name to his way of teaching, but could definitely describe what occurs within his classrooms. He explained that what happens in his class is that students have to speak, because if they don’t it means they do not understand what he is explaining to them. When students do not speak he stops and tries to set up a scene for them to talk and react to what he is saying. According to him, this is quite difficult and time consuming, as the lecturer needs to work hard to get there. First students need to be motivated for the topic and then the lecturer needs to ask as many questions as possible for them to participate in the lesson. Like GSLE4, GSLE5 believed that, “teaching is based on a conversation between the lecturer and students; the classroom is a learning community, where all members of the community need to interact among themselves.” He went further to emphasise that he cannot make sense of

Data Presentation and Description

179

and negotiate meanings on behalf of his students. Students need to be engaged all the time and encouraged to talk with the lecturer and their colleagues. He explained that he likes to challenge what students say to get them to develop their own thinking and understanding. This is his preferred method of teaching. The advantage of approaching students in that way, according to him, was that the lecturer listens to their voices and can check whether there are gaps in their understanding, and whether they bring their knowledge background into the classroom. To most respondents, the traditional method seems to be the main vehicle for lecture delivery. Asked about the mode of lecture delivery they mostly used, GSLE4 asserted: “For me, I suppose I use the traditional teaching method, what some people would consider to be chalk and talk. If you get in the classroom waiting for students to ask questions and come up with ideas about the topic then forget it. It will be the end of the lesson and a waste of time.” Discussing the lecture method, GSLE5 expressed the reservation that what worries her about lecturing is that the problem seems to focus on the lecturers’ part and not on the students’. “Students are what lecturers want them to be,” she said. They do not come into the classroom to dictate rules but to react to the lecturer’s action. So if the lecturer tells them from the beginning that s/he wants them to be active and participate in the lesson, if the lecturer encourages them to do so and if the classroom atmosphere facilitates that interaction, of course they will be active. Despite this observation, she went on to support the use of traditional methods of teaching, as according to her, “sometimes it is important for students to get some preliminary input about what the theory says regarding the topic under study, and in that case, the lecturing mode applies.” She went further to explain that, under those circumstances, “it is important to have some visuals for students to both see as well as listen.” She went further to state that she uses PowerPoint slides in most of her lessons, and thinks that this way of teaching, “encourages students to participate in the class. Of course you cannot expect all the students to perform at the same level of knowledge, but they do participate.” Giving another justification for the use of the traditional method, GSLE3 was of the opinion that one of the main difficulties that students are confronting is their lack of preparedness. He said: “Even when they are given something to do before the lesson they never prepare the material, and when the teacher asks questions about that material they just do not say anything because they did not read and prepare it.” He observed that it is therefore, “rather strange that most students asked for more interaction

180

Chapter Six

during lectures, but when you pose a question and try to engage them in the discussion, most of them do not interact.”He argued that: “Sometimes you find that in a class probably one or two students have read the text and can engage with you, so that is why I say that I mainly use the traditional lecturing mode. I just use PowerPoint slides to guide me with the key points of the discussion and help them take notes.” It would appear that under those circumstances GSLE3 had no option except to proceed with the traditional method of teaching. Like GSLE3, GSLE4 put across the sentiment that, “basically, the mode of lecturing is the traditional one where we transmit the knowledge and ask some questions to check students’ understanding.” To enhance lecture delivery, most respondents commented that the main technique they use is board work, as well as some handouts; three lecturers also mentioned the use of PowerPoint slides. Transparencies, overhead projectors and videos were not mentioned at all. Responding to how they taught writing, GSLE1 explained that he was using the traditional model of layout based on introduction, development and conclusion, but is of the opinion that, “it is the academic writing lecturer’s responsibility to teach writing as a skill, as an academic skill at university.” In principle, most of the lecturers seemed to agree with GSLE1 that academic writing should be taught by the lecturer responsible for that subject. However, “just because students have academic writing we cannot fold our arms and assume that students know how to compose an acceptable piece of writing. We could and … should help students to produce academic written pieces of paper,” said GSLE2. Expressing a similar sentiment about teaching students to write academically, GSLE3 asserted that, “if we spend time teaching students how to produce a text within the academic requirements, we will not have time to teach the content of our subject. That is the reason why students have specific subjects to teach them how to read, write and do research. Everyone is aware of that…I am sorry, but we shouldn’t feed other peoples’ monkeys.” However, GSLE5 is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the academic writing lecturer. He said: “Content subject lecturers have the main responsibility of teaching students how to do things but this does not prevent other lecturers from helping students improve their academic literacy practices…especially because our students join the institution with very low levels of proficiency.” (b)Resource availability

The second topic in the interview schedule is about resource availability, and lecturers were asked to comment on whether the resources in the library were adequate for students’ writing research reports. They were

Data Presentation and Description

181

also asked to provide their opinions about the computer lab and its contribution in the production of the research reports. In general, there was a constraint that most lecturers expressed; that is, both the main library and the computer lab do not contribute to students’ process and production of their research reports. GSLE1 argued: “The library is there, and it has always been there. What needs to be done is to update the materials…they are quite old.” Discussing along the same lines, GSLE3 indicated that, “one of the problems that the institution is facing is lack of space; there is no space for anything. Classrooms are not enough; the library is too small, there is no place for students to sit and concentrate on their studies…and on top of that we are enrolling new students year after year.” Commenting on the same aspect and trying to reinforce GSLE4’s comments, GSLE2 was of the opinion that what needs to be done is to close the institution for an academic year to wake up decision makers and raise their awareness for the need to find a bigger place for this institution, which is training teachers for all educational levels, “but no one is giving it the place it deserves in the society.” GSLE4 also argued that he knows a lot of new books were bought recently, but the problem is where to keep them and how to make them accessible to students. Regarding the computer lab, GSLE5 clarified that, “as far as I am concerned there is no computer lab whatsoever at TTI nr 200…what does exist is an ICT classroom for maths students to practice in.” In addition, GSLE4 stated that, “what we are calling a computer lab in fact is a classroom, but just for a specific group of students…thus, I think that there is a need for setting up a computer lab just as in many universities in Africa, not to mention in the world.” Generally speaking, some lecturers did not seem to be interested in commenting about these two aspects. They all agreed that the library is too small and the materials there need to be updated, and there is also a need to set up a computer lab where students can go and work independently. (c) Research report writing

Regarding the issue of research report writing, three main questions were asked: ™ In your opinion, what are the reasons that might make students fail to complete their research reports? ™ What can be done to help them complete their research reports swiftly? ™ Do you think the research report is necessary and important? Please elaborate.

182

Chapter Six

Responding to the first question on the reasons for students’ failure to produce their research reports, GSLE2 explained that there were many factors contributing to it. First, students enter TTI nr 200 with a very low proficiency in the spoken and written language; they come from a level where teachers did not ask them to do as much work as they do here; they come from crowded classrooms where cheating was easy due to that lack of space, and when there is a test the lecturer cannot control this. For GSLE3, students fail to produce their research reports because they only start thinking about it at the end of the four academic years of coursework, which is too late for help. Commenting on the same issue, GSLE1 pointed out that the situation has changed a little bit, but still needs to be improved. Students need to enter TTI nr 200with an idea of what is expected from them. In his words, there is nothing wrong with the topic because students are free to choose it, there is no lack of motivation, otherwise they would have not finished the four years of coursework, and there is not too heavy a workload because they are just writing their research reports and he thinks that the problem is not lack of time either. To him, the problem is, “the kind of product we receive at the admission phase and the product we get after the four years of coursework. Perhaps we need to rethink the admission process. I favour an educational policy where all students have the right to study but in order to enter higher education we need to set up a placement test or whatever you want to call it.” In the same line of reasoning, GSLE3 went further to emphasise that there seems to be a lack of commitment on the students’ side. Students are quite lazy and irresponsible about their studies, he said. They take higher education studies in the same way as they did at the previous levels; for example, they do not participate in the group work assigned by the lecturers, and most of the time it is just one or two students who do all the work. Most of the students get very low marks in the written tests and they pass from one academic year to another without making any extra effort. As a result, when they are asked to think about their research reports they panic and give up most of the time because they are not used to working independently and seriously. Reacting to the same topic, GSLE4 was of the opinion that the institution needs to change the entry exam rules and ask departments to set up tests comprising the content of the subject matter, the pedagogical knowledge, and general knowledge. Weak students will then be left out of the system. However, according to her this does not seem to be the best solution. The problem is that the entry assessment does not test students’ ability, but is nonetheless used to help select who can enter TTI nr 200.

Data Presentation and Description

183

Thus, if, for example, in a specific subject the maximum mark is 10, and 45 students must be enrolled, the number of students will be counted regressively until we get 45 students, no matter whether the last students got 0.5 marks in the test. This is indeed an aspect contributing to the students’ failure in their studies, because groups are in many aspects so heterogeneous that it becomes difficult to find common terms for teaching them. GSLE4 went further to reiterate that what a lecturer is able to achieve depends very much on the students that s/he gets. In most of the classrooms, students have incredible difficulties in reading and writing, they hardly ask questions in class, they never ask for clarification, and they believe that they must be told everything. They also lack initiative. To this lecturer: “With this kind of student it is quite difficult to move a step ahead.” To close this discussion, GSLE5 suggested that rather than admitting students from other schools we should give priority to students from the teacher training colleges, who at least have some experience in teaching and therefore will be more or less familiar with the teaching learning practices at TTI nr 200. Responding to what can be done to minimise the problem, from the responses obtained most of the lecturers are of the opinion that the starting point is the academic competence of students when they enter TTI nr 200. Commenting on this issue, GSLE1 is of the opinion that the curriculum needs to be revisited and lecturers who are teaching the content subjects should be more demanding and responsible for the subjects they teach, because, “we need to admit that some lecturers are of the type of ‘laissezfaire, laissez passé,’ and sometimes students are not the only ones who should be blamed.” GSLE5 went further to emphasise that we cannot expect all 45 students to succeed in the same final year, but we need to look at ways of reversing the numbers by getting the failure numbers to become the passing ones, and vice-versa. With regard to the last question of whether the research report should be part of the course or not, all the lecturers were unanimous in stating that it must be part of the course, otherwise, according to GSLE2, it, “will be a big mistake; we will send to the market individuals who are not prepared to perform their jobs properly.”GSLE4 went further to point out that training—any type of training, whether in the area of medicine, education, law etc.—requires first of all qualified trainers, and, “we need to think carefully about our position and responsibility in all of this process.” Therefore, she suggests that students need to be gradually introduced to the type of assessment they will encounter at the end of the coursework. To her, research report

Chapter Six

184

writing should be viewed as an extension of the teaching learning process based on the assessment procedures throughout the course. Finally, GSLE3 concluded that there is a need for lecturers to work together and not see their subjects as single subjects that have nothing to do with the others. All subjects are important and should contribute to the training of the students for this final assessment, which is research report writing. (d) Assessment procedures

Only two questions were set up for this topic, namely: How do you assess your students? and How do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for research report writing? In response to the first question, the following responses were made by all the lecturers as follows: ™ Individual tests ™ Group discussions, and ™ Group and individual assignments. The majority of the lecturers still use students’ individual tests and tend to give more value to this traditional way of assessing them. Commenting on the use of individual tests, GSLE1 explained that although all the procedures are important, the individual test is the one that gives the real picture of the student’s level of performance. Most of the lecturers are of the opinion that it is quite difficult to attribute marks to students when they are doing group discussion. However, according to GSLE4, group discussion is also a very useful assessment tool in that it helps teachers get to know their students better and see their level of participation in the class, and it encourages shy students to speak and contribute to the lesson. In addition, GSLE2 is of the opinion that when students discuss topics they are likely to learn them better and be evaluated without realising it. As for the group assignments, some lecturers are quite sceptical of their usefulness. GSLE3 explained that most of the time it is only one or two members of the group who do the whole work, but in the end the mark is attributed to the whole group, which is not fair.GSLE4 suggested a solution to this aspect—on the day of presentation, each member of the group has to say something and the individual presentation is also assessed by the lecturer. So what she does is allocate a mark for the written work, which is the same for all students in the group, and an individual mark for

Data Presentation and Description

185

the oral presentation, and then works out the average mark; students therefore end up with different marks. Concerning the individual assignments, GSLE3 was of the opinion that they cannot trust students because most of the times they ask someone to write it for them to get a higher mark. Once again, GSLE4 suggested that if we take assignment writing as a process whereby students will need guidance and support from the lecturer, if they present it orally to the class, then you should not doubt their competence to write it. Commenting further, GSLE1 went on to reinforce his idea that, due to all the mentioned constraints, the traditional kind of assessment is still the best. Commenting on whether the traditional test prepares students for research report writing, GSLE1 confessed that it does not. He said that research report writing is different from writing a test. However, he thought that writing a test helps to check whether students have achieved the content of the subject or not. According to him, the Research Methodology lecturer should be responsible for research report writing. GSLE4 was of the opinion that if all teachers thought that their subjects were going to contribute to research report writing, then the teaching learning process would have been different, along with the assessment procedures. According to him, the problem is that neither teachers nor students have ever thought about the research report before completing the coursework. Adding to GSLE4’s idea, GSLE2 expressed the sentiment that there is a need for the department to set up a meeting and discuss new ways of engaging students in all the subjects in a way that will equip them, automatically, with the skills they need to perform this high-level skill. GSLE4 mentioned that she assesses her students through a developmental portfolio and thinks that portfolio assignments help improve student writing skills and make them reflect and check their own progress. (e) Research Practices

With regards to research practices, the discussion concentrated on the acquisition of the main skills needed for research report writing, namely Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology I and II. Asked about which skill(s) students have more problems with, GSLE1 was straightforward in saying that students have problems in all the skills: speaking, reading, writing, and listening. In principle, all the lecturers admitted that students have problems in all the skills, and GSLE4 went on to explain that the main problem is that students join TTI nr 200 with very low levels of proficiency in the four language skills in the new learning environment where everyone has to struggle to find his or her own way. In addition, general subject lecturers do not worry too much with

186

Chapter Six

contributing to other subjects’ knowledge, such as Academic Reading and Writing and Research Methodology; she then posited the following question: “How can we expect students to improve if we teachers do not seem to contribute or to promote this improvement?” GSLE2 reiterated that, “we should not be afraid of saying that after four years of coursework most of the students are still the same as the first day they entered TTI nr 200. If this is true, what are we doing?” GSLE5 was of the opinion that the department needs to start assessing lecturers’ work. He thinks that most problems derive from the lecturers, and that lecturers sometimes do not perform their job properly. Responding to the question on what can be done to improve the teaching of these subjects to meet the demands of research report writing, GSLE2 was of the opinion that some workshops and general discussions among teachers should be implemented in order to find possible solutions. The general sentiment among lecturers was summarised by GSLE3, who posited that unless TTS embark on the process at a level good enough to continue their studies, the students will keep blaming lecturers and lecturers will keep blaming students for their failure. (f) Research supervision

As for research supervision, concerning the kind of difficulties they usually face in supervising students, some lecturers expressed that the kind of difficulties students are facing are just normal, and the same that supervisors faced when they were students. For instance, GSLE2 commented that what he usually does is tell students that he also had difficulties in writing his research report, but with some effort he got there. For GSLE3, one of the problems is that students seem to not have time to concentrate on their work. “You see them once and then they disappear,” he said. GSLE4 went on to explain that, “most of the time students do not have difficulties in writing but in finding the time and concentration to write,” and GSLE5 reinforced that, “students do not want to do the job, they want us to do their work; and that is impossible.” GSLE4 emphasised that, “students are most of the time so stubborn that you ask them to make corrections and when they bring the updated version the text is exactly the same.” Apart from all these problems, GSLE4 raised an important issue: “some teachers are not good supervisors; I have had students approaching me to help them; supervision is complex, the way you provide feedback, the way you talk to the student, your motivation to supervise, and so on and so on.” GSLE5 was of the opinion that: “Students are very lazy and as soon as you ask them to correct things they feel like it will be hard work and then they try to change supervisors or they just give up.”

Data Presentation and Description

187

For GSLE4, however, the main problem is lack of research practices and lack of reading habits associated with academic writing. Students can hardly find arguments and provide counter arguments, and do not know how to structure a research proposal, let alone the research report. So, in his opinion, most of the difficulties faced in supervision practices are due to students’ lack of knowledge on how to do things. With regard to what should be done to improve the supervisory processes, GSLE1 responded that one first needs to improve the teaching of the content subjects, which are expected to equip students with the tools they need to produce their research reports, and secondly we cannot wait for the end of the coursework to ask students to write their research reports. In any subject they are teaching, lecturers can help students detect problems and see if they are researchable or not, and if they are, students can start thinking about them. GSLE4 seemed to use the same reasoning and she stated that in fact she has helped students with regard to finding a possible topic or problem. It does not take so much time; it happens unconsciously as you teach and discuss things in the class. She concluded that, “one of the best ways to help students find something to work on is from the assignments you set up. You always select the best and encourage them to continue investigating on what they have done.” (ii) Interview data from content subject lecturers (CSL) a)

Lecture delivery

The interview schedule for the content subject lecturers was organised in the same way as the one for the general subject lecturers. However, for reasons of confidentiality and anonymity, they were named CSL7, CSL8, CSL9, and CSL10. In the first part, the focus was on lecture delivery with the main aim of learning how they delivered their content of the subjects they are teaching, and to what extent they thought their subjects were relevant to students’ production of research reports. The main mode of lecturing mentioned by content subject lecturers was the traditional method of teaching. Even the academic writing teacher seems to favour traditional approaches to teaching writing. He posits that for the type of students he is dealing with he cannot expect them to react positively to what he says in class. He said, “Therefore, you need to transmit the knowledge first and then ask them questions about the material taught.” He went on to say that he is aware of the different approaches to teaching writing, but “unless you provide students with some input first you “won’t” be able to teach them.” As far as academic reading is concerned, CSL9 stated that he uses a combination of the

Chapter Six

188

traditional approaches to teaching and the more interactive lessons based on discussion and exchange of ideas. CSL10 explained that his subject requires a teaching process whereby after transmission one needs to get students practising what they have learnt, but he recognises that this is not so easy. Most of the time, students just can’t cope with the exercises because they were absent from the previous lesson or because they didn’t understand the material, said CSL7. In principle, the four lecturers mentioned the traditional, one-way transmission approach as the main method used together with some group discussion and practical exercises to apply theory to practice. b)

Resource availability

Asked what they think about the library resources and their adequacy to the teaching of the research reports, the four lecturers shared the same opinion that the library has some good books but there is something missing—good librarians to support students when they are there, said CSL8. CSL10 went further to explain that there is nothing wrong with the library and the resources there; what is needed is more space and appropriate conditions to work in. CSL7 stated that, unfortunately, everything seems to be “abnormal” at TTI nr 200: “But the books are there and students can go and sit for some reading or borrow them and take them home.” In addition, CSL8 went on to state that the most important thing that needs to be done is to ask students to go to the library. He suggested that lecturers sometimes need to accompany students to the library and teach them how to locate materials. In this lecturer’s opinion, lecturers need to give more value to the library. CSL9 also emphasised that the library is too small and there is no space for any new books. However, CSL10 contradicted that idea by explaining that when it comes to research there are not new or old books, because all books are valid and have some important information. To him, what is needed is a bigger place for the institution to work peacefully. In general, the three lecturers agreed with CSL8, who posited that, provided students have time to sit in the library with the support of the librarians to find what has been recommended by teachers, the library is adequate. Concerning the computer lab, the four lecturers were to some extent sceptical as, according to CSL8, the so-called computer lab does not exist as such; he went further to emphasise that even for maths students it does not exist. CSL10 explained that the ICT people who are in charge of the computer room lack some training, the computers need maintenance, and there are just a few computers, perhaps less than half a classroom. To conclude, CSL7 pointed out that, as with the existing library, the

Data Presentation and Description

189

institution needs to put in place certain conditions in order to establish a proper computer lab, and find trained people to work there. c)

Research report writing

Concerning research report writing, three main questions were asked: ™ In your opinion, why do students fail to write their research reports? ™ What can be done to help them complete their research reports swiftly? ™ Do you think a research report is necessary and important? Please elaborate. Responding to the first question, CSL9 explained that there are many factors contributing to the problem, such as: x The four years of coursework are not sufficient to prepare students to write the research reports. x Lecturers take the easiest ways to teach and assess students, and students don’t make any effort to study and get a pass mark. x Research supervision has many problems that need to be discussed in a workshop. x Students are very lazy. In the same line of reasoning, CSL10 added that he is facing serious problems with the subject he is teaching because, “after a whole year students cannot produce their research proposals and the lecturer is the only one blamed.” According to him, the problem does not lie with the lecturer but with the students who come from educational institutions where everything was easy and where they succeeded without learning anything: “And now the problem is the lecturer who is in charge of the Research Methodology course… well this is very serious,” he said. CSL7 remarked that no one should be blamed for the fact that students cannot produce their research reports after completion of their studies. What people need to do is to look at the entire system and see where the problem actually lies. We need to rethink the entry exam policy and procedures and who the students that we are receiving are, because what is happening is that TTI nr 200 is the last but not only institution that students look for in order to continue their studies. CSL10 added that, unfortunately, the educational policy in our country favours the inclusion

Chapter Six

190

of all individuals in the system independent of their educational background. As for the last aspect of whether the research report should continue or not as the final assessment for students, all the content subject lecturers agreed that it should continue, and CSL9 emphasised that the only thing that needs to be done is to improve the quality of teaching in all the subjects and engage students in more highly demanding cognitive tasks, so that by the time they start writing their research reports they won’t have major problems said CSL7. d) Assessment procedures Two main questions were asked: How do you assess your students? and How do you think this kind of assessment prepares them for research report writing? In response to the first question, lecturers mentioned the following types of assessment: ™ Individual tests, and ™ Group and individual assignments with oral presentations. Commenting on the use of individual tests, CSL10 explained that although all the procedures are important the individual test is the one that gives the lecturer the real picture of the students’ level of performance. The four lecturers are of the opinion that it is quite difficult to attribute marks to students when they are doing group discussion, and as CSL10 explains individual tests do not have this type of shortcoming. Also, if a lecturer does not set up individual tests, how will they assess students? And who will be judged and questioned by the department? It seems that lecturers do not feel comfortable with group and individual presentations, which, according to CSL9, “are difficult to mark and time consuming.” However, he recognises that group and individual work is very fruitful because it prepares students for the type of work they will be doing when writing their research reports. In principle, all the content subject lecturers recognise that, as reported by CSL10, “we know that individual tests do not prepare students for research report writing but they somehow contribute to the process.” e)

Research practices

Talking about research practices, the discussion concentrated on the teaching and learning of the main academic literacy skills needed for research report writing, namely Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology I and II. Asked about which skill students have

Data Presentation and Description

191

most problems with, CSL8 held that, “students have problems in all the skills; they have problems with reading, writing, and doing research, I mean research methodology.” CSL10 went on to explain that the subject he teaches, which is Research Methodology, depends very much on Academic Reading and Writing as there are practical issues that need to be tackled within the subject itself, but if students have poor reading and writing skills they will not go anywhere, and he once again emphasised that people cannot just blame the Research Methodology lecturer for the students’ failure to produce their research reports. CSL7, who is also teaching Research Methodology, stated that the problem seems to lie in the fact that students join TTI nr 200with very low levels of competence in all the skills. As a result, they cannot cope with the demands of the course at the institution. As a result, they fail or pass with very low marks, remarked CSL8. CSL9 added that, “most of the low marks that students get are usually negotiated behind doors and they turn up in 10s and 11s. And then students pass…you know what I’m talking about….” In response to the question on what can be done to improve the teaching of these three subjects to meet the demands of research report writing; CSL7 is of the opinion that, “all lecturers should contribute to the empowerment of students in that field of academic writing, and research supervision should be looked at more seriously.” For CSL8 there is an urgent need to train supervisors, and CSL10 added that there are highly qualified lecturers, some holding MAs and others PhDs. The conditions have been put in place and are still being created; therefore, he thinks that what needs to be done is just to improve the quality of our teaching and stop blaming content subject lecturers for the low level of final year TTS. f)

Research supervision

As far as research supervision is concerned, content subject lecturers did not have so much to say. Asked about the kind of difficulties they usually face in supervising students, CSL8 stated, “I do not face major difficulties, only the kind of difficulties which are inherent of any process of supervision.” For CSL7, the answer was quite aggressive and he explained that he does not have problems or difficulties, but the students do because it’s their work, their responsibility, and the whole process depends on their progress, said CSL7. He concluded that it is the students who face difficulties, not him. CSL10 was more humble, stating that he does face some difficulties, such as: ™ First, students are quite irregular in keeping the planned meetings.

192

Chapter Six

™ Second, they sometimes come with nothing of what was asked for in the last meeting done, but with a lot of excuses. ™ Finally he has, most of the time, to correct the language for the students, and this is time consuming if one thinks about a lecturer supervising more than eight students. In order to improve supervision practices, CSL9 was of the opinion that the number of supervisees needs to be reduced to three per lecturer, and there should be a deadline for students to complete their research reports. For CSL7 there is a great need to train supervisors as he stated before, and he thinks that, apart from the number of students being supervised by each teacher and the deadline for completion of the research report, there is a need for supervising supervisors because, in his opinion, some lecturers are not supporting and guiding students properly. CSL8 recognises that there are many constraints hindering the process, but rather than fighting against those constraints he feels that we are contributing to their reinforcement. According to him, students should not be blamed for their weaknesses and failure to produce their research reports. “This is unfair,” said CSL8.

6.3.2 Interview data from students (i) Interview data from Type 1 Students a) Lecture delivery As stated before, the interview schedule for TTS is the same as the one for lecturers and content subject lecturers. Very small changes were made to meet the purpose of asking some of the questions. For example, while the question for lecturers is “What mode of lecturing do you use most?” , for students it is “What mode of lecturing did your lecturers use most?” For Type 1 students they are numbered S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5. Asking what mode of lecture delivery their lecturers used most gave two common responses: ™ One way transmission. ™ Discussion based on the material presented by students. Most of the students were of the opinion that lecturers relied mostly on “chalk and talk” in their classes. S1 explained that most of the time some of the lecturers like standing in front of the class and talking to students. Sometimes they dictate the material or just take copies from the books and

Data Presentation and Description

193

ask them to study them at home. According to S1, lecturers never check whether students have read the materials or not. Commenting along the same lines, S2 added that there are also some lecturers who like dictating the material to students but don’t allow students to ask questions, and when students try the lecturers think the student is challenging their knowledge of the subject matter. However, S3 confessed that there are some lecturers who are good. For example, there are some lecturers who from time to time give practice activities to students and allow them to work in groups; however, this student admits that, in general, lecturers sometimes demonstrate “strange behaviour.” For S5, some of the lecturers try to make their classes more interactive, and ask many questions; however, only a few students respond to the questions, and when this happens, according to S4, the lecturer takes the leadership and changes the teaching method, “and the lesson becomes boring.” Commenting on the kind of methodology being used, S1 explains that sometimes students do not react in the class, and wait for the lecturer to ask them questions, and when this happens they do not answer either because they are afraid of participating. So, even if lecturers wanted to make classes more interactive they would have problems in achieving the aims of the lesson and finishing the lesson on time, said S1. To most Type 1 students, such as S2, the lecturing method mostly used is the traditional one, with, “the teacher standing in front of us explaining the lesson and asking some questions from time to time.” With regard to whether the coursework prepared them for research report writing, they said that it did to some extent because, according to S2, they “could finish …studies on time.” However, for S3 it was very hard because it was like he was starting from the scratch again, especially because he didn’t have the Research Methodology subject. S5 and S1 said that they had subjects such as Academic Reading and Writing and Research Methodology I and II, but posited that they did not get much from those subjects. S4 could not remain silent about his dissatisfaction with regard to the experience he went through, and explained that the coursework did not prepare him to write the research report, as he had to repeat year 4 twice due to some family problems, and his motivation went down. He explained that he did not take the Research Methodology course. As a result, when he started writing his research report he had to work very hard. S1 went on to emphasise that the way the course is designed now is very good. All the subjects are there, so, if the methodology of the above mentioned subjects changes, students will benefit a lot and research report

Chapter Six

194

writing will no longer be a problem. S2 reinforced that idea by stating that it is the teaching methodology that needs to be changed to help students acquire the knowledge they need to write their research reports. In general, these students believe that the coursework prepared them for research report writing, and as S5 posits, if he succeeded it is because he learnt something from the course, otherwise he would have failed like many other students. S3 indicated that, “the individual effort from the student is very relevant, and unless students work hard they will not get anywhere.” b)

Resource availability

In response to how they thought about the library resources and the computer lab, and whether they helped them write their research reports, students came up with different viewpoints. For S5, both the library resources and computer lab are not contributing to students writing their research reports. The books in the library date from a long time ago and need updating. The computer room does not exist, and even if it did it is meant to support only maths students, said S5. Similarly, S2 explained that he once went there to ask for help and was told that the computer lab was just for students doing maths. One of the problems mentioned by S3 regarding the library was that the librarians don’t seem to be trained and have difficulties in locating books on the shelves, and as a result students end up not getting what you are looking for. S4 contradicted that idea by stating that he was always lucky in getting the books he was looking for. He admits that there are some good books in the library and in his opinion some colleagues wait until lecturers have given them work to go to the library. However, he asserts that students cannot confine themselves to the main library; they need to go and explore other libraries in town. S3 reinforced the idea that there are other good libraries in town, such as the Ministry of Education’s main library, which has a very big and rich library where students can find many good and recent books written in English. Going back to the computer lab facilities, S2 went on to comment that the computer lab belongs to the department of exact sciences. It appears that if students do not have their own computers they will have problems in doing their work, and S2 posits that he did not have problems because he has his own laptop, but most of his colleagues don’t. If someone doesn’t have computer skills and no personal computer, it would be difficult to write the research report. Following the same line of reasoning, S3 explained that if people go to Namibia they will see the level of organisation at the higher education level. According to this student, in our country we don’t have anything in

Data Presentation and Description

195

place, and even for meeting supervisors one needs to go to their place or somewhere else because the staff room is also a meeting room, and most of the time too noisy. To reinforce this idea, S1, who lived in Namibia for quite a long time, emphasised that: “For example, people say that Namibia is a poor country compared to Angola, but if you visit their university you will be astonished. Everything is in place and students have a ‘study centre,’ or whatever they call it. Here, we don’t have a quiet place to stay and study; even for meeting our supervisors there is no place available.” But there are not only negative aspects to point out. According to S4, things have changed, and for the better. He provides an example that in 2002 there was no computer lab, nor were there updated books in the library as there are now. He also states that the curriculum has improved with the introduction of new subjects taught in English, such as Research Methodology and School Administration. Therefore, this student thinks that these are signs of development: “I am not a politician, but we need to understand that TTI nr 200 is functioning on these poor infrastructures not because our director is blind or doesn’t want to sort out the problem, but because the top people don’t care,” he said. c)

Research report writing

Commenting on why students fail to write their research reports, respondents provided the following reasons: ™ ™ ™ ™

Lack of time Lack of motivation Wrong topic choice Unhelpful supervisor.

(1) Lack of time All the students have admitted that time was the main constraint in writing their research reports. S5 explained that because he was no longer attending lessons and was working it was difficult to find time to concentrate on his work. In the same way, S3 stated that one of the difficulties in finding time to write was due to the lack of electricity at home; he could not work in the evenings, and that was the time he was supposed to do something on his project. In addition to that, S2 posited that the absence of a timetable and a classroom is one of the constraints he found in concentrating on his work. Another relevant point was mentioned by S3 who referred to lack of time as one of the main constraints in writing the research report in the following way:“time is very difficult to manage, you are working, you have a family, and you still need to

196

Chapter Six

concentrate on your research report when your mind is telling you to stop.” (2) Lack of motivation Students also mentioned lack of motivation as one of the reasons that is probably preventing them from writing their research reports. S4 had to repeat year 4 twice, which made him lose motivation; when he started writing his research report he had to double his effort to retrieve that motivation. There are some instances when motivation is lost throughout the process of writing. S1, for example, was quite motivated when he started writing his research report; however, as the process went on he came to realise that he had chosen the wrong topic, and he lost motivation and nearly gave up. Commenting on lack of motivation, S5 explained that the first meeting with his supervisor was very important—for him, the first meeting was so encouraging that his motivation went up and he didn’t stop writing until he had finished. (3) Wrong topic choice As mentioned by S4, sometimes students choose the wrong topics to work on, and as soon as they realise that this not what they wanted they lose motivation and give up writing. In fact, as S5 explains, choosing the wrong topic is very common among students, and if they don’t have a second topic in mind they will have to commit themselves to working on an “imposed topic” selected from the list in the department. When this happens, most of the students are hardly able to finish their work, perhaps because this is not what they want to do, says S3. Still commenting on the issue of choosing, the wrong topic, S1went further to explain that sometimes it isn’t the topic which is wrong, but the supervisor who doesn’t accept it, probably because they don’t like it. So sometimes it is a matter of being allocated a wrong supervisor, not the wrong topic. (4) Unhelpful supervisor As students raised the issue of having an unhelpful supervisor, they were asked first of all to provide a definition of the concept of “unhelpful,” and came up with the following statements: ™ Someone who doesn’t understand the topic and therefore cannot help that much ™ Someone who understands the topic but doesn’t want to help the student

Data Presentation and Description

197

™ Someone who understands the topic but doesn’t have time to help the student. S5 is of the opinion that the attribution of supervisors to students is very important in the process of writing the research report, because if a student gets a lazy supervisor who is never available, the process of writing will be delayed and the student may not finish. S3 reinforced that idea by positing that, “everything depends on who is supervising you. The rest comes after.” In response to what can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly, S1 was of the opinion that the whole curriculum needs to be revised so that Research Methodology II is taught in year 3, the same year as the research proposal is produced. In so doing, students will write their research reports in year 4 while concluding their coursework, said S5. S4 said that the key subjects, like Academic Reading, Academic Writing and Research Methodology I and II, need to be allocated to more serious and knowledgeable lecturers, and the teaching of the teaching methodology subject needs to change a little bit. In his opinion, more practice is needed. S1 elaborated by explaining that, in his case, he had a good mark in his research report defence, but admits that the language was and is a problem, at least for him. To him, sometimes he understands what he reads but feels that he does not have the language to express his ideas and opinions. In his humble opinion, the lecturer responsible for English language teaching should also reinforce the content of the language and contribute to the students’ academic literacy practices improvement. Asked if they think that the research report is necessary and important as the final form of assessment, they all agreed that it is the most powerful tool of learning at TTI nr 200 at the moment. They all agreed that when they were studying they thought that things were easy to attain, and getting a pass mark was not so difficult. However, at the end when they are asked to write their research reports they started to realise that things weren’t as easy as they thought. However, S2 admitted that he learnt more in writing his research report than in the four years of coursework. S5 concluded that writing the research report was like preparing students to continue their studies; he therefore thought that this is the time when students enter the world of investigation as, “small babies crawling until they can start walking. The research report is very important for any student”.

Chapter Six

198 d)

Assessment procedures

Asked about the kind of assessment their lecturers used most, students indicated individual tests. In addition, S5 remarked that they also did some extra work for assessment purposes: “we used to do some group work, but as far as I remember that only happened twice.” S3 explained that the problem is that when students do group work there is no feedback from the lecturer—the group just receives a mark and that is all. The provision of feedback from lecturers was also mentioned by S2, who commented that lecturers hardly provide feedback to students, and even the individual tests come with an overall mark but with no feedback. Students never know which parts are right and which are wrong, and there are even times when students do not get their tests back at all. In response to whether the type of assessment they have prepared them for research report writing, S4 commented that what happens during coursework is totally different from research report writing. He went on to state that it is one thing to sit for a test for 45 minutes and another to do research. S5 added that the assignments they wrote throughout the coursework did not contribute to the writing of the research report. It is commonly believed by these students that lecturers do not take into account the issue of writing a research report at the end of the course. Thus, they all think that assessment procedures need to be revisited. According to S2, everything needs to be revisited, including the methods of teaching and the assessment procedures, because in the ELT methodology subject students learn all those things that are not taking place in the classrooms, and that are not practised by the lecturers. Students think lecturers need a refreshment course to update their skills. e)

Research practices

The first question under this subheading is: In which area did you have more problems: Academic Reading, Academic Writing, or Research Methodology? Responding to this question, S4 explained that as he didn’t take all the new subjects he had problems in dealing with research, but he worked hard to overcome the problem; he admitted that he had some help from lecturers and colleagues.S5 stated that it is quite difficult to say in which subject he had more problems, but he thought that he had problems with all the skills. However, he posited that those problems did not stop him from doing his research. He asserted that he does not “think there is someone who didn’t have problems…problems are always there waiting for us.” In general, all the students admitted that they had problems in all the subjects in one way or another, but that the Research Methodology subject is the most problematic; they say it needs to be taught in a different way.

Data Presentation and Description

199

With regards to the following question on how the teaching of these subjects should be improved to meet the demands of research report writing, S5 came up with some suggestions. For example, he is of the opinion that in order to teach these important subjects lecturers need to know the subject matter and have the skills to deliver it. They also need to like what they do, because sometimes there is a feeling that lecturers are teaching because they have to and not because they like what they are doing. S4 is of the opinion that the teaching process at university level needs to be supervised because so many lecturers are just earning money for nothing—they don’t write lesson plans and they don’t prepare their lessons: “we learnt from the teaching methodology course that teachers should always prepare their lessons no matter how long they have been in the job.” S3 remarked that, “more practice is needed, because most of the time we understand the theory, but when it comes to writing we find it difficult. It’s like cooking—you read the recipe and you understand it but you might have problems in preparing the dish. f)

Research supervision

Supervision is another area of relevant importance in the process of students writing research reports. In this regard, two questions were asked: ™ What kind of difficulties did you face in being supervised? ™ What would you suggest to help improve the supervision practices? Answering the first question, S5 mentioned that lack of availability from supervisors was the main difficulty—it is very difficult to meet the supervisors, and on top of that they take too long to give feedback. Arguing along the same lines, S3 indicated that it feels like supervisors are obliged to supervise students and S4 expressed his experience in being told by a supervisor that he was just doing him a favour and therefore shouldn’t put too much pressure on him. S2 expressed a concern that his supervisor asked him to pay for “airtime” for his cell phone every week, and once his car was in a garage and he had to help him pay for it not because he (the student) wanted to, but because otherwise he could not come to town to meet him at TTI nr 200. With regard to providing some suggestions to improve the situation, S1 is of the opinion that research report writing should take place simultaneously with coursework, starting in year 3, so that at the end of year 4 students are ready to present their work. In S4’s opinion, students should write their research reports in year 4 in the Research Methodology subject with the help of the lecturers, because the Research Methodology

Chapter Six

200

lecturer cannot do it alone. For S1, however, there is a need for improving the teaching learning process and creating conditions that will provide students with the necessary skills to write their research reports. S2 remarked that year 5 should continue for research report writing, under a pre-scheduled time, with deadlines and so on; also, supervisors need to inform the heads of department about the students’ and their own progress. These were the suggestions made by the group of students who successfully completed their studies. (ii) Interview data from Type 2 Students (a) Lecture delivery This is the group of students who are currently writing, and therefore it is expected that they have their own opinions, different from the other groups. These students are numbered ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4, and ST5. Asked what mode of delivery their lecturers most used, there were two common responses: ™ One way transmission ™ Group-discussion based. These students stated that most of the time their lecturers like exposing the material to the students, and they are only supposed to speak when there is a question from the lecturer or if there is some need for clarification. ST3 confessed that most of the lecturers like using the traditional methods of teaching. He emphasised that sometimes they forget that students are being trained to become teachers, and that some of them are already teaching.ST2 wanted to reinforce ST3’s idea and pointed out that using the one-way transmission method is not a bad thing; as learnt from the methodology course there are many teaching methods available for teachers and lecturers to choose from; it all depends on the level of the class and the type and the content being taught. Commenting along the same lines, ST1 added that the problem is that sometimes lecturers do not even bring a lesson plan, which contradicts what they have learnt from the teaching methodology lessons—that a lesson plan is an important tool for teachers and lecturers to present their lessons. In agreeing with his colleagues, ST4 also added that even in the subjects which they thought lecturers were going to give them more practical work, they were not practising at all and this is perhaps the reason why they can hardly write their assignments successfully. He said: “When lecturers ask us to write assignments and so on it is a disaster. For

Data Presentation and Description

201

example last year in my group only three students completed their research proposals successfully.” Another comment came from ST5, who posited that there are lecturers who make photocopies from books and ask students to read and discuss them, leaving students alone in the class. When they come back they ask students about their opinions on the reading, but as time is not enough they stop the lesson and never come back to that topic. “The lesson was taught but students didn’t learn anything,” said ST5. To conclude, ST3 maintained that what matters most is not the type of methodology used, although it is important. To him, the problem is the lecturers’ attitude and responsibility in doing their job: “And this is the reason why students fail to write their final research reports because they are not prepared to do that,” said ST4. To reinforce this idea, ST1 emphasised that, “the four years are enough to prepare us for research report…the way lecturers are teaching us is not good enough to prepare us for academic work. If teachers teach us seriously, in all the subjects, the course will prepare us for whatever academic work.” (b) Resource availability

Concerning resource availability, all the students were of the opinion that there are plenty of materials in the main library and the English sector library. One student confessed that sometimes students do not have time to go to the library and sit and read. He recognised that there are plenty of good books in both libraries. Commenting on the same issue, ST5 explained that students cannot expect to find all the books in the above-mentioned libraries. There are other libraries in town from which students can borrow books, such as the Institute of Languages, which has a large range of books. For this student, what is missing for the students is more time and willingness to finish their studies. In addition, ST2 said there are also good bookshops where students and lecturers can buy good books. With regards to the computer lab, these students said that they have never been there because they were told that that place is a classroom for maths students to practice their ICT skills. Commenting on this aspect, ST3 explained that it was a pity that there is only one room with computers at TTI nr 200.He posited that he did not know exactly how many computers were in the computer room as he has never been there, but he thinks that at this level the institution should have a well-established computer lab as in many other universities in the world. And in the same line of reasoning, ST3 stated that in Namibia, a smaller country compared to Angola, all the universities are well equipped to guarantee that the teaching learning process can take place under good conditions.

Chapter Six

202 (c) Research report writing

Commenting on why most of the students fail to write their research reports, students provided the following problems: ™ Lack of time ™ Lack of motivation ™ Bad supervisor. Commenting on lack of time, ST5 explained that one of the big constraints in completing their research reports seemed to be lack of time. According to him, he was making progress because he was not married and living with his parents; but it is true that some of his colleagues from the same academic year were not yet writing their reports because of some of the problems he mentioned. Commenting on the same topic, ST3 added that he had to stop working because it would have been difficult to combine things. He was working for 28 days onshore and 28 days offshore, and when was offshore he did not have time for anything except resolving family problems. Therefore, he decided to give up working and write his research report. “I think I did make the right decision because I am almost finished. I must say that I have a good supervisor,” he said. Regarding lack of motivation, ST1 explained that most of the time students lose motivation because they do not have a good supervisor. He further explained that there are supervisors who say, “I think you should be somewhere else but not here, because you are very weak.”Students went on to mention some other factors contributing to lack of motivation, such as: bad supervisor, bad relationship with supervisor, and lack of regular feedback, “just to mention some,” said ST2. And following the same reasoning, ST3 added that when students do not have a personal computer and the institution does not have a place for students to type their work they can lose motivation. As a result, students have to look for someone to type their work for them; however, the people who do the typing do not know English and therefore make a lot of spelling mistakes. They may have computer skills but they lack English Language knowledge. The discussion continued and ST4 mentioned one fact that, according to him, is being ignored. He said that there are times when the supervisors do not know so much about the topic and ask students to go and read books, but they do not tell students exactly which books to read. Thus, students end up reading books for the sake of reading with no purpose, and lose their initial motivation. He posited that this is not the case for him, but is for many of his colleagues. According to ST4, “some teachers were not born to be supervisors, if they were really born to be teachers.” In addition,

Data Presentation and Description

203

ST5 argued that students’ lack of motivation sometimes originates from lecturers’ lack of motivation. Sometimes, the lecturers do not show any motivation to the students; lecturers seem to be doing the job just for salary purposes, not because they like it. For this student, motivation depends primarily on the lecturers’ interest in supporting them and the level of engagement from both students and lecturers. He ended up stating that: “The relationship between supervisors and students is very important.” ST1 explained that a bad supervisor is one who cannot support the student scientifically and personally. Referring to what he said before, he stated that if a supervisor cannot advise a student on one or two books to read, and if s/he does not have a sound academic knowledge in the area the student is investigating, then we are in the presence of a bad supervisor. ST2 reinforced this idea in saying that feedback is also very important and should be provided on time; for him, a bad supervisor is one that, above all, does not provide students with feedback on a regular basis. With regards to the second question on what could be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly, several comments were made. For example, ST3 was of the opinion that, “from now on, and because the department is trying to change things, the research report writing process should start earlier in the course, maybe in year 3 or the beginning of year 4.” He also said that the ELT methodology subject needs to be based on a more interactive process between lecturers and students. For ST3, more practice and discussions are needed. For ST5, for example, the department is going the right way and one cannot expect more changes in such a short period of time. However, he was of the opinion that supervisors need to be supervised, and some lecturers can only teach, not supervise. As a concluding remark, ST1 explained that the course subject content is quite easy in terms of the activities designed by lecturers, and the essays students are asked to write are also simple; this makes students think that they are making progress when they are not. In his view, some lecturers look at them as being inferior, when in fact they are also “teachers” and have some knowledge and understanding of ELT methodology, and can therefore see who is a good and who is a bad lecturer. (d) Assessment procedures

In order to check students’ opinions about the way they were assessed, two main questions were asked. The first is: What kind of assessment did your teachers use most? (e.g. tests, essays, and group, pair, and individual work).Students responded that the most-used tool of assessment is the traditional test. Commenting on this, ST5 explained that lecturers use other

204

Chapter Six

ways of assessment, but the marks from the individual tests are the most important. ST2 went further to highlight that even when they did group and individual work, the marks that appeared on the board seemed to be from the tests; for the other marks, lecturers gave them an average mark resulting from some mental calculation they did, never telling them how they got to those marks. ST3 emphasised that they had to write portfolios in the Curriculum Development subject and this was a good experience for them. ST4 mentioned that in the ELT methodology subject they also wrote some papers in response to classroom problems posed by the lecturers, and they had to look for and read some books in order to write their essays. As a way of trying to conclude what was said by the colleagues, ST5 explained that there is some change in the way lecturers are assessing students these days; however, he thinks that what is missing is more responsibility from the students’ side, and lecturers should keep reminding students that sooner or later they will be writing their research reports. ST5 confessed that some of the essays he wrote during coursework would have benefited him in writing the research report if he took it seriously at that time. To add to that comment, ST4 pointed out that he still remembers some of the lecturers saying, “if you do well in this work it can be your topic for the research report.” However, they never took it seriously. ST1 pointed out that tests are good but that lecturers need to change their “philosophy of teaching”; in other words, they need to change the way the questions are posed, and need to make students think more and reflect on what they are doing. Responding to the second question, Do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for research report writing?, ST5 was of the opinion that the assessment procedures students are exposed to during the coursework do not prepare them that much for writing their research reports because they do not get feedback on time, and when they do get it lecturers do not tell them what is wrong and what is right and how to correct things. Sharing the same point of view, ST3 was of the opinion that rather than talking about assessment we should go back to the teaching process. He posited that lecturers are assessing students the way they are teaching them; he went further to explain that in ELT methodology classes they learnt that, “the way teachers assess their students reflects the way they teach them.” Therefore, he thought that some change should take place starting from the lecturing mode used by lecturers, and the assessment procedures should then conform to that lecturing mode. To sum up, ST4 concluded that, “only students who joined TTI nr 200with a good level of knowledge can survive and conclude their research reports. The rest is a joke.”

Data Presentation and Description

205

(e) Research practices

Research practices were another aspect that students were asked to comment on. The first question was on which skills students were facing most problems with, and they were asked to elaborate on their comments. ST5 explained that students have problems in all the skills; not because they are bad students but because they weren’t taught appropriately on how to practice them. He explained that all the students can read and write and find information in books; however, writing down what they have read, or summarising someone’ ideas, seems to be the most difficult part at least for him. ST2 believed that, as the process of writing the research report requires the use of all the skills students have learnt, the difficulties faced by the students are very much particular and individual. To him, students cannot blame the lecturers for their weaknesses, although there are some lecturers who deserve that: “lecturers are so busy these days that it becomes difficult for them to cope with all the responsibilities they have.” To conclude, he posited that, “what is amazing is that the way lecturers perform at public universities is somehow different from the way they teach at private universities.” Talking about the same issue, ST3 added that, “lecturers know what they do and what they want; they are conscious of their acts; at public schools no one fires them and no one punishes them; this is perhaps the reason they do not care.” Concerning possible solutions to improve the teaching of the content subjects, ST3 explained that there should be more practical work; teachers should ask students to do tasks that are similar to research report writing; he asserted that, for example, he only learnt how to write a bibliography when he was writing his research report; according to him, when they wrote their assignments lecturers never told them how to do so; he said that lecturers only used to say “check how bibliography is written.” Commenting on the same aspect student 5 pointed out that most of the time lecturers gave marks to their work but they never told them how right or wrong they were. In ST2’s opinion, lecturers need to provide feedback so that students know what is wrong and what is right. He went further to state that each and every lecturer should take into account that whatever subject they are teaching they are giving their contribution to helping them write their research reports at the end of the course. (f) Research supervision

Research supervision was the last aspect to be discussed. For this group of students there were some problems that need to be addressed, and they came up with the following points:

Chapter Six

206

™ ™ ™

Bad relationship between supervisor and student Lack of availability of the supervisor Lack of knowledge in the area.

(1) Bad relationship between supervisor and student

Students mentioned the issue of a bad relationship between student and supervisor. ST5 explained that he was forced to change supervisor because he could tell that the original supervisor did not like him, and every time he phoned him to find out if there was any feedback from his work, the supervisor started shouting on the phone saying that he had many other things to do and not just think about that student’s work. ST3 commented that it did not happen to him, but one of his colleagues took three years to write his research report just because the supervisor created a bad relationship between him and her: “unfortunately, I cannot tell what the problem was…but it was something serious,” said ST3. ST2 went on to comment that there are some students who are lucky enough to have such a good relationship with their supervisors that they concluded their work within the time allocated. “Unfortunately this is not my case,” he said. (2) Lack of availability of the supervisor By lack of availability of the supervisor, students meant those supervisors who hardly had time to sit with them and provide feedback to their work. As ST1 commented, it is disgusting for a student to be sitting with his/her supervisor and to all of sudden hear them saying, “Look, I have to go; we must find another time to talk.”ST3 went further to explain that he used to meet his supervisor at his place, but most of the time waited for countless hours. As for ST4, supervisors always set up times when they are not available, and they end up postponing meeting after meeting. To some extent it is understandable that supervisors are not always available. For ST2, supervisors lack availability because they are overloaded; they work at many different places and it is difficult to reconcile their work in the varied places. (3) Lack of knowledge in the research area Students also referred to the problem of the supervisor not being knowledgeable in the research area of interest to the student. ST5 pointed out that there are times when students feel that the supervisor does not know the area they are researching very well, and this is sometimes visible in some of the reports’ oral presentations he has attended. ST3 added that there are times when students start with one topic in mind, but because the supervisor does not understand it very well they are forced to change direction; in his words, this is bad because the student can lose motivation

Data Presentation and Description

207

and give up. ST1 made an interesting point by stating that sometimes it is not the supervisor’s fault but the department’s in allocating bad supervisors to students. For ST2, the department cannot just look at the number of students per supervisor but take into consideration the area of interest for each and every one. In order to improve the supervisory processes, students also suggested some solutions: ™ There is a need to set up deadlines for both supervisors and students ™ There should be a sort of contract between the parties ™ Meetings should be held at the institution ™ Supervisors need to be assessed by a group of experts ™ There is a need for training supervisors. Students were of the opinion that the lack of specific deadlines for the completion of the theses may result in a big constraint. As ST5 posited, setting up deadlines can make a big difference and force students to work hard to meet the demands of the department. Following the same line of reasoning, ST3 added that a contract should be signed between the student and the supervisor, and the supervisor should report on the students’ progress every two or three months. It was also suggested by ST4 that the institution should not allow supervisory meetings to be held just anywhere, as there is a danger of meeting in strange places, especially for female student.ST4 went further to state that the department needs to dictate the rules and make all the lecturers aware of them. By doing so, supervisors will feel that they are also being supervised, and as a result will do their job better. Finally, ST1 posited that perhaps what the department needs to do is to select those who can supervise and offer them training courses abroad to increase their capabilities and raise their motivation. They also need to be well paid to avoid asking for money from students, concluded ST2. (iii) Interview data from Type 3 students a)

Lecture delivery

This is the group of students who could not succeed in writing their research reports or research reports. Some of them finished their coursework some years ago but are struggling to put pen to paper. Type 3 students are numbered STU1, STU2, STU3, and so on. For example, STU1 commented that he finished in 2008, about five years ago, but has not yet started writing. STU2 finished his coursework in 2006 but is

208

Chapter Six

finding it difficult to get started. STU4 maintains that he completed the four years of coursework with no problems at all. He started in 1995 and finished in 1999. He has had more than three supervisors but none of them has helped him complete the research report. STU5 also completed in 1999 but started in 1993, so it took him six years to finish the coursework. STU3 finished in 2002 and the coursework took him six years to complete due to some financial and family problems. Asked about the mode of lecturing that their lecturers most used, students answered in unison that it was the traditional way, with the lecturer in front of the class talking, talking, and talking. Students were only allowed to speak when the lecturer asked some questions or when they were working in a group, but they rarely did group work in the class, said STU4.In the same line of reasoning, STU3 explained that apart from the traditional way of teaching by most of the lecturers, there were also some debates and discussions in the class. One of students’ difficulties was, according to them, the language, because in order for them to discuss something they needed to be fluent in English. One of the students suggested that students need more practice on speaking if lecturers want them to participate in classes. STU2 was of the same opinion and reinforced this idea, saying, “I agree with my colleague because what makes lecturers speak more than students is the fact that students never have anything to say; maybe because they don’t know enough about the content or maybe because they cannot express themselves in English; and this is my case.” Therefore most of the students are of the opinion that the most-used teaching method is the expository one, but there are lecturers who also use discussions and debates in their classrooms. Responding to the question on whether the coursework prepared them for research report writing, STU3 explained that it did; however, he did not take most of it, and is the reason why he is still struggling. STU2 said that the coursework is “rich” in terms of subjects, and the number of qualified lecturers is good too. However, the way lecturers are leading the courses needs to be re-examined, and the tests they design need to be revised. In addition, STU1 mentioned the lack of feedback as another shortcoming. STU5 was of the opinion that perhaps lecturers, “did not do ELT methodology and therefore they need some refreshment on it.” What he did not understand was that some lecturers say that students’ weaknesses come from the previous levels, and it is not therefore their responsibility to make them learn. In addition, STU4 posited that, “lecturers can say they cannot make us learn, but they can help us learn by choosing the correct

Data Presentation and Description

209

method and appropriate ways of interacting with us. There are lecturers who make us feel so afraid that in their classrooms that we just listen… we do not talk.” b)

Resource availability

With regards to resource availability the respondents all seem to agree that there are more books in the library than ever before. STU1 said that the library is now equipped with new furniture, has new and updated books, and there are many books available even in English. STU3 highlighted that, in the past, the English sector did not have a library; today, students have a small but rich library where they can sit and read many recent books. However, he was sorry because students cannot borrow the books because other students never return them; therefore, if someone wants to read them it must be in the library. Commenting on the same issue, STU4 emphasised that perhaps what is preventing students from succeeding is the lack of skills and guidance from the lecturers and supervisors. Students did not talk too much about the computer lab STU3, for example, explained that he had never been there, and when he was studying there was no computer lab at all. In addition, STU2 said that the computer lab was a recent acquisition of the institution, but access to it was very difficult.STU5 highlighted that the computer lab is only for ICT students, not for all students; the problem is that the room is so small that it could not accommodate many students at a time, remarked STU1. c)

Research report writing

As for research report writing, students provided some comments. Asked about the reason why students fail to complete their research reports on time, students came up with the following reasons: ™ ™ ™ ™

Lack of motivation Lack of time Family problems Lack of skills.

STU5 started the discussion by highlighting that motivation is a key element for students to succeed. He stated that if students do not feel motivated to learn they will hardly succeed and if they do not feel motivated to write their research reports they will find it hard to do so. According to STU4, students’ lack of motivation derives from the fact that it is only at this stage that students realise that they did not learn enough to write their research reports.

210

Chapter Six

Following the same reasoning, STU3 added that there are other factors that can contribute to lack of motivation at the stage of writing the research report, such as family problems, social problems, and lack of support from friends and people close to them. STU2 argued that time is also a big constraint for both supervisors and students. Finding a day and time appropriate for both to meet is a big problem, “and then time flies and doesn’t wait for you.” Finally, STU1 brought up the issue of lack of skills, stating that: “Another big problem is lack of skills and knowledge in the area that is being investigated, not just from the student’s side but also from the lecturers’.” In response to what can be done to help students finish their research reports swiftly, students commented in various ways depending on their own experiences. For example, STU5 was of the opinion that special attention should be paid to the “old students,” meaning those who finished their coursework some years ago but could not get the research report finished. STU2 went on to explain that supervisors need to be more patient with students, especially this group of students, because after so many years out of the system they need to be encouraged and supported by everyone. STU3 suggested that the department needs to call these students and encourage them to complete their studies. In addition, he was of the opinion that the department should organise regular workshops based on research practices to refresh students’ skills. In general, the main issues that students came up with are as follows: ™ Special attention should be made to the “old students” ™ Supervisors should be more patient ™ The department needs to call these students and encourage them to complete their studies ™ A workshop to brush up the skills is needed. With regards to whether the research report should be kept or not, some contributions were made. For example, STU5 was of the opinion that, “the research report cannot be taken out from the course; it is an integral part of the course, what lecturers need to do is to reflect on their work and find better methods of teaching.” In the same way, STU1 thought that the lack of students’ progress depends on how strict the department is, and therefore some action needs to take place in order to get the process under control. For STU3, the English language subject needs to be well taught because this is the skill those students need in order to express themselves freely.

Data Presentation and Description

211

English is a foreign language and if students do not practise it they cannot speak read or write it appropriately. In addition to what everyone said, STU2 posited that although he is struggling to write his research report he thinks it cannot be taken out of the programme. d)

Assessment procedures

Assessment procedures are determinant factors in any teaching/learning process. In this regard the first question to be asked was: What kind of assessment did your teachers use most? (E.g. tests, essays, and group, pair, and individual work). Generally speaking, students stated that there is a special preference for the lecturers to use the traditional tests with a text and some comprehensive questions of grammar and composition. In STU3’s words, the way lecturers used to test them was not the most appropriate—they memorised the content of the subjects in order to get high marks. Those students who were weak used to cheat. In addition, STU2 pointed out that there are students who finished their coursework through cheating. Feedback is another issue that students referred to. For example, STU1 raised the issue of lecturers not providing feedback to students: “When there is no feedback students can hardly find what is right and what is wrong.” STU1 also mentioned that they used to do some group and individual work and present it orally. “That was a good experience,” he said. STU3 remarked that lecturers should give students more individual work to do on their own at home or in the library to make them get used to working individually and practising the skills they need for research report writing, such as Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology. He recognised that tests are also necessary to check the students’ progress, provided there is feedback from the lecturer. To conclude, STU4 explained that lecturers are aware of all the assessment procedures they can use; to him, it seems that the problem is that because lecturers are working at more than two faculties and they do not want too much work, they set up tests which are easy and quick to correct. Asked whether they thought that the kind of assessment they had prepared them for research report writing, STU3 explained that this a difficult question to answer because they finished their courses some time ago. STU2 also agreed that this is a difficult question to answer, as he did not remember clearly what he learnt from the course. STU5 recognised that they learnt something from the course and it prepared them to write their research reports; however, they did not make the most of it. STU1 explained that some people look at them as being weak or lazy students; he thinks that people, especially lecturers, need to take into consideration the reasons that made them not complete their research reports on time. But he thinks that, to some extent, the coursework prepared them to write

Chapter Six

212

their research reports, and the assessment procedures throughout the course also contributed to the acquisition of the skills needed for research report writing. e)

Research practices

Under the item about research practices, two questions were asked: ™ In which subjects do or did you have most problems? In Academic Reading, Academic Writing, or Research Methodology? Please elaborate. ™ How can the teaching of these subjects be improved to meet the demands of research report writing? In response to the first question, STU4 explained that he had problems in both reading and writing; even in Portuguese, he feels that he has many difficulties in writing. STU1 saw the writing skill as the most difficult one. To him, it has been difficult since primary school. He went on to explain that writing is different from reading because in reading people just read and try to understand what they read, but in writing people need to understand what someone else wrote. STU2 does not know in which skill he has more problems, but he thinks that one cannot separate them. However, according to him, and “academically speaking,” he thinks that he needs to improve his writing skills. For STU3, the situation is almost the same, for throughout the course they never did real Academic Reading and Writing. Thus, he assumes that he has problems in both skills. Responding to the second question on what can be done to improve that teaching of these skills, STU3 feels that lecturers need to set up more practical activities to train students in writing in a way that is similar to writing a research proposal or even the research report. In addition, STU5 argued that what students need is to be shown how to do things, and he went further to exemplify with a recipe book: “ If you pick up a book with recipes in it you can read a recipe and think that you understood the procedure on how to make it. However it is not always that you can cook the recipe read. What I want to say is that as someone said ‘practice makes it perfect.’ Therefore, more practice is needed.” f)

Research supervision

As for research supervision, two questions were posed: ™ What kind of difficulties did you face or are you facing in being supervised? ™ What would you suggest to help improve the supervision practices?

Data Presentation and Description

213

It seems that students are afraid of confessing the difficulties they are facing in their research supervision. STU3 is the only one who referred to lack of availability of the supervisor and the late provision of feedback. He explained that he has a good supervisor and their relationship is very good; however, it has been difficult to meet his supervisor because he is a very busy person, and he takes long to read his work; he continued by saying that, “feedback is never provided on time and when you get it you do not remember very well where you were and where you are.”With regards to the second point, the same student pointed out that, in order to improve the process of supervision, the department needs to control the supervisors’ work. According to him, supervisors need to be more responsible and the department should oblige them to report on the students’ progress. He also posited that students need to be heard, as their voice is also important; by doing so supervisors will feel more responsible for their students’ progress. He also said that, “what is happening now is that when a student fails people say that it is the students’ responsibility; they never ask the supervisor about what went wrong.” In the same line of reasoning, STU3 suggested that one of the solutions might be to get students to write their research reports from year 3 so that when they finish year 4 they will be ready to defend their thesis. STU5 remarked that there is already some change happening in the department; for example, contrary to what used to happen in the past, students are writing their research proposals in the Research Methodology subject. However, STU4 was of the opinion that this subject should be taught in year 3, so that after writing the research proposal, students can be allocated a tutor in year 4 and write it while they are concluding the coursework. g)

Summary

After analysing data from the interviews and questionnaires, the following results were found: ™

Lecture delivery

Concerning this issue, most of the students stated that, in general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they teach, and that a high standard of work is expected from these lecturers during the supervision process. They consider, however, that most lecturers cannot supervise students properly, and that some need in-service training. They also believe that the lecturers’ qualifications could significantly contribute to the quality of research supervision; however, the reality is different. Furthermore, students who have successfully completed their research reports and those who are now in the process of writing their research

Chapter Six

214

reports consider that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation, whereas students who have failed to complete their research reports disagree with this statement. In general, the majority of the students believed that most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job. Lecturers are of the opinion that they have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they teach, and that a high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process. They also posit that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation. Both students and lecturers recognise that there is a need for in-service training and refreshment courses, and they state that lecturers holding PhD degrees usually refuse to supervise students. ™

Resource availability

In terms of access to resources, most students claimed that there is a limited amount of resources available in the library (in fact, they state that most of the books they read are borrowed from other places), there are not enough computers in the lab, and that access to these is very difficult. Moreover, they believe that librarians are to some extent unhelpful and not well trained; they state that there is a need for a students’ writing lab. Only students who succeeded in writing their research reports believe that the library material is adequate for research writing. Concerning resources availability, lecturers were of the opinion that there are not enough resources in the library, and the materials available are not adequate for students to do research. They also think that the computer lab is too small to accommodate students who want to work on their own and they postulate that there is a need for a bigger computer lab or writing centre that would accommodate any student regardless of their speciality. ™

Research report writing

This theme is the one where students differed more in their opinions about their experience in writing their final piece of work. In general, they all agreed that writing a research report helps students become independent researchers. However, only students who have successfully completed their research reports believe the coursework was well organised to meet the research report writing demands and that they acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing their research reports. Conversely, students who failed to complete their research reports were mostly the ones who stated that they did not learn much from the Academic Reading, Writing and Research Methodology courses to help them write their research reports. With regard to research report writing, lecturers were of the opinion that the assessment procedures during coursework do not contribute to the process of writing the research reports, and the teaching

Data Presentation and Description

215

of the Academic Reading, Writing and Research Methodology needs to be improved in order to prepare students for that purpose. In general, lecturers agreed that students acquire most of the academic and research practices through research report writing, but feel that writing a research report does not help students become independent researchers. ™

Assessment procedures

Regarding the assessment procedures, the majority of the students agreed that they were given enough time for essays and tests and that these were appropriate for their level. However, only students who successfully completed their research reports agreed that the assessment criteria were clear and fair. These students, along with those in the process of writing their research reports, consider that feedback on their work was always provided and appropriate, and that the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for research report writing. Students who successfully completed their research reports and those who have failed to do so agree that the final research report should be a requirement to obtain their qualification. Conversely, only students currently writing their research reports agreed that the final research report should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification. Lecturers were of the opinion that the assessment criteria need to be revisited as they do not seem to be clear and fair enough; also, the assessment tasks in the coursework do not contribute to the final assessment (research report writing), and it should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification. ™

Research practices

In relation to research practices, students who have successfully completed their research reports and those in the process of writing them believe they are able to construct an academic argument, access and select information from different sources, find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments, and they are also able to quote and paraphrase. Moreover, they claim that they are aware of the dangers of plagiarism and are also aware of how to structure a research report and what to include in each chapter. Students who failed to complete their research reports disagree with all that has been described above. Furthermore, students who have successfully completed their research reports and those who are now in the process of writing them state that they learnt and are learning more in writing their research reports than in the four years it took them to complete the course. In general, lecturers were of the opinion that students do not know how to structure a research report or what to include in each chapter, that students can hardly analyse texts with a critical eye and produce texts in

Chapter Six

216

different genres. Construct an academic argument is another problem mentioned by the lecturers. Lecturers also believe that students lack awareness on how to paraphrase and quote information from different sources, and that students do not learn much in writing their research reports. ™

Research supervision

Concerning research supervision practices, students who have successfully completed their research reports and those who are currently writing them agree that their supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of their research area, that the relationship with their supervisors was relatively good, and research supervision has contributed a lot to their academic and professional development. Students who are currently writing and those who have failed to write their research reports believe that supervisors are not so helpful. In general; students are of the opinion that feedback from supervisors is adequate, although it is sometimes not sent promptly. Students are also of the opinion that there is a need for supervisors’ training. Concerning research supervision practices, lecturers share the opinion that research supervision contributes to students’ academic and professional development, and the relationship between lecturers and students is good. However, they think that sometimes supervisors are not so helpful and they do not provide feedback promptly and within a reasonable time.

6.3.3 Interview with the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD) (a)

Students’ failure to write research projects

Being the Head of the Modern Languages Department where the study was carried out, I thought it would be useful to interview the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD) in order to get some contribution from him based on his long experience and perceptions about the problem under study. The first question to be asked was his opinion about so many students failing to produce their research reports after being successful in the four years of coursework. Responding to this question, the DDAAD explained that his students’ failure to produce their research reports comes from their lack of engagement in their studies. They all come from different backgrounds and different schools, and the way they are taught in those schools is very superficial compared to the demands of TTI nr 200. As a result, the level they come with is not sufficient to cope with the academic demands required. He provided an

Data Presentation and Description

217

example that in the subject he is teaching—Portuguese—students have serious problems with writing. One should consider that Portuguese is the mother tongue for most of them, and the official language of the country. He then went further to add that, in most cases, students join TTI nr 200not because they want to, but, “because TTI nr 200 is the only higher institution where they could pass the tests and get a place to study.” He suggests that the entry exam needs to be revised and a new policy for new admissions needs to be implemented. For example, rather than accepting students from any intermediate level, he is of the opinion that priority should be given to students from the Teacher Training college EFP nr 306, and the second thing would be to introduce a more interactive way of teaching. The situation can only improve if lecturers change their methodology and assessment procedures too. (b)

Research supervision

Asked about research supervision practices, the DDAAD commented that some departments are better organised than others. Some people think that to be well organised means to get most of the students completing their research reports, but for him to be organised starts with the teaching process and ends with the supervision process. However, he admitted that Heads of Department can be very good and well organised, but they cannot do everything alone; lecturers must cooperate and change their behaviour and the way they see the world. He also added that there are lecturers who are not good supervisors and therefore lack some training in research supervision skills. He went on to emphasise that holding a Masters or PhD degree does not automatically turn a lecturer into a good lecturer or supervisor. According to him, “supervision is a sophisticated way of teaching based on a personal relationship between lecturers and students, where mutual respect is needed and knowledge and understanding of the area being researched are key factors.” (c)

Resource availability

With regards to the library resources, the DDAAD is of the opinion that things have changed a lot and the library has improved over the last few years. Everyday there are more students sitting in the library, and this is a sign of development. However, he thinks that librarians need some training to organise the library and help students find materials. He also thinks that a bigger space is needed because there is enough money allocated for the acquisition of books, but there is no space to keep them. He added that: “The type of infrastructure we have no longer conforms to our needs and exigencies.”

Chapter Six

218

Talking about the computer lab, he started calling it a computer classroom and explained that it is supposed to serve only maths students for the ICT lessons. However, he did not want to talk about that and concluded that, “there are things I don’t like talking about…we really need to move into a bigger, better place to work properly and increase the number of students finishing their research reports.” Concerning the issue of whether the four years of coursework are enough to prepare students to write their research reports, he is of the opinion they are, but the teaching methodology and assessment procedures that lecturers are using need to be refined. Also, the Research Methodology lecturers play an important role within the research area, and it is therefore their responsibility to equip students with the skills they need to write their research reports. (d)

Research report writing

In commenting on whether the research report should be abolished, he maintained that writing it is the final piece of assessment that students do and it should not be removed. Writing the research report is, according to him, helping students pass through the gate that leads to the world of investigation. Therefore, he thinks that students gain a lot in writing their research reports. He went further to emphasise that this process gives them a passport to continue their studies, and students learn much more from writing the research report than in the four years of coursework. Thus, he did not agree that the research report should be abolished; on the contrary, he thought that lecturers and supervisors should be more rigorous in preparing students for it. Asked to provide some suggestions to improve the situation, he said that the teaching process needs to be improved, as does the supervision process. He also suggested that there must be deadlines for both students and supervisors to finish the research report; supervisors need some training and joint responsibility should be required from both supervisors and students. Asked about students who finished their coursework many years ago but have not yet written their research reports, he was of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to them to conclude their studies, and all the departments need to start inviting these students to come and finish them, but of course within a time limit. “I know that some departments are working on that, but things must be reinforced,” he said. (e)

Summary

From the interview with the DDAAD, it was understood that for the admission of a new students’ policy, Biggs’s (1999) Presage factors need

Data Presentation and Description

219

to be revisited. As the DDAAD posited, students’ educational background, motivation, and level of language proficiency when they join TTI nr 200 are key aspects that seem to be hindering the process. He also stated that students’ level of engagement is very low. With regards to research supervision, he thought that the Heads of Department need to control both teaching and supervisory processes. He favoured the idea of setting up some in-service teacher and supervisor training to improve the quality of the service provided. Talking about the resources, he mentioned that the library is too small to accommodate many students at the same time, and recognised that the resources in the main library are not enough and need to be updated. With regards to the computer lab, he was of the opinion that TTI nr 200 does not have a computer lab as it were—there is just a computer classroom for maths students. Therefore, a proper computer lab for all the students is needed. Talking about the four years of coursework, he stated that they are actually enough to prepare students for research report writing, but what is missing is an appropriate way of transmission of the use of various teaching methods depending on the level of the students, the subject being taught, and the classroom context. The assessment procedures also need to be improved and correspond to the way students are assessed at the end of the course. In his words, the approaches to teaching being used are so superficial that they do not encourage deep reflection from students; students do not need to make a mental effort to learn and to do their tests (surface approaches to teaching and learning). He also suggested that the Research Methodology lecturers need to be more responsible and serious for the subjects they are delivering. He maintained that the research report should continue as the final assessment for students and deadlines should be set up for both supervisors and students. There is a need for running short in-service courses for both lecturers and supervisors to improve the quality of the service provided and the end-of-course product.

6.4 Classroom Observation According to Wajnryb (1992, 6), teacher development has been seen as something very different, “that happens within the classroom and within oneself.”He also posits that in the past teacher development used to be seen as an individual skill, and what schools needed to do was help channel the energies spent in directions that would be meaningful and supportive to the teachers. When we teach we are very much concerned with the content, purpose, procedures and techniques that we use to achieve a specific aim of a given lesson.

Chapter Six

220

“Being in the classroom as an observer opens up a range of experiences and processes which can become part of the raw material of a teacher’s professional growth” (Ibid., 1). Thus, classroom observation filters the teaching learning process from a different angle and helps in the process of professional decision making in which lecturers and students are constantly involved. In fact, as Wajnryb (62) posits: “If all students learnt what they were taught at the time at which it was first taught, and if all of them grasped it equally well and equally quickly, teaching would be much less complex than it is,” and classroom observation would be unnecessary. It is commonly accepted that each and every observation should be based on specific activities that will guide the observer along the process. While lessons were in progress the researcher tried to collect data or information such as the language used by the teacher, the kind of interaction, the manner of giving instructions, and the mode of lecturing and so on. Therefore, the use of an observation sheet was very important because: ™ It limits the scope of what one is observing and allows one to focus on one or two particular aspects. ™ It provides a convenient means of collecting data that frees the observer from forming an opinion or making an on-the-spot evaluation during the lesson. For the observation sheet see Appendix M. It must be emphasised that different people bring different backgrounds with them to the classroom. To this end, observers always bring many expectations derived from their own experience in teaching, and the analyses of the observed lessons are based on that personal teaching practice and experience. Thus, the researcher brought her own expectations and experiences to every lesson she observed. a)

Academic writing

In this subject students are required to write up essays, reports, book reviews and sit for written tests. The lecturer used a book entitled Academic Writing by R. R. Jordan (1997). ™ Language: The lecturer’s language seems to be appropriate for the level of the students; it is not too technical for them to understand what the teacher is saying. The lecturer’s pace of speaking and pronunciation are also good.

Data Presentation and Description

221

™ Attitude: The lecturer’s attitude towards the process of teaching can have a positive or negative affect; the relationship between lecturer and the students was good; in the observed lessons, there was a friendly atmosphere and students were given opportunities to talk. ™ Knowledge of the subject matter: The lecturer showed some confidence in delivering knowledge to students and was able to answer questions that students asked as the lesson went on. ™ Lesson stages and activities: With regards to teaching techniques and methods, there were no specific points to highlight as being traces of weaknesses or constraints; the type of activities for practice set up also seemed to match the lessons being taught. However, it was felt that there was a mismatch between those activities and the students’ real context (Biggs 1999, curriculum alignment). ™ Teaching approach and materials: The lecturer seemed to be using a combination of product and process approaches and the mode of lecturing was based on teacher talk with students listening and not interrupting for clarification or asking questions. No teaching aids, either visual or audio-visual, were used in the four observed classes. As mentioned, the Academic Writing course book is the only source of information used in the classes and students were given copies due to the scarcity of the book on the local market. Apart from that, no supplementary materials were provided for further consultation and reading. ™ Instructions: In most instances, instructions were quite clear with the lecturer briefing students before asking them to perform the learning activities being set up. ™ Demonstrations: Demonstrating how students had to do things was something that was missing in the observed lessons. The lecturer did not demonstrate in practice how things were supposed to be done. ™ Exemplifications: This includes all the examples given in the classroom, whether they match the students’ context in terms of the type of topics, the work structure, and layout to meet the demands of research report writing. ™ Students’ levels of engagement: These were quite low and the tasks performed in the classroom did not seem to prepare students for the writing of the research proposals and /or reports. Also, the teaching approach being used did not seem to lead students to deep learning.

Chapter Six

222

™ Students’ participation and interaction types: Apparently, students seemed to be actively involved in the lesson and were willing to participate. However, they did not participate to the level of making decisions but just to that of answering questions from the lecturer and doing what was demanded by them. In one of the lessons, students were asked to work in groups, but most of the time they worked individually. ™ Classroom and follow up activities: The lecturer set up some follow-up activities to double check students’ understanding and help them consolidate the knowledge acquired. However, the activities were so simple and easy that in my humble opinion they did not contribute to the students’ preparation for writing their research proposals and reports ™ Feedback: Feedback plays an important role in any teaching and learning context. The researcher was conscious of the way feedback was provided to students and how long it took for a lecturer to provide feedback to students after handing in an activity. Unfortunately, the four lessons observed did give me a chance of observing this aspect. ™ Oral comments/observation: After some of the lessons, some informal conversations with the lecturer were set up to try to find their own impressions on the lesson taught. Some students were informally approached in order to check their feelings and opinions about the subject being taught. b)

Academic reading

About the lecturer:

™ Language: With regards to the teaching of this subject, the lecturer’s language was good and appropriate for the level of the students; the language was not too technical and students seemed to understand what the lecturer was saying. The lecturer’s pace of speaking and pronunciation were also reasonable. ™ Attitude: The lecturer’s attitude towards the process of teaching was positive and there was a good relationship between the lecturer and the students; the lecturer tried to encourage students to ask questions but they did not react positively. Apparently, students seemed to be afraid of asking questions and it was my impression that they were not used to that kind of practice. ™ Knowledge of the subject matter: The lecturer’s confidence in delivering knowledge to students was quite satisfactory and there

Data Presentation and Description

™

™

™ ™ ™

™

™

™

223

was a feeling that they had a sound knowledge of the subject matter. Lesson stages and activities: The lecturer was able to connect them in a logical sequence and the teaching techniques used were also flexible. The activities set up also seemed to conform to the traditional method being used. Teaching approach and materials: The lecturing method was mainly the traditional one, consisting of reading a passage followed by comprehension questions. Students were also taught about the stages of a reading lesson, but there was no interaction as expected. No teaching aids were used, either visual or audio-visual, and there was no specific course book in use. However, some handouts were given to students. Instructions: Throughout the lesson the lecturer was careful to give instructions to students before and during the activities from the reading passages. Demonstrations: Demonstrating what students had to do and how to do things was something missed in all the lessons observed. Exemplifications: This means all the examples given in the classroom and whether they matched the students’ context in terms of the type of the topics being studied, the work structure, and layout to meet the demands of research report writing. Unfortunately, this happened to be one of the biggest shortcomings in the observed lessons. Students’ level of engagement: Students’ levels of engagement were quite superficial if one takes into account that, at this level, they should be exposed to higher order activities that will help them do the readings they need to write their research reports. Students’ participation and interaction types: Students seemed to be actively involved in the lesson and were willing to participate; however, the level of engagement they were exposed to did not lead them to the stage of making decisions. Apart from working individually, students were asked to do group work but outside the classroom. Classroom and follow up activities: Perhaps one can consider the group work that was set up as a follow up activity to check students’ understanding. In my opinion, this type of activity does not and should not count as a follow-up activity. Just asking students to work in groups on their own without giving them instructions on how to go about the process does not contribute to preparing students to write their research reports.

Chapter Six

224

™ Feedback: Feedback has never been provided in these lessons. What the lecturer did in one lesson was give back students’ work without providing any further comments. ™ Oral comments/observation: There was no opportunity to approach the lecturer and exchange ideas. c)

Research Methodology

About the lecturer

Research methodology was the most problematic subject in observing classes. For the six planned lessons for classroom observation, only two were observed for the Research Methodology course. The lecturer tried to skip the lessons and kept changing the timetable without giving prior notice to the observer. ™ Language: For the two observed lessons, the lecture’s language seemed to be appropriate for the level of students. Students seemed to understand what the lecturer was saying. ™ Attitude: The teacher’s attitude towards the process of teaching was quite positive and there was a friendly atmosphere in the classroom. However, there was a feeling that students were afraid of participating. ™ Knowledge of the subject matter: The lecturer seemed to be confident in delivering knowledge to students and showed some sort of authority in the subject matter. ™ Lesson stages and activities: Identifying each stage in the lesson was a problematic issue as there were no clear boundaries between the lesson stages in terms of what was being done in each. ™ Teaching approach and materials: Concerning the teaching approach, it was quite difficult to find out what approach was being used by the lecturer. No visual aids were used, and no course book was mentioned or even referred to in the two classes. There was also a lack of handouts. ™ Instructions: As there were no activities set up, it was difficult to check if the lecturer briefed students before asking them to perform the activities. ™ Demonstrations: The above-mentioned point also applies to the provision of demonstrations. ™ Exemplifications: During one of the lessons some examples were provided, but they were so vague that students seemed to not understand them.

Data Presentation and Description

225

™ Students’ level of engagement: The type of activities set up in the classroom did not engage students to the level of preparing them to write their research proposals and/or reports. Most of the time, students were encouraged to adopt a surface approach of learning. ™ Students’ participation and interaction types: Students did not seem to be actively involved in the lesson. Their level of participation was low as they were not encouraged to interact with the lecturer. ™ Classroom and follow up activities: The lecturer did set up follow-up activities but did not correct them to double check students’ understanding and help them consolidate the knowledge acquired. ™ Feedback: Feedback was provided to students but it was done orally as students went to the front of the class and the lecturer read their work loudly, providing comments at the same time. ™ Oral comments/observation: After the lessons I tried to approach the lecturer and talk to him, but my effort was in vain. In all the classes observed, special attention was paid to the provision of feedback. Unfortunately, the number of classes observed was not sufficient to come up with definite conclusions about feedback provision. However, I ended up with a feeling that feedback as it is meant in educational contexts and classroom environments was not properly provided to students. Neither oral nor written feedback was practiced in the observed classrooms. What seemed to be happening was some kind of simultaneous feedback as the lecturers read through the students research proposals and commenting in a loud voice on some aspects when and where necessary, pausing from time to time to talk to the students one by one while the rest of the class were doing something else. d)

Summary

From classroom observation it can be concluded that, in general, lecturers have a sound knowledge of the subjects they teach, and in all the classrooms there was a good relationship and a friendly atmosphere between lecturers and students. The teaching approach being used was in most of the classes the traditional one-way transmission model, which was mainly teacher-centred with students’ listening to the lecturer and reacting only when required by the lecturer. It was noticed that in most of the lessons there was a lack of visual aids, but some handouts were distributed. The provision of feedback, as a tool for learning, was another aspect that could not be identified in the observed lessons. In one of the

226

Chapter Six

lessons, for example, the lecturer told students to, “read the comments and approach [him] if there are any comments or something that [students do not understand].” Surprisingly, none of the students approached the lecturer with regard to that matter. The students’ level of engagement was quite passive and superficial, as in most cases no questions were asked to check students’ involvement and level of understanding. To sum up, there is still a lot of food for thought concerning the lecturers’ approaches to teaching, the students’ level of engagement in the activities set up, and the provision of feedback.

6.5 Document analysis As stated in chapter five, document analysis constitutes another important source of information. Students’ academic writing constitutes the principal concern of educators and lecturers in higher education. By and large, students are assessed mostly by what they write, and not how they write. In other words, students are assessed by the product of their writing and not the process of writing. Thus, in order for students to be successful in their studies, they need to learn both general academic conventions as well as disciplinary writing requirements of the academic community they belong to. In assessing students’ writings, lecturers usually focus on the content and form of the writing, more specifically the language used, the text structure, the construction of the argument, and grammar and punctuation. Rather than relying on what participants say, document analysis allows researchers to see what participants actually do in the real world. Document analysis is used in this study not with the purpose of answering the research question or testing the hypothesis, but to complement the information obtained from the main research instruments, which are the interviews. This explains the selection of Qualitative Content Analysis for examining the samples of students’ research proposals and reports. Qualitative data is typically textual, and the qualitative categories used in document analysis are “not pre-determined but derived inductively” from the data analysed. Document analysis has recently become associated with qualitative research and we can therefore easily forget that it actually originates from a quantitative analytical method of examining written texts that involves the counting of instances of words, phrases, or grammatical structures that fall into specific categories. (Dörnyei 2007, 245)

Data Presentation and Description

227

In Qualitative Content Analysis, researchers are more interested in the meanings associated with messages than with the number of times that message variables occur. As mentioned before, the texts that were analysed consisted of two samples of TTS’ research proposals, and two research projects. In order to analyse students’ documents it was necessary to set up some criteria. As qualitative content analysis is mainly based on nonnumerical data, we applied a content-based analytical process. Apart from the content of the documents, the general organisation of the chapters and layout of students’ research proposals and projects was analysed at both the sentence level to check the syntactic, morphological and lexical problems that students have (Kroll 2001), and the discourse level to check their ability to display features of organisation and coherence. According to Dörnyei (2007), one of the serious problems in qualitative research can be too much data collection, which is augmented by the fact that qualitative data are “messy records” (Hyland 2002, 34) usually consisting of a mixture of field notes, transcripts of various recordings as well as documents of diverse natures and lengths. According to Dörnyei: “As qualitative data expands quickly novice researchers often find that the real challenge is not to generate enough data but rather to generate useful data” (2007, 125). I therefore thought that analysing the texts at the discourse level was more relevant to providing the information needed to complement the information from other research instruments. At the sentence level, the syntactic, lexical and morphological aspects were taken into account, but at a very superficial level. Therefore, there was no grouping of categories such as verb-noun collocation (Kroll 2001), nor was there the counting of the frequency of words within the texts. Errors were identified but not classified under categories. As previously stated, for the specific purposes of this study the analysis at the sentence level was very superficial and the study concentrated on the discourse level analysis. At the discourse level, the analysis was based on the ability of students to display features of organisation and coherence in their papers. The criteria for analysis were based on Connor’s (1996) topic analysis. This analysis is based on two different instances: the global coherence (what the essay is about) and the local coherence (how sentences build meaning in relation to each other and to the overall topic). This concept was adapted to include Kroll’s (2001) scoring guidelines and resulted in the following assessment rubric: ™ Focus on the topic—the ability to address the essay question

Chapter Six

228

™ Stressing the main idea—the ability to tell the reader what the issue is about ™ Supporting the main ideas—the ability to provide evidence to support the main idea/s ™ Logical sequencing of ideas—in Connor’s words (1990), “local cohesion” (looking at the way sentences build meaning in relation to each other and the overall text) ™ Identifiable schematic structure—checking whether the structure of the text is compatible with the genre in use (Kroll 2001, 144). Based on Kroll’s (2001) assessment rubric, the following are the main findings arrived at in analysing students’ research proposals and reports. It should be emphasised that, due to limitations of length, only a few examples will be provided, and the lecturers’ comments are deleted so as not to affect the layout of the thesis. a)

Subject matter knowledge

One of the most important aspects in writing is having ideas to communicate, and sharing the same language with the audience. This is particularly important in academic settings where a good understanding of the topic and a clear exposition of ideas is required (Perera 1984; Zamel 1983; Flower 1985). For the analysed documents it seems that students have a good understanding of the topic they are working on. However, there is an apparent lack of originality of ideas and this is probably due to students’ dependency on previous classes’ knowledge based on an attempt to memorise things (see research proposal 1: 158). Although some scholars in the process paradigm (Zamel 1982; 1983; Flower 1985; Raimes 1985) may contend that writing is usually more difficult due to lack of ideas when one sits to write, this may not be true for foreign language contexts such as the one under study, where ideas could be remembered from previous classes and readings and preparations for writing. Perhaps the major problem lies in the fact that students tend to memorise facts as they appear during the readings and preparations for writing from their own notes and reading materials. As a result, students can barely express their own opinions, voices and arguments against the existing theories. In the examined texts the lack of students’ capacity to provide their own arguments and ideas on the content being discussed was noticeable (see research proposal 2: 164).

Data Presentation and Description b)

229

Stressing the main idea

The ability to tell the reader what the topic is about in a coherent manner was something that students did not show in their written pieces of work. In fact, students have not been so successful in developing their papers in a coherent and cohesive manner as most of the time what students say does not conform to the essay topic. The way that paragraphs are structured and developed shows that students still lack some writing skills. What follows is an extract from Research Report 2: 158: It has been seen in the Angolan society and stated by São Domingos-1171 EFL teachers that at every beginning of academic years, the Luanda province education direction through the Angolan Ministry of Education has been carrying out in almost all the schools teachers’ seminars, but unfortunately these seminars have not been specifically in the ELT field, so, it is recommended to the Luanda province education direction, to acknowledge many English teachers’ lack of this testing technique (and probably many teaching methods), and starting to promote seminars at the ELT field in order to overcome or minimize these difficulties.

Students tend to write long paragraphs rather than explain an idea clearly. Therefore, they need more support and guidance in this regard. c)

Supporting the main ideas

The ability to provide evidence to support the main idea/s is another problematic area for these students. One important quality in writing is a good command of the target language. Therefore, aspects such as correct sentence, good grammar and vocabulary use, appropriate phrases and so on are aspects that need to be taken into account when analysing students’ papers (Kroll 2001). It appears that, from the observed papers, students are limited in terms of the range of vocabulary used and the type of sentences produced (see extract from Research Report 2: 164 below). After the students answered the questionnaire and I realized that most of them had this opinion in this question, I asked them the reasons that made them to think like that, and they all agreed by saying that as there is always a correct option in multiple-choice tests, it is easier to remember the form whereas gap-filling is more thoughtful.

Generally speaking, there is no logical sequencing of ideas, and the language provided sounds to some extent artificial if one has to take the students’ voices into account. This leads to the next aspect below.

Chapter Six

230 d)

Logical sequencing of ideas

At the university level, student writers need to learn how to use aspects of metadiscourse; that is, language that refers to things happening in the text itself (Brandt 2009) and to “signpost” their movements through the structure of the whole writing. Students can use signposts, such as transitional words or phrases, to guide the reader from one section to another. In the examined texts a lack of cohesion was noticed; that is, students rarely use signposts to locate and keep the reader informed on what is going on. According to Connor (1990), “local cohesion” has to do with the way sentences build meaning in relation to each other and the overall text. The organisation of ideas in a logical and coherent manner and the linkage between sentences and paragraphs are areas that need to be seriously addressed to students. In general, it was found that the texts produced by students lack coherence and cohesion, resulting in texts composed of loose parts with no linkage between them as in the following example from Research Report 1: 209: This chapter which is number 3 argued important information about the research site, participants, the research instruments in which has a sub point talking about the data collection procedure, followed by the methods of data analysis point. The last but one point is the limitation of the study whereas the last one is the chapter summary. The coming chapter will deal with the data presentation, analysis and interpretation. e)

Identifiable schematic structure

Analysing the text structure was another aspect considered in the document analysis process. In analysing students’ research proposals and reports we could not forget to check whether the structure of the texts was compatible to the genre in use (Kroll 2001, 144). Thus, it was found that students showed some knowledge about the text structure, more precisely the main headings and subheadings to be included in each type of paper. However, there were signs of a lack of linguistic competence, which means students make a lot of vocabulary and grammar mistakes, resulting in confusing and weak written products. The last aspect examined consisted of the referencing conventions. Students have major difficulties in writing references, not only in the bibliography list but also in the text (see for example Research Proposal 1: 158–60 and research Proposal 2: 162–7). Even at the level of writing the research reports, students show some difficulties in writing references inside or at the end of the work. For example, in Research report 1: 173

Data Presentation and Description

231

and Research report 2: 221 one can clearly see the difficulties students are facing. From the classroom observation we can see that during the feedback sessions lecturers never refer to the reference writing conventions, even though they were wrong. To put it simply, document analysis helped me better understand the problems faced by TTS in academic writing and research literacy practices. Once again, it should be emphasised that it is out of the scope of this study to do quantitative content analysis. Therefore, further investigation is needed in this field.

Concluding Summary This chapter has presented and described the data under the four research instruments questionnaires, interviews, classroom observations, and document analysis, and more precisely at the level of qualitative content analysis. What follows is a brief summary of the data obtained from the four research instruments. ™

Questionnaires

From the lecturers’ questionnaires it was learnt that, with regard to the issue of research report writing, the coursework is well organised to meet the demands of research report writing, but the core subjects are not equipping students with the academic literacy skills they need to succeed in writing their reports (Academic Reading and Writing and Research Methodology subjects). They are of the opinion that there is a need for implementing a students’ writing centre. They also confessed that supervisors are not always helpful in guiding students’ work, and feedback is not provided adequately and promptly. Most of the lecturers admit that they are not acting as reflective practitioners, and they feel that there is a need for the in-service training of both lecturers and supervisors. From the students’ questionnaires the main issues raised were that some lecturers need in-service training and they are of the opinion that the majority of them cannot supervise students properly. All the groups are of the opinion that they did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help them write their research reports, but they think that writing a research report helped and helps students become independent researchers. Most of the students are of the opinion that they acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing their research report, and therefore think that the research report should be kept as the final assessment.

Chapter Six

232 ™

Interviews

From the students’ interviews it was learnt that, in general, they agree that lecturers have a sound academic knowledge of the subjects they teach, and the assessment procedures seem to be fair enough during the coursework process. They also seem to agree that some feedback has been provided to them, but not promptly. Students think that they are able to write and read academic texts and are aware of the dangers of plagiarism. Students also mentioned some negative points. They state that most of the lecturers are not contributing to the teaching and learning process; they also mentioned that lecturers are not helpful in the supervisory process, and went further to suggest a training course for supervisors. Students indirectly blame lecturers for not doing their job properly. From the lecturers’ interviews it was found that, although they might all have a sound academic knowledge of the subjects they teach, they blame each other for the students’ difficulties or failure to produce the research reports. While general subject lecturers (GSL) blame content subject lecturers (CSL) for not properly teaching the subjects that would help students to write their research reports, CSL maintain that no matter how much effort they make students will always face problems because general subjects lecturers leave all the burden on them. In addition, both CSL and GSL state that students’ success or failure depends on their academic background knowledge, and it is their own responsibility. Lecturers are aware that the assessment tasks in place do not contribute to the final assessment, which is the production of the research reports. They are of the opinion that both the process of teaching and the assessment procedures need to be revisited. However, they do not appear to be motivated to do so. Both students and lecturers are of the opinion that writing a research report helps students acquire and consolidate most of the language skills. They also favour the idea of keeping this final assessment as a requirement for obtaining the Honours degree. ™

Classroom observation

From classroom observation it was observed and concluded that, in general, lecturers have a sound knowledge of the subjects they teach and in all the classrooms there was a good relationship and a friendly atmosphere between lecturers and students. However, the teaching approach being used was in most of the classes the traditional one-way transmission model, which was mainly lecturer-centred with students listening and reacting only when required. It was noticed that in most of the lessons there was a lack of visual aids, but some handouts were distributed. The provision of feedback was another aspect that could not be

Data Presentation and Description

233

identified in the observed lessons. The students’ level of engagement was quite passive and superficial as in most cases no questions were asked to check their involvement and level of understanding. To sum it up, there is still a lot of food for thought concerning the lecturers’ approaches to teaching, the students’ levels of engagement in the activities set up, and provision of feedback. ™

Document analysis

From the document analysis it was found that, although lecturers are aware of the problem and have been trying to help TTS to overcome it, TTS are facing serious problems in producing both research proposals and research reports. They have problems in organising ideas clearly and logically, they seem to sometimes lack the appropriate vocabulary and phrases, they make a lot of spelling errors, and they show some lack of writing and research practices. Surprisingly, most of the students showed some weaknesses in communicating their ideas properly in English; that is, in writing in English. Therefore, it is a fact that these students might have academic writing and research skills problems, as well as language problems. To this end, a study is needed in order to spot the level of difficulty in each respective area.

CHAPTER SEVEN DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

7.1 Introduction The focus of the present study was examining TTI nr 200 TTS’ academic and research literacy practices and interactions within the academic community that promote or impede their success in completing their research reports within the allocated time. The study is based on the very low numbers of students completing their studies between 2006 and 2011. During that period, from the 225 students enrolled in the English Language teacher training course, only 20%succeeded in writing their research reports, and the situation seems to remain the same notwithstanding some improvement put in place, such as the increase of the number of subjects taught in English and the delivery of core subjects, mainly Research Methodology. As Wajnryb (1992, 62)states: “If all students learnt what they were taught at the time at which it was first taught, and if all of them grasped it equally well and equally quickly, teaching would be much less complex than it is,” hence the need for this type of study. At the beginning of this study, a table was drawn to show the relationship between the research questions, aims and data (see chapter one). In order to help discuss the findings, we took the same table and added two more sections: key findings and implications to the research knowledge. The discussion of the findings is therefore focused on that table as shown in Appendix AE. The present chapter is organised around the sub-questions that are meant to answer the main research question, that is: In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report? The section culminates in a theory that suggests how TTS should be taught in order to acquire the academic literacy skills they will need at the stage of research supervision and research report writing. Before answering the research questions, we provide a quick reflection on the problems encountered in this study.

Discussion of Findings

235

Throughout this study, it was noticed that most of the lecturers tend to stick to the traditional approaches to teaching by using minimum effort to transmit and convey information to TTS. They also tend to stick to traditional assessment procedures consisting of written tests with questions that require short answers. One of the reasons behind this behaviour might be lack of time, as most of them work in more than one institution, lack of commitment to their job, and laziness. To put it simply, what is missing in these lecturers is a positive attitude to the teaching and learning process. Lecturers’ attitude to teaching and learning and the relationship with their classes can have a strong effect on students’ attitudes and learning. For lecturers to be good professionals they need to have a variety of personal and professional skills. They also need to develop ways of improving their teaching; in other words, they need to be reflective practitioners. Krashen (1982, 64) defines a good teacher as someone who can make input comprehensible to students, and to do this we need to possess and be able to use specific teaching skills. Teaching skills can be divided into the following groups: Organisation: organising the classroom to make the best use of space; providing clear rules and routines; keeping students working actively. Planning: making sure that the syllabus is properly covered; thinking about the best way to present your lesson; providing a variety of activities; using and integrating the language skills and sub-skills. Management: classroom management; time management; resources management; group, pair and individual management. Communication: the skill of presenting new language; the skill of giving instructions; the relationship with students; the relationship with other teachers and staff; the relationship with parents when/if applicable. Apart from handling the skills of teaching, lecturers also have their own views of thinking about teaching (Biggs and Tang 2007). According to Biggs (1999, 16–19), there are three levels of thinking about teaching and learning: x Level 1: what the student is x Level 2: what the teacher does x Level 3: what the student does. Level one: At this level, the aim of the teacher/lecturer is to transmit information to students, and the curriculum is viewed as a list of items that needs to be poured into the students’ brains. How students receive that

236

Chapter Seven

information and what their understanding is do not really matter. Within this level, teaching assessment is seen as an instrument of sorting good students from bad ones making the learning process very selective. The main characteristics of this level of thinking are: 1987, 77). ¾ One-way delivery: the teacher/lecturer transmits information and students receive passively with no chance of inquiring ¾ The teacher/lecturer is the knower: the teacher is seen as someone who knows everything and therefore students cannot question him/her ¾ The students are absorbent sponges: their brains are ready to store all the information from the teacher, be it right or wrong ¾ Students’ success and failure lay with themselves—the students’ success depends on their motivation, ability and personal responsibility; in other words, if students do not learn it means they lack something, but not a good teacher. Biggs and Tang (2007) posit that Level 1 is based on a “quantitative” way of thinking about learning and teaching. Assessment consists of counting points and marking students’ work with a red pen. If one looks at some of the statements from lecturers, then one will see that most favour this level of thinking about teaching and learning. What follows are some extracts from the interview with lecturers. x I think students lack some academic writing and reading skills(CSL8) x I think students were poorly prepared at the previous level (GSLE5) x These students lack suitable research skills and that is not my problem (CSL10). The above statements clearly show the apparent excuses from lecturers who do not want to be responsible for the learning and teaching process. In fact, there is a considerable drop off in the students’ results year after year, and as a consequence students at higher level institutions are becoming less academically oriented. Blaming the student is a very comfortable theory of teaching and posits that if students do not succeed in their learning it is because they are incapable, unmotivated, at the wrong level, or possess an academic deficiency which is not the teachers’ responsibility to correct. Level 1

Discussion of Findings

237

teaching is totally unreflective. The teacher/lecturer never asks such questions as: x x x x x

What should be my role with these students? In which aspects do they need more help? Why are students not learning? What can I do to help students learn? How can I increase my students’ motivation?

Level two: This view is based on what the teacher/lecturer does. Teaching is still viewed as a way of transmitting information, but the idea of transmission here is also related to transmitting concepts and understandings, not just information (Prosser and Trigwell 1998). Most of the learning process depends on what the teacher/lecturer does. Learning is seen as more a function of what the teacher/lecturer is doing than what sort of students one is dealing with. In other words, this view advocates that there are always more effective ways of teaching than what the teacher/lecturer is currently doing. Therefore, this view is to some extent teacher-centred. It is what the teacher/lecturer does that matters most and not what the students are learning. It also implies a deficit model in that it defines good teachers as those who have appropriate competencies who know what, why, when and how to do things. This level sees good management as a means of setting the stage on which good learning is likely to occur, and not as an end in itself. Level three: This level is more concerned with what the student does. The student is seen as the central part of the learning teaching process. At this level, teaching must support learning and mastery of the teaching techniques and skills is very important provided that learning really takes place. The most important aspect for this level of teaching is that content should be understood in the way it is stipulated in the learning outcomes; that is, what levels of understanding teachers/lecturers want when they set up a topic to teach. In order to achieve those stipulated levels of understanding, teachers/lecturers need to be selective in terms of activities—the teaching learning activities must help students to achieve the desired levels of understanding. To sum up, defining levels of understanding is a basic part of clarifying our intended outcomes; however, it is not enough in itself. We need to get students to understand things at the required level, and this is where level three departs from the other two. In other words, the way that the teachers/lecturers think about the learning/teaching process is of

238

Chapter Seven

crucial importance. According to Biggs and Tang (2007, 21): “Education is about conceptual change, not just the acquisition of information.” However, conceptual change can only take place if teachers/lecturers change their attitudes to teaching and learning, which constitute the starting point in improving the teaching methodology and assessment procedures at all levels. It is hoped that this study will influence TTI nr 200 lecturers’ levels of thinking and performing. What follows is an attempt to answer the research sub-questions before responding to the main research question.

7.2 Acquiring Academic and Research Literacy Skills From the information gathered it was noticed that students are acquiring academic and research literacy skills under inadequate conditions, such as lack of an updated library and a proper computer lab. Although lecturers might have a sound academic knowledge of the subjects they teach, it was noticed that they are making very little effort to improve the quality of teaching. In most of the lessons observed, they are using the one-way transmission model, where students are expected to just listen to the lecturer and react only when required. This fact is confirmed by the participants who state that very few lecturers use discussion in their classrooms, and pair and group work activities are rarely set up. The teaching of the core subjects is also another problematic issue that participants discussed; lecturers tend to teach rules and theory instead of presenting students with practical activities. From the observed lessons, I noticed that students were not encouraged to become active makers of meaning, to think critically, to argue, to compare, to develop their own positions, and value different points of view. With regards to teaching writing, the kind of tasks that were set up in the observed lessons did not engage students in analysis, synthesis, research, and critical thinking skills to extend their writing abilities. All in all, lecturers seem to be stuck to an approach of teaching based on the dictation of “formulas” or concepts to students, such as “in the introduction you do this, in the body of the paper you do this, and in the conclusion you write x number of sentences.” Writing as a skill is listless, endless and flat. Therefore, students need to be engaged in tasks that require synthesis and analysis in order for them to understand the language features of academic language. Students need to learn the differences between spoken and written English and move from what Cummins (1996) calls less cognitively demanding tasks to high cognitively demanding ones. The other problem found in both interviews

Discussion of Findings

239

and questionnaires was the provision of feedback. The provision of feedback on students’ writing is central to the teaching methodology in higher education. Feedback practices may take the form of oral or written feedback but, as stated before, feedback practices of the corrective feedback kind were rare in the lectures observed, and it was noticed that lecturers did not provide proper feedback to students. Feedback plays an important role in the teaching and learning process, and it has been proved through research that it enables students to assess their performances, modify their behaviours, build and develop critical thinking skills, and transfer their understandings to the various facts they see in the world around them. The lack of feedback perhaps arises because they do not know about its role in teaching or because they think they are doing the right thing (Brinko 1993). For learning to take place, students need to receive feedback on their language problems and be allowed time to reflect and correct their mistakes either in pairs or individually. Reflection and feedback go hand by hand and are the key features in education, especially at higher levels. Here, feedback can play many different roles, the most well-known being: ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™

To support students’ development To teach or reinforce a particular aspect of disciplinary content To teach specific academic writing conventions1987, 77). To indicate the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of writing To explain or justify a grade To suggest how a student may improve in their writing (Coffin et al. 2005, 104).

Thus, the role of lecturers would be to give students opportunities to develop not only their writing skills but also critical awareness of good writing and effective expression in several genres. This is only possible through the use of corrective feedback and peer learning (Brinko 1993). In most of the lessons observed it was noticed that the feedback did not play any of the above-mentioned roles.

7.3 Deploying Academic and Research Literacy Skills in the Production of Research Reports In higher education, what matters most is not what students can reproduce but what they can produce and construct by themselves. Looking at the samples of students’ research proposals and research reports, it was noticed that students have great difficulties in deploying academic and

240

Chapter Seven

research literacy skills. Actually, it has to be admitted that students have serious difficulties with academic writing, and more precisely in critical thinking, and it can be inferred that it is their weak writing skills that are preventing them from writing their research proposals and/or reports. As can be seen in Appendices AI and AJ, students show great weaknesses in writing academic pieces; for example, they have problems in selecting the correct vocabulary, they have problems in using correct grammar and punctuation, and they have serious problems in spelling. Summarising ideas or information from other sources is something that they can hardly do, and they also have problems in structuring their work in a logical sequence. Quoting and paraphrasing are also other signs of weaknesses in writing and they do not seem to be aware of the dangers of plagiarism, copying chunks of text from several sources without referencing them. Apart from the above-mentioned aspects, it was felt that critical thinking skills need to be introduced in the academic and research literacy practices of these TTS. Students need to know what constitutes plagiarism, what is common knowledge, when to use quotations, when to paraphrase, and how to cite sources appropriately. Lea and Street (2006) maintain that the problem for many students in different areas of professionalization is the lack of knowledge of how to argue and how to support their arguments with evidence and lack of general knowledge in essay or research report writing techniques. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning should not be seen as matter of replicating the performance of others or acquiring knowledge through instruction and reproducing it as it was delivered. To them, learning should occur through a process of active participation in the “communities of practice” where students are encouraged to do some peer-feedback “through centripetal participation in the learning curriculum of the ambient community.” The teaching of writing should therefore focus not only on text production processes, language forms, and structure (genre), aspects that students lack already, but also on the requirements of an academic community of practice that are beyond knowledge and individual text production of a particular genre. As discussed, there is a need to differentiate between “learning objectives” (LO) and “intended learning outcomes” (ILOs) (Biggs and Tang 2007, 70). The “intended learning outcomes” in a course programme carry a broader meaning than the “learning objectives” because they place more value on what the student learns and not what the teacher has to teach. Intended learning outcomes refer to what students are able to perform after the teaching that they could not perform before it; this also has to do with unintended things the students can do after teaching. Therefore, rather than just looking at the

Discussion of Findings

241

behavioural objectives, ILOs are seen from the students’ perspectives, according to the skills and abilities acquired from the learning process. Apparently, the teaching and learning programme seems to place more attention on the learning objectives rather than on the intended learning outcomes as translated in the students’ difficulties to produce their research reports. Once again, it should be emphasised that lack of a writing centre or even a students’ club where they can socialise are some of the main hindrances preventing students from completing their studies.

7.4 Curriculum Alignment and the Production of the Research Reports As stated before, the term “curriculum” is a very broad concept, and in this study it refers to all the content that students acquire from the coursework. Curriculum design includes processes that are used to determine the students’ needs and develop aims and objectives for a programme to address those needs; it also determines the type of syllabus to be used, the course structure and content, the teaching methods and materials, as well as evaluates the results of the whole process. To paraphrase White et al. (1991), a curriculum covers not only the content but also the goals of the teaching programme as well as the activities that will form the learning experiences and practices of a given group of students. As previously stated, the course components (curriculum, objectives, methods, learning activities1987, 77), and assessment procedures) that constitute the teaching and learning system at TTI nr 200 are not yet aligned (Biggs 1999). For instance, the exit assessment of the course is a research report comprising 45 to 65 pages, while students would have been assessed during the entire course mostly through short-form individual tests and a few short essays (of two to five pages). In other words, there is no alignment between the formative assessment and the final assessment, which is writing the research report. In the case of TTI nr 200, one can probably speculate that as most students join the courses with very limited background knowledge, and although there might be some lecturers who adopt deep approaches to teaching, students will unlikely use deep approaches to learning and as a result most adopt rote learning. Rote learning can help students get good marks in the tests but it does not help in succeeding in other forms of assessment, for example writing essays or book reports. Rote learning can help students complete the four years of coursework but will not help them write their research reports. This is probably one of the main reasons that make

242

Chapter Seven

students succeed in the four years of coursework and fail in the production of their research reports. Therefore, curriculum alignment is needed in order to enhance the teaching/learning process and empower students with the academic skills they need to write their research reports. However, lecturers also need to change their attitudes to teaching and regard the weaknesses of students in writing their research reports as a joint responsibility. Surprisingly, there is a tendency of lecturers/supervisors to blame teachers from the previous academic levels as if they do not belong to the same group. In the observed lessons, lecturers seemed to be more concerned with turning students into academic writers, regardless of the type and content of texts they write, than simply support them to produce better academic texts.

7.5 Supervision Practices and the Successful Completion of Research Reports How do supervision practices enable and/or constrain the successful completion of research reports? As was stated in chapter three, research supervision is an integral part of any higher teaching context and has to do with critical thinking and the transference of Academic Reading and Writing skills into the research. Research supervision is an area that was not so deeply explored in this study, although it constitutes the main topic in this investigation. The process of training scholars in any research area of knowledge is central to research supervision, and this requires more demanding research skills from our students. Barnett (2000) posits that in this world of fast development and complexity of facts and events, where frames of reference change rapidly, an interdisciplinary response to the complex problems that the society presents is required, and the most useful tool we can give our students to confront those challenges is knowledge of how to investigate, conceptualise, and find possible solutions to the problems they will encounter on a daily basis. However, research supervision seems to be a neglected area at TTI nr 200. In the introductory chapter, one of the main concerns of this investigation was the high dropout rates of students resulting in the noncompletion of their final research reports. Additionally, many students are taking a relatively long time to get their work completed. Prior to this study, it was thought that one of the major problems with research supervision was the fact that it is considered an aspect of research rather than teaching. It was also thought that some of the reasons for students’ failure to produce their research reports included challenges such as underprepared students, non-qualified or non-motivated supervisors, and lack of

Discussion of Findings

243

students’ motivation. These pre-investigation assumptions were confirmed, but after collecting and presenting the data some other reasons were found, such as poor background knowledge, poor working and learning conditions, lack of and/or shortage of resources, lack of a good library and computer lab, lack of good and knowledgeable supervisors, lack of academic and research literacy skills, a bad relationship between lecturer and students, and long periods of retention of students’ work. All these aspects are contributing to the students’ failure to produce their research reports and they are addressed and discussed in answering the main question that led the whole research.

7.6 The Role of Academic and Research Literacy Practices in the Successful Completion of Research Reports So far, we have been discussing the findings and answering the research sub-questions. We now return to the main research question in order to integrate what has emerged from the findings: In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report? In order to answer the main research question it was thought that an interactive model between the research supervision and the four conceptual orientations suggested in the conceptual framework chapter would help. Table 7.1 below shows the interconnectivity between the four orientations and research supervision. Research supervision is at the centre because it constitutes the main topic for this research. Starting from Biggs’s (1999) constructive alignment and the 3P Model, it was found that there are some factors hindering the system at the level of the 3 Ps, namely: Presage (before learning takes place), Process (during the process of learning), and Product (the outcome of learning). With regards to Presage factors, it was found that from the students’ side, the relevant prior knowledge and motives that they bring to the new environment of study, as well as ability, interest, and commitment to study at a higher level, are not the desired ones. Students are joining the English course with a very low language competence and are driven by extrinsic motivation that is not oriented towards the goal of becoming “teachers” of English.

244

Chapter Seven

Table 7.1. An interactive model between the conceptual orientations and research supervision

Source: Maxwell (2005, 9).

Also, the learning environment, which is an important factor in helping students to perform the learning activities at a higher level of thinking, is not contributing to this end. In other words, the facilities provided are not of good quality. On the other hand, the lecturing mode being used by most of the lecturers, especially the content subject lecturers, is not contributing to students’ development and acquisition of knowledge. Some lecturers’ levels of knowledge of the discipline they are teaching and their ability to teach posit doubts about their competences. The classroom atmosphere and the relationship between lecturers and students is also another aspect that seems to be contributing to students’ impediments to learning.

Discussion of Findings

245

Process factors are teaching-based and include the lecturers’ “teaching methodology,” the learning-focused activities that students are asked to perform throughout the course, and the type of approach lecturers and students adapt to teaching and learning. In other words, the type of approach students adopt to learning is directly influenced by the type of approach lecturers adopt to teaching. It was found that the type of learning activities that students are asked to perform as well as the level of engagement required from them do not encourage deep approaches to learning, and as a result students are taking the easiest way to survive throughout the four years of coursework, which is surface learning. Surface learning is an approach that does not allow students to think critically and make their own meanings from the content learnt. Unfortunately, both lecturers and students in general seem to favour surface approaches. Thus, there is a need to change lecturers’ attitudes to teaching and learning and implement better practices that would facilitate the attainment of better results, not just in terms of quantity but also quality. Product factors are translated in the intended learning outcomes (ILOs), in this specific case the quantity and quality of students one gets at the end of each academic year and the four years of coursework. The ILOs should be translated into the academic level achieved after four years of coursework, as well as the ability to write the research proposal and the final research report. After all, the students’ intended learning outcomes should enable them to embark on a new teaching/learning phase, which is the writing of their research reports. It was found that the number of students finishing their coursework is quite reasonable (about 90%), although the quality might be not so good. This is translated by the fact that very few of those students manage to complete their research reports on time, and others even give up writing them. Another aspect that needs special consideration in this discussion is the alignment in the system. Biggs and Tang (2007, 53) postulate that in most of the outcomes-based models, the alignment exists only between the ILOs and the assessment tasks (ATs), not additionally between the ILOs and the teaching and learning activities (TLAs). Although the system at TTI nr 200 may not be an outcomes-based model, the problem seems to be more critical as1987, 77), although the ILOs might be well specified and seem to be clear, there is no clear connection between the ILOs and the TLAs and additionally the ATs. The ATs need to be aligned with the content of the lessons and the lecturers’ approach to teaching; in other words, assessment has to be aligned with what students have been taught and learnt, and the activities they are engaged in.

246

Chapter Seven

As the above-mentioned components are not corroborating with each other, the whole system is unbalanced. As a result, the teaching and learning situation is resulting in poor teaching and surface learning (Biggs and Tang 2007, 14). In the lessons observed, it was noticed that students were adopting surface approaches to learning; the majority of them tried to get the tasks done with minimum effort, using low cognitive levels of engagement; they only reacted when required to by the lecturers and they hardly initiated a talk or asked questions. As mentioned before, constructive alignment is primarily concerned with what students do with what they learn and how well they do it, rather than what they learn. The main difference between a constructively aligned system and other outcomes-based approaches lies in the fact that the connections between the ILOs, the TLAs, and ATs are so intrinsically aligned that if one is missing it creates a gap in the system and changes the intended outcomes. At some point in this study we posed the question of whether writing a research report was just an academic writing and research problem or perhaps also a language problem. According to the researcher’s own experience, and being a foreign language student, lecturer and researcher, we suppose that these students, apart from the academic and research literacy problems they have, also have some language problems which are translated into the “poor texts” they are producing. In fact, some lecturers and students confirmed my preconceived assumption and mentioned the fact that these students also have language problems. The DDAAD also confirmed this finding by stating that, even in Portuguese, the subject he is teaching, students have serious problems in writing academic texts. At this point, it is perhaps useful to recall Cummins’s useful distinction (1996) between conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency that states that just because a student is a fluent speaker in a given language it does not necessarily mean that they are good at writing. Actually, there are some students who can express themselves in English very well; however, when it comes to producing academic papers they find problems in writing that are, by their nature, decontextualised (absence of interpersonal or contextual clues) and therefore more cognitively demanding (Cummins 1996). Most of the short form tests that students write are generally contextualised exercises based on short answer forms. These types of tests require relatively less cognitive effort for students to answer them. This is one of the reasons that allow students to go through the whole course without actually developing the academic aspects of language proficiency. In addition, there are some parallel issues such as identifying a problem,

Discussion of Findings

247

reading, gathering, and analysing information, designing the research proposal and/or project, and writing up the whole research report. In higher education, learning involves adopting new ways of understanding, interpreting, and organising knowledge. In Lea and Street’s (2006, 158) words, it involves engaging students in academic literacy practices. From a holistic point of view, academic literacy encompasses the skills of reading, writing, listening, speaking, critical thinking, use of technology, and habits of mind that foster academic success. However, the teaching of these skills is still quite superficial in TTI nr 200 from the very few lessons observed, and we noticed that the reading and writing skills are not being addressed to students in a way that would enable them to activate their critical thinking skills. Critical thinking as a skill is one of those most neglected by the majority of lecturers at TTI nr 200. Quite often, lecturers do not engage students in tasks that are context reduced and cognitively demanding, which require identifying sources, describing facts and processes, comparing, contrasting, analysing, interpreting and evaluating, all abilities that require higher order mental processes. Lecturers tend to adopt surface approaches to teaching where students are asked to perform tasks that require lower order cognitive challenges, such as memorising and describing (Biggs and Tang 2007). As a result, students are hardly able to apply critical thinking skills in their academic practices. Lea and Street (2006) suggest a possible solution to the problem, positing that students should be exposed and helped to move from independent study skills to a stage of academic socialisation, and finally to an academic literacy stage. It is worth recalling what each stage is all about. The study skills model focuses on the surface approaches to learning (Biggs 1999) as well as the transfer of knowledge from one context to another, similar to Cummins’s (1996) context-embedded and cognitively-undemanding tasks, such as memorising and note-taking. The academic socialisation model is concerned with students’ acculturation into disciplinary and subject based discourses and genres. This model helps students move to a stage of acquiring new ways of talking, writing, thinking, and using literacy that typifies members of a specific disciplinary or community area. Students are expected to recognise, relate, and apply (Biggs 1999) the rules of using the language within a specific community. In so doing, they are moving from less context-embedded and undemanding tasks to more context-reduced and demanding ones (Cummins 1996). As stated before, academic literacy is based on meaning-making, power, identity, authority, and what counts as knowledge in a particular

248

Chapter Seven

academic context, and views the processes involved in acquiring effective and appropriate uses of literacy as more dynamic, complex and situated (Lea and Street 2006, 369). Thus, academic literacy requires the adoption of deep approaches to learning (Biggs 1999), and highly cognitively demanding tasks (Cummins 1996). Moving to the central part of this discussion, research supervision practices, it was learnt that the practice of the traditional five-paragraph essay which discourages critical thinking is not contributing to the writing of the final research reports. Students are not being encouraged to express their personal opinions in what they write, and position themselves within the academic field they are entering. Another important aspect regarding students’ attainment of academic skills and development is the provision of feedback. Students are not receiving corrective feedback on their language problems, and are not being told what is right and what is wrong. On top of all these aspects, the relationship between the students and supervisors is also not contributing to the production of the research reports. Also, the retention of the student’s drafts for an unlimited period of time is preventing them from doing further work and making them forget about the content. Students hardly complain about this as most of the time they feel that a complaint will do more harm than good, and as the lecturer/supervisor is the only person with a sound knowledge in the area of work the student has no alternative but to wait until feedback is provided. Good supervision should start from a good relationship. The relationship between supervisor and student is one of the key elements in research supervision. Sayed, Kruss and Badat (1998, 16) state that, in general, most supervision problems have their origin in the supervisory relationship rather than in the research topic itself. In addition, Mouton (2001, 16) holds that when the relationship between a supervisor and a student is spoilt, the student feels unattended to and insecure. As a result there are always delays, and in more critical cases withdrawals from the studies. Most of the time, the relationship between students and supervisors is affected by what Grant (2010) calls the unconscious desires that derive from the relative intensity and privacy of supervision, where both parties make unconscious responses to each other based on mutual respect and humbleness. Both supervisors and students need to work together to accomplish a general and common aim, which is the production of a document that is formal, original, and academically acceptable. The relationship between people is a complex process whereby individuals always try to impose their power on another. That power can

Discussion of Findings

249

take either a supervisor/student or student/supervisor direction. When the student feels more powerful than the supervisor, it can lead to other intricacies such as a delay in producing the research report or, at some extremes, a change of supervisor. In order to prepare students for university courses, they need to be exposed to teaching and learning practices that are conducive to the attainment of the academic literacy skills they are going to find at that level. It can be inferred that academic literacy is an obligation at higher level institutions. Thus, the greater coordination of literacy education among subject lecturers in high schools is needed. Just as the focus of teaching at TTI nr 200is shifting from amassing knowledge to learning how to find and apply it, academic literacy can also be progressively introduced as an experiential learning process and gradually find its place within the teaching/learning process at TTI nr 200 (Lea and Street 2006). In so doing, lecturers will be preparing students to read, write, and think critically, and communicate not just in their learning community but also in the larger world for which they are being prepared to become educated citizens and problem-solving agents.

7.7 Contribution to the research knowledge After presenting and discussing the findings of the study we went through a process of reflection on what might still be missing in the academic and research literacy practices at TTI nr 200, and we posed the following questions: ™ Is the curriculum at TTI nr 200 achieving its goals? ™ Are classroom practices conducive to the teaching of writing the research reports? ™ Are the teaching methods in use contributing to students’ development of academic and research skills? ™ What is missing in the system that is preventing students from completing their research reports? We ended up with an idea that, apart from the whole discussion and suggestions here provided, Biggs’s (1999) 3P Model needed to be improved to accommodate the teaching context in which the investigation took place. To us, the 3P Model fails to address the teacher/lecturer on the Presage factors. Teachers and lecturers are the active agents of change in any educational context. They are the ones who directly interact with the students and dictate to some extent the kind of Product (students’

250

Chapter Seven

academic level) at the end of a specific course or level of studies. One of the lecturers wrote in the questionnaire follow-up comments: “Students are what lecturers want them to be. All depends on us.” To put it simply, the quality and quantity of students completing their studies every year depend first of all on the kind of teaching methods used by lecturers, the type of interaction between students and lecturers and students among themselves, the tasks and activities set up, and the assessment procedures. In one word, the lecturers’ attitude towards the process of training trainees will determine, to some extent, the outcomes of the course. Biggs and Tang (2007) argue that, in many parts of the world, teachers and lecturers are not recognised as direct agents of change. In fact, they have a strong role to play within the education system in general and the teaching learning process in particular, for they are the implementers of the programme to be taught and the changes to be made. Therefore, it has to be taken into consideration that without teachers and lecturers’ collaboration, change and improvement of the teaching learning process cannot take place. They are the ones directly involved in the process of either change or implementation of new approaches or methods. Thus, the need to include the teachers/lecturers factors in Biggs’s (1999) model. To this end, considering formative (checking students’ progress) and summative assessment (checking students’ levels of achievement in a specific subject), students need to undergo a phase of “individual performance,” characterised by the independent application of the acquired academic and research literacy skills, for the production of the research reports. Summative assessment should prepare and lead students to the final assessment, which is normally an end-of-course examination that determines whether they have passed or not. For the teacher-training course, apart from summative assessment in the form of final exams, there is supposed to be an extended type of assessment, which is the production of the research reports. Research reports are produced by students with some level of independence, under the guidance and orientation of a tutor or supervisor. In order for students to produce their research reports they need to perform highly academically demanding tasks and therefore undergo another learning process, which is research supervision. Research supervision can therefore be considered a sophisticated way of teaching based on one-to-one tuition and consists of putting into practice the academic and research skills acquired from the course during the teaching/learning process. Thus, the process almost needs to be addressed separately and privately. In order for students to be considered a “Product,” at this level they need to get their research reports concluded.

Discussion of Findings Fig. 7. 1. Constructive alignment and the 4P Model

251

252

Chapter Seven

Therefore, there is a need for a fourth P—Performance—which would comprise the design and production of the research report. Like at the Presage level, the Performance level is characterised by the supervision context, the student/supervisee factors, and the lecturer/supervisor factors. At this level, the final Product would therefore be a student with an Honours degree.Fig.7. 1 above represents an improved version of Biggs’s (1999) 3P Model, which is the 4P Model. i. Presage (when the student joins the course) As Fig. 7.1 above shows, Presage factors are divided into student factors, the teaching context and the teacher/lecturer factors. The teaching context relates to the teaching environment, what is intended to be taught, how it will be taught and assessed, the quality of the teaching environment, the classroom, the extent to which a programme is being implemented appropriately, the instructional procedures, the expertise of the teacher/lecturer, the materials to be used, the content of the subjects, the extent to which students are provided with a responsive environment in terms of their educational needs, the type of administrative support provided, the available resources, and the communication networks employed. Pupil/Student factors are related to the students’ background knowledge, the knowledge about the topic to be learnt, student’s abilities, goals and expectations, and past learning experiences. The student factors are also related to what they are supposed to learn from the programme, their perceptions of it, how they will participate in it, and their commitment to university. For this specific group, student factors also include the academic and research literacy skills they come with when entering university. Teacher/lecturer factors are primarily concerned with their Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), their background and academic qualifications, their attitudes to teaching, and their teaching experience, expectations, and motivation to do the job. Teacher/lecturer factors are also related to the way they conduct their teaching, what their perceptions of the programme are, what and how they teach and assess students, their effectiveness in aiding students to achieve the goals and objectives of the programme, and the extent to which the school system provides the staff with opportunities to develop professionally. These factors interact at the process level and together determine the students’ immediate learning-related activities, or in other words the approaches to learning.

Discussion of Findings

253

ii. Process (the teaching/learning process) Learning focused activities: This stage is about the act of teaching and learning, the kind if interaction between teachers/lecturers and students, the tasks and activities set up, as well as the assessment procedures, whether specific materials are aiding students’ learning, and the cognitive processes the students are likely to use, how relevant and engaging the teaching is, the teaching methods employed by the teacher/lecturer, and how successful tests and assessment procedures are. Depending on the demands of the task, students will preferably select deep or surface approaches to learning. Thus, it is inappropriate to designate particular students as surface or deep learners. iii. Performance (student’s ability to apply theory in practice) The quality of the student one gets at the end of the four years of coursework will determine TTS’ actual knowledge accumulated during the training. The actual knowledge is the result of the experience they have gone through, and it will determine their motivation to write the research reports and their own expectations and goals in doing so. The student’s capacity to undergo research and research supervision will, in turn, dictate the level of difficulty faced. Those difficulties will determine the necessary time to write the research project and the quality of the work produced. Supervision context: This is another key factor in the supervisory practices and the production of the research reports. At this level, one needs to take into account the availability of resources, the relationship between supervisors and students, the different channels of communication they have at their disposal, the way they manage their time, and the general environment in which supervision is to take place. The objectives of the research supervision process and students’ and supervisors’ attitudes towards supervisory practices are also aspects that should be considered. Students/supervisee factors (the student as a novice researcher): At this stage, students are supposed to produce their research reports by applying theory to practice. Students’ actual knowledge when they start writing constitutes a determinant factor in the production of the reports, their achieved abilities through the teaching process, and their willingness to complete their studies are very important factors at this stage. Students have their own expectations and learning experiences that will affect the kind of effort they employ and the length of time they will need to produce their reports.

254

Chapter Seven

Lecturer/Supervisor factors: The academic background of the lecturer/supervisor, knowledge of the topic, and experience in supervising students are key elements for lecturer/supervisor success in the supervisory practices. Also, the supervisors’ expectations and motivation to help students do the job will play an important role in the quality of paper produced. The supervisors’ style is also very important in that, depending on the type of student being supervised, supervisors will select the best role(s) to play in guiding them. iv. Product (the student after attending and completing a course programme) The learning outcomes (the quantity and quality of students finishing the coursework): Product factors jointly determine the approach to writing to be used by students and that in turn determines the outcomes to be achieved. Consequently, the achieved outcomes will determine students’ feelings and opinions about those learning outcomes. The learning outcomes of a given course might be characterised by a large quantity of high-quality students, a large quantity of low-quality students, a low quantity of high-quality students, or a low quantity of low-quality students finishing their studies. Learning outcomes are difficult to predict but are highly influenced by the teacher/lecturer. The quantity and quality of students one gets at the end of an academic programme depend very much on the quality of teaching provided by the lecturers, along with the teaching approaches and methodology employed by them. As Biggs (1999) maintains, a system is a set of components that interact to produce a common outcome in service to a common goal. The common goal is learning, and the immediate system consists of the TTI nr 200 classrooms. The components in this system derive from the TTS, the teacher/lecturer, and the teaching/supervision contexts. Altogether, they determine the level of engagement of students and will determine the detail and structure inherent in the learning outcomes and students’ own feelings and opinions about them. This system feature explains why no two classes are ever the same, even though they have the same lecturer. The teacher/lecturer might be the same but the students are not. The kind of interaction with the groups will be different because the teacher/lecturer will need to adjust and adapt to the level of the students, in this way creating different systems and therefore different results. In the same way of reasoning, this system feature explains why no two students or more ever complete their research reports at the same time, although they might have had the same classes and the same supervisor. Thus, all the components have to be considered

Discussion of Findings

255

because they affect each other; even the classroom or the place where supervision meeting is held has be considered, as it also affect the other elements in the system. Biggs (1999) did not address the issue of supervision in his 3P Model, perhaps because, by that time, he had in mind another group of students. However, it should be recognised that his model helped us explore, understand, and explain the problem under investigation in such a way that we ended up with reasonable conclusions and recommendations and some suggestions to improve the model and adapt it to these students’ level.

7.8 Summary This chapter has examined TTI nr 200 TTS’ academic and research literacy practices and interactions within the academic community that promote or impede their success in completing the research reports within the allocated time. The chapter is organised around the sub-questions that are meant to answer the main research question, which is: In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report? The chapter culminates in some suggestions on how TTS should be taught in order to acquire the academic literacy skills they will need at the stage of research supervision and research report writing. First, it was found that the course components (curriculum, objectives, methods, learning activities and assessment procedures) that constitute the teaching and learning system at TTI nr 200 do not seem to be aligned (Biggs 1999), and there are some aspects missing from the system. It was also found that some of the reasons for students’ failure to produce their research reports are: poor background knowledge, poor working and learning conditions, lack and/or shortage of resources, lack of a good library and computer lab, lack of good and knowledgeable supervisors, lack of academic and research literacy skills, a bad relationship between lecturers and students, and long periods of retention of students’ work. Another finding is that there is a need for an alignment between the ongoing assessment and the final assessment, which is writing the research report. Apart from the above-mentioned aspects, it was felt that critical thinking skills need to be introduced in the academic and research literacy practices of these TTS. In higher education, what matters most is not what students can reproduce but what they can produce and construct by themselves. Another relevant finding was that although the ILOs might be well specified and seem clear, there is no clear connection between them and

256

Chapter Seven

the TLAs and additionally to the ATs. The ATs need to be aligned with the content of the lessons and the lecturers’ approach to teaching, or in other words the assessment procedures have to be aligned with what students have been taught and have learnt and the activities they are engaged in. It was also noticed from the classroom observation that students have great difficulties in deploying academic and research literacy skills most of the time due to the lack of proper feedback provision from the lecturers. Good feedback can play an important role in the students’ levels of performance and engagement in the tasks set up. Good feedback can also improve the critical thinking skills and the academic and research literacy skills. Good feedback is a synonym of new ways of teaching, and new ways of contributing to students’ academic and professional development. As a way of contributing to the research knowledge, the chapter ends with an improved version of Biggs’s (1999) 3P Model, which should be addressed as the 4P Model.

CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Introduction This study has attempted to explore and understand the issues related to the academic and research literacy practices of TTS at TTI nr 200 with regard to the completion of their research reports. The study has also tried to uncover the reasons why some students, although very few, succeed in producing their research reports within or before the time limit, whilst others do not. Special attention was devoted to the writing process, perceptions of writing, and the academic and research literacy practices of students. Additionally, an examination of course content and course material was conducted to verify the connection between coursework and research report production. Thus, the main intention of this study was to uncover the reasons for students’ failure to produce their research reports and also to raise content subject teachers’ awareness for the need expose students to more dynamic academic tasks based on problem-solving situations.

8.2 Conclusions From the results of the present study it was found that there are different types of problems that students face in producing their research reports, and in this respect the results show that the main reasons for students’ failure to meet their own and their lecturers’ expectations are weak academic and research literacy skills and lack of a good command of the target language. It appears that there is a gap between students’ level of academic proficiency when they enter the course, what they actually do throughout it, and what is expected from them at its end. Students’ academic background knowledge constitutes a determinant factor in coping with the demands of the course and reaching an expected level of performance. As most of the students have missed “the basics of academic and research literacy skills” at the previous levels, lecturers do not seem to be contributing to bridging the gap and helping them acquire and develop

258

Chapter Eight

their academic and research literacy skills. If one departs from the view that success in university studies depends primarily on and is closely linked to academic and research literacy skills then one can conclude that lecturers at TTI nr 200 have a great responsibility in helping TTS reach the desired level of proficiency to successfully complete their studies. At TTI nr 200, students’ writing experiences are not an integral part of their programme, and the long research report seems to be the only piece of extended writing they are required to work on independently. They are frequently asked to write short essays but with very little guidance and support from their lecturers, who rarely provide students with feedback on them. There is also a lack of co-operation and collaboration among lecturers, especially the Academic Reading and Writing and Research Methodology I and II lecturers. Another relevant result from the study is that most of the lecturers are using the traditional approaches to teaching writing, which are preventing students from developing their academic and research literacy skills and in turn are not facilitating the process of research report writing. In order to improve the teaching of all the subjects, some improvement needs to be put in place; for example, a bigger and better equipped library and computer and writing centre are needed, and students should have free access to them. Better research resources are also a key aspect for students’ academic growth and development and some training is needed for the librarians to perform their job adequately. Agar (1992, 99) states that: “Understanding student needs and understanding the range of complexity and the interrelated nature of problems experienced by students go a long way towards explaining the disproportionately high failure rates of African students at all tertiary educational institution.” Agar’s statement reflects the graduation and the dropout rates of our students at TTI nr 200, and lecturers and decision makers cannot close their eyes to them. From this study, it was also learnt that much of the TTS’ failure in completing their research reports is avoidable provided that they receive adequate support from the beginning of the course. It is expected that students at this level have to some degree attained all the elements of academic literacy, i.e.: reading, writing, listening, speaking, critical thinking, use of technology, and habits of mind that contribute to academic success. However, it was found that most of the students are still far from reaching this level. The academic literacy skills are expressed in the curriculum and are supposed to be taught and learnt throughout the coursework; however, this is not the case, and they seem to be an integral part of the curriculum in theory alone, not in practice.

Conclusions and Recommendations

259

Unless progressive changes are introduced to align the teaching/learning system with regards to the ILOs, TLAs, and ATs in the educational teaching practices at TTI nr 200, the situation will remain the same or worsen as time goes on. Students should be given “truly effective support” and avoid wasting human resources. They should be helped to adopt deep approaches to learning instead of surface approaches; by so doing they will be moving from non-academic to academic ways of reading and writing, and therefore succeed in the production of their research proposals and/or reports. It is believed that through this study lecturers may not only review their teaching and supervisory practices, but may also question their long-held assumptions about their role in both the teaching and supervision practices.

8.3 Limitations of the study As with any other study the present one has some limitations, deriving primarily from its qualitative paradigm. Hofstee (2006, 112) posits that all research methods have limitations. Hamel (1995) contends that qualitative studies are always at fault in two main aspects: ™ Lack of representation as a point of observation for a social phenomenon ™ Lack of rigor in the collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical materials that give rise to the study. The first point is based on a view that generalisations cannot be made on the basis of a small sample size, and the second is related to the problem of bias as a result of the implicit subjectivity of the researcher and that of the participants on whom they rely to get an understanding of phenomenon under study. The main argument is that no matter the context, personal experiences, beliefs, and narratives are always biased and subjective. Being the Head of the Department of Modern Languages, and one of the lecturers in the English Department, I believe that there was some sort of cooperation from both lecturers and TTS to provide the information needed, but that it did not affect the results of the study due to the fact that different research instruments and different participants took part. Both students and lecturers looked at the researcher as someone doing an investigation and not as a stakeholder within the institution. However, I am concerned with the truthfulness and accuracy of the data gathered as some participants, especially lecturers, tried to provide unrealistic information. Lecturers are the main agents of change. As soon as they

260

Chapter Eight

realise that their practices are being investigated they passively try to resist the process by not participating or providing incorrect information. This is one of the reasons that made me use various methods of data collection in this study (Brown and Rodgers 2002, 243). For the postmodern qualitative researchers, subjectivity provides strength because truth is always relative. To that extent, “no story can have more credibility than any other” (All About Philosophy Series 2009). Thus, what counts is the validation of the story by the community that lives by it. Nieuwenhuis (2007, 52) contends that, “qualitative researchers accept value laden narratives as true for those who have lived through the experiences.” The main focus was therefore on the depth and quality of information provided by participants regarding their own experiences in academic and research literacy practices. In addition, Zientek (2007, 962) postulates that, “of course such samples are not without limitation but can yield some insights when sample characteristics reasonably well match those of a targeted population.” Hence, for qualitative studies generalisability is determined by the strength of the description and not the size of the sample. However, in this study, compared to the whole population from which the sample was taken, the number of participants seems to be reasonable and sufficient enough to provide the information needed. The number and structure of the questionnaires and interviews can be considered insufficient, but for the purpose of the study the number of the research instruments and the amount of information gathered from them were enough to provide answers for the research questions. While the danger of drawing generalisations on the basis of very few students is obvious, it can be argued that the insight gained from the critical analyses of this study, as well as the lecturers’ and students’ accounts, are likely to enhance other lecturers’ sensitivity to other students’ perceptions about the usefulness of a different approach to teaching writing academically and research methodology among other subjects. Patton and Appelbaum (2003, 64) posit and share the same opinion that if you have a good descriptive or analytic language, by means of which you can truly grasp the important parts of a system and the interaction between various parts within it, the possibilities to generalise from very small samples, or even one single case, may be reasonably good. Yin (1984) also argues that within qualitative research the researcher’s goal is to expand and generalise theories (analytic generalisation), not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalisation). In qualitative studies, the descriptions made are one of the cornerstones of the study, and they allow the reader to determine the level of correspondence

Conclusions and Recommendations

261

between a particular group and context to other similar groups and contexts. Throughout the study we tried to stick to Dऺrnyei’s (2007, 67) principles stating that, when conducting research, especially at their workplaces: ™ Education researchers must not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent authorship, evidence, data, findings or conclusions ™ Educational researchers must not knowingly or negligently use their professional roles for fraudulent purposes ™ Educational researchers should attempt to report their findings to all relevant stakeholders, and should refrain from keeping secret or selectively communicating their findings. In the light of this, one can argue that the findings of this study are worthwhile as, before we took our time to meticulously describe the life world of participants, we elaborated on the quantitative data from the questionnaires as a way of providing a guiding light to help analyse and interpret the qualitative data. The use of methodological data triangulation helped increase the validity and reliability of the results obtained. In other words, rather than just relying on what participants said during the interviews, the use of other research instruments, such as questionnaires and classroom observations, helped us to analyse and see the problem from a different angle. Regarding classroom observation sessions, some lecturers felt that their work was being tested or judged and they tried to skip the lessons or set up revision for all the classes to be observed. However, the triangulation of data and approaches helped offset research bias and to analyse and interpret data in a more profound way. Because of the shared characteristics: “With such detailed description, the researcher enables readers to transfer information to other settings and to determine whether the findings can be transferred” (Creswell 1998, 203). Therefore, the conclusions from this study must be seen as limited to and suggestive of this specific group of students, and applicable to similar groups and contexts.

8.4 Recommendations It is hoped that this research will provide readers with insight for developing and improving their own academic and research literacy practices within departments. According to Hyland (2007), writing is learnt not taught, and the teachers/lecturers’ best methods should be

262

Chapter Eight

support and flexibility. Thus, lecturers should first of all take into consideration the particular context in which they are teaching, the students’ age, first language, language experience and practices, community of practice and the writing purpose. They should provide extensive encouragement in the form of community belonging, peer involvement, and most of all useful and corrective feedback throughout the process of writing. Writing needs to be regarded as a culturally based activity whereby lecturers and TTS bring their own sets of culturally defined and prescribed criteria to writing classrooms, even in cases when they belong to the same culture (Leki 1992). It should be recognised that, just like any other students, TTS have their own ideas of what good writing means based on their previous social and cultural learning experiences, and they are likely to transfer those writing patterns to new teaching contexts. Therefore, it is not enough to determine what is expected of ESL/EFL students at university and to give them models of what lecturers want them to produce. According to Biggs and Tang (2007, 21): “Education is about conceptual change, not just the acquisition of information.” Students’ prior learning experiences constitute a key factor in determining which approach to teaching should be selected. Successful writing instruction departs from an awareness of the importance of cognitive and motivational factors (Leki 2007), and students should be provided with cooperation with peers in planning and writing tasks as well as providing feedback. Peer support is of great importance as it provides opportunities for students to talk about their writing in progress with more skilled and attentive colleagues promoting academic writing development in this way. The recommendations from the present study are not intended to act as an all-encompassing list of “to-dos’” for educators, lecturers, and administrators in higher education institutions such as TTI nr 200. Rather, these recommendations can serve as a starting point for further research or action in the improvement of lecture delivery and assessment practices, teaching skills development, staff development issues, and research supervisory practices as a way of enhancing the quality of teacher-training pedagogy. Thus, as with any qualitative study, the recommendations made here vary in pertinence based on specific contexts, and are intended for :(a) the institution; (b) the lecturers; (c) the educational department; and (d) the teacher trainees.

Conclusions and Recommendations

263

8.4.1 The Institution From the institutional point of view, we recommend the following: ™ The institution should work together with the educational departments to update the existing curriculum to meet the current demands of the New Angolan Educational System, as well as the assessment procedures. ™ There is an urgent need to re-examine the policy for the entry exam and put in place a policy that will govern the students’ entry exams in terms of their educational orientations and academic backgrounds. ™ As the institution is primarily focused on the training of teachers, the entry exam should be structured in a way that will assess students’ levels of proficiency in basic academic and research literacy skills as well as in teacher training matters. ™ There is a need to align the teaching/learning system with regards to the ILOs, TLAs, and ATs in the educational teaching practices. There is a need to shift emphasis from teaching to learning; what Barr and Tagg (1995, 14) refer to as a shift from an instruction paradigm to a learning paradigm. Students must be active discoverers and constructors of their own knowledge. McLeod and Reynolds (2007) postulate that in the learning paradigm knowledge is not seen as cumulative and linear like a wall of bricks, but as a nesting and interacting of frameworks. To this end, learning environments should be challenging, cooperative, collaborative, and supportive. ™ The actual curriculum should be revisited to conform to the new education system. As mentioned before, once a curriculum is in place, before we start looking at the assessment procedures, a number of important questions need to be asked: x Is the curriculum achieving its goals? x What is happening in the classrooms? x What kind of teaching methods are being used? ™ Curriculum evaluation is concerned with answering questions such as the above-mentioned, and focuses on collecting information about different aspects of a language program so as to understand how the programme works, and how productive it is, leading to a stage of decision making. Issues such as whether the programme is responding to the learners’ needs, if further teacher training is needed for those who are involved in the process and the overall

Chapter Eight

264

™

™ ™

™

students’ outcomes are also addressed in curriculum evaluation, and they constitute and are translated in the improved version of Biggs’s Model, referred to as the 4P Model. The academic departments should provide information to students about their progress timeously, and at the beginning of each academic year there should be a meeting where new students are introduced to the new community of learning and practice, and old students are informed about their progress and academic status in the new year. This information should be provided on paper. At the beginning of each academic year, students should also be introduced to the librarians through a visit to the premises where they will be informed about the organisation, the policy of borrowing books, and the working hours. There should be a well-equipped writing centre for students to practice and develop their academic and research literacy skills. More attention needs to be paid to the research literacy practices, which should be organised and controlled by a committee of members, and short in-service training courses should be organised by the department to raise lecturers’ awareness of the need to change their pedagogies, not just for teaching but also for supervising students. The institution should provide students with technological opportunities for research and presentation purposes. All students should have access to the computer centre. Technology is not in itself critical thinking or writing or research, but it is definitely a means to critical thinking and writing and research that is engaging and important.

8.4.2 Lecturers Teachers and lecturers are key agents to unlocking the future and promoting change. Therefore, if one wants to implement some change they must put some pressure on and try to persuade local education authorities, governors, and other decision-makers. What is needed is to show the courage and commitment to implement that change. However, it should be emphasised that educational change does not happen overnight; it is a very slow, social, hard, and never-ending process (Head and Pauline 2007). Taking into account the new model on constructive alignment suggested here, the following recommendations for lecturers are proposed:

Conclusions and Recommendations

265

™ Students can change their learning styles and strategies if given motivation and support to do so. It is therefore lecturers’ responsibility to promote that change among students by getting closer to them and engaging them in written tasks that would lead to the acquisition of the academic and research literacy skills they need to become academically “good writers,” and write their research proposals with ease (Head and Pauline 2007). ™ Lecturers in general and content subject lecturers in particular must help students develop effective critical-thinking strategies to improve their critical reading competencies by setting up tasks that require them to re-read, review, reconsider, reformulate, and reorder their work and the work of their peers (peer feedback) over time and revise it, rather than make small editorial changes. Writing and learning are social processes, and collaborative peer feedback helps students engage in a community of learning where they respond to each other’s work, creating an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Hyland 2000). ™ Lecturers must work as a team and integrate other subject content in the subjects they are teaching. They should also create an atmosphere whereby constant communication exists with regard to students’ progress. ™ There is a need to raise lecturers’ awareness for the need to improve their teaching methodology and set up activities and tasks that are conducive to the process of writing a research report. They need to be more supportive and commutative with their students, not only in but also outside the classroom. ™ Lecturers need to revisit their assessment procedures in way that they would contribute to the final assessment, which is the research report writing. ™ Lecturers need to be aware of the role that corrective feedback plays in teaching contexts and see it as a way of teaching and learning. Feedback needs to be provided on time and practiced at different levels. As Brookfield (1995, 25) puts it, What we do as teachers makes a difference in the world. In our classrooms, students learn democratic or manipulative behaviour. They learn whether independence of thought is really valued or whether everything depends on pleasing the teacher. They learn that success depends either on beating someone to the prize using every available advantage or on working collectively. Standing above the fray and saying that our practice is

266

Chapter Eight apolitical is not an option for a teacher. Even if we profess to have no political stance, and to be concerned purely with furthering enquiry in a discrete body of objective ideas or practices, what we do counts. The ways we encourage or inhibit students’ questions, the kinds of reward systems we create, and the degree of attention we pay to students’ concerns all create a moral tone and a political culture.

Therefore, lecturers need to become researchers of their students’ perceptions, designers of multifaceted assessment strategies, managers of the assessment processes and consultants assisting students in the interpretation of the world around them and the rich information acquired from learning (Ramsden 1987, 35).

8.4.3 Educational Departments According to Ramsden (1987, 39): “Students must leave university equipped to engage in self-assessment throughout their professional lives. They need to be able to make reliable judgements about what they do and do not know and what they can and cannot do.” With regards to TTS, the situation is the same—they must leave university with the ability to act and react to the world around them and make fair judgements about their practices. Thus, educational departments have an important role to play, concerning not just administrative but also educational and instructional matters. After all, departments are the direct managers of TTS’ academic and professional matters. Thus, the following recommendations were set up for the heads of department: ™ Departments need to assess lecturers’ engagement in the work they do. To this end, some classroom observation between lecturers teaching the same subject in different areas should be implemented. ™ Departments should educate their students about the structure, function, and development of their disciplines. ™ TTS programmes should help prospective teachers improve and use their (PCK). ™ Even prospective teachers with “high majors” in their disciplines often enter education programmes with “highly developed low literacy,” in the writer’s words. They know lots of facts and definitions, but not very much about the relationships they will need to master to teach well.

Conclusions and Recommendations

267

™ Departments should follow-up students’ progression by selecting one or two from each class who will represent the group and report on their progress and the lecturer’s performance. ™ Supervisory processes should be monitored by the heads of department with a group of selected lecturers. ™ Supervision is only one part of the lecturer’s academic life, and the balance between teaching, administrative duties, research, and supervision is not an easy task to achieve. Therefore, lecturers must use a number of personal strategies to maintain the balance that will help in the management of the students’ academic lives. ™ There should be a deadline for students and supervisors to conclude the research reports, and supervisors should report on the students’ progress at specific times.

8.4.4 Teacher Trainees Teaching and learning in higher education constitute a complex phenomenon. According to Ramsden (1987), in the process of teaching and learning in higher education, assessment constitutes the single most influential factor on students’ learning. To him, placing some responsibility of assessment on students constitutes the most feasible means of enhancing learning. Falchikov (1988) also posits that students’ involvement in their own assessment can lead them to more modern ways of assessment, like self-assessment, peer assessment, and collaborative assessment, and these in turn will very much depend on the type of feedback provided by lecturers. Following are some recommendations for TTS: ™ TTS need more practice in academic and research literacy skills and greater exposure to the models of reading and writing that they will encounter during the research supervision practices. They need to be taught how to make meaning out of what they have read, and be trained how to think critically, to argue, to compare, and to express their own ideas and so on. ™ TTS should be made aware of the governing rules of the institution at the beginning of each academic year. They should also be made aware of the dos and don’ts of their departments. ™ TTS must feel the responsibility they have within the academic community they belong to and feel free to report on any problems, be they economic, social, or personal. To this end, they should report to the representatives of their classes.

268

Chapter Eight

™ In order to be successful in their studies, TTS must enter TTI nr 200 with basic technological skills that include word-processing, email, and basic knowledge in web-based research—aspects that were purposefully left out as they need separate attention. ™ There is a need for academic skills development, e.g. study skills, note-taking and making, critical thinking, and essay writing, leading to research report writing. In order to achieve that goal, the institution should set up a writing centre where students can exercise the above-mentioned skills. It is hoped that, by putting these recommendations into practice, lecturers in particular and educators in general will promote academic growth among students and encourage successful teaching and learning based on the Vygotskian notion of scaffolding, whereby a more informed person or lecturer helps a less experienced one to learn a specific task and become independent in it at some point in the future.

8.5 Future Research A great deal of research has been conducted with regard to academic and research literacy practices within different teaching and learning contexts. This study has been an attempt to understand Angolan TTS’ difficulties in producing their final research reports. Because one cannot discuss the research literacy practices without addressing the issue of teaching and learning, in order to determine what is happening and what still needs to be done, the first step that the study went through was to analyse and understand the academic and research literacy practices as well as the kind of assessment tasks TTS are exposed to. The next step was to look at the supervision practices and see which aspects constitute the main hindrances to the system. Research supervision practices constitute a hidden agenda within the teaching learning process, and although they were presented and discussed in this work, we think that they deserve a thorough investigation to help uncover the main hindrances preventing lecturers and students from doing their job properly. Because teaching contexts are different in a number of aspects, there are still considerable opportunities for further research in both academic and research literacy domains. The study therefore indicates a number of areas for further investigation. In particular, there is still much to learn about what supervisors and students do in different contexts of supervision, the influence of power relationships, the cultural background, and the type of feedback provided.

Conclusions and Recommendations

269

There is also a great need to know about the effectiveness of particular teaching approaches and the use that students make of various kinds of feedback (whether in the classroom or during supervisory sessions). A study based on research supervision practices alone should be carried out with a larger number of TTS and lecturers from different departments at the institution, so as to get a broader view of the problem and a more generalisable solution. Another set of studies in this particular context would be focused on the curriculum. Here, researchers will have to focus on what kind of materials students read independently, what materials they are asked to read, and when, where, and how. The curriculum plays an important role in helping students acquire and develop higher levels of language proficiency. The 4P Model suggested here constitutes a starting point in contributing to the research knowledge, and should be seen as incomplete. It should therefore be extended and improved to better fit all educational levels. Therefore, more research is needed in this specific area. The data obtained from the research instruments in this study have produced far more information than was needed for this book. Therefore, the extra data can be used in future research. Researchers who wish to use, explore, or review the additional or extra information not reported herein are very welcome to do so.

8.6 Summary This chapter provides a summary of the findings and focuses on how the research question was answered. From the results of the present research, it was learnt that students’ academic writing experiences are not an integral part of their programme, and the final research report is the only piece of extended writing required for independent work. Another important finding was that most of the lecturers are using the traditional approaches to teaching writing, which seem to not be contributing to students’ development of academic and research literacy skills, and therefore to the production of their research reports. Data also indicates that the new 4P Model suggested in this study needs to be put in place and the academic and research literacy practices need to be improved with regards to the teaching approaches being used, along with the assessment procedures and the whole process of supervision practices. In this study, the 4P Model constitutes the beginning of the development of a theory that dates from 1999 and, as previously stated, it should be viewed as only a small contribution to the research knowledge.

270

Chapter Eight

A brief conclusion to the whole study was made, followed by a brief revisit to some of the major constraints that seem to be hindering the process. In light of the findings, recommendations were made in the areas of teaching and learning with regards to academic and research literacy practices, assessment procedures, and feedback, and possible areas for future research were addressed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achilles, R. & Dreyden, T. (2002). Research literacy for complementary and alternative practitioners: results of the national needs assessment. Hand in Hand, Newsletter of the Canadian Massage Therapists Alliance 9: 4-6. AERA (2002). Ethical Standards. [online] Available from http://www.aera.net/aboutaera|?id=222. [retrieved 20 January 2013]. Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the classroom. New York: Longman. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. (1991).Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Language Classroom Research for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Agar, D. (1992). Should Students Adjust to the University or Vice-Versa? Exploring the Problems Students Face at Wits: Academic Support Programme. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Angelil-Carter, S. (1998). Access to Success: Academic Literacy in Higher Education. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. & Delamont, S. (2003). Key Themes in Qualitative Research: Continuities and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ballard, B. & Clanchy, J. (1988). Literacy in the university: An “anthropological” approach. In G. Taylor, B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H. Bock, J. Clanchy, & P. Nightingale (Eds.) Literacy by Degrees. Philadelphia: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 7-23. Bathia, V.K. (1993). Analysing Genre: language use in professional settings. Harlow: Longman. Baynham, M. (1995). Literacy Practices: Investigating Literacy in Social Context. London: Longman. Baynham, M. &Prinsloo, M. (2009). Introduction: the future of literacy studies. In M. Baynham, & M. Prinsloo (Eds.) The Future of Literacy Studies. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-20. Barr, R. B. &Tagg, J. (1995). “From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, November/December: 13-25.

272

Bibliography

Barnett, M. (2000). More than meets the eye. Foreign language reading: theory and practice. Enlewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bartholomae, D. (1986). The tidy house: basic writing in the American curriculum. Journal of Basic Writing, 12 (1): 4-21. —. (1986). The teaching of writing. In A.R. Petrovsky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.). Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Barton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (2000). Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge. Bazerman, C. (1997). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Learning about writing from reading. Written Communication, 1: 163-188. Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13: 23-34. Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (1993). Research in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Biggs, J. & C. Tang (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bizzel, P. (1982). College composition: Initiation into the Academic Discourse Community. Curriculum inquiry, 67: 6. Bolitho, R. (1988). Language awareness on teacher training courses. In T. Duff, (Ed.) Exploration in Teacher Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boote, D.&Beile, P.(2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6): 3-15. Boud, D. & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (5): 501-16. Brace, I. (2008). Questionnaire Design: How to plan Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. (2nded.).London: Kogan Page Limited. Brandt, D. (2009). Read, research and write: academic skills for ESL students in higher education. London, UK: SAGE Publications Plc.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

273

Brinko, K. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 64: 574-93. Britten, D., (1985). Teacher Training in ELT: Parts 1 and 2, Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in Publication Data. Brown, J. D. & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brufee, K.A. (1986). Social Construction: Language and the Authority of Knowledge; A Bibliographical Essay. College English, 48:773-9. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2003).Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.) Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bunton, D. (1998). Linguistic and textual problems in Ph.D. and M Phil. These: an analysis of genre moves and metatext. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Hong Kong. Burnham, P. (1994) Surviving the viva: unravelling the mysteries of Ph.D. oral. Journal of Graduate Education, 1 (1): 30-34. Butt, D., Fahey R., Feez, S. Spinks, S., &Yallop, C. (2000) Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer’s Guide. (2nded). Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University. Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Reconstructing local knowledge. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education,1 (4): 243-259. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Christie, F. (1985, 1992). Language Education. Vic.: Deakin University. Coffin, C. Mary Jane Curry, Sharon Goodman, Ann Hewings, Theresa M. Lillis and Joan Swann (2005) Teaching Academic Writing - A Toolkit for Higher Education. London: Routledge. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1996).Historical Research: Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2008). Research Methods in Education.6th ed. London: Routledge. Collins, J., & Blot, R. K. (2003). Literacy and Literacies: Texts, Power, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Connor, U.(1990). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TTSOL Quarterly, 21(4): 677-96. —. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Secondlanguage Writing. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

274

Bibliography

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (eds.) (1993). The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cryer, P. (1997). Handling Common Dilemmas in Supervision Issues in Postgraduate supervision, Teaching and Management, Guide nº 2, London: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Times Higher Education Supplement. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating Identities for Empowerment in Diverse Society. Ontario, CA: CABE. deGruchy, J. W. & Holness, L. (2007). The Emerging Researcher: Nurturing Passion, Developing Skills, Producing Output. Cape Town: Juta. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (2000). Surviving the PhD, A guide to Success. Bucks: Open University Press. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. USA: McGraw- Hill, INC. Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4): 489-500. Dison, L. (1989). Teaching writing to English second language learners. [microform}] [s.l.:S.N.]? —. (1989). Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Dऺrnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dubois, B.L. (1997). The biomedical discussion section in context. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dudley-Evans, T. (1993). Variation in communication patterns between discourse communities: the case of highway engineering and plant biology. Review of ELT. Language , Learning and Success: Studying through English, 3 (1): 141-7. Dysthe, O. (2002). Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: an interview study with advisers and master’s degree students in three disciplines in Norwegian University. Written Communication, 19: 493544. Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

275

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: learning in the classroom. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Auto ethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: researcher as subject. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Erdreich, L., & Rapoport, T. (2002).Elaborating ethnonational awareness via academic literacy: Palestinian Israeli women at the university. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(4): 497-515. Emig, J. (1983a). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Research report No 13. Urbana, III. National Council of teachers of English. —. (1983b). The web of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Bayton/Cook. Elton, L. (1987) Teaching in Higher Education: Appraisal and Training. London: Kogan Page. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow: Longman. —. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research.In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publications. Falchikov, N. (1988). Self and peer assessment of a group project designed to promote the Skills of capacity- Programmed Learning and Educational Technology. 25:4,327-39. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (2002). Learning teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78 (7): 674-681. Flick, U. (2007). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publication. Flower, L. (1985). Problem Solving Strategies for Writing. (2nded.) San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jonavovich. —.(1989).Cognition, context and theory building. College composition and communication, 40: 282-311. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980).The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg L. et al. (Eds.) Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates. Foucault, M. (1986).The subject and power. In B. Wallis (Ed.) Art after Modernism: Rethinking Representation. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art. Freeman, D. (1998). Doing Teacher Research: From Enquiry to Understanding. Boston, Mass: Heinle and Heinle. Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books. Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987).Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

276

Bibliography

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational Research: An Introduction. London: Pearson Education Ltd. Gee, J. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies. London: Routledge. —. (2000). New literacy studies: from ‘socially situated’ to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, and R. Ivanic (Eds.) Situated literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge. Ghadessy, M. (1993). On the nature of written business communication. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: theory and practice (pp.149-64). London: Pinter. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and Writing Relations: L2 Perspectives on Research and Practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing.New York: Cambridge University Press, 242-61. Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. Harlow: Longman. Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language: contrastive rhetoric. In D. M. Jhonson & D. H. Roen (Eds.) Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. New York: Longman, 263-283. Grant, M. (2010). Fighting for space in supervision: fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18 (3): 337-54. Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TTSOL Quarterly, 24 (3): 44360. Goode, J. (2007). Empowering or disempowering the international PhD student? Constructions of the dependent and independent learner. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28 (5): 589-603. Green, B. (1987). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: a focus on writing. Australian Journal Education, 32 (2): 156-179. Haggis, T. (2002). Exploring the ‘black box’ of process: a comparison of theoretical notions of the ‘adult learner’ with accounts of postgraduate learning experience. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2): 207-20. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (2nded.). London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hansan, R. (1989) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamel, J.(1995). Case Study Methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

277

Hartley, J. & Jory, S. (2000). Lifting the veil on the viva: the experiences of PhD candidates in the UK. Psychology Teaching Review, 9: 76-90. Head, K. & T. Pauline, (2007).Readings in Teacher Development. Macmillan Publishers Limited. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classroom. New York: Cambridge University. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henning, E. (2004). Finding your Way in Qualitative Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1995) Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School-based Research. Routledge: New York. Hockey, J. (1996). Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK Social Science PhD students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9 (4): 481-500. Hofstee, E. (2006). Constructing a good research report.Johannesburg: EPE. Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research. (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. Holligan, C. (2005). Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research, 47 (3): 267-78. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers’ feedback: giving more autonomy to learners. Language Teaching Research, 4 (1): 33-54. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman. —. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3): 207-26. —. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Pearson Educational Limited. —. (2007). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. & Hyland F. (2003) Feedback on second language students’ writing. Cambridge University Press. Ivanic, R., Edwards, R., Barton, D., Martin-Jones, M., Fowler, Z., Hughes, B., et al. (2009). Improving learning in college: Rethinking literacies across the curriculum. Oxon: Routledge. Janks, H. (Ed.) (1995). Language identity and power. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Janks, H. (1993). Critical Language Awareness Series. Johannesburg: Hodder and Stoughton/Wits University Press.

278

Bibliography

Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: metaphor, methodology, and meaning. In N.K. Denzin and Lincoln (Eds.).Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage: 209-19. Johns, A.M. (1997). Text rule and context: developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, L., Lee, A. & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2): 135-47. Jones, S. (1982). Attention to rhetorical information while composing in a second language. In C. Campbell, V. Flashner, T. Hudson, and J. Lubin (Eds.). Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, vol.. 2. Los Angeles: Department of English, ESL Section, UCLA, 130-143. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kamler, B. (1997). Relocating the Personal: A Critical Writing Pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2004).Driven to abstraction: doctoral supervision and writing pedagogies. Teaching in Education, 9 (2): 195209. Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44 (4). Knight, P. T. (Ed.) (1995).Assessment for learning in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page. Krashen, S. (1982).Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. —. (1993)The power of reading: insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: rethinking the paths to literacy. London: Routledge. Kroll, B. (Ed.) (2001). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kutz, E, Groden, S., & Zamel, V. (1996).The discovery of competence. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Lategan, L. O. K. (Ed.). (2008). An Introduction to Postgraduate Supervision. AFRICAN SUN MEDIA, Stellenbosch, 7600. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lea, M. R. (1999). Academic literacies and learning in higher education: Constructing knowledge through texts and experience. In Jones, C.,

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

279

Turner, J. & Street, B. (Eds.). Students writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Lea, M. R. & Street B. V. (2006). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher education, 23 (2): 157172. Lee, A. (2007). Developing effective supervisors: Concepts of research supervision. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(4): 680693. Leedy, P. D. & Omrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: planning and design. London: Pearson Education International. Leibowitz, B. (1995). Transitions: acquiring academic literacy at the University of Western Cape. Academic development, 1 (1): 33 – 46. Leki, I. (2007). Academic Writing Programs. Alexandria, VA: TTSOL. Lightbown, P. M. (2000) Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21 (4): 431-62. Linington, V.M. (2003). Process and genre approach to the teaching of writing: A social constructivist critique and elaboration. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. [online] Available from http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf. [retrieved 28 July, 2009]. Lupton, D. (1992). Discourse Analysis: A new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health, 16: 145-50. Lusted, (1986). Why Pedagogy? Screen, 27 (5): 2-14. Mackinnon, J. (2004). Academic Supervision: seeking metaphors and models for quality, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28 (4): 395-405. Macmillan English Dictionary for Adavanced Learners, (2002). Macmillan Publishers Limited. Malfoy, J. and Webb, C. (2000) Congruent and incongruent views of postgraduate supervision. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds.) Quality in Postgraduate Research: Making Ends Meet. Adelaide: Advisory Centre for University Education, the University of Adelaide. Manathunga, C (2005). The Development of Research Supervision: ‘Turning the light on a private space’. International Journal for Academic Development, 10 (1): 17-30. Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. New York: Oxford University Press.

280

Bibliography

—. (1993). Genre and literacy- modeling context in educational linguistics.In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13: 141-72. Martin, N. (1976). Writing and learning across the curriculum. London: Wardlock Educational. Tang, M. & Jones, K. (2000). Introduction: Multilingual literacies. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.), Multilingual literacies: Reading and writing different worlds. Amsterdam: John Publishing Company, 1-5. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interpretative approach. London: Sage. —. (2002). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A.M. Huberman & M.B. Miles (Eds.) The qualitative reader’s companion. London: Sage, 37-64. McLeod, J. H. & Reynolds, R. (2007).Quality teaching for quality learning: Planning through reflection. Melbourne: Thomson Social Science Press. Mendolowitz, B. (2010). The Elusiveness of Imagination: A case study of five teachers’ conceptions and enactments of imaginative writing pedagogies in Gauteng. Unpublished Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Moffet, J. (1982). Writing, inner speech and mediation .College English, 44: 231-44. Morita, N. (2002). Negotiating participation in second language academic communities: A study of identity, agency, and transformation. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of British Columbia. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984).Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miller, W.L., & B.F. Crabtree, (1999).Depth interviewing. In B.F. Crabtree, W.L., Miller (Eds.).Doing qualitative Research. London: Sage. Morley, L., Leonard, D. & David, M. (2002). Variations in viva: quality and equality in British PhD assessments. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (3): 299-310. Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and Urban Youth. Routledge. Morse, J.M & L. Richards (2002).Readme First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Mouton, J. (2001). How to succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral studies: A South African guide and resource book. Prentice: Van Schaik. Murray, D. (1985). Write to learn. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

281

Nieuwenhuis, J. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Kobus, M. (Ed.) First steps in research. Pretoria: Van Schaik: 99-117. —. (2007). Introducing qualitative research. Kobus, M. (Ed.) (2007).First Steps in Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik: 47-66. —. (2007). Qualitative research designs and data gathering techniques. Kobus, M. (Ed.) First Steps in Research. Pretoria: Van Schaik: 70-92. Norton, L., Harrington, K., Elander, J., Sinfield, S., Reddy, P., Pitt, E. & Ayegbayo, O. (2005). Supporting diversity and inclusivity through writing workshops. In C. Rust (Ed.). Improving student learning 12: Inclusivity and Diversity. Oxford: the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. Nunan, D. (2005). Classroom research. In E, Hinkel (Ed).Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nystrand, M. (1989).The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando: Academic Press. Ollerenshaw, J. A. & Creswell, J. W. (2000). Data Analysis in narrative research: A comparison of two “restoring” approaches. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Patton, E. & Appelbaum, S. H. (2003).The Case for Case Studies in Management Research. Management Research News, 26 (5): 60-71. Paul, D. &Charney, D. (1995). Introducing chaos (theory) into science and engineering. Written Communication, 12 (4): 396-438. Pearson, M. & Brew, A. (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2): 138-43. Perera, K. (1984). Children writing and reading: Analysing classroom language. London: Basil Blackwell. Polio, C. (2001). An overview of what we investigate and how. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2): 137-45. Powell, A., Francisco, J. M. & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analysis model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour.22: 405-435. Prosser, M &Trigwell, K. (1988). Teaching for Learning in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

282

Bibliography

Purcell-Gates, V. (2007).Cultural Practices of Literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social practice, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Ramsden, B. (1987). Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK, report of the long-term strategy group of UK, Bristol: HEFCE. Raimes, A. (1985). Focus on composition. New York: Oxford University Press. Renandya, W.A. (2005). Methodology in Language Teaching: An anthropology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reid, J. (1989). English as a second language composition in higher education: The expectations of the academic audience. In D.M. Johnson & D. H . Roen (Eds.) Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. New York: Longman, 220-234. Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Richards, J. (1996). The Dilemma of Teacher Education in Language Teaching. In Richards, J.C. & Nunan, D. (Eds.) Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press. —. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, L. & Morse, J. M. (2007).Read Me First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. (2nded.).Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Richards, J., J. Platt & H. Platt (1992).Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman. Riley, P. (1997). The guru and the conjurer: aspects of counseling for selfaccess. In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds.) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman: 114-31. Roberts, C. (1997). Transcribing talk: issues of representation. TTSOL Quarterly 31 (1): 167-72. Roberts & Sarangi (2005). Theme-oriented Discourse Analysis of Medical Encounters. Department of educational and professional studies, King´s College London: UK. Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers. Cambridge, Massachusetes, USA: Blackwell Publishers. Rodgers, T. S. (1989). After methods? What? In S. Anivan (Ed.). Language Teaching Methodology. Singapore: Regional English Language Centre, 1-15.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

283

Rossman, G.B. & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: An introduction to qualitative research. SAGE Publications. Rudd, E. (1985). A New Look at Postgraduate Failure. The society for research into higher education & NFER_NELSON. Seligmann, J. (2012). Academic Literacy for Education Students. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford University Press. Sayed, Y. Kruss, G. & Badat, S. (1998). Students’ experience of postgraduate supervision at the University of Western Cape. Journal for Further and Higher Education, 22: 275-285. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shuel, T.J. (1986). Cognitive Conceptions of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 56 (4): 411-436. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. & Rodgers, P.(1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: the mission statement. Discourse and Society, 6 (2): 223-42. Shaw, P. (1991). Science research students’ composing processes. English for Specific Purposes, 10 (3). Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing: research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11-23. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. (2nded.). London: Sage. Spack, R. (1997). The Acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication,14 (1): 362. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2001).Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University. —. (1993). Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. New York: Cambridge University. —. (1995, 2007). Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography, and education. London; New York: Longman. Strevens, P. (1974). Some basic principles for teacher training.ELT Journal, 29 (1): 19-27.

284

Bibliography

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis types and software TOOLS. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Thomas, P. R.(2009) Effective Classroom Teamwork: Support or Intrusion. London: Routledge. Tuckman, B.W. (1994). Conducting Educational Research. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace. Tinkler, P. & Jackson, L. (2004).The Doctoral Examination Process. Maidenhead: SRHE and Open University Press. Ur, P. (1991). A Course in Language Teaching: practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity. In R. Wodak& M. Meyer (Eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publications, 95-120. Verma, G.K. &Mallick, K. (1999).Research in Education: Perspectives and techniques. London: Palmer. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom Observation Tasks: a resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watson, D. (2000). Lifelong learning and professional higher education. In D. Watson, T. Bourner & T. Katz (Eds.) New Directions in Professional Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE/Open Society Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Wragg, E. C. (1999). Introduction to Classroom observation. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. White,.R.,Martin, M., Stimson, M. Hodge, R., (1991).Management in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woodward, W. (1988). Loop input: A set of strategies designed to help language TES. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001). (Eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publications. Young, R. (1978). Paradigms and problems: Needed research in rhetorical intervention. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.) Research on Composing: Points of view. Urbana, III.: National Council of teachers of English, 29-47. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research - Design and Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Traineesin Luanda, Angola

285

Zamel, V. (1982). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: what we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TTSOL Quarterly, 10: 67-76. —. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TTSOL Quarterly, 16, 195-200. —. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TTSOL Quarterly, 17: 165-187. —. (1985). Responding to writing. TTSOL Quarterly, 19 (1): 79-101. —. (1987) Towards a model of transculturation. TTSOL Quarterly, 31: 341-52. —. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TTSOL Quarterly, 21 (4): 697-712. Zientek, L. R. (2007). Preparing high-quality teachers: views from the classroom. American Educational Research, 44 (4): 959-1001.

APPEND DICES

Append dix A. Locaation of thee Higher Teeacher Training Instittutions (TT TIs) in Angoola

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

287

Appendix B. The Angolan Context and Educational System The Angolan Educational System The new educational system is structured in the following way. There are three different teaching/leaning levels: x Primary level x Secondary level x Higher Education. The three levels are preceded by a lower level normally called pre-school, which corresponds to kindergarten for children under the age of six. The Pre-school level: The pre-school level starts from crèche and it is organised into groups aged up to six with the initiation class as the last class where students aged five are prepared to join the primary level schools. The initiation class is compulsory for all Angolan children at the age of five who may not have benefited from any other kind of formal education. The Primary school level: the primary school level is the starting point of formal education; it is also compulsory and takes six years of schooling, which will enable students to pursue their studies at the secondary level. The Primary level comprises both Regular and Adult education. Regular education is meant for children and Adult education for people who could not start studying at the right age and want to learn to read or write or pursue their studies at higher levels. Regular education starts from the age of six and takes six years (from grades 1 to 6) to complete; in other words, children aged six are expected to finish their primary level at the age of twelve. Adult education comprises two different groups of people: people who are illiterate and people who can read and write but, because they are adults, cannot take regular education. Adult education starts at the age of fifteen and takes six years. Secondary Level: The secondary level comprises two phases. The first offers Education in General and comprises both Regular and Adult

Appendices

288

Education, lasting three years each from grades 7 to 9; it aims at preparing students to continue their studies in the second phase. The first phase of the Secondary level provides basic training education and its main aim is to prepare youngsters and adults to join the labour market. It also offers an intermediate teacher training package lasting for one to two years for students who, for any reason, do not want or did not have the chance to enrol in the second phase of secondary school. The second phase of secondary school caters for education in general for both Regular and Adult education. It takes three years from grades 10 to 12 and aims at preparing students to enrol in higher education (at university level). The Secondary level comprises two different types of training, one at the level of regular education and the other at the level of specialised or technical training. The secondary level lasts for four years from grades 10 to 13, and aims at preparing students to continue their studies at a higher level. The Normal training aims at training teachers for the primary level, namely for Regular and Adult education as well as Special Education. Within Normal training, there is half loop training (of one to two years), which caters for the professionalisation of the holders of grade 12 certificates from the second phase of the secondary level, who may not want or have had opportunities to pursue their studies at a higher level. The Specialised or Technical training has the main objective of training specialists for different fields of work in the country, such as industry, agriculture, economy, health, arts, and sports. The Specialised or Technical training also offers the half loop training, which lasts for one to two years for professionals who hold the grade 12 certificate from the second phase of the secondary level who may not want or have had opportunities to pursue their studies at a higher level. The Higher level studies are structured in the following way: x Graduation studies x Post-graduation studies. The Graduation studies comprise the level of Bachelor (BA) and “Licenciatura” (Honours). The BA level takes three years of schooling and caters for scientific and fundamental training in different areas of professionalisation. The Honours level takes four to six years, from year 1 to 4, 5, or 6, depending on the type of course being taken, as some courses like Medicine will take longer. Honours courses offer fundamental and

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

289

scientific preparation associated with scientific research practice in different areas so as to prepare students to work in different social domains. The Post-graduation studies are both Academic and Professional. The Academic Post-graduation comprises both Master’s and PhD degrees. The Master’s degree takes two to three years and is meant for Honours students. It aims at improving the technical and professional competencies of students associated with scientific research to promote the country’s national development. The PhD programme lasts for four to five years. Students with a Master’s degree or Honours can pursue their studies at this level, which caters for the enrichment of the technical and professional competencies of the students together with a deeper preparation for advanced scientific research methodology as a way of enabling them to promote and develop science and technology. The Post-professional graduation seeks general specialisation. The number of years required might vary, and the minimum is one year. It aims at increasing the technical and professional skills of students with an Honours degree.

Appendices

290

Appendix C. Course Programme .

Course Programme YEAR I – SEMESTER I 01 Introduction to English Grammar 02 Communication skills 03 Introduction to Literary Studies

H/S 06

04 Introduction Linguistic Studies 05 Introduction to Research Methodology 06 French I 07 Portuguese I 08 General Psychology 09 General Pedagogy 10 ICT Total Hours YEAR II – SEMESTER I 01 Morphology and Syntax 02 Academic Reading 03 ELT Methodology I 04 Anglophone African Literature 05 Psycholinguistics 06 French II 07 Portuguese II 08 Sociology of Education 09 Pedagogical Psychology Total Hours YEAR III – SEMESTER I 01 English Phonetics and Phonology 02 Academic Writing 03 ELT Methodology II 04 Anglo-American Literature 05 Teaching Practice I 06 Applied Linguistics 07 Sociolinguistics 08 School Administration and management 09 French III

03 03

Total Hours

04 03

02 02 03 03 03 32 H/S 06 04 04 03 03 02 02 03 03 30 H/S 06

YEAR II – SEMESTER II Introduction to English Grammar Communication skills Introduction to Literary Studies Introduction Linguistic Studies Introduction to Research Methodology French I Portuguese I Developmental Psychology General Didactics ICT Total Hours YEAR II – SEMESTER II Morphology and Syntax Academic Reading ELT Methodology I Anglophone African Literature Psycholinguistics French II Portuguese II Sociology of Education

H/S 06 04 03 03 03 02 02 03 03 03 32 H/S 06 04 04 03 03 02 02 03 27 H/S 06

02

Total Hours YEAR III – SEMESTER II English Phonetics and Phonology Academic Writing ELT Methodology II Anglo-American Literature Teaching Practice I Applied Linguistics Sociolinguistics School Administration and management French III

32

Total Hours

32

04 04 03 06 04 04 03

04 04 03 06 04 04 03 02

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

291

YEAR IV – SEMESTER I 01 Syntax Theories

H/S 06

YEAR IV – SEMESTER II Syntax Theories

H/S 06

02 Research Methodology

04

Research Methodology

04

03 Methodology for Teacher Trainers 04 Teaching Practice

04

04

06

Methodology for Teacher Trainers Teaching Practice

05 Bantu Linguistics

04

Linguística Bantu

04

06 Curriculum Development

04

Desenvolvimento Curricular

04

28

Total Hours

28

Total Hours

06

292

Appendices

Appendix D. Changes Made to the Research Instruments Changes Made to the Interviews (a) Lecturers’ Interviews At the beginning, the interview schedule for teachers consisted of 27 questions, later reduced to 16. Most of the changes made were basically based on the combination of two questions that seemed to be addressing the same thing, but there were also some instances where the questions did not provide the expected answers and were therefore cut out. (i) Combination (ii) What do you think about the resources in the library and how adequate are they in helping students write their dissertation? (iii) What do you think about the computer lab and how adequate is it in helping students write their dissertations? (iv) How many students have you supervised so far and how many have successfully completed their dissertations? About 10 questions were taken out of the interview schedule and others were re-written to make more sense to respondents. The main changes took place under the research literacy practices section where, with the exception of the first question, three more were asked to address the issue of literacy practices. Research literacy practices (i) In your opinion why do students fail to write their dissertations? (imposed topic, wrong topic choice, lack of time, lack of motivation, workload). (ii) What can you say about lecturers’ and students’ research skills? (iii) How best can research be taught and practised? (iv) What can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly? (b) Students’ Interviews (1) Unsuccessful Students’ Interviews It must be remembered that, in order to get the final version of the interview schedule for the three groups of students, a process of constant revision and trial took place before the piloting phase, and this helped a lot

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

293

in obtaining a version which was acceptable and helpful in providing the information needed. From this interview schedule, only one question was taken out under the research literacy practices (How can the teaching of research methodology be improved to meet the demands of dissertation writing?). The main reason for this was that students could not respond to it, probably because most of them did not take this subject when studying. (2) Current Students’ Interviews For the interview of students who are currently writing their reports, a few changes were also made. About 12 questions were set up and the main correction made consisted of the question order, where question 3 was moved to precede question 2, under the research supervision practices. Research supervision (i) What are some of the challenges you are facing in writing your dissertation? Please elaborate. (ii) What kind of support do you need to proceed in writing your dissertation? (from the supervisor, the department, and the university) (moved down). (iii) How far are you in the writing of your dissertation and when do you intend to complete it? (moved up). (3) Successful Students’ Interviews Under this interview schedule no changes were made, as everything seemed to be fine during the interviews. Perhaps the interviews went well and took less time because of the type of students being interviewed. (c) Interview with the Head of the Academic Affairs Department Some questions were dropped from this interview schedule mainly because in other departments they do not have subjects such as Academic Reading and Writing, and therefore it was thought that it would be useless to ask those questions, especially to the Head of the Academic Affairs Department. The questions removed were: x In which skill do you think students have more difficulties (Academic Reading or Writing)? Please specify. x What would you suggest to improve the teaching of Academic Reading and Writing to meet the demands of dissertation writing?

294

Appendices

x How best can the research methodology subject be taught? Changes Made to Questionnaires Students’ questionnaire The students’ questionnaire was thoroughly revised by the researcher and the supervisor and some sub-headings were replaced by new ones. The sub-headings were: Lecturers, Resources, Dissertation Writing, Assessment Procedures, Ability, and Research Supervision. A few changes were made, such as more weight being placed on the supervision practices rather than on teaching alone. Lecturers’ questionnaire The lecturers’ questionnaire was also thoroughly revised by the researcher and the supervisor and the sub-headings were replaced by new ones, as in the students’ questionnaire. The subheadings were: Lecturers, Resources, Dissertation Writing, Assessment Procedures, Ability, and Research Supervision. A few changes were made, such as more weight being placed on the supervision practices rather than on teaching alone.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

295

Appendix E. General Subject Lecturers’ Interview Schedule GENERAL SUBJECT LECTURERS’ INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (a) Lecture delivery (1) What mode of lecturing do you use most? Please elaborate. (2) To what extent is the subject you teach relevant to students’ writing dissertations? (b) Resource availability (1) What do you think about the resources in the library, and how adequate are they for students who are writing their dissertations? (2) What do you think about the computer lab, and how adequate is it for students who are writing their dissertations? (c) Dissertation writing (1) In your opinion, why do students fail to write their dissertations? (imposed topic, wrong topic choice, lack of time, lack of motivation, workload). (2) What can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly? (3) Do you think the research report is necessary and/or important? Please elaborate. (d) Assessment procedures (1) How do you assess your students? (2) How do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for dissertation writing? (e) Research skills (1) In which subjects do you think students have most problems? Academic Reading, Academic Writing or Research Methodology? Please elaborate. (2) How can the teaching of these subjects be improved to meet the demands of dissertation writing?

296

Appendices

(f) Research supervision (1) What kind of difficulties do you usually face in supervising students? (2) What would you suggest to improve the supervision processes?

Thank you!

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

297

Appendix F. Content Subject Lecturers’ Interview Schedule CONTENT SUBJECT LECTURERS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (a) Lecture delivery (1) What mode of lecturing do you use most? Please elaborate. (2) To what extent is the subject you teach relevant to students’ writing dissertations? (b) Resource availability (1) What do you think about the resources in the library, and how adequate are they for students who are writing their dissertations? (2) What do you think about the computer lab, and how adequate is it for students who are writing their dissertations? (c) Dissertation writing (1) In your opinion, why do students fail to write their dissertations? (imposed topic, wrong topic choice, lack of time, lack of motivation, workload). (2) What can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly? (3) Do you think the research report is necessary and/or important? Please elaborate. (d) Assessment procedures (1) How do you assess your students? (2) How do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for dissertation writing? (e) Research skills (1) In which subjects do you think students have most problems? Academic Reading, Academic Writing or Research Methodology? Please elaborate. (2) How can the teaching of these subjects be improved to meet the demands of dissertation writing?

298

Appendices

(f) Research supervision (1) What kind of difficulties do you usually face in supervising students? (2) What would you suggest to improve the supervision processes?

Thank you!

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

299

Appendix G. Type 1 Students’ Interview Schedule INTERVIEW FOR TYPE 1 STUDENTS (a) Lecture delivery (1) What mode of lecturing did your teachers use most? Please elaborate. (2) In your opinion did the coursework prepare you adequately for dissertation writing? Why/Why not? (b) Resource availability (1) What do you think about the resources in the library, and how adequate are they for students who are writing their dissertations? (2) What do you think about the computer lab, and how adequate is it for students who are writing their dissertations? (c) Dissertation writing (1) In your opinion, why do students fail to write their dissertations? (imposed topic, wrong topic choice, lack of time, lack of motivation, workload). (2) What can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly? (3) Do you think the research report is necessary and/or important? Please elaborate. (d) Assessment procedures (1) What kind of assessment did your teachers use most (e.g. tests, essays, group and pair work)? (2) Do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for dissertation writing? (e) Research skills (1) In which subjects did you have most problems? Academic Reading, Academic Writing or Research Methodology? Please elaborate. (2) How can the teaching of these subjects be improved to meet the demands of dissertation writing?

300

(f) (1) (2)

Appendices

Research supervision What kind of difficulties did you face in being supervised? What would you suggest to improve the supervision processes?

Thank you!

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

301

Appendix H. Type 2 Students’ Interview Schedule INTERVIEW FOR TYPE 2 STUDENTS (a) Lecture delivery (1) What mode of lecturing did your teachers use most? Please elaborate. (2) In your opinion, did the coursework prepare you adequately for dissertation writing? Why/Why not? (b) Resource availability (1) What do you think about the resources in the library and how adequate are they for students who are writing their dissertations? (2) What do you think about the computer lab, and how adequate is it for students who are writing their dissertations? (c) Dissertation writing (1) In your opinion, why do students fail to write their dissertations? (imposed topic, wrong topic choice, lack of time, lack of motivation, workload). (2) What can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly? (3) Do you think the research report is necessary and/or important? Please elaborate. (d) Assessment procedures (1) What kind of assessment did your teachers use most (e.g. tests, essays, group and pair work)? (2) Do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for dissertation writing? (e) Research skills (1) In which subjects did you have most problems? Academic Reading, Academic Writing or Research Methodology? Please elaborate. (2) How can the teaching of these subjects be improved to meet the demands of dissertation writing?

302

Appendices

(f) Research supervision (1) What kind of difficulties are you facing in being supervised? (2) What would you suggest to improve the supervision processes?

Thank you!

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

303

Appendix I. Type 3 Students’ Interview Schedule INTERVIEW FOR TYPE 3 STUDENTS (a) Lecture delivery (1) What mode of lecturing did your teachers use most? Please elaborate. (2) In your opinion, did the coursework prepare you adequately for dissertation writing? Why/Why not? (b) Resource availability (1) What do you think about the resources in the library, and how adequate are they for students who are writing their dissertations? (2) What do you think about the computer lab, and how adequate is it for students who are writing their dissertations? (c) Dissertation writing (1) In your opinion, why do students fail to write their dissertations? (imposed topic, wrong topic choice, lack of time, lack of motivation, workload). (2) What can be done to help students complete their research reports swiftly? (3) Do you think the research report is necessary and/or important? Please elaborate. (d) Assessment procedures (1) What kind of assessment did your teachers use most (e.g. tests, essays, group and pair work)? (2) Do you think this kind of assessment prepares students for dissertation writing? (e) Research skills (1) In which subjects do you have most problems? Academic Reading, Academic Writing or Research Methodology? Please elaborate. (2) How can the teaching of these subjects be improved to meet the demands of dissertation writing?

304

Appendices

(f) Research supervision (1) What kind of difficulties are you facing in being supervised? (2) What would you suggest to improve the supervision processes?

Thank you!

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

305

Appendix J. Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD) Interview Schedule Interview schedule with the Deputy Director of the Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD) Dear Deputy Director, My name is Celeste Sambeny and I am one of the lecturers at ISCED belonging to the Department of Foreign Languages. I am conducting research for the purpose of obtaining a PhD degree at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of my study is to find the causes of the constraints experienced by teacher trainees when undertaking research at the Higher Institute of Education in Luanda with particular reference to the production of their end-of-course dissertations. I would like to ask for permission to interview you for a couple of minutes. All the responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential. Thank you! (1) What is your opinion about the low numbers of students completing their dissertations? (2) In which skill do you think students have most difficulties (academic reading or writing)? Please specify the problems they have. (3) What would you suggest to improve the teaching of academic reading and writing to meet the demands of dissertation writing? (4) What do you think about the resources in the library and how adequate are they for dissertation writing? (5) What do you think about the computer lab, and how helpful is it for dissertation writing? (6) What is your opinion about research supervision practices at ISCED? (7) How can the overall organisation of ISCED be improved to increase the rate of students completing their dissertations in the required time? (8) Do you think the dissertation should be removed from the assessment? Why/why not? (9) How best can the research methodology be taught?

Thank you!

Appendices

306

Appendix K. Lecturers’ Questionnaire LECTURERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE Dear colleague, My name is Celeste Sambeny and I am one of the lecturers at ISCED belonging to the Department of Foreign Languages. I am conducting research for the purpose of obtaining a PhD degree at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of my study is to find the causes of the constraints experienced by teacher trainees when undertaking research at the Higher Institute of Education in Luanda with particular reference to the production of their end-of-course dissertations. I would like to invite you to participate in my research by answering this questionnaire. All responses are anonymous and they will be treated confidentially. Thank you for your collaboration in completing this questionnaire. x x x

Please provide all the information asked for in this questionnaire. Answer all the questions. For each question tick the appropriate box next to the response of your choice, or fill in the information required.

Yours sincerely, Celeste Sambeny Please answer each question by drawing a CIRCLE around the appropriate number in the shaded box, or write your answer in the shaded space provided. (1) How long have you been teaching at ISCED? (2) What subjects do you teach? (3) What are your academic qualifications? (4) Are you female or male? A B

Female Male

1 2

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

307

(5) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement

C D E F G

Strongly disagree

B

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching Most lecturers are not committed to their job Most lecturers cannot supervise students adequately There is a need for some in-service training and refreshment courses for lecturers All lecturers are reflective practitioners Most of the lecturers holding doctoral degrees refuse to supervise students

Disagree

A

Agree

About the Lecturers

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

308

Appendices

(6) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement

C D E F G H

Strongly disagree

B

There are plenty of resources in the library Library materials are adequate for students to do research The librarians are well trained and helpful The computer lab does not help students in writing their dissertations Students have easy access to the computer lab There are enough computers in the computer lab There is a need for a students’ writing centre Most of the books that students read for writing their dissertations are borrowed from other places.

Disagree

A

Agree

Resource availability

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

1

2

3

4

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

309

(7) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement

C D E F

Strongly disagree

B

The coursework is well organised to meet the demands of dissertation writing The assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ dissertation writing The Academic Reading and Writing subjects are not contributing to students’ dissertation writing The Research Methodology subject is not contributing to dissertation writing Writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers Students acquire most of the skills through the experience of writing their dissertations

Disagree

A

Agree

Dissertation writing

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

310

Appendices

(8) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement

C D E F G H

Strongly disagree

B

Students are given enough time to prepare for essays and tests. The essay and test questions are appropriate for their level The dates of handing in essays and other work are flexible The assessment criteria are clear and fair Feedback is always provided on time The assessment tasks in the coursework contribute to the final assessment (dissertation writing) Some lecturers do not provide the tests results on time The final dissertation should not be a requirement for the students to obtain their qualification

Disagree

A

Agree

Assessment procedures

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

311

(9) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

C D E F G H I J

Strongly disagree

B

Students are able to read and analyse academic texts with a “critical eye” Students are able to write texts in different genres Students are able to construct an academic argument Students are able to access and select information from different sources Students are able to quote and paraphrase Students are aware of the dangers of practising plagiarism Students become more independent academics through the experience of writing their dissertations Students are able to do research independently Students know how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter Students are able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter-arguments

Disagree

A

Agree

Ability

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

312

Appendices

(10) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement

C D E F G H I J

Strongly disagree

B

Supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of the research area they supervise Supervisors are always available The relationship between students and supervisors is good Most of the supervisors do not help students much Some supervisors are not so helpful Research supervision contributes to students’ academic and professional development A good supervisor is one who knows the content of the subject matter Supervisors send feedback promptly Feedback from supervisors is adequate Supervisors lack training in supervision skills

Disagree

A

Agree

Research supervision

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

(11) What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED? (12) What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED? _______________________________ (13) If you have any others comments to make please do not hesitate.

Thank you very much for your time and co-operation

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

313

Appendix L. Students’ Questionnaire C1. Students’ Questionnaire Please answer each question by drawing a CIRCLE around the appropriate number in the shaded box or write your answer in the shaded space provided. (1) How old are you? (2) How long have you been studying at ISCED? (3) Are you female or male? A B

Female Male

1 2

(4) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

C D E F G

Strongly disagree

B

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching A high standard of work is expected from lecturers during the supervision process Most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job Most lecturers cannot supervise students properly The lecturer’s qualification (degrees they hold) contributes significantly to the quality of research supervision Some lecturers need in-service training

Disagree

A

Agree

Lecturers

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

314

Appendices

(5) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

D E F G H

Strongly disagree

C

Disagree

B

Agree

A

Resources

Strongly agree

Opinion

There are plenty of resources in the library Library material is/was adequate for research writing Most of the books I read were borrowed from other places I had easy access to the computer lab There were enough computers in the lab The personnel in the library were/are helpful The computer lab personnel taught me how to use the computers If you do not have a personal computer you will face serious problems in writing your dissertation

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

315

(6) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

C D E F

Strongly disagree

B

The coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands I did not learn much from the Academic Reading subject to help me write my dissertation I did not learn much from the academic writing subject to help me write my dissertation I did not learn much from the research methodology subject to help me write my dissertation Writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers I acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing my dissertation.

Disagree

A

Agree

Dissertation writing

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

316

Appendices

(7) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

D E F G H

Strongly disagree

C

I was given enough time for essays and tests The essays and tests were appropriate for my level The dates of handing in essays and other work were flexible The assessment criteria were clear Feedback on my work was always provided and appropriate Some teachers do not provide the tests results on time The essays and tests I wrote prepared me for dissertation writing The final dissertation should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification

Disagree

A B

Agree

Assessment procedures

Strongly agree

Opinion

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

317

(8) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

D E F G H I

Strongly disagree

B C

I am able to read and analyze academic texts with a “critical eye” I am able to write texts in different genres I am able to construct an academic argument I am able to access and select information from different sources I am able to quote and paraphrase I am able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments I am aware of the dangers of practicing plagiarism I am aware of how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter I learnt more in writing my dissertation than in the four years of coursework

Disagree

A

Agree

Ability

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

318

Appendices

(9) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number next to each statement.

D E F G H I J K

My supervisor is/was always available My supervisor is/was friendly, open and supportive My supervisor is/was able to criticise my work constructively My supervisor is/was sufficiently interested in my topic The relationship with my supervisor was good My supervisor is/was not helpful Research supervision has contributed a lot to my academic and professional development My supervisor sends/sent feedback promptly The feedback from my supervisor is/was adequate There is a need for supervisors training

Strongly disagree

B C

My supervisor has/had a sound academic knowledge of my research area

Disagree

A

Agree

Research supervision

Strongly agree

Opinion

1

2

3

4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

1

2

3

4

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

(10) Are you capable of conducting research independently? Please elaborate. (11) What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED?

(12) What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED? Thank you very much for your time and co-operation

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

319

Appendix M. Classroom Observation Sheet Classroom observation sheet Name of the observer: Date of Observation: Lecturer Observed: Subject: Lesson Content (Topic):

Language:

Attitude:

The Lecturer Motivation:

Lesson Stages and Activities:

Teaching approach and materials:

Instructions, demonstration, and exemplification:

Students’ level of engagement:

Knowledge of the subject matter:

320

Appendices

Students’ participation and interaction types:

Classroom and follow-up activities:

Overall comments/observation:

What follows is a brief explanation of each item embodied in the classroom observation sheet. About the lecturer Language: To check whether the lecturers’ language is appropriate for the level of students; if it is too technical or not technical enough for the students to understand. To also check the lecturer’s pace of speaking and pronunciation. Attitude: The lecturer’s attitude towards the process of teaching can have a positive or negative affect. The relationship between students and the lecturer, and the lecturer’s appearance and willingness to give students opportunities to ask questions in the class are all issues that need to be taken into account during the observation. The lecturer should not be permissive to the point that students feel they can do what they want, and cannot be too strict so that students feel afraid to participate in the class. Knowledge of the subject matter: The lecturer’s confidence in delivering knowledge to students, if s/he is able to answer questions that students ask, and how s/he demonstrates that s/he is an authority in the subject matter. Lesson stages and activities: Identifying each stage in the lesson and how the lecturer goes about them in terms of teaching techniques and methods, and the type of activities for practice and production and whether there is a mismatch between those activities and the students’ real context (Biggs 1999). Teaching approach and materials: This includes the teaching approach being used, the teaching aids used, both visual and audio-visual, whether there is a coursebook or not, if the teacher provides supplementary materials for further consultation and reading, and how the materials are being used to complement what is being learned. Instructions: If the lecturer briefs the students before asking them to perform the activities being set up.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

321

Demonstrations: If the lecturer demonstrates how students have to do things. Exemplifications: This includes all the examples given in the classroom, whether they match the students’ context in terms of the type of topics, the work structure, and the layout to meet the demands of dissertation writing. Students’ level of engagement: Do the tasks performed in the classroom prepare students for the writing of the dissertation? Does the teaching approach lead students to surface or deep learning? Students’ participation and interaction types: Are students actively involved in the lesson and are they willing to participate? How much do they participate and what kind of decisions do they make? Are they working individually, in pairs or in groups? Classroom and follow up activities: Does the lecturer set up follow-up activities to help double check students’ understanding and help them consolidate the knowledge acquired? Are those follow up activities similar to the activities students will be asked to perform, for example writing a research proposal or a book review? Feedback: How is feedback provided to students and how long does it take for a teacher to provide feedback to students after handing in the activity? How long does the teacher take to correct things and give them back to the students? Oral comments/observation: After the lesson the observer can try to informally talk to the lecturer and find out her/his own impression on the lesson taught. From time to time, the researcher can also approach some students to check their feelings and opinions about the subject being taught.

322

Appendices

Appendix N. Guidelines for textual analysis x The title of the research proposal suggestive x Sentence and paragraph divisions are clear x Information is well organised and paragraphs and sentences are connected x Prior knowledge is directly related to the new information and students’ experience x Information from different sources is well synthesised x Arguments are well supported using bibliography x Major and subordinate ideas can easily be found x There are key examples that attempt to prove the “thesis” x Quotations are well indicated x Students know the rule of paraphrasing x References are well written inside the text and in the references list x There is evidence of analysis of information or arguments based on students’ readings x There is no sign of plagiarism x There are lots of grammatical errors and misspellings x The general layout and organisation of chapters are acceptable

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

Appendix O. Ethics Committee Consent Letter

323

324

Appendices

Appendix P. Letter to the Dean of TTI nr 200 A letter to the Dean of TTI nr 200 Professor Daniel Mingas Instituto Superior de Ciências da Educação 12, Salvador Allende Luanda- Angola My name is Celeste Ana da Gloria Eduardo Sambeny and I am conducting research for the purpose of obtaining a PhD degree at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The purpose of my study is to find out the causes of the constraints experienced by teacher trainees when undertaking research at the Higher Institute of Education in Luanda with particular reference to the production of their end-of-course dissertations. For this purpose I intend to interview some teachers and students from the Modern Languages Department. My engagement with them will also include questionnaires, some lessons observations, and informal discussions. I intend to issue questionnaires to teachers and students from 5th to 15th of September. The questionnaires are mainly made up of multiple questions, which will take respondents a maximum of thirty minutes to fill in. Moreover, I intend to conduct focus group interviews with students and teachers from 15th to 30th of September. There will be three different groups of students to interview: those who have finished their studies, those who are still writing their dissertations, and those who finished their coursework some years ago but have not yet finished writing their dissertations. Most of the questions will be provided to them in advance for them to be prepared for the interviews and will be conducted outside the normal class times, taking a maximum of one hour. I have obtained an ethical clearance from the University of Witwatersrand and would appreciate your permission and/or support. Yours sincerely Celeste Sambeny

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

325

Appendix Q. Participation Information Sheet PARTICIPATION INFORMATION SHEET My name is Celeste Ana da Gloria Eduardo Sambeny and I am conducting research for the purpose of obtaining a PhD degree at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The purpose of my study is to find out the causes of the constraints experienced by teacher education students when undertaking research at one of the Higher Institutes of Education in Luanda with particular reference to the production of their end-of-course dissertations. I therefore wish to invite you to participate in my study. This research will contribute both to a larger body of knowledge in the difficulties experienced by education students when undertaking research as well as to inform curriculum developers and subject teachers about important aspects to bear in mind when dealing with this specific group of students. Your participation is entirely voluntary and refusal to participate will not be held against you in any way. If you agree to take part, I shall arrange to interview you at a time and a place suitable for you. The interview will last approximately one and a half hours. You may withdraw from the study at any time and you may refuse to answer any questions that you feel uncomfortable answering. With your permission the interview will be tape-recorded. No one other than myself and my supervisor will have access to the tapes. The tapes and interview schedules will be kept for two years following any publications or for five years if no publication emanates from the study. Please be assured that your name and personal details will be kept confidential and no identifying information will be included in the final research report unless you wish otherwise. Please feel free to ask any questions regarding the study, I shall answer them to the best of my ability. I may be contacted on 923 621819 or 926 919911 and you can also contact me at [email protected]. You can also contact my supervisor Dr Dominique Mwepu at [email protected] (only in English). Should you wish to receive any summary of the results of the study, a copy of the research will be made available on request. Thank you for taking the time to consider participating in the study. Yours sincerely Celeste Sambeny

Appendices

326

Appendix R. Consent form to participate in the study CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY I........................................................................................hereby consent to participate in the research project. The purpose and procedures of the study have been explained to me. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I may refuse to answer any particular items or withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. I understand that my responses will be kept confidential. Name of the Participant: Date Signature ACEITACAO DA PARTICIPACAO NO PROJECTO DE ESTUDO (Portuguese version) Eu………………………………………………………..abaixo assinado, aceito participar neste projecto de pesquisa. O objectivo e os procedimentos do estudo ja me foram explicados. Fui informado de que a minha participacao e voluntaria e que me posso recusar a responder a algumas perguntas ou retirar-me do estudo a qualquer altura sem quaisquer consequencias negativas. Eu entendo que as minhas respostas serao confidencialmente guardadas. Nome da (o) participante Data Assinatura

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

327

Appendix S. Letter to participants in the focus groups Letter to participants in the focus groups My name is Celeste Ana da Gloria Eduardo Sambeny and I am conducting research for the purpose of obtaining a PhD degree at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The purpose of my study is to find out the causes of the constraints experienced by teacher trainees when undertaking research at the Higher Institute of Education in Luanda with particular reference to the production of their end-of-course dissertations. I will be asking some teachers and students to participate in this study. Teachers will be selected from the four main Departments (Foreign Languages, Modern Languages, Social Sciences, and Exact Sciences). Students will preferably be chosen from those who have not yet started writing, those who are still in the process of writing, and those who have recently successfully finished writing their dissertations. Participation in this research will entail your taking part in a focus group at a time and place convenient for you. A focus group is a form of group interview that relies on interaction within the group that discusses a topic supplied by the researcher, who in this specific case will be me. The focus group will take thirty to forty five minutes. With your permission, the interview will be recorded in order to ensure accuracy in transcription. Participation is voluntary and no student will be penalised for not accepting to participate in the focus group. All the responses will be kept confidential and no information that could identify you would be included in the research report. The focus group interview materials (tapes and transcripts) will not be seen or heard by any person anywhere, not even at this institution, at any time, and will only be processed by myself. You will be free to withdraw from the study at any time or you may refuse to answer some questions you would prefer not to. The recording will not be submitted for examination along with the research project. The data obtained from the recording will be used for the research report on this study and may be used for further work in the future. If you accept to participate in the study, please sign the consent letter. I can be contacted via email at [email protected] or via telephone on 926919911 or 923621819. Regards Celeste Sambeny

Appendices

328

Appendix T. Interview and Recording Consent INTERVIEW AND RECORDING CONSENT FORM (1) I agree to be interviewed for the purpose of this study project. (2) The purpose and the nature of the interview have been explained to me. (3) I agree that the interview may be recorded. Yes/No. (4) Any question I asked about the purpose and nature of the interview has been answered to my satisfaction. (5) I do not wish my name to be used or cited or otherwise disclosed. Name of the interviewee Signature Date I have explained the project and the implications of being interviewed to the interviewee and I believe that the consent is informed and that s/he understands the implication of the participation. Name of the interviewer Signature Date

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

329

Appendix U. Consent form for audio-taping of the interview with the DDAAD CONSENT FORM FOR AUDIO-TAPING OF THE INTERVIEW I.......................................................................hereby consent to the taperecording of the interview. I understand that my confidentiality will be maintained at all times and that the tapes will be destroyed two years after any publication arising from the study, or five years after completion of the study if there are no publications. Name of the Participant: Date Signature ACEITACAO DA GRAVACAO DA ENTREVISTA Eu………………………………….abaixo assinado consinto a gravação da minha entrevista. Estou certo de que a minha confidencialidade sera mantida todo o tempo e que as cassettes serão destruidas dois anos depois da publicação do estudo ou cinco anos depois da conclusão do estudo caso nao haja publicações. Nome da (o) participante Data Assinatura

Celeste Sambeny

330

Appendices

Appendix V. Type 1 Students’ Interview transcripts Interview transcript with Type 1 students (who have successfully completed their work) Date: 06/09/2012 I: Good morning everyone. Thank you for having accepted to participate in this group interview and I hope that you will give the maximum contribution to this study. After all, this is a study that is not just for me but for all of us. The first question would be: How many years did you take to complete the course? S1: It took me 5 years and I never had subjects delayed. I started in 2006 and in 2010 I defended my dissertation. S2: I did my course in 6 years; I failed in two subjects—one in year 2, and another in year 3. Because those subjects were core subjects I had to repeat them and I could not move to the following year. So I started in 2005 and defended my dissertation in 2010. S3: I also completed the 4 years of coursework with no problems. I started in 2006 and finished in 2009. I did my dissertation in almost 6 months. I had a very good supervisor, I must say. I: So you mean that you wrote your dissertation while doing coursework? S3: Yes, because we had academic Reading and Writing and also research methodology in year 1 and 4. Those subjects helped me a lot to write my dissertation; but my supervisor was also very helpful. S4: Well the course took me 8 years to complete, from 2002 to 2010, and I only managed to write my thesis after 3 years due to some family problems and work issues. I: Do you think that the 4 years of coursework are sufficient to prepare students for the writing of the dissertation? S1: I think so, because in the first year we have a subject called introduction to scientific research and this subject is very helpful, but the teacher was not so good; so, as my uncle is a teacher, he used to give me some explanations at home and this helped me a lot. But I enjoyed the course because I could understand it; I Think I will teach this subject one day. S2: I also had that subject in years 1 and 4, and I think this subject is very relevant in the course because it teaches us how to do research. I think the only problem is the way it is taught. Our lecturer did not give us activities to practice; even in the other subjects, lecturers hardly set up activities that require students to put their knowledge they have acquired from the course into practice. I think that, like in teaching methodology, we need practice in research methodology. S3: I personally agree with what my colleague said. I also had the opportunity to attend that subject. In the first year and in year 4 I had Research Methodology, and I also think that the way the subject is taught is not adequate. Therefore, I do not think that the coursework prepares students for writing the dissertation. What usually happens in almost all the subjects in the course is that most of the students

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

331

try to memorise what they learn in order to succeed in the written tests. Due to lack of practice we face problems in writing the dissertation, in turning theory into practice. Writing a dissertation is a very serious and complex process that requires the student to be able to read properly and write academically; and for us to be able to write academically we need to be taught how to do that; luckily, we do not have so many problems in English because, as I said before, we have two subjects for that: Academic Reading and Writing. Those subjects are very helpful and this is perhaps the reason why I could finish my dissertation before the time prescribed. But not all courses have these subjects I think, and not all students are devoted to their studies like I was. Therefore, I think that the students’ willingness to learn and the amount of effort employed by the students are the determinant factors for a student to succeed in that dissertation. S4: In my case, the four years of coursework didn’t prepare me for the writing of the dissertation. First of all, I did not have the research methodology subject as my colleagues had; second, I failed or I had to repeat year 4 for two years. This made me feel demotivated as I didn’t fail because I was a weak student but because the lecturer did not like me. Then I had to stop for 2 years because of some family problems. So altogether the course for me was too long and it did not prepare me for the dissertation phase. When I started writing my dissertation I had to begin everything again because of the big gap I had without studying. The other thing is, I heard some colleagues talking about writing reports, essays and long assignments in some courses; when I was studying I only used to sit for tests, that sometimes were never corrected or given back to students to see how well or badly they did! To be frank with you, writing my dissertation was very hard for me. S2: I just want to add something else … I think that all the lecturers should make an effort to contribute to the research methodology subject by setting up activities such as short essays where students have to demonstrate in practice what they have learnt in theory. I think that most lecturers think it is not their responsibility to get students practicing and developing the research skills; they leave this responsibility to the research methodology lecturers. And in my opinion this is bad, but at the Secondary level where I am teaching we work together to get a fully trained student in all the skills. I mean, even the marks that a student gets in one subject are quite similar to the ones of other subjects; and if there is a problem, like the student is good in all the disciplines but there is one where they cannot get positive marks, the teacher has got to find out what is wrong and help the student overcome the problem. But here at ISCED things are different; lecturers feel happy when they fail most of the students in a classroom. They feel proud of that and they say they are good teachers. I: So you seem to be bringing in another theme. What do you think about the assessment procedures? S3: The way that lecturers are assessing students is not the most adequate; like I said before, we used to memorise the content of the subjects in order to get high marks, because the written test that the lecturers gave us consisted of short and answers. So we had to memorise if we wanted to get positive marks and some students, those who were lazy, used to cheat because the answers are short and with one glance at their colleagues’ tests they could get the full answer.

332

Appendices

S2: In my case, for example, I was once punished because the lecturer caught one of my colleagues copying the answers from me but I didn’t notice; so my colleague got a positive mark and got a negative one. But the lecturer didn’t explain why he took that decision; he only said that next time I should hide my test from my colleagues. S1: I think that rather than giving us that type of test, lecturers should give us complete forms of written work to do at home or in the library so that no one can copy her or his colleagues work and students could get used to working individually and employing the skills of reading, writing, and thinking in practice. S3: Yes, I agree with you because in our teaching methodology subject the lecturer used to repeat several times that teaching is not just transmitting knowledge to students; teaching is engaging students in problem-solving activities; and I think that the written test is everything except this type of activity. Therefore, activities such as writing an essay would better fulfil that aspect of teaching. S4: For me, I think that what lecturers do not want is too much work. I am sure they know all about what we are saying, but they do not have time to correct essays or reports or long pieces of work. Therefore, they set up tests which are easy and fast to correct, and lecturers are lecturing at more than two faculties. I: Let us now move on to research supervision—what problems did you face during the supervision practice? S1: I didn’t have serious problems like some students had. In fact, I was allocated a good supervisor who knew about the content of my topic and he was very good in terms of his relationship with me. However, it was very difficult to meet him. Whenever we made an appointment, the meeting had to be postponed a day or some hours before the meeting. Availability from the supervisor’s side was the only problem I had. S3: To tell you the truth I didn’t have any problems. You know what … people always say that the English students are luckier than students in other courses. They say that we have good teachers and our department is very well organised. I agree with this. They also say that our supervisors are more devoted than theirs; well, I don’t totally agree with them on this point. They also say that our dissertations are better structured and organised and even though they do not speak the language we speak English better than they do in Portuguese; well, I partially agree with them. What we have in our department is lecturers who are very strict (although not all of them) and students who are committed to their studies because they join the course with a goal in mind (although not all of them). So during the supervision phase, we do not face so many problems because our knowledge from the Academic Reading and Writing subjects as well as the research methodology input helps us a lot in writing our dissertations. The supervisor just has to guide us here and there but I must confess that all depends on the student. Just to give you an example, I have colleagues who finished in the same year as me and they couldn’t finish their dissertations until now. Why? Because, most of the students decide to start working before finishing their studies. Therefore, they do not have time to sit down and write their dissertations; as a result they keep postponing it. And I think that is the reason why very few English students are defending their dissertations. The other thing is, people say that the quality of our dissertations is

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

333

good; ok, but what about the marks? English students never get more than 16. But in the other course they do. So generally speaking, we do not have many problems with supervisors; the problems we have are more on the socio-economic side of both students and supervisors. In other words, there are colleagues who do not have a personal laptop and therefore cannot work at home; there are others who have laptops and want to send their work via e-mail to their supervisors, but the supervisor does not have a computer at home; sometimes, the supervisor does not have a car and the student has to give him a lift; or if the supervisor has a car he does not have enough money for petrol; you know these are issues which are, let’s say, “normal” within our context. S2: Well I didn’t have problems with my supervisor but I had problems over the course. Going back to what we said about assessment I was never satisfied with the marks I did get in most of the written tests. The thing is that lecturers take a long time to correct our tests, and when they bring them they just come up with the final mark, but you never know where you did right and where you did wrong. And if you ask for clarification you will get in trouble. Even in my dissertation I was not happy with the marks that the members of the jury gave me. Well, but I am a student and I have to keep quiet. S4: In my own case I had a good supervisor, and I didn’t face any major problems like I did when I was doing the course. I must confess that perhaps my supervisor had more problems in supervising me because after seven years of coursework my level of motivation was very low and due to the lack of the research methodology I had she had to teach me how to do research from scratch. For me, the process of research supervision was just another way of teaching; I mean, another teaching process. Thank God I could succeed and I am now doing my Master’s degree by distance. But I must confess that most of the effort was my supervisor’s and not mine. I think that all supervisors should be skilled like her. I: Are you suggesting that supervisors need or lack some sort of training? S4: Yes, if I am not asking too much, they need preparation and training. Because we cannot assume that every lecturer is good at supervising students. In other words, not every lecturer is a good supervisor and not every supervisor is a good lecturer. I think that there should be someone responsible for the research supervision practices and some workshops should be organised for supervisors to share ideas and improve their work. Unlike teaching, supervision is individual; and when two individuals meet there are a lot of issues going on, starting from the relationship to the more complex aspects inherent from that relationship. S2: I think that supervisors need to be aware of the different types of students they will encounter in the research supervision field. They cannot expect all the students to be good; and like our colleague said, his supervisor had to teach him how to do research. Perhaps in that training one of the issues to be discussed would be how to go about supervising students whose level of knowledge is low in relation to other students. Because we have heard stories of lecturers saying to students that they should forget about writing their dissertations because they are very weak. I: What do you think about the resources in the library? Are they helpful?

334

Appendices

S1: There are some good materials in the library and I used to go there quite often. I know that some students wait until lecturers have given them work in order to go to the library. In my case I like reading, reading for information, and I never waited for the lecturers to send me to the library. Of course we cannot confine ourselves to the ISCED library, we need to go and visit some other libraries in town should there be permission for that. S2: I also used to go to the library when I was studying and some of the books there were useful for me. Now the problem is that, as most of the lecturers don’t set up tasks that require students to go and research in the library, they don’t go there; and when the time for writing that dissertation arrives they start panicking because they have no idea how to consult books and take notes from them. For example, the Ministry of Education has a good library where you can sit and concentrate on your studies; but most students from ISCED don’t go there. S4: Yes, there are many good libraries in Luanda. For example, I used to go to the Portuguese school’s library and borrow books from there. They even had books written in English. Unfortunately, the library is now closed to outsiders because apparently many people used to go there and borrow books, and never returned them. I: Talking about the library, what do you think about the computer room? S2: Well I think the computer room is only for students who belong to the Exact Sciences department. For example, my class has never been there and one day I went there to see if I could do some work and they refused me entry. Therefore, we need a computer room for students. S1: In my case for example I am lucky because I have my own laptop but most of our colleagues don’t; and we all know that if someone doesn’t have computer skills, and no personal computer, it will be difficult to write the dissertation. ISCED Direction needs to wake up and see what is happening in other universities in the continent, not to mention Europe, otherwise they will say Europe is another world. You cannot expect us to finish our dissertations on time if you do not provide us with the necessary tools that we need to go through this process. For example people say that Namibia is a poor country compared to Angola, but if you visit their University you will be astonished. Everything is in place and students have a “study centre” or whatever they call it. Here we don’t have a quiet place to stay and study; even for meeting our supervisors there is no place available; and then you call it a Faculty! S3: I agree with my colleague because we are studying under difficult conditions. We don’t have a well-equipped library to start with, and we don’t have a computer lab with internet and all that stuff. We are separated from the world. Even our lecturers, some of them cannot manipulate a computer and they do not have an electronic address, I mean e-mail. So if lecturers do not have enough resources available for them what about students? In my own opinion, the top people should travel around the world (because there is money for that) and see how other countries are organised in terms of educational investment. A country can only develop if people are literate and well trained in all the areas; the development of a country depends on academic qualification of the people.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

335

S4: I must say that we are not here to criticise only. Things have changed, and they have changed for the better. For example, in 2002 there was no computer room, the library had a few books, and most of them were old ones, and we didn’t have the research methodology subject. Therefore, these are signs of development; I am not a politician, and because I spent eight years at ISCED doing my course I could perhaps be the most pessimistic person in this group. We need to understand that if ISCED is still here using these poor infrastructures it is not because the Director is “blind” and cannot see. There are people above him. I know that he is struggling to find a bigger and better place for us but it has been quite difficult. S3: Yes, for example I know that the General Director is giving a budget to the departments to buy bibliographies every year. This is a very good idea; and English and French specialities have already bought their first bibliographies. Perhaps the problem will be the place to store and control them but this issue should be sorted out internally, within the departments. I: Changing the topic again. In which skill did you have more problems in writing your dissertation, in reading or writing? S4: I had problems in both reading and writing but more in writing; because when you know what you want to say you can write it down (although not so clearly), and then the supervisor can ask you questions to find out what you want to say. S1: For me I had more problems in writing and the writing skill has been difficult right from primary school when teachers used to ask us to write compositions. I just felt I didn’t know how to start and how to finish my compositions. S2: I don’t really know in which skill I had more difficulties because they are like twins, you cannot separate them; before writing you need to write and for you to write well you need to conform with the standards of academic writing, which in turn are acquired through the reading of academic standard texts. It goes like that joke about the hen and the egg; who came first? S3: Perhaps we should assume that we have or had problems in both skills because over the coursework we were rarely asked to read and write long pieces of work. But at this level we cannot wait for lecturers to tell us what to do all the time. So, I think that writing is only difficult because we do not have the habit of reading, reading extensively and intensively as we learnt from the teaching methodology classes. I: Some lecturers are of the opinion that the research report should be taken out of the course. Do you agree them? S3: Whose decision is that? I do not agree because in our specific case this dissertation is like a passport for students who want to go abroad and continue their studies. In the case of English, for instance, we have had many students who went to the UK to do their Master’s degrees, and they did it successfully. An example is two “colleagues” who are now working in the department as lecturers. Therefore, I do not agree with this idea; on the contrary, things must be improved so that our quality can be compared to the quality of other universities in Africa or even in Europe.

336

Appendices

S1: I personally think that the dissertation makes a big difference in our lives. After defending and being awarded the Honours diploma you feel like you are another person within the society; even people at home, colleagues and friends tend to respect you more because they know you are now a novice researcher. Therefore, the dissertation must be kept as the final paper, the closing document of the course. S4: To tell you the truth, the amount of knowledge I got from that experience cannot be compared to the four years of coursework (in my case almost seven). I learnt a lot during the process of writing my dissertation. As I told you, I had the chance of having a good supervisor who had to teach me almost everything. What really needs to be done is to improve the quality of teaching and then the quality of supervision. Most of us have been complaining about the methodology used by some lecturers, which is not the most appropriate; most of my colleagues are still struggling with their dissertations because of the bad relationship between them and their supervisors; the supervisors think that they should never have been at ISCED and that there is no way they can complete their dissertations. I do not want to generalise, but I think we have similar problems in other departments. S2: Yes, problems are similar and in our department they are even worse; in order for you to complete your dissertation sometimes you need to pay a certain amount to the supervisor depending on your level of difficulty. It didn’t happen to me but I know some cases very well. S4: Adding to what my colleagues said, I do not understand why there is so much disparity between courses in terms of the curriculum. The thing is, we are all being trained as teachers, but with the exception of teaching methodology and teaching practice the other subjects are different. Even within the same department, you can find different disciplines for each course. For example, all the courses should have Academic Reading and Writing. These two subjects are very important for the writing of the dissertation. I: Before we finish our interview, please feel free to add whatever you feel is important. S3: I'd like to thank you for choosing us to participate in your study. I think that your topic is very hot because I am sure it will make some lecturers “lose their business” and they will see you as an “enemy.” But don’t give up, go ahead, because the results of the study will certainly help change and improve not only the dissertation writing, but perhaps the whole teaching system at ISCED. I trust you! S1: I would like to say that we will be waiting for the results and for a copy of your book. Do not forget to give us a copy. S4: I hope that one day you will become the Director of this institution, because you have vision, you have good intentions in mind and you want to resolve our problems; how many teachers are studying abroad, and what are their topics? S2: I wish you good luck! I: Let's close our interview. I really appreciate your availability and the contributions you gave me.

END OF INTERVIEW

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

337

Appendix X. Type 2 Students’ Interview transcripts Interview transcript with type 2 students (who are currently writing their research reports) Date: 20/09/2012 I: Good morning everyone. Thank you for accepting to participate in this group interview. I hope you will give useful information for the present study. To begin, I will ask you the following question: How many years did it take you to complete the course? ST1: It took me five years and I never had subjects delayed. I started in 2002, then I stopped for one year due to some family problems and now, after three years, I am writing my dissertation. I: Why are you writing your dissertation only now, I mean, after three years? ST1: Because I found a job that didn’t allow me to study and I was out of Luanda. I: Ok what about the others? ST2: Well, I did my course in six years; I failed in two subjects in year 2 and another one in year 4. Because the subjects in year 2 were core subjects I had to repeat them and I could not move to the following year. So I started in 2000 and finished in 2006. Then I got a job in an oil company and as I was very busy I didn’t start writing; I also got married and you know it was only last year when I came back to write my dissertation and I think I will defend at the beginning of next year. ST3: I completed the four years of coursework with no problems. I started in 2003 and finished in 2007. I started writing my dissertation with Dr Adao but as we hardly met I lost motivation and gave up. After three years I came back and I am now writing with another supervisor, Dr Kuntondi. I am quite happy now but you know Celly after so many years out of school it is a bit difficult to tune in. But I will get there. ST4: Well the course took me eight years to complete, from 2002 to 2010, and I am now in the process of writing my dissertation. I intend to defend it next year, hopefully. I have a good supervisor. I: Do you think that the four years of coursework are sufficient to prepare students for the writing of the dissertation? ST1: I don’t think so, because the way we are taught by some teachers we do not learn too much; on the other side we have so many social and economic problems that we are just trying to survive. But all depends on how much effort we make to succeed. We cannot just wait for the teachers to tell us what to do. ST2: I think that the four years are enough to prepare us for the dissertation. However, the way teachers are teaching doesn’t help students to seriously engage in the process of learning. Some teachers do not prepare their lessons. They just get into the class to justify the salary. If teachers teach us seriously in all the subjects the course will prepare us for dissertation writing.

338

Appendices

ST3: I personally agree with what my colleague said—four years are enough provided that teachers work hard with us. The thing is that the four years are so easy and then writing the dissertation is so difficult. You feel like you didn’t learn anything in your life and that you were just going to school for the sake of going … if I can say that. We used to memorise things in order to pass. ST4: In my case, the four years of coursework didn’t prepare me for the writing of the dissertation. First of all I did not have the research methodology subject as my colleagues had; second, I failed or I had to repeat some subjects in year 2 and 4. This made me lose motivation. I didn’t fail because I was a weak student but because the teacher did not like me. Then I had to stop for two years because of some family problems. So altogether the course for me was too long and it did not prepare me for the dissertation phase. ST2: I just want to add something else. I think that all the teachers should make an effort to contribute to the production of the dissertations. I think that some teachers think they only have responsibility in the classroom, but not to supervise. There are teachers who ask students to write the whole dissertation and bring it finished to them. It happened to my cousin in the sciences course. In other words, what we do in the course and the tests we do are not enough to prepare us for the dissertation. I: So you seem to be bringing in another theme. What do you think about the assessment procedures during the course? ST3: The way that we are tested is not the most adequate, at least during my time of study; like I said before, we used to memorise the content of the subjects in order to get high marks. The written test that the lecturers gave us consisted of direct questions that required short answers, so we had to memorise if we wanted to get positive marks and some students, those who were lazy, they used to cheat because the answers were so short and looking at one another’s test was so easy to get the answer. I: What do you mean by direct questions? ST3: By direct questions I mean those questions that have only one right question. Either you answer it as it is asking, or you fail to get it right. But I was good at memorising so I didn’t have so many problems. ST1: I think that rather than giving us that type of test teachers should give us complete forms of written work to do at home or in the library so that no one can cheat. Working individually and using the skills of reading, writing, and thinking in practice are things we were not asked for during the coursework. ST3: Yes, I agree with you because writing a dissertation is like deciding things by yourself. You are no longer attending classes and meeting on a timetabled schedule whatsoever. You are working on your own and this is difficult because during coursework even the tasks you are asked to do are the same for the whole class; but now you must find a topic and the topic must be relevant and acceptable … it is totally different. On top of that you may have a poor supervisor. I: What do you mean by poor supervisor? S3: A poor supervisor is someone who lacks the skill of supervision, who knows too little for himself and who is not interested in helping the student.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

339

ST4: For me, I think that what teachers do not want is too much work. I am sure they know all about what we are saying, but they do not have time to correct individual work, long essays or book reviews. This is the reason why the tests they design are always easy and fast to correct. Because they are busy working in more than two institutions, they are more concerned with gaining a lot of money than doing their job properly. I: Let us now move on to research supervision—what problems are you facing in your supervision practice? ST1: I have a good and bad supervisor. Good because he knows about the content of my topic and he has a very good relationship with me. However, it has been very difficult to meet him. Whenever we make an appointment there is always a problem with him and we have to postpone the meeting a day or some hours before. Availability from the supervisor’s side is my big problem. ST3: To tell you the truth, I don’t have any problems. I have a good supervisor who is always available and ready to help me. Usually we meet at ISCED. S2: Well I don’t have problems with my supervisor but I had problems over the course. Going back to what we said about assessment, I was never satisfied with the marks I did get in most of the written tests. The thing is that teachers take a long time to correct our tests, and when they bring them they just come up with the final mark but you never know where you did right and where you did wrong. And if you ask for clarification you will get in trouble. ST4: In my own case I have a good supervisor, and I don’t face any major problems like I did when I was doing the course. I must confess that perhaps my supervisor has more problems in supervising me because after so many years of coursework my level of motivation is very low. But I am trying to do my best to get there and not make my supervisor feel down about me. I: Let us change the topic a little bit. What about the materials in the library? ST1: Compared to some years ago, there are some good books in the library now. And I go there quite often. I know that some students only go to the library when there is a need to do so; In my case, for instance, I like reading for information, and I never wait for the teachers to send me to the library. I not only go to ISCED’s library but to other libraries in town. ST2: I also used to go to the library when I was studying and some of the books there were useful for me. I also like visiting other libraries in town. For example, the Ministry of Education has a good library where you can sit and concentrate on your studies; but most students from ISCED don’t go there. ST3: Yes, there are good libraries in Luanda. For example, I used to go to the library at the Institute of Languages and borrow books from there. They even had books written in English. I: Talking about the library, what do you think about the computer room? ST2: Well I think the computer room is only for students who are doing maths. I tried to go there and work on the computer but they told me that the computer room was only for math’s students. ST1: Yes the same happened to me. So in order for you to sort out the problem you must have your own laptop. Fortunately, internet access is much better and you can access the internet anywhere within the ISCED area.

340

Appendices

ST3: What I would like to say is, first, the ISCED premises are not appropriate for the type of students being trained. Second the type of facilities offered need to be improved, especially the library and the computer lab. We don’t have enough space … small rooms … like we are studying at primary school level. However, we must recognise that some improvement has taken place and it’s still in progress. ST4: I agree with my colleague because we are studying under difficult conditions. We don’t have a well-equipped library, I mean the main library, and we don’t have a computer lab for all the students. But we must recognise that we have good teachers now and they are engaged in PhD degrees. In two years’ time our department will be the number one at ISCED. And I am sure the quality of teaching and supervising will also improve. This is my own opinion. I: Changing the topic again, in which skill do you think you have more problems in writing your dissertation: reading or writing? ST4: I have problems in both reading and writing but more in writing; when I pick up books I understand them as I read them but then I cannot write down what I have read. ST1: For me, I have more problems in writing, and the writing skill has been difficult for me right from the beginning of the course. ST2: I don’t really know in which skill I have most difficulties. Reading academic texts requires time and concentration and also writing. I think I have problems in both skills because they go together. ST4: Perhaps I should say that I have had problems in both skills, because over the coursework we were rarely asked to read and write long pieces of work; but we cannot wait for the teachers to tell us when to read or write. As a devoted student, I always have a book to read. But most of the time I just read, and I never write about what I read unless I am asked to do so by a teacher. I: Some lecturers are of the opinion that the research report should be taken out of the course. Do you agree? ST3: I do not agree because in our specific case this dissertation is like a passport for students who want to go abroad and continue their studies. ST1: I personally think that the dissertation makes a big difference in our lives, and being awarded a diploma without writing this paper would be meaningless. ST4: To tell you the truth, although I am struggling to get it done, I do not agree that it should be suppressed from the course. Perhaps we learn more in writing the dissertation than attending the whole course. ST2: Yes, no matter what problems we face, the dissertation is something that students need to experience. I: Before we finish our interview, please feel free to add whatever you feel is important. ST3: I'd like to thank you for choosing us to participate in your study. ST1: I would like to say that we will be waiting for the results of your study and see the changes that will be put in practice. We need this type of study that deals with real and local problems. ST4: I hope that you succeed in your research and bring about some changes, not just for ISCED Luanda, but also to other ISCEDs and Higher Institutions. Good luck Celly.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

341

I: Thank you. I also wish you Good luck. ST2: Good luck! I: Let's close our interview. I really appreciated your willingness to provide me information. Thanks for your contribution.

END OF INTERVIEW

342

Appendices

Appendix W. Type 3 Students’ Interview transcripts Interview transcript with Type 3 students (who have not succeeded in writing their research reports) Date: 13/09/2012 I: Good morning everyone. Thank you for having accepted to participate in this group interview, and I hope that you will give the maximum contribution to this study. My first question would be—How many years did you take to complete the coursework? STU1: It took me five years and I never had subjects delayed. I finished in 2008. STU2: I started in 1999, and in 2003 I finished my coursework. STU3: For me it took six years to finish the coursework because I had some family problems. I finished in 2002. STU4: I also completed the four years of coursework with no problems. I started in 1995 and finished in 1999. I could not write my dissertation because of my work; I did not have time and I think I lost motivation. I also got married and things got more complicated. I: So you mean that you do not want to write your dissertation? STU4: No, I want to write it and finish it. I know that things have changed a lot and I am working on my research proposal, but I have some problems because of the long period without studying. STU3: Well the course took me six years to complete, and although it has been almost ten years since I finished my coursework I am now writing and I am quite happy. I: Do you think that the four years of coursework are sufficient to prepare students for the writing of the dissertation? STU1: I don’t think so, because in the first and fourth year we have a subject called research methodology, and this subject is very helpful, but the teacher was not so good. The academic writing and reading subjects are also good, but I think teachers need to give us more work to do. I mean more practice. STU2: I also had Academic Reading and Writing but they were not so helpful. The problem, Celly, is that in the past some teachers were not as serious as they seem to be today, but this is my personal opinion, also with the internet and all those things the situation has changed and the department is better organised now. I think the only problem is the way subjects are taught; our lecturers did not give us activities to practice; even in the other subjects, lecturers hardly set up activities that required students to put their knowledge, the knowledge they have acquired from the course, into practice. STU3: I personally agree with what my colleagues said. I also had the opportunity to attend the Academic Reading and Writing subjects but they were quite theoretical. What students need is to practice, to be prepared for dissertation writing, and some teachers just forget about this. Therefore, I do not think that the course work prepared me for writing the dissertation. What happened in almost all

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

343

the subjects in the course is that we used to memorise what was taught in order to succeed in the written tests. Writing a dissertation only came into my mind at the end of coursework. During the course, I only tried to get positive marks in the tests, but I never cheated. So, I thought things were going to be as easy as in the coursework, but unfortunately they weren’t. STU4: In my case, I can say that the four years of coursework didn’t prepare me for the writing of the dissertation. First of all, although I had good teachers and the subjects that would prepare me for dissertation writing, I think that I was lazy and I just tried to get positive mark to make me pass and not fail. You know, Celly, the problem is that when you are studying you are just thinking about the results from the tests you are doing. Dissertation writing is something you never thought about and all of a sudden you have to write it and you are not ready yet because the course was so theoretical and teachers never remind you about that. For example, I heard that students are now writing their research proposals in year 4. This is good because it means something to dissertation writing. Well, in the past we had more problems and teachers did not care about students; even feedback from the tests was not given, and students were afraid of approaching some teachers, especially the ones who were famous of making students fail. This is my own opinion. I: So you seem to be bringing in another issue. What do you think about the assessment procedures? STU3: The way teachers used to assess us, I think it wasn’t the most appropriate one; like I said before, we used to memorise the content of the subjects in order to get high marks, because the written tests that teachers gave us consisted of questions that required you to memorise the content. So we had to memorise if we wanted to get positive marks and some students, those who were lazy, they used to cheat because the answers were quite short. STU2: In my case, for example, I had a problem once because the way I answered the questions was not the way the teacher wanted; as a result I got a lower mark. But the teacher admitted that my answers were right. As there was no feedback, I don’t know how satisfactory my answers were. STU1: I think that rather than giving us that type of tests, lecturers should give us complete forms of written work to do at home or in the library so that no one can cheat and students can get used to working individually and employing the skills of reading, writing, and thinking in practice. But tests are also necessary to check students’ progress. STU3: Yes, I agree with you, because if you get a negative mark in a test you don’t know where exactly you failed. You just know the mark the teacher gave you; some teachers don’t even give our tests back. They say they will need them in future, I don’t know what for … Therefore, I think that feedback is needed especially for students to see whether the teacher is being fair or unfair to students. STU4: For me, I think that because our classrooms at ISCED are big, and lecturers are working at more than two faculties, what they do is avoid too much work. I am sure they all know essays and assignments, but they want to make their lives easier by setting up tests which are easy and fast to correct. I: Let us now move on to the library resources. What is your opinion about the resources in the library?

344

Appendices

STU1: I think they are more diverse than in the past. STU3: To tell you the truth, things have changed a lot. We have books in the main library and the small library from the department. We cannot complain about lack of materials now. STU2: Well, as my colleague said, there is lot of improvement. There are plenty of books in the three libraries; perhaps what teachers need to do is to set up activities for students to go to the library and read books and learn how to find a book and write references … you know, Celly, there is a lot to do because we all come from different learning contexts and institutions. STU4: I totally agree with my colleague, and the teachers who supervise old students need to take into account that they lack knowledge in some subjects, and also that they need some extra support. I: What do you mean by old students and what kind of support do they need? STU4: By old students I mean those who, just like me, finished their coursework some years ago and therefore need to be tuned in, if I can say that; you know, it’s like starting from the beginning again, Celly. We really need extra support. I: In which skill do you think you need more support? Reading or writing? STU4: I have problems in both reading and writing, but more in writing; because even in Portuguese I feel that I have many problems in writing. STU1: For me I have more problems in writing, and the writing skill has been difficult for me since primary level. You know, Celly, writing is different from reading because in reading you just read and try to understand, but in writing people need to understand what you wrote. STU2: I don’t really know in which skill I have more difficulties because you cannot separate them. However, academically speaking I would say I need to improve my writing skills. STU3: To me this is a difficult question to answer, because throughout the course we never did real Academic Reading and Writing. Perhaps we should assume that we have problems in both skills. And these skills are the most relevant for writing our dissertations. I: Some lecturers are of the opinion that the research report should be taken out of the course. Do you agree? STU3: Although I am struggling to write it I think people cannot take it out of the programme. STU1: I personally think that writing the dissertation helps you check how good you are academically speaking. I respect my colleagues saying you could succeed within a short time, and I think I will get there this time and feel the same as they did. The four years of coursework do not tell us how good we were or are. I know that in some courses students don’t write dissertations, but they still write something based on real practice, like in medicine courses. STU4: In my own opinion, if someone wants to get the honours degree then that person needs to reach the end, and the end is producing that piece of paper. STU2: Yes, we know that there are large numbers of students struggling with their dissertations, but we need to fight hard to get there. The problems are similar and in our department they are even worse …

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

345

I: Before we finish our interview, please feel free to add whatever you feel is important. STU3: I'd like to thank you for choosing us to participate in your study. Please think about students who are out of the system not knowing what to do. We believe you will find a good solution. STU1: I would like to thank you also. Your study is very interesting because you are trying to find a solution that lasts for many years and needs to be minimised. STU4: Celly, I trust you and I know that one day the number of students who did not complete their dissertations will be reduced. STU2: I wish you good luck! I hope that your results will bring significant changes in the institution. I wish you good luck! I: Let's close our interview. I really appreciated your availability and your contribution to the study. See you when I see you.

END OF INTERVIEW

346

Appendices

Appendix Y. General Subject Lecturers (GSLE) Interview Transcripts General Subject Lecturers (GSLE) Interview Transcripts Date: 03/10/12 I: Good morning and thank you for accepting to participate in this study. As you might know the aim of the study is to investigate our students’ lack of success in producing their research reports, the so-called dissertations. I think that we can start our interview. As my first question I would like to know your opinions about the four years of coursework, regarding the curriculum and the general organisation of the course, including the mode of lecturing. To sum I want to know whether the four years of coursework sufficiently prepare students for the production of their research reports. GSLE1: If you look at the content of the curriculum across the four years, you can say yes the course prepares students to the writing of their dissertations; however, the content itself doesn’t prepare students to get the skills they need to write their theses. Therefore, we need to look at the teaching process; I mean the way teachers and students interact in the classroom, the type of activities and tasks students are asked to perform, and also the type of tests they write. You know, it is very productive to stop from time to time and get students to work with each other on something. The curriculum is fine, and teachers are all qualified to teach. What seems to be missing is the right methodology at this level of study. The students’ individual effort and educational background are also very relevant in the process. However, this is another story. It is the academic writing lecturer’s responsibility to teach writing as an academic skill at university. I: What do you mean by students’ educational background, and what influence does it play in the students’ progress? GSLE1: By students’ educational background I mean the type of level they bring when they join ISCED. They come from different institutions with different specialities, except those from INE who were trained to be teachers. GSLE2: I agree with you because our classes are so heterogeneous that sometimes it is difficult to work with a group of students, especially in year 1 when they have to adapt themselves to the new level of education. I think that there is nothing wrong with the content of the curriculum. The curriculum is well organised and it has been revised several times to meet the demands of the course. Subjects such as Introduction to Research Methodology have been added to the curriculum, although I don’t agree that the subject should only be taught in years 1 and 4. I think that there is a big gap in between, and in my opinion the subject should be gradually taught in the four years culminating with the production of the dissertation in year 4, if I am not being too optimistic. GSLE3: Because the level that students bring to the classroom is too low… As a result students wait for the lecturer to say everything because they think lecturers know everything. Sometimes you need to tell them to take notes of the material …

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

347

but I try to stage my lessons, and play the role of a guide in order to help them learn. GSLE5: You know, Celly, teaching is based on a conversation between the lecturer and students; the classroom is a learning community, where all members of the community need to interact among themselves. Students are what lecturers want them to be, all depends on us. GSLE4: For me I suppose I use the traditional teaching method, what some people would consider to be chalk and talk. If you get in the classroom waiting for students to ask questions and come up with ideas about the topic then forget it. It will be the end of the lesson and a waste of time. I: So in your opinion if research methodology is taught in the four years, students can get their dissertations done at the end of year 4. Is this what you mean? GSLE2: To some extent yes, because there are some students who have shown that in six months they can produce their dissertations. Of course, we cannot expect all of them to make the same progress at the same time, but the number of students concluding their work could increase drastically. Just because students have academic writing we cannot fold our arms and assume that students know how to compose an acceptable piece of writing. We could and … should help students to produce academic papers. GSLE3: If we spend time teaching students how to produce a text within the academic requirements, we will not have time to teach the content of our subject. That is the reason why students have specific subjects to teach them how to read, write and do research. Everyone is aware of that … I am sorry, but we shouldn’t feed other peoples’ monkeys. GSLE5: Content subject lecturers have the main responsibility of teaching students how to do things, but this does not prevent other lecturers from helping students improve their academic literacy practices … especially because our students join the institution with very low levels of proficiency. GSLE 4: I think that the assessment procedures are another key factor. If we consider them as a reflection of the teaching practices then we probably need to change some teachers’ assessment practices. The way we test students is very simple and it is easy for them to cheat. Unfortunately, they cannot cheat in writing their dissertation, unless teachers are assessing the product and not the process. GSLE 3: Yes, and we must not forget that most of our students are adults and therefore they work somewhere and have families to support. Most of the time they don’t have enough time to study, to investigate, to spend hours in the library and think. For regular students the situation is different—they have enough time to investigate and spend more time at the university rather than at home. I: What about the library resources? Do you think the library is well equipped to meet the demands of students’ investigations? GSLE5: To some extent yes; the library is well equipped and we also have our own library, and there are plenty of recently written books from 2011 and 2012. The problem is that our students don’t have the habit of reading. They only read when they are asked to do so or when there is an assignment that obliges them to go to the library and pick up books for consultation. Sometimes it is important for

348

Appendices

students to get some preliminary input about what the theory says regarding the topic under study. In that case, the lecturing mode applies. It is also important to have some visuals for students to both see as well as listen. In my classrooms, I use power point slides and I think that this way of teaching encourages students to participate in the class. Of course you cannot expect all the students to perform at the same level of knowledge, but they do participate. GSLE3: Yes, I totally agree with you, that students only read when they are asked to by the teachers. But we cannot blame them because there are also teachers who don’t read. Even when they are given something to do before the lesson they never prepare the material, and when the teacher asks questions about that material they just do not say anything because they did not read and prepare it. Sometimes you find that in a class probably one or two students have read the text and can engage with you, so that is why I say that I mainly use the traditional lecturing mode. I just use PowerPoint slides to guide me with the key points of the discussion and help them take notes. I: So, you seem to agree that the traditional model is the most preferred one. GSLE 3: Basically speaking yes, I think that the mode of lecturing we are mostly using is the traditional one where we transmit the knowledge and ask some questions to check students’ understanding. GSLE4: I agree with you that the mode of lecturing is the traditional one, but this does not mean that we do not know about other teaching methods. There are many things we are not doing, for example going with the students to the library and showing them how to find books on the shelves. GSLE 1: In fact this is true, I agree with you because the library is there, and it has always been there. What needs to be done is to update the materials … they are quite old I think. In that case I think that teachers need to encourage students to go the library and read books for whatever purpose; even if it is for pleasure it will be helpful for them, because most of them come from educational institutions where teaching is very bad; and we need to help them change their minds. They are at university level and not college level, and at university level one of the key learning aspects is doing research of different types. GSLE3: We must remember that one of the problems that the institution is facing is lack of space; there is no space for anything. Classrooms are not big enough, the library is too small, there is no place for students to sit and concentrate on their studies … and on top of that we are enrolling new students year after year. GSLE2: In my opinion what needs to be done is to close the institution for an academic year to wake up decision makers and raise their awareness of the need for a bigger place for this institution, which is training teachers for all educational levels but no one is giving it the place it deserves in the society. I: What about the ICT room? GSLE1: We have a computer room with a few computers there. I don’t know how many, but that room is used for classes for maths students; we have students who are still computer illiterate and who don’t have electronic mail. It is sad to say that but this is our reality. GSLE1: To me, as far as I am concerned there is no computer lab whatsoever at ISCED … what does exist is an ICT classroom for maths students to practice.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

349

GSLE4: We must remember that what we are calling a computer lab is in fact a classroom, but just for a specific group of students … thus, I think that there is a need for setting up a computer lab just as in many universities in Africa, not to mention the world. GSLE2: In fact, that computer room is not being well explored. Even the computer lessons seem not to be administered by trained teachers. I think we are not taking advantage of it. Students have more theory than practice. I think that rather than teaching theory, students need more practice, they need to know about practical things such as how to organise a PowerPoint presentation, how to access books on the internet and so on. Things they will need in producing their dissertations. I: You spoke about the production of dissertations. What do you think about the supervision practices at ISCED? GSLE1: As you know there should be a good relationship between teachers and students. However, this is not always the case. There are situations where the student needs to change supervisor either because of the relationship not being good, or the supervisor not being available or many other aspects implicit from the process. GSLE3: Yes I know a case in another department where the teacher refuses to supervise students because he says no one will pay him for that. GSLE2: There are also some instances where the problem is too much work. There are teachers who work at more than one institution and don’t have time to supervise. GSLE1: But most of the problems are related to the late feedback from most of the teachers at ISCED in all departments, and our department is also part of this. There are even cases when a student needs to be allocated another supervisor because the one they have is not responding. GSLE3: Frankly speaking, what happens is that sometimes students complain about the late feedback from teachers; ok, this is fine; but the opposite is also true; there are students who disappear for a long time and when they come back the teacher doesn’t remember the content of the work; and this is time consuming from the teachers side. I: Let us change the topic a little bit. In which skill do you think students are facing more problems: reading or writing? GSLE5: For me they have more problems in reading; it is the reason why they cannot write. GSLE2: I think they face more problems in writing, I mean writing academically. The thing is that students most of the time have an idea of what they read and they may understand what they read; the problem is how to put those ideas on paper. GSLE3: If students have problems in writing in Portuguese would you imagine writing in a foreign language? I don’t know how Academic Reading and Writing subjects are being addressed to students, but it is my feeling that more practice is needed. GSLE1: Well my opinion is that the subject is being very well taught. The problem is the type of knowledge background students bring to the course and

350

Appendices

their individual efforts to learn. We should not blame teachers at ISCED but teachers from the previous levels, because students have problems in all the skills; they have problems speaking, reading, writing, and listening. We should also blame students who seem to be not interested in progressing in their courses; it seems like they are children and are coming to school by obligation. GSLE4: The main problem is that students join ISCED with a very low level of proficiency in the four language skills, and they find the new learning environment where everyone has to struggle to find his or her own way. In addition to that, general subject lecturers do not worry too much with contributing to other subjects’ knowledge, such as Academic Reading and Writing, and Research Methodology; so how can we expect students to improve if we teachers do not seem to contribute or to promote this improvement? GSLE6: We should not be afraid of saying that after four years of coursework most of the students are still the same as from the first day they entered ISCED. If this is true, what are we doing? GSLE5: I think that the department needs to start assessing lecturers’ who think that most of the problems derive from the lecturers, and that lecturers sometimes do not perform their job properly. GSLE2: I agree with you, and on top of that some workshops and general discussions among teachers should be implemented in order to find possible solutions. I: Do you mean that students enter ISCED with very low level of knowledge? GSLE1: Yes, because all the problems students face at the higher level are due to the shortcomings from the previous level. Students enter ISCED lacking the very basic language skills. As a result, we need to double the efforts to help them reach the desired level. Think about the kind of product we receive at the admission phase and the product we get after the four years of coursework. Perhaps we need to rethink the admission process. I favour an educational policy where all students have the right to study but in order to enter higher education we need to set up a placement test, or whatever you can call it. GSLE4: The starting point of the students is very important. What a lecturer is able to achieve depends very much on the students that s/he gets. In most of the classrooms, students have incredible difficulties in reading and writing; they hardly ask questions in the class, they never ask for clarification, and they believe that they must be told everything. They also lack initiative and with this kind of student it is quite difficult to move a step ahead. GSLE2: In fact, the students’ level when they enter ISCED is very critical, we must admit; however, we cannot admit that after four years of coursework students still make the same mistakes. There might be something wrong with the teaching at ISCED. If you pick up some finished dissertations you will see that students still make basic mistakes such as verb tense use, bad punctuation, wrong adjectives use, and lack of cohesion in sentence and paragraph construction and so on. I: So what should be done to help minimise these problems? GSLE2: This requires a joint effort from primary and secondary schools together with the university. The government also has a decisive role to play in finding solutions to the problems. On the other hand, the government should

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

351

provide good working conditions for both teachers and students and offer opportunities for in-service training at all levels, as well as invest in books and other materials. GSLE5: I totally agree with you, and in the specific case of research supervision there should be an in-service training course for supervisors, because supervising is teaching at a higher level of abstraction. GSLE4: I just want to add something to what has been said. ISCED is functioning on premises that look like primary-level premises. We cannot expect students to do proper research at a place where there are no favourable conditions to work. Teachers and students come to ISCED everyday for the single purpose of teaching and learning. We don’t have a reading room where silence is the first prerequisite. Students don’t have a place to sit and concentrate on their studies. If you go to neighbouring countries you will see how organised they are. They have huge libraries, huge study rooms, where you go to in the morning and forget the world outside. I think we need to rethink ISCED and set up proper working conditions if we really want to think about research and investigation and place ourselves among the best universities in Africa. I: Do you agree with the abolition of the dissertations as the final assessment? GSLE2: Abolish them? How come? In order for us to abolish the dissertation we need to find something to replace it. In fact, most of the dissertations produced here are of low quality. But I don’t agree we should take it off the curriculum; on the contrary, we must keep it and increase the level it demands. GSLE5: Well I would suggest some changes instead of abolishing it. I think that the way the curriculum is designed is ok, and asking students to write their dissertations is normal. The problem seems to be embedded in the system, the way we teach, the way we test our students, the way we supervise them … who are the supervisors, how committed are they, what kind of knowledge do they have, how much experience do they have? Because there are students who succeed in their studies abroad (in England) and did very well in their Master’s degrees. Therefore, we need to improve the quality of the product and not suppress it. GSLE3: I totally agree with you because this is the first time the student is asked to work independently. Therefore, we need to improve what we do and not make things worse. However, one of the problems I am facing is that students seem to not have time to concentrate on their work. You see them once and then they disappear. GSLE4: The problem is that most of the time students do not have difficulties in writing, but in finding time and concentration to write. I: I think we are almost at the end of our interview. Just one more question: What can we do to increase the number of students finishing their studies? GSLE2: I think we should rethink the curriculum and teach research methodology in years 2, 3, and 4, in such a way that at the end of year 4 students will have their work finished, or almost finished. By doing so, problems with anxiety, stress, and pressure will be reduced, and the 5th year will just be for the final corrections and submission of the dissertation. GSLE1: I think that’s a good idea. The curriculum also needs to be revisited and lecturers who are teaching the content subjects should be more demanding and

352

Appendices

responsible for the subjects they teach, because we need to admit that some lecturers are of the type of “laissez-faire, laissez passé,” and sometimes students are not the only ones who should be blamed. GSLE3: Yes it would be a good idea. In fact, that would allow students to not see the dissertation as another stage in their studies but as a component of the same system. GSLE5: However, I think that we cannot expect all the 45 students to succeed in the same final year, but we need to look at ways of reversing the numbers by getting the failure numbers to become passing ones. GSLE2:Yes, and I think that if lecturers continue doing the students’ job for personal or economic reasons, it will be a big mistake; we will send to the market individuals who are not prepared to perform their jobs properly. GSLE4: Students are most of the time so stubborn that you ask them to make corrections and when they bring the updated version the text is exactly the same. I think that we would need to raise all teachers’ awareness to contribute to the writing of the dissertation in their subjects. They should see writing the dissertation as part of their teaching too, not just the Academic Reading and Writing and the Research Methodology teachers. But I must confess that students are most of the time so stubborn that you ask them to make corrections and when they bring the updated version the text is exactly the same thing. GSLE5: In fact that is true—students are very lazy and as soon as you ask them to correct things they feel like it will be hard work and then they try to change supervisors or they just give up. GSLE3: But we are not talking about ourselves. We also have some responsibility for what students do. I think that there is a need for lecturers to work together and not see their subjects as single subjects that have nothing to do with other subjects. All subjects are important and should contribute to the training of the students for this final assessment, which is research report writing. GSLE4: The main problem is lack of research practices and lack of reading habits associated with academic writing. Students can hardly write, they can hardly find arguments and provide counter arguments, and they do not know how to structure a research proposal, let alone the research report. So in my opinion, most of the difficulties faced in supervision practices are due to students’ lack of knowledge on how to do things and some teachers are not good supervisors. I have had students approaching me to help them; supervision is complex, the way you provide feedback, the way you talk to the student, your motivation to supervise, and so on and so on. Training, any type of training, whether in the area of medicine, education, or law requires first of all qualified trainers, and we need to think carefully about our position and responsibility in this process. Therefore, students need to be gradually introduced to the type of assessment they will encounter at the end of coursework. The research report writing should be viewed as an extension of the teaching learning process based on the assessment procedures throughout the course. I: Talking about assessment procedures. What do you think about the traditional tests which are still being used by some of our colleagues compared to other ways of assessing students such as book reviews, essays, or assignments?

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

353

GSLE1: Traditional tests are and will always be useful. Although all the procedures are important the individual test is the one that gives the real picture of the students’ level of performance. But it depends on the teacher to decide what to do. GSLE4: Yes, the teacher’s creativity is also a key factor in the classroom. For example, group discussion is also a very useful assessment tool in that it helps teachers get to know their students better and their level of participation in the class, and it encourages shy students to speak and contribute to the lesson. Apart from that, and according to my own experience, it is very helpful to sometimes ask students to write on something and then ask them to present and discuss what they have written with colleagues in the class. When students discuss topics they are likely to learn them better and be evaluated without realising it. GSLE3: But sometimes asking students to work in groups does not help so much, most of the time it is only one or two members of the group who do the whole work, but in the end the mark is attributed to the whole group, which is not fair. GSLE4: To resolve this problem what I usually do is, on the day of presentation, each member of the group has to say something and the individual presentation is also assessed by the lecturer. So, what she does is to allocate a mark for the written work, which is the same for all students in the group, and an individual mark for the oral presentation, and then she works out the average mark; students end up with different marks. GSLE3: But we cannot trust students because most of the time they ask someone to write it for them to get a high mark. GSLE4: If we take assignment writing as a process whereby students will need guidance and support from the lecturer, if they present it orally to the class, then you should not doubt their competence to write it. GSLE1: You know, Celly, I think that due to all the mentioned constraints, the traditional kind of assessment is still the best one. I: What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the traditional test prepares students for the writing of the research reports? GSLE1: No it doesn’t! Of course not. The research report writing is different from writing a test. However, I think that writing a test helps check whether students have achieved the content of the subject or not. The research methodology teacher is the one who is responsible for research report writing. GSLE4: In my opinion, if all teachers thought that their subjects were going to contribute to research report writing, then the teaching learning process would have been different, and so would the assessment procedures. What I think is that there is a need for the department to set up a meeting and discuss new ways of engaging students in all the subjects in a way that will equip them, automatically, with the skills they need to perform this high level skill, which is research report writing. The problem is that neither teachers nor students have ever thought about the research report before completing coursework. But we are all highly qualified academics. In my own case, for example, I assess my students through developmental portfolios and I think that portfolio assignments help improve students’ writing skills and make students’ reflect and check their own progress.

354

Appendices

I: What should be done to improve the supervisory processes then? GSLE1: First of all, we need to improve the teaching of the content subjects that are expected to equip students with the tools they need to produce their research reports. Second, we cannot wait for the end of coursework to ask students to write their research reports, in any subject they are teaching. Lecturers can help students detect problems and see if they are researchable or not, and if they are students can start thinking about them. GSLE4: I do not know why they should wait for content subject lecturers only to resolve the problem. In fact, I agree with you because I have helped many students with regard to finding a possible topic or problem. It does not take so much time; it happens unconsciously as you teach them and discuss things in the class. You see, Celly, one of the best ways to help students find something to work on is from the assignments you set up. You always select the best and encourage them to continue investigating what they have done. I: Before we finish can I ask you if there is anything else you would like to say? GSLE2: Well, I think everything has been covered. GSLE3: Yes, I think that the debate was good and covered most of the issues related to the topic. GSLE5: In my opinion, rather than admitting students from other schools we should give priority to students from the teacher training colleges who at least have some experience in teaching, and therefore will be more or less familiar with the teaching learning practices at our institution. I would like to say that this topic is very interesting. I personally can’t wait to see the results of the study. Thank you very much. I: I am the one who should thank you. Thank you for your collaboration and time spent with me.

END OF INTERVIEW

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

355

Appendix Z. Content Subject Lecturers (CSL) Interview Transcripts Content Subjects Lecturers (CSL) Interview Transcripts Date: 10/10/12 I: Good morning everyone and thank you for accepting to participate in this study. As you might know the aim of my study is to investigate our students’ lack of success in producing their research reports, the so-called dissertations. The number of students concluding their research reports is not yet satisfactory. I think that we can start our interview with a reflection on the lecture delivery mode. Do you think that the traditional mode of lecturing is contributing to students’ ability to write their research reports? To put it another way, which mode of lecturing do you use most and why? CSL7: The type of students I am with cannot be expected to react positively to what I say in class. Even when I ask them questions they are apparently shy to respond and this makes my life difficult. I think most of us are facing this problem and therefore you need to transmit the knowledge first and then ask them questions about the material taught. I am aware of the different approaches to teaching writing, but unless you provide students with some input first you won’t be able to teach them. CSL9: Well, what I usually use to sort out this problem is a combination between the traditional approaches to teaching and the more interactive lessons based on discussion and exchange of ideas. CSL10: For me, my subject requires a teaching process whereby after transmission one needs to get students practising what they have learnt. But this is not as easy as it sounds. Most of the time, students just can’t cope with the exercises either because they were absent in the previous lesson or because they didn’t understand the material. And as our colleague said, they do not have the initiative of asking questions of the teacher. CSL8: Well for me things are a bit different because I am using the traditional, one-way transmission approach as the main method of teaching, together with some group discussion and practical exercises to apply theory into practice. But I must tell you that this is very difficult to do because of the students’ level of participation. I: What do you think about the library resources, and how adequate are they in preparing students to write their research reports? CSL8: The library has some good books but there is something missing. What is really missing are good librarians to support students when they are there. But I still think that the most important thing that needs to be done is to ask students to go to the library. Practice makes perfect, as someone said; and students’ constant frequency in the library will help them find their own way out, with or without the support of the librarians. CSL10: I agree with you all when you say that the library has some good books. I also agree when you say that there is something missing—good librarians

356

Appendices

to support students when they are there. But asking students to go to the library alone does not teach them how to approach and find bibliographies. Students need to be accompanied to the library and they also need to be shown how to go about finding a book. I think that there is nothing wrong with the library and the resources there, but students must have a purpose. I also think that what is needed is more space and appropriate conditions for teachers and students to work. CSL8: Actually, you are right; lecturers sometimes want to accompany students to the library and teach them how to locate materials in it, but when they get there the room is full. CSL7: I agree with everything you said, but we must not forget that unfortunately everything seems to be “abnormal” at ISCED. The infrastructure is too small, the working conditions are poor, and I do not feel comfortable sitting in that library. Even the furniture is uncomfortable, but the books are there and students can go and sit for some reading or borrow them and take them home. CSL9: In fact, the library is too small and there is no space for us to work with students or even for more books to be placed on the shelves, I mean the new books that could be bought. CSL10: Frankly speaking, I think that when it comes to research there are not new or old books—all books are valid and they have some important information. To me, what is needed is a bigger place for the institution to work peacefully. We need to take into account that when ISCED courses started the mission of the institution was just to cater for in-service teacher training courses. These premises are not ours, they belong to the intermediate school next to us. Therefore, I think it is time we moved out of these premises. CSL8: Celly, can I just say something? Rather than criticising what we have I think we should start thinking about how to make use of it. Provided that students have time to go and sit in the library with the support of the librarians to find what has been recommended by teachers, the library is adequate for those purposes. CSL9 and CSL7: Yes. I: Now that we are talking about the library let us move to the issue of the computer lab. What do you think about it? CSL8: Celly, the computer lab does not exist as such; even for maths students who are supposed to use it, it does not exist. What we have is a small classroom with some computers inside. CSL10: I do not know what you mean by computer lab, Celly. As far as I am concerned there is a classroom that was set up as an ICT classroom for maths students who have ICT as one of the core subjects. The ICT people, I mean teachers, who are in charge of the computer room lack training, the computers need maintenance, and there are just a few computers, perhaps less than half a classroom. CSL7: I think that, just as with the existing library, the institution needs to put in place certain conditions in order to establish a proper computer lab and find trained people to work there. But I know that the Director of the institution is implementing efforts to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, our local governors do not see the role of ISCED within the Angolan society.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

357

I: Moving to research report writing, I want to ask you the following questions: In your opinion why do students fail to write their research reports? What can be done to help them complete their research reports on time? CSL9: Generally speaking, there are many factors contributing to that problem: x x x x

First, the four years of coursework are not sufficient to prepare them to write the research reports. Second, lecturers take the easiest way to teach and assess students and students don’t make any effort to study and get a pass mark. Third, research supervision has many problems that need to be discussed in a workshop. Finally, students are very lazy.

I: what do you mean by students being lazy? CSL9: I mean that they are not devoted students; apparently, the only time they make any mental effort in their studies is when they are at ISCED in the classroom. They are lazy because they find the tests easy to complete and sometimes easy to cheat on. This is my own opinion. CSL10: I do not know what problem our students have. Just to give you an example, sometimes you set up a homework for them and you give them a deadline; when the handing-in day comes they come up with funny excuses, such as I don’t have a computer or personal computer at home or I did not have electricity for the past few days. So, I am facing serious problems with the subject I am teaching because after a whole year students cannot produce their research proposals, and the teacher is the only one blamed. No one understands what is happening. For me, the problem does not lie with the teacher but with the students who come from educational institutions where everything was easy and where they succeeded without learning anything. And now the problem is the lecturer who is in charge of the research methodology course … well this is very serious and I think I am going to stop teaching this subject next year. CSL7: No one should be blamed for the fact that students cannot produce their thesis after completion of their studies. What people need to do is to look at the entire system and see where the problem actually lies. We need to rethink the entry exam policy and procedures and who the students that we are receiving are, because what is happening at ISCED is that after trying to find a place at other institutions, students get a place here. So ISCED is the last but not only institution that students look for in order to continue their studies. CSL10: Unfortunately, the educational policy in our country favours the inclusion of all individuals in the system independent of their educational background or the marks they get in the entry or admission exam. I: So do you think that the research report should be kept as the final assessment for students to get the degree? CSL9: Yes, writing the research report is a very good experience that students need to go through. What needs to be done is to improve the quality of teaching in all the subjects and engage students in more highly demanding cognitive tasks, so

358

Appendices

that by the time they start writing their research reports they won’t have major problems in doing so. I: Let us change the topic. What about the assessment procedures? How do you assess your students? Do you think the way we are assessing students is contributing the writing of their research reports? CSL10: You know, Celly, there are various types of assessment we can use and practice with our students. To me, all the procedures are important and the individual test is the one that gives the lecturer the real picture of the students’ level of performance. CSL8: Yes, I prefer the individual test because it gives you the real picture, the amount of knowledge the students have acquired from the course. I: You mean that other types of assessment do not tell you about the students’ progress? CSL7: No, I think that what he wants to say is that it is quite difficult to attribute marks to students when they are doing group discussion. CSL10: And on top of that, individual tests do not have this type of shortcoming. Also, if a lecturer does not set up individual tests how will they assess students? And who will be judged and questioned by the department? We also suffer from some pressure from the department. CSL9: And there is also the issue of students’ marks disappearing from the academic department, and if you do not have students’ tests to justify and provide the lost marks how are you going to sort out the problem? Unlike individual tests, the other types of tests are difficult to mark and time consuming. However, group and individual work is very fruitful because it prepares students for the type of work they will be doing when writing their research reports. CSL10: With the permission of my colleagues, I must say that we know that individual tests do not prepare students for research report writing, but somehow contribute to the process. What we need to change is probably the type of questions we ask, because we are very busy. We cannot waste time. Time is money. Do you understand what I am saying? I: In your opinion, which skill do students have more problems with when undertaking research and writing their research reports? CSL8: According to my own experience, and after supervising so many students, I think that students have problems in all the skills. They have problems with reading, writing, and doing research, I mean research methodology. CSL10: Just to put it clearly, Celly, the subject I teach, which is Research Methodology, depends very much on Academic Reading and Writing, as there are practical issues that need to be tackled within the subject itself. If students are poor in the skills of reading and writing they will not go anywhere. People cannot just blame the Research Methodology lecturer for the students’ failure to produce their research reports. CSL7: The problem seems to lie in the fact that students join ISCED with a very low level of competence in all the skills. As a result, they cannot cope with the demands of the course at the institution. CSL8: Yes, I agree with you. As a result, they fail or they pass with very low marks.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

359

CSL9: In addition to that, most of the low marks that students get are usually negotiated behind doors and they turn into 10s and 11s. And then students pass … you know what I’m talking about …. I: So what can be done to improve the teaching of these three subjects to meet the demands of research report writing? CSL7: I think that all lecturers should contribute to the empowerment of students in that field of academic writing, and research supervision should be looked at more seriously. CSL8: I think there is an urgent need to train supervisors. CSL10: Yes, training supervisors is very important because being a supervisor is not the same as being a teacher. This is the reason why there are highly qualified lecturers holding MAs and PhDs but who cannot supervise properly. The most important thing is that the conditions have been put in place and are still being created; therefore, I think that what needs to be done is just to improve the quality of our teaching and stop blaming content subject lecturers for the low level of final-year teacher trainees. We are a team and our goals are the same—to train our students and help them reach their goals, which are to produce the dissertation. I: Changing the topic again, what kind of difficulties do you usually face in supervising students? CSL8: I do not face major difficulties, but there difficulties inherent to any process of supervision. CSL7: As far as I am concerned, I do not have problems or difficulties, but the students do because it’s their work, their responsibility, and the whole process depends on their own progress. CSL9: This is not a primary or secondary school. This is a higher teacher training institute. Students cannot come here to abuse our good patience. It is the students who face difficulties, not us. CSL10: Well, in my opinion the difficulties are faced by students, not by the teachers; we have already finished our studies. However, some of the problems I have encountered are: ™ ™

First, students are quite irregular in keeping the planned meetings. Second, they sometimes come with empty hands , with nothing done from what has been asked in the last meeting, with a lot of excuses. ™ Finally, I have, most of the time, to correct the language for the students, and this is time consuming if one thinks about a lecturer supervising more than eight students. I: What would you suggest to improve the situation then? CSL9: In order to improve the situation I think that the number of supervisees needs to be reduced to three per lecturer, and there should be a deadline for students to complete their research reports. CSL7: Yes, in addition to that there is a great need to train supervisors, and I think that apart from the number of students being supervised by each teacher and the deadline for completion of the research report, together with the training of

360

Appendices

supervisors, there is a need for supervising supervisors, because some lecturers are not supporting and guiding students properly. CSL8: Well, I do recognise that there are many constraints hindering the process, but rather than fighting against those constraints I think that we are contributing to their reinforcement. I think that we should start reflecting on what is going on, and see how we can change the situation. We are not to be blamed for their weaknesses and failure to produce their research reports. This is unfair. I: Before we finish is there is anything else you would like to say? CSL7: Well, I think everything has been said. I just want to congratulate you in advance and good luck in your studies. CSL9: Yes, I think that the discussion was good and we tackled most of the issues related to the topic. I must confess that you are very courageous to carry out such a study that penetrates our daily practices. Go ahead. CSL8: I would like to say that this topic is very interesting. I know that you like action research so much. I personally can’t wait to see the results of the study. Thank you very much. CSL10: Celly, I hope that your study is going to bring about some substantive change. I will be here to help you. You were a teacher of mine and now we are colleagues. I admire you a lot I will be here to support you in whatever you might need. Thanks a lot, indeed! I: I am the one who should thank you. Thank you for your collaboration and the time spent with me.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

361

Appendix AA. Deputy Director of Academic Affairs Department (DDAAD) Interview Transcript Interview with the Deputy Director of Academic Affairs DepartmentDDAAD Date: 11/09/12 I: Director, thanks for accepting to participate in this research. Your contribution will be very helpful in finding solutions to the problem being investigated. In your opinion, why do so many students fail to produce their dissertations after being successful in the four years of coursework? DDAAD: In my opinion it’s the student’s lack of engagement in their studies. You know they all come from different backgrounds, different schools, and the way they are prepared there is very weak compared to the demands they encounter at ISCED. Also, some students join ISCED because it is the only higher institution where they passed their tests, and as they just want to study they decide to stay here. As a result, the knowledge they bring is not sufficient to cope with the academic demands required from them. Just to give you an example in my area of specialisation, which is Portuguese, the type of students we get here is just … a disaster, if I can say that. Students join the Portuguese speciality with no language skills. They cannot write and read properly. I: Why do you think this is happening? DDAAD: Because our exam is an admission exam and not a knowledge testing exam. So, according to the educational policy, every time students sit for an exam you must select 45 to form a group or class. So, for example, if the highest mark is 12 and you only have 12 positive marks, you must go down the list until you reach number 45. If number 45 falls on a student who got, let’s say, 5 in the test, then you must admit that student. I: And what is your opinion about that? As a decision maker what do you think? DDAAD: I’m not a decision maker; I wish I were. If I were a decision maker, I would change the policy. First, I would give priority to students from the teacher training college INE, because this is the institution where they are supposed to be enrolled and continue their studies. Second, I would introduce the methodology component to the test to see how much students from other institutions know about this. Finally, I would set up an average mark that would allow students to be enrolled; for example, the minimum should be 12. I: So you think that the entry exam needs to be revised? DDAAD: Yes, the entry exam needs to be re-examined and the teaching process also. There are teachers who don’t take it seriously. They just set up tests which are too easy for students to do, and on top of that there is a lot of corruption going on. Students paying teachers to get positive marks …. As a result, when they are asked to write their dissertations they find it difficult because the process is very much different and they have to work on their own; this is something they hardly did during the course, you know ….

362

Appendices

I: What about research supervision? What do you think about it? DDAAD: Well, I think that some departments are better organised than others. For example, the modern languages department seems to be very well organised to me. I know that some people think that to be organised means to get the maximum number of students finishing their studies; yes, to some extent, this is true. However, if you look at the educational sciences department they are reaching high numbers of students finishing their courses because they have more students compared to other departments, and they also have teachers who are apparently doing the students’ job in order to get paid. There are also some departments where some teachers are not good supervisors. In my own opinion, they need some training in supervision. I: You said there are some teachers who need some sort of training in supervision. What exactly do you mean by that? DDAAD: What I’m saying is that holding a Master’s or PhD degree doesn’t automatically turn you into a good supervisor. Supervision is a sophisticated way of teaching based on a personal relationship between teacher and students, where mutual respect is needed and above all the determinant factor is knowledge of the topic being investigated. I: What is your opinion about the resources in the library? DDAAD: Well our library has improved a lot over the last few years, and we can see many students there every day. However, there is a need for training the librarians so that they can help students find the materials, and we also need a bigger space because there is plenty of money to buy books but we do not have space to keep them. The type of infrastructure we are working in no longer conforms to our needs and exigencies. I: What about the computer lab? DDAAD: Well, I wouldn’t call that room a computer lab. However, I would like to say that that room is just for a few maths students to practice, and I have no idea what’s happening there. There are things I don’t like talking about, I feel sad. We really need to move into a bigger and better space in order to work properly and increase the number of students finishing their dissertations. The so-called computer lab is being used as an ICT classroom; students who are working on their dissertations cannot go there and sit and work on their projects. I: In your opinion, do you think that the four years of coursework are enough to prepare students for dissertation writing? DDAAD: Well it depends on how efficient the methodology teacher is. The Research Methodology teachers have a great responsibility in preparing students to produce their dissertations. But it is not only the Research Methodology teacher alone that contributes to the students’ preparation to produce their dissertations. All the teachers in the course have some responsibility … they all should contribute to the preparation of students for lifelong activities and further studies. Therefore, I think that those who are teaching Research Methodology must be well trained enough to transmit the subject and engage students in activities and tasks which are similar to writing a dissertation. I: There are teachers who favour the abolition of the dissertation at ISCED. Do you agree with them?

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

363

DDAAD: No, I don’t agree; not at all. Writing the dissertation is the final assessment that students have. This process gives them a passport to enter the world of investigation. So, I think that this is the most important phase in their studies; the time when they have to start crawling and walking alone, especially if they want to continue their studies. Therefore, I do not agree that the dissertation should be abolished; on the contrary, we should be more rigorous in preparing students for it. I: To sum up, what is your opinion about the whole process? What can be done to improve the situation? DDAAD: First, we need to re-examine the policy for the entry exam. Second, we need to raise teachers’ awareness of the need to improve their teaching methodology and set up activities and tasks that are similar to the process of writing a dissertation. Third, we need to decide who can be a supervisor, and supervisors need to be supervised also. Fourth, there should be a deadline for the conclusion of the dissertation. Supervision practices should therefore be controlled by a committee, and should there be problems the committee will take action. These are just some suggestions that came to mind. I: I am now thinking about students who are out of the system. What do you think about them? Can they still come and conclude their studies? DDAAD: Yes they can, and they should. Even those who finished their coursework in the 1980s can come as long as they feel they can do so. I: Well, I think we can end our interview here. I don’t know if there is anything we forgot to talk about. Please feel free to add more information if there is any. DDAAD: No, I don’t have anything else to say. I: Being so, all I have to say is thanks a lot for your co-operation. DDAAD: We are always available. Thank you. I: Thank you. END OF INTERVIEW

Appendices

364

Appendix AB. Preliminary results from lecturers’ questionnaires Preliminary results from lecturers’ questionnaires Please answer each question by drawing a CIRCLE around the appropriate number in the shaded box or write your answer in the shaded space provided. (1) How long have you been teaching at ISCED? (2) What subjects do you teach? (3) What are your academic qualifications? (4) Are you female or male? A B

Female Male

1 2

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

365

(5) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number for each statement.

N

%

Lecturers are often accessible and A 0 0.00 available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic B 1 10.00 understanding of the subject matter they are teaching Most lecturers are C not committed to 0 0.00 their job Most lecturers cannot supervise D 1 10.00 students adequately There is a need for some in-service training and E 7 70.00 refreshment courses for lecturers All lecturers are F reflective 1 10.00 practitioners Most of the lecturers holding G doctoral degrees 1 10.00 refuse to supervise students Total number of respondents n=10

Strongly disagree

Disagree

About the Lecturers

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

5

50.00

5

50.00

0

0.00

6

60.00

2

20.00

1

10.00

3

30.00

7

70.00

0

0.00

3

30.00

3

30.00

3

30.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

5

50.00

2

20.00

2

20.00

4

40.00

3

30.00

Appendices

366

(6) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number for each statement.

A

There are plenty of resources in the library

Strongly disagree

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1

10.00

2

20.00

5

50.00

2

20.00

3

30.00

5

50.00

1

10.00

5

50.00

4

40.00

1

10.00

4

40.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

1

10.00

6

60.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

4

40.00

6

60.00

2

20.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

1

10.00

4

40.00

1

10.00

Library material are adequate for 1 10.00 students to do research The librarians are C well trained and 0 0.00 helpful The computer lab does not help D 3 30.00 students in writing their dissertations Students have easy E access to the 1 10.00 computer lab There are enough F computers in the 0 0.00 computer lab There is a need for G a students’ writing 6 60.00 centre Most of the books that students read for writing their H 4 40.00 dissertations are borrowed from other places. Total number of respondents n=10 B

Disagree

Resource availability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

367

(7) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number for each statement.

A

B

C

D

E

F

The coursework is well organised to meet the demands of dissertation writing The assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ dissertation writing The Academic Reading and Writing subjects are not contributing to students’ writing dissertations The Research Methodology subject is not contributing to dissertation writing Writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers Students acquire most of their skills through the experience of writing their dissertations

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Dissertation writing

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

5

50.00

4

40.00

1

10.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

6

60.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

5

50.00

4

40.00

1

10.00

0

0.00

5

50.00

5

50.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

3

30.00

5

50.00

0

0.00

1

10.00

7

70.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

Total number of respondents n=10

Appendices

368

(8) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number for each statement.

A

B

C

D E

F

G

H

Students are given enough time to prepare for essays and tests. The essay and test questions are appropriate for students’ level The dates of handing in essays and other work are flexible The assessment criteria are clear and fair Feedback is always provided on time The assessment tasks in the coursework contribute to the final assessment (dissertation writing) Some lecturers do not provide the test results on time The final dissertation should not be a requirement for the students to obtain their qualification

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Assessment procedures

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1

10.00

4

40.00

3

30.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

5

50.00

3

30.00

2

20.00

2

20.00

6

60.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

8

80.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

1

10.00

7

70.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

1

10.00

7

70.00

2

20.00

5

50.00

2

20.00

2

20.00

1

10.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

3

30.00

7

70.00

Total number of respondents n=10

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

369

(9) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the appropriate number for each statement.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Students are able to read and analyze academic texts with a “critical eye” Students are able to write texts in different genres Students are able to construct an academic argument Students are able to access and select information from different sources Students are able to quote and paraphrase Students are aware of the dangers of plagiarism Students become more independent academics through the experience of writing their dissertations

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Ability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

4

40.00

3

30.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

5

50.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

3

30.00

4

40.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

6

60.00

3

30.00

1

10.00

0

0.00

4

40.00

5

50.00

1

10.00

0

0.00

3

30.00

6

60.00

1

10.00

1

10.00

7

70.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

Appendices

370

N

%

Students are able to do research 1 10.00 independently Students know how to structure a I dissertation and 0 0.00 what to include in each chapter Students are able to find the author’s J main arguments 0 0.00 and provide counter-arguments Total number of respondents n=10 H

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Ability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

3

30.00

5

50.00

1

10.00

4

40.00

5

50.00

1

10.00

4

40.00

5

50.00

1

10.00

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

371

(10) Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statement. Please circle the appropriate number for each statement.

A

B C

D E

F

G

H I

J

Supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of the research area they supervise Supervisors are always available The relationship between students and supervisors is good Most of the supervisors do not help students much Some supervisors are not so helpful Research supervision contributes to students’ academic and professional development A good supervisor is one who knows the content of the subject matter Supervisors send feedback promptly Feedback from supervisors is adequate Supervisors lack training in supervision skills

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research supervision

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1

10.00

7

70.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

8

80.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

6

60.00

4

40.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

3

30.00

5

50.00

2

20.00

1

10.00

6

60.00

3

30.00

0

0.00

2

20.00

7

70.00

1

10.00

0

0.00

4

40.00

4

40.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

4

40.00

4

40.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

3

30.00

5

50.00

2

20.00

4

40.00

4

40.00

2

20.00

0

0.00

Total number of respondents n=10

372

Appendices

Q1. Lecturers’ written comments With regards to the first question, “Do you think that dissertation writing should be kept as an integral part of ISCED´s courses? Why?”, the lecturers reactions were very much positive as they see dissertation writing not just as a tool of assessment but as a way of learning new things and deepening the students’ academic knowledge. One of the lecturers states that, “dissertation writing should be kept as an integral part of ISCED’s courses because it is very important for students to have an idea of how research is carried out and how work in their area is done to bring in some development.” Another lecturer added that, “if our students are trained to be teachers then they need to be familiar with ways of researching their own work for professional development.” In fact, it has been the practice at ISCED that students only come to realise the importance of the content subjects later on, when experimenting reading and writing academically. As one of the lecturers said, dissertation writing, “contributes to the improvement of writing and reading skills as well as critical thinking,” and as, “most of the students want to continue studying” that would be, “their first experience in doing research. This is an experience that students will never forget and it will contribute to their academic and professional development.” For the second question, “What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED?”, one of the lecturers made the following comments: “I think that lecturers should be given some extra practice on how to supervise. Also there should be a greater emphasis on subjects directly related to research methodology and dissertation writing and their content should reflect the needs of students and course requirements. Students should be given more chances to discuss their work with fellow students and other lecturers and there should be greater cooperation between supervisors.” Another great contribution was from another lecturer, who posited that, “workshops for students who are facing problems should be held at least twice a year; also, supervisors should meet annually to discuss the main problems inherent in the supervision practices and find some possible solutions.” Corruption was another aspect mentioned by the lecturers, and one of them tried to raise educators’ and lecturers’ awareness of the need to, “avoid corruption and get students to do their job.” Another relevant point made by lecturers was the need for supervisors training, “to keep updating supervisors in research supervision and methodology skills and ask them to be more responsible for the process … Supervisors should be supervised and they should write reports every three months to inform the board of senior supervisors about their progress and that of their students.”

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

373

The last question was, “What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED?” Much was contributed by the lecturers. For instance, they think that the first aspect to be considered should be that, “students need to be at an adequate level to enter ISCED; the reason for their failure is that they join ISCED with very low academic knowledge and skills.” On the other hand, lecturers need, “to improve the quality of teaching and assessing students.” They say that, for example, content subjects such as Research Methodology, “should be taught in a way that students will be able to use the skills they learned in writing their dissertations.” In general, they are of the opinion that, “Research Methodology should be taught in a way that in Research Methodology II students should be able to write their dissertations with the lecturers’ help.” And, to “improve the transmission of the Research Methodology [subject] as well as academic reading and writing [skills], Research Methodology should be taught gradually in the first three years and in the last year students just write their dissertations. Students fail to complete their dissertations because they do not know how to do it.” Apart from all these opinions, they also state that, “there should be a deadline for completing the dissertation; supervisors should report on students’ progress.” According to the lecturers, there is an urgent need to, “help students understand the relevance of research; make it part of the programme of studies not just an element for qualification,” so as “to create conditions for students to complete their dissertations soon after they have completed the coursework.” Lecturers also provided further comments related to the problem and one of them is of the opinion that, “all the teachers should work together to build up and develop students’ skills.” Students’ admission requirements were also mentioned and, according to one of the lecturers, “they should be revised and priority should be given to students from INE, which is a training institution.” Finally, the provision of feedback was mentioned, as “sometimes students want to work hard but supervisors don’t.” More responsibility is required from both parties, lecturers and students, but more on the lecturers’ and supervisors’ side, who, “must be more responsible for their work and encourage students to do the job.”

Appendices

374

Appendix AC. Preliminary Results from Students’ Questionnaires Q1. Type1 students Table 1. About the lecturers

A

B

C

D

E

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching A high standard of work is expected from lecturers during the supervision process Most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job Most lecturers cannot supervise students properly

Strongly disagree

Disagree

About the Lecturers

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

2

13.33

8

53.33

5

33.33

0

0.00

5

33.33

7

46.66

3

20.00

0

0.00

4

26.66

8

53.33

3

20.00

0

0.00

4

26.66

2

13.33

8

53.33

1

6.66

4

26.66

7

46.66

4

26.66

0

0.00

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

375

N

%

The lecturers’ qualifications (degrees they hold) F contribute 4 26.66 significantly to the quality of research supervision Some lecturers need G 4 26.66 in-service training Total number of respondents n=15

Strongly disagree

Disagree

About the Lecturers

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

7

46.66

4

26.66

0

0.00

4

26.66

6

40.00

1

6.66

As can be seen in the table above, students were asked to give their opinions about the lecturers. As the table reads, about 66% (10 students) of students who succeeded in their studies state that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation. It is common sense among these students that, in general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching (76%, 12 students), and a high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process (79.99%, which corresponds to 12 students). Students also think that most lecturers are committed to the teaching and research supervision practices (60%, 9 students), and they recognise that the lecturer’s qualification (degrees they hold) contributes significantly to the quality of research supervision (72%, 11 students). However, they are of the opinion that most lecturers cannot supervise students properly (72%, 11students), and therefore lecturers need some in-service training (52%, 8 students).

Appendices

376

Table 2. Resource availability

N

%

There are plenty of A resources in the 1 6.66 library Library material B is/was adequate for 0 0.00 research writing Most of the books I read were C 3 20.00 borrowed from other places I had easy access D to the computer 0 0.00 lab There were enough E computers in the 0 0.00 lab The librarians are F well trained and 0 0.00 helpful There is a need for G a student’s writing 2 13.33 centre Total number of respondents n=15

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Resource availability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

7

46.66

6

40.00

1

6.66

10

66.66

4

26.66

1

6.66

5

33.33

6

40.00

1

6.66

3

20.00

9

60.00

3

20.00

5

33.33

4

26.66

6

40.00

7

46.66

4

26.66

4

26.66

2

13.33

5

33.33

6

40.00

Regarding resource availability, while some students were positive and of the opinion that there are plenty of resources in the library (53%, 8 students), others were of the opinion that the resources in the library are not enough (46.66%). About 53.33% (7) of the students recognised that most of the books they read were borrowed from places other than ISCED ; however, (46.66%, 7 students) of them only used the local library to write their research reports. Regarding access to the computer lab, only 20% (3) of the respondents agreed that they had easy access to it, and 66.66% (12 students) said there were not enough computers. Talking about

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

377

the personnel in the library, students were of the opinion that they are not so helpful and lack some kind of training (53%, 7 students). It is interesting to hear from students that there is no need for a writing centre (73.33 %, 11 students). Table 3. Dissertation writing

A

B

C

D

E

F

The coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands The assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ writing their dissertations I did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing subject to help me write my dissertation I did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help me write my dissertation Writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers I acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing my dissertation.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Dissertation writing

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

2

13.33

3

53.33

8

33.33

0

0.00

2

13.33

7

46.66

5

33.33

2

13.33

3

20.00

4

26.66

7

46.66

1

6.66

3

20.00

5

33.33

6

40.00

1

6.66

11

73.33

4

26.66

0

0.00

0

0.00

5

33.33

8

53.33

2

13.33

0

0.00

Total number of respondents n=15

Appendices

378

The aim of this sub-heading was to find out students’ opinions with regards to dissertation writing related issues, such as its usefulness and difficulties. In order to do so, the first aspect to be considered was the coursework as a whole and its contribution to the process to equip students with the skills they need to write their dissertations. About 66.66% (10) of the students agreed that the coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands. The next aspect was about whether the assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students writing their dissertations, and 59.66% (9) of the students favoured the idea that the assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ writing dissertations. Many of the students agreed that they learnt quite a lot from the Academic Reading and Writing subject to help them write their dissertations (53%, 8 students). Looking at the Research Methodology subject, 53.33 %, (8) students confessed that they did not learn much from it to help them write their dissertations. For this group, 100% agreed that writing a dissertation helped them become independent researchers, and 86% (13 students) recognised that they acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing their dissertations. Table 4. Assessment procedures

A

B

C

D

I was given enough time for essays and tests The essays and tests were appropriate for my level The assessment criteria were clear and fair Feedback on my work was always provided and appropriate

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Assessment procedures

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

3

20.00

12

80.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

4

26.66

10

66.66

1

6.66

0

0.00

3

20.00

9

60.00

2

13.33

1

6.66

4

26.66

7

46.66

4

26.66

0

0.00

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

379

N

%

The essays and tests I wrote prepared me E 3 20.00 for dissertation writing The final dissertation should not be a F 6 40.00 requirement for students to obtain their qualification Total number of respondents n=15

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Assessment procedures

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

7

46.66

4

26.66

1

6.66

3

20.00

6

40.00

0

0.00

Observing the table on the assessment procedures, one can read that all the students were given enough time for essays and tests (100%), and they were appropriate for their level (93%, 14 students); 80% (12) of the students said that the assessment criteria were clear and fair throughout the course, and they are also positive about feedback provision (73%, 11 students). About 66.66% (10) of students said that the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for dissertation writing. With regards to the production of the dissertation as a final assessment task, 60% of the respondents (9) thought that the final dissertation should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification.

Appendices

380

Table 5. Research skills

N

%

I am able to A construct an 3 20.00 academic argument I am able to access and select B 4 26.66 information from different sources I am able to quote C 3 20.00 and paraphrase I am able to find the author’s main D arguments and 4 26.66 provide counter arguments I am aware of the E dangers of 11 73.33 plagiarism I am aware of how to structure a F dissertation and 4 26.66 what to include in each chapter I learnt more in writing my G dissertation than in 12 80.00 the four years of coursework Total number of respondents n=15

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research skills

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

12

80.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

11

73.33

0

0.00

0

0.00

10

66.66

2

13.33

0

0.00

11

73.33

0

0.00

0

0.00

4

26.66

0

0.00

0

0.00

10

66.66

1

6.66

0

0.00

2

13.33

1

6.66

0

0.00

Students were asked to provide their opinions about their research skills. All of them (100%) were of the opinion that they are able to construct an academic argument, to access and select information from different sources, to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

381

arguments, and were also all aware of the dangers of plagiarism. Most of them (86%, 13 students) said that they can quote and paraphrase authors. The majority of them (93%, 14 students) recognised that they are aware of how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter, and said that they learnt more in writing their dissertation than in the four years of coursework (93%, 14 students). Table 6. Research supervision

A

B C D

E

F

G H

My supervisor has/had sound academic knowledge of my research area My supervisor is/was always available The relationship between supervisors and students is good My supervisor is/was not helpful Research supervision has contributed a lot to my academic and professional development My supervisor sends/sent feedback promptly The feedback from my supervisor is/was adequate There is a need for supervisors’ training

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research supervision

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

3

20.00

11

73.33

1

6.66

0

0.00

2

13.33

7

46.66

6

40.00

0

0.00

3

20.00

10

66.66

2

13.33

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

9

60.00

6

40.00

7

46.66

5

33.33

3

20.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

6

40.00

6

40.00

3

20.00

1

6.66

6

40.00

8

53.33

0

0.00

3

20.00

4

26.66

6

40.00

2

13.33

Total number of respondents n=15

Appendices

382

Looking at the research supervision table above, most of the students hold a positive opinion about the supervisors. In general, they say that their supervisors had a sound academic knowledge of their research area (93%, 14 students) and the relationship between them and their supervisors was good (86.66%, (13 students). All of them state that their supervisors were helpful (100%), and about (80%) (12 students) recognise that research supervision has contributed a lot to their academic and professional development. With regards to supervisors availability some students say that their supervisors were always available (60%) (9 students). In response to the kind of feedback provided by their supervisors students say that supervisors did not send feedback promptly (60%) (9 students) and that feedback from their supervisors was adequate (53%). However 46.66% reckon that there is a need for supervisors training but the other half (53%) thinks that there is no need for supervisors training. _________________________________ Q2- Type 2 students Table 1. About the lecturers

A

B

C

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching A high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process

Strongly disagree

Disagree

About the Lecturers

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

2

12.50

8

50.00

6

37.50

0

0.00

4

25.00

10

62.50

2

12.50

0

0.00

8

50.00

8

50.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

383

N

%

Most lecturers are not committed to D the teaching and 4 25.00 research supervision job Most lecturers E cannot supervise 7 43.75 students properly The lecturers’ qualifications (degrees they hold) F contribute 6 37.50 significantly to the quality of research supervision Some lecturers need G 9 56.25 in-service training Total number of respondents n=16

Strongly disagree

Disagree

About the Lecturers

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

9

56.25

2

12.50

1

6.25

5

31.25

4

25.00

0

0.00

4

25.00

6

37.50

0

0.00

7

43.75

0

0.00

0

0.00

These students are currently writing their dissertations, and therefore it is expected that they have their own opinions with regards to lecturers’ performance, resource availability, dissertation writing, and the research related practices and skills. In all, 100% of these students agreed with the idea that a high standard of work is expected from the lecturers during the supervision process, and some lecturers need in-service training. About 62.50% (10 students) stated that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation. They stated that, in general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching (87.50%, 14 students), but in their opinion most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job (81%, 13 students). Although the majority of the students might think that the lecturers’ qualifications contribute significantly to the quality of research supervision (62.50%, 10 students), they recognised that most of the lecturers cannot supervise students properly (75%, 16 students).

Appendices

384

Table 2. Resource availability

N

%

There are plenty of A resources in the 0 0.00 library Library material B is/was adequate for 1 6.25 research writing Most of the books I read were C 4 25.00 borrowed from other places I had easy access D to the computer 0 0.00 lab There were enough E computers in the 1 6.25 lab The librarians are F well trained and 2 12.50 helpful There is a need for G a student’s writing 0 0.00 centre Total number of respondents n=16

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Resource Availability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

1

6.25

11

68.75

4

25.00

4

25.00

7

43.75

4

25.00

10

62.50

2

12.50

0

0.00

2

12.50

8

50.00

6

37.50

2

12.50

6

37.50

7

43.75

8

50.00

4

25.00

2

12.50

2

12.50

8

50.00

6

37.50

This table presents students’ perceptions about resource availability. It is a fact that for these students there are not plenty of resources in the library (94.75%, 15 students), and most of the books they read were borrowed from places other than ISCED (87.50%, 14 students). They also stated that the library materials are not adequate for research writing (68.75%, 11 students). However, 62.50% (10 students) thought that the librarians are well trained and helpful. About 68.75% (11 students) said that the materials in the library are not adequate for research writing. Regarding the computer lab, 87.50% (13 students) said that they do not have easy

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

385

access to it and the number of computers is not enough (81.25%, 13 students). They were of the opinion that there is no need for a student’s writing centre (87.50%, 13 students). Table 3. Dissertation writing

A

B

C

D

E

F

The coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands The assessment procedures during coursework contribute to students’ writing dissertation I did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing subject to help me write my dissertation I did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help me write my dissertation Writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers I acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing my dissertation.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Dissertation writing

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

2

12.50

10

62.50

2

12.50

2

12.50

3

18.75

7

43.75

5

31.25

1

6.25

4

25.00

5

31.25

6

37.50

1

6.25

4

25.00

4

25.00

5

31.25

3

18.75

5

31.25

9

56.25

2

12.50

0

0.00

7

43.75

5

31.25

4

25.00

0

0.00

Total number of respondents n=16

Appendices

386

Looking at the table on dissertation writing, one can read that, in principle, students agreed that the coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands (75%, 12 students), that writing a dissertation helps them become independent researchers (87.50%, 14 students), and that they acquire most of the skills through the experience of writing their dissertations (75%, 12 students). They stated that the assessment procedures during the coursework contribute to students writing dissertations (62.25%, 10 students), but feel that they did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing subject to help them write their dissertations (56.25%, 9 students). While 50% (8 students) said they learnt much from the research methodology subject to help them write their dissertations, the other half says the opposite. However, 75% (12 students) recognised that they have acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing their dissertations. Table 4. Assessment procedures

A

B C D

E

F

I was given enough time for essays and tests The essays and tests were appropriate for my level The assessment criteria were clear Feedback on my work was always provided and appropriate The essays and tests I wrote prepared me for dissertation writing The final dissertation should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Assessment procedures

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

3

18.75

7

43.75

5

31.25

1

6.25

3

18.75

9

56.25

4

25.00

0

0.00

3

18.75

3

18.75

9

56.25

1

6.25

5

31.25

5

31.25

6

37.50

0

0.00

3

18.75

11

68.75

2

12.50

0

0.00

1

6.25

2

12.50

8

50.00

5

31.25

Total number of respondents n=16

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

387

With regards to the assessment procedures, students seemed to agree that the essays and tests were appropriate for their level (75%, 12 students), and the essays and tests they wrote prepared them for dissertation writing (87.50%, 14 students) They also agreed that the final dissertation should be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification (81.25%, 13 students). These students seemed to agree, in principle, that they were given enough time to write essays and tests (62.50%, 10 students), and feedback on their work was always provided and appropriate (62.50%, 10 students). However, according to them, the assessment criteria were not so clear (62.50%, 10 students). Table 5. Research skills

A B C

D

E

F

G

I am able to construct an academic argument I am able to access and select information from different sources I am able to quote and paraphrase I am able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments I am aware of the dangers of plagiarism I am aware of how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter I learnt more in writing my dissertation than in the four years of coursework

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research skills

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

13

81.25

3

18.75

0

0.00

2

12.50

11

68.75

3

18.75

0

0.00

2

12.50

8

50.00

5

31.25

1

6.25

2

12.50

12

75.00

2

12.50

0

0.00

9

56.25

6

37.50

1

6.25

0

0.00

3

18.75

11

68.75

1

6.25

1

6.25

5

31.25

6

37.50

5

31.25

0

0.00

Total number of respondents n=16

388

Appendices

For this group, with regards to research skills, it can be observed that the overwhelming majority (93.75%, 15 students) are aware of the dangers of plagiarism, and they also said that they are able to construct an academic argument (81.25%, 13 students), as well as find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments (87.50%, 14 students). Accessing and selecting information from different sources does not seem to be a problem for them as 81.25% (13 students) stated they are able to do so. They also thought that they were aware of how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter (87.50%, 14 students). They agreed that they are learning more in writing their dissertation than in the four years of coursework (68.75%, 11 students), and in principle they are able to quote and paraphrase authors (62.50%, 10 students). Table 6 is based on research supervision practices. As the table shows, most of students indicated that their supervisors have a sound academic knowledge of their research area (81.25%, 13 students), and research supervision has contributed a lot to their academic and professional development, although they have not yet finished writing their dissertations (93.75%, 15 students). More than 50% of the group indicated that their supervisors are always available (68.75%, 11 students), that the relationship between them and their supervisors is good (68.75%, 11 students), but also that they did not find their supervisors so helpful (62.50%, 10 students). However, they are of the opinion that their supervisors do not send feedback promptly (56.25%, 9 students), but that when they do the feedback is adequate (56.25%, 9 students). About 87.50% (14 students) are of the opinion that supervisors need some sort of training.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

389

Table 6. Research supervision

N

%

My supervisor has/had a sound A academic 6 37.50 knowledge of my research area My supervisor B is/was always 5 31.25 available The relationship C between supervisors 4 25.00 and students is good My supervisor D 2 12.50 is/was not helpful Research supervision has contributed a lot to E 6 37.50 my academic and professional development My supervisor F sends/sent feedback 2 12.50 promptly The feedback from G my supervisor 3 18.75 is/was adequate There is a need for H supervisors’ 11 68.75 training Total number of respondents n=16

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research supervision

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

7

43.75

3

18.75

0

0.00

6

37.50

5

31.25

0

0.00

7

43.75

5

31.25

0

0.00

8

50.00

5

31.25

1

6.25

9

56.25

1

6.25

0

0.00

5

31.25

9

56.25

0

0.00

6

37.50

7

43.75

0

0.00

3

18.75

2

12.50

0

0.00

Appendices

390

Q3. Type 3 Students Table 1. About the Lecturers

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation In general, lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching A high standard of work is expected from lecturers during the supervision process Most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job Most lecturers cannot supervise students properly The lecturers’ qualifications (degrees they hold) contribute significantly to the quality of research supervision Some lecturers need in-service training

Strongly disagree

Disagree

About the Lecturers

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

4

28.57

6

42.85

4

28.57

0

0.00

7

50.00

5

35.71

2

14.28

1

7.14

7

50.00

6

42.85

0

0.00

4

28.57

4

28.57

3

21.42

3

21.42

9

64.28

2

14.28

3

21.42

0

0.00

5

35.71

8

57.14

1

7.14

0

0.00

9

64.28

5

35.71

0

0.00

0

0.00

Total number of respondents n=14

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

391

This group of students consists of those who are out of the system, waiting to get started with their research reports. As they are part of the problem being investigated and constitute the overwhelming majority, it was thought that their opinion would be very helpful to this study. It can be noted from the table that 50% (7 students) recognise that lecturers have a sound academic understanding of the subject matter they are teaching, and a high standard of work is expected from them during the supervision process (57.14%, 8 students). Students also recognise that the lecturer’s qualifications contribute significantly to the quality of research supervision (92.85%, 13 students). However, they do not agree that lecturers are often accessible and available for consultation (71.42%, 10 students) during supervision practices. They also think that most lecturers are not committed to the teaching and research supervision job (57.14%, 8 students), and cannot supervise students properly (78.56%, 11 students). Therefore, they all agree that lecturers need in-service training (100%, 14 students). Table 2. Resource availability

A

B

C

D

There are plenty of resources in the library Library material is/was adequate for research writing Most of the books I read were borrowed from other places Students have easy access to the computer lab

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Resource Availability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

3

21.42

6

42.85

5

35.71

1

7.14

2

14.28

7

50.00

4

28.57

8

57.14

4

28.57

2

14.28

0

0.00

0

0.00

1

7.14

7

50.00

6

42.85

Appendices

392

N

%

There were enough computers in the 0 0.00 lab The librarians are F well trained and 0 0.00 helpful There is a need for G a students’ writing 0 0.00 centre Total number of respondents n=14 E

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Resource Availability

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

2

14.28

5

35.71

7

50.00

2

14.28

4

28.57

8

57.14

0

0.00

5

35.71

9

64.28

Resource availability is another aspect that needs to be carefully looked at. For this group, students think that there are not enough resources in the library (78.56%, 11 students), they do not have easy access to the computer lab (92.85%, 13 students), and library materials are not adequate for research writing (78.57%, 11 students). They go further to state that the librarians are not well trained and are not so helpful either (85.71%, 12 students), and most of the books they read were borrowed from places other than ISCED (85.71%, 12 students). With regards to the computer lab, they were of the opinion that there are not enough computers in the library (85.71%, 12 students) and access to the computer lab is difficult (92.85%, 13 students). In total, this group says there is a need for a students’ writing centre (100%).

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

393

Table 3. Dissertation writing

A

B

C

D

E

F

The coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands The assessment procedures during the coursework contribute to students writing dissertation I did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing subject to help me write my dissertation I did not learn much from the Research Methodology subject to help me write my dissertation Writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers I acquired most of the skills through the experience of writing my dissertation.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Dissertation writing

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

1

7.14

6

42.85

7

50.00

2

14.28

0

0.00

8

57.14

4

28.57

9

64.28

3

21.42

2

14.28

0

0.00

9

64.28

1

7.14

4

28.57

0

0.00

4

28.57

8

57.14

2

14.28

0

0.00

0

0.00

1

7.14

9

64.28

4

28.57

Total number of respondents n=14

Students were asked to reflect on dissertation writing practices. As can been seen from the table above, the majority of the students were of the opinion that the coursework was well organised to meet the dissertation writing demands (92.85%, 13 students) and that they did not acquire most of the skills through the experience of writing their dissertations (92.85%, 13 students). For them, the assessment procedures during coursework did

Appendices

394

not contribute to the writing of their dissertations either (92.85%, 13 students).They felt that they did not learn much from the Academic Reading and Writing subject (85.60%, 13 students) nor from the Research Methodology subject to help them write their research reports (71.42%, 10 students). However, they agree that writing a dissertation helps students become independent researchers (85.71%, 12 students). Table 4. Assessment procedures

N I was given enough time for essays and 9 tests The essays and tests B were appropriate for 7 my level The assessment C 0 criteria were clear Feedback on my work D was always provided 0 and appropriate The essays and tests I E wrote prepared me for 0 dissertation writing The final dissertation should not be a F requirement for 8 students to obtain their qualification Total number of respondents n=14 A

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Assessment procedures

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

64.28

4

28.57

1

7.14

0

0.00

50.00

5

35.71

2

14.28

0

0.00

0.00

3

21.42

5

35.71

6

42.85

0.00

4

28.57

3

21.42

7

50.00

0.00

2

14.28

4

28.57

8

57.14

57.14

4

28.57

2

14.28

0

0.00

As for the assessment procedures during their coursework, students indicated that they were given enough time for essays and tests (92.85%, 13 students), the essays and tests they did were appropriate for their level (85.71%, 12 students), but the assessment criteria were not clear (78.56%, 11 students). Feedback on their work was not always provided and

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

395

appropriate (71.42%, 10 students), and in their opinion the essays and tests they wrote did not prepare them for dissertation writing (85.71%, 12 students). These students were of the opinion that the final dissertation should not be a requirement for students to obtain their qualification (85.71%, 12 students). Table 5. Research skills

A B C

D

E

F

I am able to construct an academic argument I am able to access and select information from different sources I am able to quote and paraphrase I am able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments I am aware of the dangers of plagiarism I am aware of how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research skills

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

0

0.00

2

14.28

6

42.85

6

42.85

1

7.14

3

21.42

6

42.85

4

28.57

1

7.14

3

21.42

7

50.00

3

21.42

1

7.14

3

21.42

3

21.42

7

50.00

3

21.42

2

14.28

7

50.00

2

14.28

2

14.28

3

21.42

5

35.71

4

28.57

Total number of respondents n=14

Research skills are another aspect that students had to think about. As the table above shows, students tend to rank their research skills as a serious problem. Some of the students admit that they are not able to construct an academic argument (85.70%, 12 students), and they cannot quote and paraphrase (71.42%, 10 students). They also feel that they are not able to access and select information from different sources (71.42%, 10 students). They are not able to find the author’s main arguments and provide counter arguments (71.42%, 10 students). About 64.28% (9

Appendices

396

students) indicated that they are not aware of the dangers of plagiarism and that they are not aware of how to structure a dissertation and what to include in each chapter (64.28%, 9 students). Table 6. Research supervision

N

%

My supervisor has/had a sound A academic 2 14.28 knowledge of my research area My supervisor B is/was always 1 7.14 available The relationship between C 4 28.57 supervisors and students is good My supervisor D 5 35.71 is/was not helpful Research supervision has contributed a lot to E 2 14.28 my academic and professional development My supervisor F sends/sent 0 0.00 feedback promptly The feedback from G my supervisor 5 35.71 is/was adequate There is a need for H supervisors’ 7 50.00 training Total number of respondents n=14

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Research supervision

Agree

Strongly agree

Opinion

N

%

N

%

N

%

3

21.42

7

50.00

2

14.28

3

21.42

7

50.00

3

21.42

1

7.14

1

7.14

8

57.14

2

14.28

1

7.14

6

42.85

2

14.28

5

35.71

5

35.71

7

50.00

4

28.57

3

21.42

5

35.71

2

14.28

2

14.28

5

35.71

2

14.28

0

0.00

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

397

The last table deals with research supervision practices. These students had some experience in being supervised but they did not succeed to the point of concluding their studies. Therefore, their opinions are relevant to the study. Looking carefully at the table above, one can read that, according to the students, their supervisors do not have a sound academic knowledge of their research area (64.28%, 9 students), and the relationship between supervisors and students is not so good (64.28%, 9 students). About 71.42% (10 students) say that their supervisors are not always available and they are not helpful either (49.99%, 7 students). In their opinion, supervisors do send feedback promptly (50%, 7 students) and the feedback from supervisors is adequate (71.42%, 10 students). However, research supervision has not contributed that much to their academic and professional development (71.42%, 10 students). They conclude that there is a need for supervisors’ training (85.71%, 12 students). Summary This appendix presents questionnaire data from the lecturers and teacher education students. Students were divided into three categories: those who have successfully concluded their studies (type 1 students); those who are currently writing their dissertations (type 2 students); and those who have tried but have not yet succeeded (type 3 students). What follows are the respondents’ responses to some follow-up questions. Q4. Responses to follow-up questions Both lecturers and students were asked open-ended questions in order to get a deeper understanding of their views about the problem under study and provide opinions on what kind of changes should be made to minimise the problem. The questions for the lecturers were: x Do you think that dissertation writing should be kept as an integral part of ISCED´s courses? Why? x What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED? x What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED? x If you have any other comments please do not hesitate to make them.

Appendices

398

And for students: x Are you capable of conducting research independently? Please elaborate. x What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED? x What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED? x If you have any other comments please do not hesitate to make them. Q4.1.Type 1 comments The first question asked to these students was: “Are you capable of conducting research independently? Please elaborate.” In general, students were of the opinion that they can do research alone under the guidance of their supervisors or someone more knowledgeable. One of the students stated that they, “will always need help from more informed people such as supervisors and teachers,” and another student added that they are capable of doing research individually, although in some instances they might need to consult the supervisor. One of the students confessed that, “I cannot ascertain that I can conduct research independently or that I can conduct research properly. However, I have won the relevant steps to go through research. Furthermore, I strongly believe that as far as the research is concerned, supervisors will always be needed.” Having a good supervisor seems to be a good starting point for students to conduct research on their own, as one of the students posits that, “to some extent I would say I can conduct research independently because I had a good supervisor.” However, in some instances a supervisor is needed and, as another student stated, “at school, research always needs supervision, so I would say that I am not capable of conducting research independently,” and another one said, “no I will never be able to do it alone.” With regards to the second question, “What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED?”, students did not comment too much about this issue. Generally speaking, they were of the opinion that the relationship between supervisors and students is a vital aspect in the supervisory practices and permanent contact is needed. One of the students tried to elaborate on the topic, and said, “supervisors need or lack some training; research methodology needs to be taught by a good teacher; departments should create a body of teachers where students would go to present their main concerns. There should be a place for students to meet supervisors and a specific time should be set up for meetings.”

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

399

The last question was, “What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED?” Varied comments were provided by students. They see the core subjects as being quite relevant and therefore deserving of special attention within the curriculum. “Writing and reading subjects should be reinforced; new lecturers should be supervised by senior lecturers; the research methodology subject should be taught in the three consecutive years and the fourth year should be devoted for dissertation writing.” They also suggest that teachers need to change their minds and, “see students as people who are struggling to learn something.” According to these students, “teachers need to provide more straightforward feedback. The relationship between supervisor and student needs to be improved,” and “supervisors should be available when students need them and feedback should be provided promptly.” No further comments were provided by these students. Q4.2. Type 2 Students’ comments As with the other group, the first question posed to these students was, “Are you capable of conducting research independently? Please elaborate.” The main problems raised by the students are lack of practice and lack of knowledge of the Research Methodology subject. The following are some of the answers provided: x Yes I am but we always need a supervisor to guide us. x Yes but not totally. This is the reason we are being supervised. x For me it depends … I have some knowledge but I still lack practice. x Yes but it should be under the guidance of the supervisor. Also I didn’t get enough knowledge from the Research Methodology subject. For the second question, “What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED?”, only one student responded to it, saying that: “The relationship between students and supervisors; the provision of a bibliography and its availability in the library; the computer lab, there are students who don’t have a personal computer. Students need training in computer skills as well as some teachers.” Of the third question, “What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED?”, the most common answer was that students “need to be more responsible for their studies and not bribe teachers with the so called ‘gasosa.’ The

400

Appendices

problem is that some of us keep paying teachers to get good marks and pass, and when they start writing the dissertation they get lost. The Academic Reading and Writing subjects should be taught in a more serious way. The Research Methodology subject should be taught in the four years. The dissertation writing should start in year 3. Feedback needs to be improved. The relationship between students and supervisors should be good and supervisors need to be less arrogant. The teaching process needs to be improved. No further comments were provided. Q4.3. Type 3 students’ comments This is the group of students who are struggling to get their dissertations written. They were also asked the same questions as the other students, and the first question was: “Are you capable of conducting research independently? Please elaborate.” For this question the most meaningful answers provided by these students were: x Yes, because this is the last stage and I cannot wait for someone to do it for me. The problem is time. x Yes, but we need a lot of preparation during the course. x For me it depends because if teachers don’t prepare you properly how are you going to succeed? I think teachers need to change their minds and prepare us properly. x Yes, but it should be shorter and easier, but we always need some support from supervisors. Looking at these answers one can conclude that problems are quite similar among the three groups of students. They mention that fact that the coursework did not prepare them enough for doing research independently; they reckon that they need support from supervisors but that support is not always available, and above all they recognise that writing a dissertation is their responsibility, but sometimes time is a strong constraint. With regards to, “What major changes should be made to improve research supervision practices at ISCED?”, three important aspects were raised by students: x The relationship between students and supervisors. x The provision of a bibliography and its availability in the library.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

401

x Supervisors need or lack some training; Research Methodology needs to be taught by a good and knowledgeable teacher. As for that last question, “What major changes should be made to increase the number of students completing their dissertations at ISCED?”, the main contributions made by students were as follows: “Students should learn more from the Academic Reading and Writing subjects. The Research Methodology subject should be taught in the three years and the fourth year should be for dissertation writing. More feedback is needed, and feedback needs to be improved. Supervisors should be honest when they don’t know about the topic. I agree that change is taking place but we need more change. We have the Research Methodology subject and more books in the library but the teaching process needs to improve. The way of transmitting knowledge to students, the type of tests we write, the type of activities, and so on ….” No more comments were provided.

402

Appendices

Appendix AI. Samples of Students’ Research Proposals Research Proposal 1

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

403

404

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

405

406

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

407

408

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

409

410

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

Research Proposal 2

411

412

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

413

414

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

415

416

Appendices

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

417

Appendices

To understand the connection between academic and research literacy practices and the completion of research reports. 1. To identify acquisition loci and processes as well as modes and approaches of transmission

In what ways do academic and research literacy practices contribute to the successful completion of a research report?

1. In what manner do TTI nr 200 students acquire academic and research literacy practices?

Aims

Research questions Interviews, textual analysis of students’ research proposals, and classroom observations. 1. Classroom observations, interviews and survey.

Method The academic and research literacy practices are not contributing much to the production of the research proposals and reports, since the content that is covered in key subjects is not relevant/directly related to this production. 1. The lecturing mode in use is still teacher centred and does not involve students in highly academic tasks that require critical thinking. There is little practice that is directly related to research design and dissertation writing. The feedback provided on the little work students produce is not appropriate since lecturers do not provide the necessary detail that could help students improve their skills and use this knowledge in the actual production of their research proposals and reports.

Key findings

Implications for the research knowledge Unless there is a solid preparation of the students in terms of the production of the research projects and writing of the final work, this will be a difficult task to achieve. 1. If the teaching and learning process, including the assessment procedures and quality of feedback, do not change to meet the demands of research projects and dissertation writing, the situation will hardly change.

Appendix AJ. The relationship between the research questions, aims, data, the key findings and the implications for the research knowledge

418

2. To understand students’ academic and research literacy practices and identify challenges.

3. Using Biggs’s (1999) idea of constructive alignment, the researcher will check alignment within the system and investigate its impact on dissertation production.

2. In what ways do TTI nr 200 students deploy academic and research literacy practice skills in the production of research reports?

3. In what ways does curriculum alignment impact on the production of research reports? 3. An examination of course content and course material will be conducted to verify the connection between coursework and dissertation production, together with some classroom observation and semi-structured

2. Interviews and textual analysis of students’ research reports

2. Samples of students’ research proposals and reports show that there are some problems in producing academic texts. These problems include deficiencies in academic writing (coherence and cohesion, the way of organising their ideas and putting their opinions forward, critical thinking, appropriate source referencing), and in research methodology (devising sound research instruments, analysing and interpreting data, and drawing conclusions). 3. There is no alignment between what is taught-learnt and assessed throughout the course, and the production of the actual research projects. The coursework is rich and well designed but what and the way it is delivered do not correspond to the demands of the institution at the end of the course.

419

3. There is a big gap between what students have learnt throughout the course and the skills necessary for the successful completion of the research projects they are expected to produce at the end of the course. In other words, there is a discrepancy between the skills acquired by students and the skills they actually need to produce their research projects. An alignment between the

2. Students cannot conclude their research reports due to lack of knowledge and practice in writing academic texts and lack of appropriate research skills. Lecturers need to engage students in activities that are directly related to what they will need to do for their final projects.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

4. In what ways do supervision practices enable and/or constrain the successful completion of research reports?

420

4. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of supervisory practices and their impact on the production of research reports using Dysthe (2002) and Grant (2010).

interviews with the head of the English sector and some teachers. 4. Interviews 4. Research supervision practices are not contributing to the successful completion of the research projects. It is not regarded as a pedagogical activity, where the supervisor should act as a mentor, scaffolding and guiding the student throughout the process. Instead, many supervisors expect the students to know how to conduct research and write the final research product on their own. Some supervisors need to be trained in research supervision, since no prior training was provided to them.

Appendices

4. Research supervision needs to be seen as an improved way of teaching where both parties share responsibility at some level, since this is not the case.

teaching and the research practices is needed for the successful completion of the research projects.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

421

Appendix AF. Students’ Research Reports Research report 1 CHAPTER I – THE INSTITUTION This chapter will provide a brief description of the educational institution in which this study was carried out, as well as information about the teachers, the students, and the English language curriculum used in this institution. Background information The institution was founded on 25 March 1995 as Instituto Medio Normal de Educação (IMNE). At the time, IMNE was denominated Núcleo-3, and was a school aimed to form future teachers. However, since 1995 up to now its name has changed three times. It first changed to Núcleo -3, then to IMNE 22 de Novembro, as a teacher training institution. It trained teachers in various subjects in third level schools, including teachers for pre-schooling. And now it is called Escola Secundária do Segundo Ciclo nº3032.The institution is located between two schools, namely Njinga Mbandi and the new Puniv central in Ingombota municipality (around 1st de Maio). At the moment, the school is in a process of educational change. It has two systems of teaching which are PUNIV and IMNE. Although the school is in a changing process from IMNE which is a teacher training institution to PUNIV which is a general teaching or a technical professional institution, the teachers are being adapted, in other words, are having in-service training in other technical subjects. Thus, as a secondary school the institution has three courses, namely: Physics and Biology Sciences, Law and Economic Sciences and Human Sciences. It has fifty eight (58) teachers, five (5) of which are English language teachers, working in morning, afternoon and evening timetables. Students from Escola Secundária do Segundo Ciclo nº3032, after completing their courses, may continue their studies in different universities in the country. They can study at Faculdade de Letras or Faculdade de Direito for instance. In the courses mentioned above, English is taught as a curriculum subject (Língua de Opção). 10th grade students, for instance, have 4 sessions of English classes weekly, 11th grade students have 3 sessions, and 12th grade students have 2 sessions weekly. Therefore, the lower the academic level the higher is the amount or quantity of sessions of English classes.

422

Appendices

English Language teachers Teachers at Escola Secundária do Segundo Ciclo Nº 3032 were formed in different universities in the country. Some of them were formed at ISCED (Higher Institute of Sciences of Education), others were formed in universities which do not have to do with teaching English as a foreign language or second language. As a matter of fact, the main requirement to teach at this school is to have, at least, a Bachelor degree in any area of teaching with (a little) knowledge in English. Their support included periodically selecting and sending some teachers to the UK to learn how to teach English as a foreign Language (TEFL). Currently, some teachers have a chance to attend different conferences around the country or even sometimes, have the opportunity to attend inservice training. Although, the school is in need of teachers, the ones present do their best so that teaching and learning takes place. In addition, teachers still face common challenges such as shortage of teaching resources (books, flashcards, dictionaries, CDs and others), and large classes. The Students The majority of students at Escola do Ensino Secundário nº 3032 are interested in learning English. During the classes, many of them get involved in the lesson. They keep quiet listening to explanations, though sometimes teachers are not able to manage the classes. It is important to mention that English is taught as a foreign language in lower levels or grades, i.e. in grades such as 7, 8 and 9. In some private schools, English is taught since grade 1. Some Private schools such as Escola Portuguesa, A Colina do Sol and Carla Alexandre, implement English at this grade (grade 1), to enable students reaching elementary level when they complete grade 9. Students at this institution are teenagers and adults, are aged 15 up to their 60s, and are divided into different timetables according to their age. So, these students are expected to have, at least, elementary level, as they study English for three (3) years.After this brief presentation of students of Escola Secundária do Segundo Ciclo nº 3032, the next section will focus on the material used at this institution. The English Language Curriculum In the past, when the school had the status of IMNE, the main course book used at the institution we are referring to, was the New Cambridge English course. Recently, the school has adopted the New Headway course book for the English program. For grade 11th, teachers and students use the

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

423

elementary course book which contains CD with audio program. The book’s contents are used as a syllabus. Learners’ perceptions of their successes and failure in foreign language (2004) An even more recent study done with children was the one Williams and Burden conducted with Poulet and Maun. In this study the researchers’ aim was to identify the subjects’ perceived reasons for their success and failures in foreign language learning, and how these perceptions varied across different variables: age, gender, perceived level of success and specific language studied. They developed a qualitative research within a constructivist approach to learning. The subjects were 285 male and female secondary school students, aged 11 to 16, learning three different foreign languages (Spanish, French and German) in five secondary schools in the UK. They were submitted to a simple questionnaire in which they were asked to indicate their perceived level of success by selecting the most appropriate statement to them (for example, I usually do well in French, I don’t often do well in French, etc.), and were then requested to answer two open-ended questions where they would list the reasons why they succeed or not in learning the foreign language in question. The data was analysed through means of a grounded theory to code responses and sort them into categories. One thousand statements produced by the students resulted into twenty-one categories of reasons for success and sixteen for failure, that were tabulated according to the different variables under study. The authors found out that attributions varied depending on the gender and age of the subjects, the language they were studying and whether they perceived themselves as success or failure-oriented. It was concluded, for instance, that effort (the most produced attribution), was presented more by boys as a reason for success and the lack of it was presented more by girls as a reason for failure. It also tended to be more presented by successoriented students than failure-oriented ones. Effort was also a quite interesting attribution in terms of age, as it could be observed that it tended to be less frequently mentioned as age increased. Differences were also found in attributions such as ability, strategies and teachers across the different variables, and German, again, proved to be the foreign language preferred by boys. In addition, lack of reference to attributions like rewards, feedback and influence of others such as parents, contrarily to some of the other studies, is a quite interesting finding.

424

Appendices

CHAPTER III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter provides a description of the research methodology in the current study. I first present a little introduction of research methodology, the methods of data collection, and the research site and subject. I also present the methods of data collection, which are questionnaire and interview and, at the end, I present the methods of data analysis. In this study, I will focus on the students’ perceptions of their successes and failures in learning English. As the researcher of this study, I used two methods of inquiry, which helped me to collect the data. The methods used in this study, as I mentioned before, were the following: questionnaire and interview. Questionnaires may consist of open or closed response items. For open ended items, respondents provide a written response whereas for closed items, respondents indicate their answers on a scale. Alreck and Settle (1995) cited by Baccus (2004) demonstrates that, “Survey research involves the collection of information from a sample of a population in order to understand or describe a larger population of interest and because survey typically ask people about attitudes, perception, images behaviour, affiliations, and basic demographic information.” I use this methodology to collect data because versatility, efficiency, and generalisability make surveys advantageous for data collection (Schutt, 2004). According to Jaeger (1988) cited in Baccus (2004:56), “the following conditions must be present for good survey research to occur: researchers have a desire to learn specific information about a large group of persons, or institutions, the population or group of interests is well defined, investigators are interested in the current conditions of a group, not what would transpire if a change were made, and finally researchers realize that the best way to collect the desired information is to ask individual persons”. Methods of data analysis Due to the nature of this study, I only use qualitative data analysis procedure. Before, I continue with the current study, I have to give some clarification of what qualitative analysis research is. According to Cresswell (2007:07), “qualitative research is based on non numerical data”. And he goes on further saying that a “qualitative research explores attitudes, behaviors and experiences through such methods as interviews or focus groups. It attempts to get an in-depth opinion from participants. As it is attitudes, behavior and experiences

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

425

which are important, fewer people take part in the research, people tends to last a lot longer”. However this type of research generates statistics through the use of a large –scale survey research, using methods such as questionnaires or structured interviews.This research study is subjected to interviews data and with written responses to open –ended items on questionnaire and will be subjected to qualitative analysis techniques. However, to analyze these results, I need to understand the importance of grounded-theory. The reader might be asking what a grounded theory is. Strauss and Corbin (1998) cited by Cresswell (2007: 63) demonstrates that: “A grounded theory is a qualitative research design in which the inquirer generates a general explanation (a theory) of a process, action, or interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants”. This qualitative research design was developed by two researchers in 1967, namely Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss who felt that the theories used by other researchers were inappropriate for informants under a study. More recently, Charmaz (2006) has advocated for a constructivist grounded theory, introducing another perspective into the conversation about procedures. Grounded theory has gained popularity in different fields such as: Sociology, Nursing, Education, Psychology, and in other areas of knowledge. The two approaches to grounded theory are the systematic procedures of Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), and the constructivist approach of Charmaz (2005, 2006). The researcher conducts 20 to 30 interviews based on several visits “to the field” to collect interview data to saturate the categories. Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) claim that the researcher seeks to investigate systematically and develop a theory that explains process, action, or interaction on a topic (e.g. the process of developing a curriculum, the therapeutic benefits of sharing psychological test results with clients). In grounded theory there are many forms of data analysis information, namely category, theoretical sampling constant comparative analysis, open coding, and so forth. In this current study, I am going to use Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) to illustrate grounded theory procedures because systematic approach is helpful to individuals learning and open-coding procedure of data analysis. When open-coding is used ‘the researcher forms categories of information about the phenomenon being studied by segmenting information. Within each category, the investigator finds several properties, or subcategories, and looks for data to dimensionalize, or show the extreme possibilities on a continuum of the property (Cresswell, 2007: 67.

426

Appendices

Therefore, in doing this study, first I had to code each statement for the attributions of successes and failures students used to describe an action.. Second, I had to form the attributions categories according to the statements. Third, I had to group the questionnaires in terms of age and gender. And, finally, I had to count them and separate according to the variables I used for this study: gender, age and perceived level of success, tabulate the results, and interpret them. Next chapter, we will have a look at data analysis and interpretation. CHAPTER IV - DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION In this chapter, my main concern is to interpret the meaning that the respondents intended by the statements they mentioned while filling the questionnaire and answering the interview. I tried as far as possible not to impose my own pre-determined categories from my mind. STUDENTS’ RESPONSES (Questionnaire Responses) Here, I will try to show students attributions in doing well, that is, the results obtained after this long journey. In this study, fourteen attributions (reasons) for doing well were cited by students. Of the 156 reasons cited for success most were concerned with interest. This category included statements such: I like English, pay attention to teacher’s explanation, English is nice, be attentive, motivated, enjoying, when I am motivated. This category was mentioned 35 times. The next attribution emerged was termed as teacher. This category included statements such as: A friendly teacher, a shy teacher, a funny teacher, good, patient, demanding teacher, a model .It is important to mention that teachers were cited 25 times. Effort was cited 25 times. This category included: reading at home, try hard, do homework, concentration and dedication. The next attribution was termed Strategy. In the one hand, it was not easy to differentiate strategy from effort. I defined strategy operationally as directed effort, even though the sense of direction was always very clear or purposeful. This included statements such as: search in the internet translating lyrics from English into another language and vice –versa, using a vocabulary. This attribution was mentioned 16 times. Practice was mentioned 12 times and included statements such as: having a dialogue, debating, talking to the teacher using the target language, and not practicing.The following attribution was attendance; were statements such: be late at a lesson and failing to attend the lesson. This attribution was cited 7 times. Material was also identified with statements such as: lack of material, a book, a dictionary. This attribution

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

427

was cited once. Task difficulty was mentioned with statements like: it is difficult to write, I am not able to pronounce well, I am not able to read. It was mentioned 3 times. Environment was identified with statements such as: noisy classroom, that is, a classroom near the road and also when classmates make noise. It was cited once. Teaching methodology was identified with different types of statements, like good or bad teacher’s explanation, the way teacher explain, I understand when teacher use two languages, i.e. English and Portuguese. This was mentioned 15 times. Peer which was identified with statements, such as working with others and teacher and students interaction or students and teachers interaction. The last but one attribution mentioned was the time; and it was identified with statements like: short time to study and availability. It was mentioned twice. So, the last attribution mentioned was ability with statements like: I do not understand what was taught, English is easy and it is not so easy to learn. This category was mentioned 11 times. As I said before, these are the most cited categories (attributions) for success (doing well). However there were other reasons that were cited but not as often as the ones mentioned before. As a surprise to me, teaching materials or other elements such as parents or friends were never mentioned. Thus, on the table below, we can see that the most cited attributions are internal, that is, to say students attribute their successes more to external reasons rather than internal. Table 2: General attributions for success (n=60) ATTRIBUTIONS EFFORT TEACHER INTEREST ABILITY STRATEGY ATTENDANCE MATERIAL ENVIRONMENT TASK PEER TIME TEACHING METHODOLOGY PRACTICE TOTAL:

Nr 23 25 35 11 16 7 1 1 3 2 2 15

% 14.93% 16.23% 22.72% 7.14% 10.38% 4.54% 0.64% 0.64% 1.94% 1.29% 1.29% 9.74%

12 154

7.79% 99.27%

Total: 154 Attributions mentioned

INT/EXT I E I/E I I E E E I E E E I

428

Appendices

The attributions cited for students successes differ from the ones mentioned for students failures, that is ,the attribution mentioned for student failures are the following; Table 3: General attributions for failure (n=60) ATTRIBUTION EFFORT TEACHER INTEREST ABILITY STRATEGY ATTENDANCE MATERIAL ENVIRONMENT TASK PEER TIME TEACHING METHODOLOGY PRACTICE TOTAL:

Nr 16 14

% 10.52 9.21

INT/EXT I E

43 16 7 8 3 6 18 0 1 15

28.28 10.52 4.60 5.26 1.97 3.94 11.84 0 0.65 9.86

I/E I I E E E I E E E

5 152

3.28 99.93

I

Attributions in Terms of Gender Here I will show how the attributions mentioned by students varied depending on whether they were men or women. First, let us look at attributions for success, and then we will see attributions for failure. According to the data collected, we can see that girls mentioned effort 9 times. However boys mentioned it 14 times. Meaning, that boys believe that as a reason for doing well in English should be through effort. On the other hand, girls mentioned teachers as a reason for their successes and boys only cited 10 times to teacher. Girls cited interest 18 times and boys mentioned it 17 times which can be concluded that both boys and girls are more external/internal. The other conclusion to be made here is that girls cited ability 7 times and boys only cited 4 times. It is understood that girls are more external than boys. On the next table, we will see the attributions for failures in terms of gender (see the table below).

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

429

Table 9: Attributions for success in terms of perceived level of success Success-oriented Average Attributions Nr % I/E Nr % Effort 6 13.% I 13 17.5% Teacher 6 13.% E 16 21.6% Interest 13 28.2% E/I 16 21.6% Ability 3 6.5% I 5 6.7% Strategy 11 23.9% E 7 9.4% Attendance 0 0% E 2 2.7% Environment 0 0% E 0 Task 1 2.1% E 1 1.3% Material 0 0% E 2 2.7% Peer 0 0% E 1 1.3% Time 0 0% E 2 2.7% Teaching 4 8.6% E 1 1.3% methodology Practice 2 4.3% E 8 10.8% Total 46 99.6% 74 99.9 NB:I/E. I=stands for internal and E=stands for external

I/E I E E/I I E E E E E E E E E

Failure-oriented Nr % I/E 3 14.2% I 3 14.2% E 5 23.8% E/I 1 4.7% I 2 9.5% E 3 14.2% E 1 4.7% E 0 0% E 0 0% E 0 0% E 0 0% E 1 4.7% E 2 21

9.5% 99.5%

E

The success-oriented group cited the internal /external attribution of interest 28.2% and use of appropriate strategies and effort for reasons of perceived level of success. The average group, cited the external attribution of teacher 20% and internal/external of interest was also mentioned 20%.However, strategy was only mentioned 6.7%. On the other hand, the failure–oriented group cited the internal/external attribution of interest 23.8% and the second most cited attributions for failure were the use of effort, teacher and finally an external attribution which is attendance. As a conclusion, we can see from the data that success-oriented group, average and failure-oriented all cited the same attributions and their percentage is high. So, the groups depend more from internal and external factors. Success-oriented group, mentioned interest more than the others in terms of percentage and as far as we can see, most students perceive themselves as average. Students` Interview Responses In this interview, 9 attributions (reasons) were cited by students. Twenty (20) students took part on the interview, were 10 male and 10 female aged 18-26 and 27-36. On the table below, we will see the results obtained. So, 9 attributions for doing well (success), were the most cited reasons:

Appendices

430

Interest; this category included statements such as; I like English, its interesting, pay attention to teachers explanation, English is nice, be attentive, when I am motivated. So, this category was mentioned 12 times. The attribution which emerged next was termed effort. This one, was mentioned 40 times and included statements such as; a friendly teacher, patient, funny, demanding and a model one. After, we found strategy which included statements such as: search on the internet, translating lyrics from English into another language and vice-versa. The following attribution was termed attendance (statements like; be late at school and not attending the lesson). This attribution was cited once. The last but one attribution, was termed teaching methodology. This category was identified with different types of statements like: good or bad teachers explanation, the way teacher explain, I understand better when teacher uses two languages (English and Portuguese). This reason was cited 4 times. The last reason was termed practice. Practice was identified with statements like: I like having dialogue, practicing and talking to teacher using the target language. Here, in this session we will show the results obtained from the interview done with the target group. Similar from what we did with the questionnaire we will do with the interview. We will analyze the attributions for success and failure in terms of gender, age and, finally, perceived level of success. Table 12: Attributions for success in terms of gender (n=20)

ATTRIBUTION EFFORT TEACHER INTEREST ABILITY STRATEGY ATTENDANCE TEACHING METHODOLOGY PRACTICE TOTAL

Boys Nr % 6 27.2% 4 18% 5 22.7% 0 0% 2 9.0% 1 4.5% 2 9.0% 2 22

9.0% 99.4%

INT/EXT I E I/E I E E E E

Girls Nr 4 3 7 0 4 0 2

% 20% 15% 35% 0% 20% 0% 10%

INT/EXT I E I/E I E E E

0 20

0% 100%

E

Boys attributed most of their successes to their own effort, the teacher, interest, strategy and also to practice. Similarly, girls had the same attributions, but boys had a lower number. Boys cited practice for twice in

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

431

contrast girls did not mention. In terms of percentage, girls seemed to be more successful than boys. We can see that boys mentioned effort 27.2% and girls 20%, teacher 18% for boys and girls 15%, interest 22,7% for boys and 35 for girls. Therefore, we have seen that interest plays greater role in learning a language than the other categories (attribution). Table 13: Attributions for failure in terms of gender (n=20)

ATTRIBUTION EFFORT TEACHER INTEREST ABILITY STRATEGY ATTENDANCE TEACHING METHODOLOGY PRACTICE TOTAL

Boys Nr % 3 13.6% 5 22.7% 3 13.6% 2 9.0% 0 0% 2 9.0% 6 27.2% 1 22

4.5% 99.6%

INT/EXT I E I/E I E E E

Nr 4 1 5 2 2 2 6

% 16.6% 4.1% 20.8% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 25%

E

1 24

4.1% 99,9%

Girls INT/EXT I E I/E I E E E E

Here, we can see that boys attribute their failure mostly to the teaching methodology and girls do the same however boys mentioned more often teacher than girls did. We can conclude that the attributions are the same however the number of attribution is sometimes higher. Teachers` Responses Here in this session, we will examine the answers given by the teacher about the perception he has about his students. But, first we will analyze the responses from the questionnaire and then from the interview. Questionnaire For this study, I only used one teacher and before he completed the questionnaire I explained how he should complete it. After having the questionnaire completed I collected at the same day, that is, after few minutes. The results obtained were the following: 1. The teacher cited four attributions, namely: teaching methodology, interest, teacher and effort. 2. For teaching methodology, the teacher used statements such as: the way I teach and explain and also the method I use to teach.

432

Appendices

3. The following attribution was interest. He used statements, like: when they care about a given lesson. 4. Teacher was identified with statements such as: the way I motivate them. 5. The attribution effort was identified with statements like: when they study at home and do homework. Now we will have a brief description of how teacher attribute success and failure to their students. 1. The teacher perceived their students as average in learning English. 2. In terms of attributing success, the teacher cited teaching methodology twice and the teacher once. So, we can say that teachers attribute their students’ success to the teaching methods used and to the teacher herself/himelf. Now, in terms of attribution for failure, we found out that the teacher mentioned three attributions, namely: interest, effort and the teaching methodology. These attributions were each cited once. On the next session, we will see the data from the teachers` interview. Teacher’s Interview Here in this chapter, we will see the results obtained by the interview carried out with the teacher. I had to book the interview with the teacher in a day in which he was not busy. So, we planned to meet at the school where he teaches. The interview took less than ten minutes because the questions were the same as the ones used in the questionnaire. In attributing students’ success and failure, the teacher cited two reasons, that is, effort and interest. Effort here, was identified with statements like: do homework, study, and interest was identified with statements like: I care about the lesson. The teacher attributes their students success to effort and interest: effort was cited twice by the teacher and for interest he cited once. For failure, the teacher cited the same attributions. Similarly, he cited lack of effort twice and lack of interest once. In asking teacher, the way he perceives their students level of success the teacher said “I consider my students as Average”. So these are the answers given by the teacher concerned to the interview. On the next chapter we will cite the pedagogical implication of this study.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

CHAPTER V-PEDAGOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

IMPLICATIONS

433

AND

Pedagogical Implications The development of students’ motivation is a complex and dynamic process. Teachers recognize the importance of motivation but often struggle to understand why certain students avoid challenge of diversity.Individual attributions for success and failure appear to be formed by a complex interplay and developmental stage, external influences and social context. It is important to understand, therefore, the way in which individuals make sense of external influence include, the teacher. First, teachers should assist students in finding ways to overcome the potential problems and effects of attributions for failure. Teachers might reduce such attributional tendency in a number of ways. Second, teachers should be aware that attributions of outcomes to internal factors (ability, effort, strategy and interest) may be the domain-or even activity specific, and any attempt to alter such attributions may require domain- or activity specific interventions. Third, the strong endorsement of interest attributions for both success and failure observed, here, suggest that teachers should do everything in their power to develop students’ interest in the act of learning itself and in the topics covered in class. Fourth, teachers should pay as much attention to students’ casuals’ beliefs about performance in non-testing situations as in testing situations. Fifth, teachers should be aware of the internal and external factors that influence students learning. Finally, teachers and researchers should be aware that beliefs about the locus, stability of particular attributions may vary from one student to another and from one situation to the next. Recommendations According to the information gathered through the research methods, that is, questionnaire and interview analyzed and interpreted and the grounded theory, which I considered crucial to this work. It is important that teachers need to be informed about the reasons their students attribute their successes and failures in learning English, so I have some recommendations for the teachers: 1. When a teacher has a new group, he/she should do a diagnose test, i.e. to know what are students attributions in learning English.

434

Appendices

2. After the diagnose test, the teacher should do a retraining, i.e. work on changing students’ negative attributions and reinforce positive ones. Thus, following these recommendations, teachers will reduce the negative effects of students’ attributions for success and failure and will consequently improve English language learning in our schools. CONCLUSION This study comprised 60 students and one teacher, they took part of this. Throughout this study 13 attributions were cited by students. The data collected formed the following attribution categories, namely: effort, interest, teacher, ability, strategy, time, task difficulty, teaching methodology, practice, attendance, material, peer, and environment. This study aimed at evaluating the need to identify to whom or to what students attribute their successes and failures in learning English and also to examine the ways in which these (successes and failures) vary according to age, gender and perceived level of success at Escola Secondária do Segundo Ciclo nº3032 (Ex-IMNE 22 de Novembro). The result of the current study will be of great value to the development of this theory. So, towards this study, we concluded that: x The most cited attributions for success wer, first, interest 22.72%, second teacher 16,23%, third effort 14.93%, fourth strategy 10.38% and fifth teaching methodology 9.74%. x In terms of attributions for failure we found out that students attribute 28% for interest, effort 10.52%, ability 10.52%, task difficulty11.84% and the teaching methodology 9.86%. So, we can compare this data and conclude that students’ attributions for failures differ from its attribution for successes. x Now, in attributing success in terms of gender, we found out that boys attributed most of their successes to interest 24.32%, teacher 20.27%, effort 12,16%, girls attributed 22,7 to interest, effort 18,18 and teacher 12,98%. Similarly, in terms of failure girls attribute most of their successes to the same categories. However, girls are more successful than boys. x In terms of age, students from 18-26 attributed most of their success to teachers, interest, effort, strategy and the teaching methodology.Similarly, students from 37-36 coincidentally attributed their success to the same categories mentioned by students of 18-26 and 27-36 are more internal/external in

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

435

attributing their successes. Therefore, 18-26 and 27-36 attribute most of their failure to external factors. Thus; 18-26 years are more successful than students aged 27-36. x Now, in what is concerned to perceived level of success, we saw that success oriented group cited the internal/external attribution of interest 28.2% and use of appropriate strategies and effort for reasons of perceived level of success. Most students considered themselves as average. The average group cited external attribution of teacher 20% and external of interest was also mentioned 20%, in contrast, strategy was only mentioned 6.7%. Furthermore, the failure-oriented group cited the internal/external of interest 23.8% and the second most cited attribution for failure were; effort, teacher and attendance. I agree entirely with Vispoel and Austin (1995: 380) when claiming that “success and failure (outcome) do not elicit the same attributions, nor are attributions endorsed equally under both success and failure conditions”. Because, if we pay a careful attention at the results obtained from this study, we will examine that the number attributions mentioned for success are not the ones mentioned for failure. That is, 154 for success and 152 for failures. I would not finish my conclusions without answering the research questions that I worked with. According, to the data collected to answer the research questions, I came up with the following results: The first question was, do grade 11 students perceive themselves as more successful or less successful in learning English? So, basing on the data collected, 11th grade students from this school (Ex-IMNE 22 de Novembro) perceived themselves as regular in learning English. 1. The second research question is, to what do grade 11th students attribute their perceived success or failure? Students attributed their perceived success and failure to 13 categories (reasons), namely: the teacher, effort, interest, strategy, teaching methodology, ability, practice, attendance, task, peer, time, environment and material. 2. The third is, do these attributions for success and failure differ in terms of their age and gender? The attributions cited by students differ in terms of their age and gender. 3. The fourth and the last is, do teachers views of their students successes and failures differ from the ones presented by their students? Yes, it does. The teacher only cited two attributions, like:

436

Appendices

effort and interest. But, I think that if the number of teachers would be increased, I am sure the attributions would be similar.

Research report 2 Abstract The present work researched the efficacy of multiple-choice versus gapfilling tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students. Actually, it was conducted in order to find between these two testing instruments which is the best one in the assessment of the grammatical knowledge. And, to determine that, they were analyzed the students’ scores from both tests, teachers’ interview and students’ questionnaire. The research took place with the participation of 5 EFL teachers and 56 students from four different classes in a secondary school named São Domingos-1171. It was conducted using an interview for the teachers, two different tests, namely one multiple-choice and one gap-filling in which assessed one single grammatical tense, and a questionnaire as the research instruments for the students. The findings of the present work showed multiple-choice test to be more efficient than the gap-filling test in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students and, the teachers at São Domingos1171, avoid using multiple-choice test for many reasons such as, for them not to have ELT course, not to be trained at education faculties, most of them not to know the characteristics of multiple-choice test, and lastly for them to find gap-filling an easier test to design. To enhance the teachers teaching process as well as students’ abilities and knowledge, through the findings of the present work, it was suggested the use of multiple-choice testing technique, that more and more studies should be carried out on the topic, etc. On the other hand, it is important to say that this work is composed by five chapters. In the introductory part which the chapter 0 (zero), it was stated the Introduction of the study, the rational for the study, the statement of the problem, the research aims and objectives, the research questions and, the significance of the study. The first chapter that is the presentation of the institution, discussed about the historical background of the institution, the teachers and students of that institution, the material used by the English teachers in that institution and then it was made a summary of this chapter. The second chapter of this work is the literature review. It discussed many theoretical aspects about tests and testing based on literature written

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

437

by many authors like Hamer, Hughes, Ur, etc. And some materials found in the internet that for somehow where of paramount importance for this work. And it finished with a summary of the chapter. The third chapter of this thesis is the research methodology. It started with an introduction and then it discussed about the research site, research participants, research methods and data collection procedures, the methods of data analysis and it ended with a summary of this chapter. The practical part of this thesis is the chapter four. It discussed the findings presentation, analysis and interpretation. The data were collected in different days. Lastly, it stated the final chapter which is number five. It dealt with the discussion, conclusions and recommendations about the researched issues. Key words: Assessing, efficacy, EFL, gap-filling, grammar, multiplechoice, score, test, etc. Definition of terms and abbreviations used in the work For clarity of meaning throughout this work, the following definitions of terms and some abbreviations are applicable. Assessment: the process of analysing and measuring knowledge and ability, in this case, the learners’ knowledge of the language and ability to communicate (Lindsay and knight,2006:121) Bias: point of view supported by (your) feelings (Waters, Mary and Waters, Alan.1995:201) Distractor: the incorrect answer in a multiple-choice test (Lindsay, Cora and Knight, Paul.2006:164) EFL (English as Foreign Language): a term that has been used to describe the language that people study so that they can speak English around the world (Harmer, 1988:273) Evaluation: a more general concept that allow teachers and other professionals to evaluate teaching, teaching materials, and even tests, as well as learning(Davies and Pearse 2000:171). Evaluation: the systematic gathering of information for the purpose of making decision (Bachman, 1990:22. In Weiss 1972) Grammar: the analysis of the structure of phrases and sentences (Yule, 1985:243). Grammatical ability: the combination of grammatical knowledge and strategic competence, or even the capacity to realize grammatical knowledge accurately in testing or other language-use situation (Purpura, E, James, 2004:86). Grammatical knowledge: a set of internalized informational structures related to the theoretical model of grammar (Purpura, E. James, 2004:85).

438

Appendices

Grammatical performance: the observable manifestation of grammatical ability in language use (Purpura, E. James. 2004:87). Knowledge: a set of informational structures that are built up through experience and stored in long-term memory. These structures include knowledge of facts that are stored in concepts, images, networks, production-like structures, propositions, schemata and representations (Purpura, E. James, 2004:85 In Pressley, 1995). L1: a learner’s first language (Lindsay, Cora and Knight, Paul 2006:166) L2: a learner’s second language, i.e. the language they are studying (Lindsay, Cora and Knight, Paul 2006:166) Language ability (also called communicative competence or language proficiency): An individual’s capacity to utilize mental representations of language knowledge built up through practice or experience in order to convey meaning (Purpura, E. James, 2004:86). Language knowledge: the mental representation of informational structures related to language (Purpura, E. James, 2004:85). Language performance: the use of language in actual language events (Purpura, E. James. 2004:87). Measurement: in the social sciences, is the process of quantifying the characteristics of persons according to explicit procedures and rules (Bachman, 1990:18) Test: an activity whose main purpose is to convey (usually to the tester) how well the testee knows or can do something (Ur, 1996:33) Test: is a measurement instrument designed to elicit a specific sample of an individual’s behaviour (Bachman, 1990:20) Testing: the process of gathering reliable evidence of what learners can do in English and what they know of English (Davies and Pearse 2000:171). Table of contents Citation ...................................................................................................... II Dedication................................................................................................. III Acknowledgement.................................................................................... IV Abstract .................................................................................................... VI Definition of terms and abbreviations used in the work ................... VIII Table of the contents ................................................................................ X

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

439

CHAPTER 0: INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 Rationale for the study .............................................................................. 1 0.1 Statement of the problem .................................................................... 2 0.2 Research aims and objectives ............................................................. 3 0.3 Research questions .............................................................................. 4 0.4 Significance of the study...................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 1: PRESENTATION OF THE INSTITUTION.................. 6 1.1 The institution ...................................................................................... 6 1.2 The teachers ......................................................................................... 7 1.3 The students ......................................................................................... 8 1.4 The materials ....................................................................................... 8 1.5 Summary ............................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................. 11 2.1 Language testing ................................................................................ 12 2.1.1 Reasons for testing .......................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Characteristics of a good test ......................................................... 14 a) Validity ................................................................................................. 14 b) Reliability ............................................................................................. 15 c) Wash back ............................................................................................ 15 d) Authenticity ......................................................................................... 16 e) Transparency ....................................................................................... 16 f) Security ................................................................................................. 16 g) Objectivity............................................................................................ 17 h) Practicality ........................................................................................... 17 2.2 Designing tests .................................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Designing tests in general ............................................................... 18 2.2.2 Designing grammar tests................................................................ 20 2.3 Administrating tests .......................................................................... 21 2.4 Direct and indirect test item types.................................................... 22 2.4.1 Multiple-choice tests ....................................................................... 26 2.4.2 Gap-filling tests ............................................................................... 27 2.5 Summary ............................................................................................ 28 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................. 29 3.1 Research site....................................................................................... 29 3.2 Research participants ........................................................................ 30 3.3 Research methods .............................................................................. 31 3.3.1 Data collection procedures ............................................................. 32 3.4 Methods of data analysis ................................................................... 34

440

Appendices

3.5 Limitation of the study ...................................................................... 34 3.6 Summary ............................................................................................ 35 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ........... 36 4.1 Presentation, analysis and interpretation of the teachers’ interview ................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1 Presentation of the teachers’ interview ......................................... 37 4.1.2 Analysis and interpretation of the teachers’ interview................ 40 4.2 Multiple-choice versus Gap-filling written tests presentation, analysis and interpretation ..................................................................... 41 4.2.1 Multiple-choice versus Gap-filling written test individual Scores ........................................................................................................ 41 4.2.2 Written tests total scores average .................................................. 44 4.2.3 Multiple-choice versus Gap-filling written tests total scores in the scale of 5 ................................................................................................... 44 4.2.4 Written tests total positive and negative scores analysis ............. 47 4.3 Multiple-choice versus gap-filling oral tests presentation, analysis and interpretation .................................................................................... 49 4.3.1 Multiple-choice versus Gap-filling oral tests individual scores .. 49 4.3.2 Oral tests total scores average ....................................................... 51 4.3.3 Multiple-choice versus Gap-filling oral tests total scores in the scale of 5 ................................................................................................... 51 4.5 Oral tests total positive and negative scores .................................... 54 4.4 Presentation, analysis and interpretation of the students’ questionnaire ............................................................................................ 56 4.4.1 Questionnaire first question students answers ............................. 56 4.4.2 Questionnaire second question students answers ........................ 57 4.4.3 Questionnaire third question students answers ........................... 58 4.4.4 Questionnaire fourth question students answers ......................... 59 4.5 Summary ............................................................................................ 60 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 61 5.1 Findings discussions and conclusions in relation to the research questions, aim and objectives ................................................................. 61 5.2 Recommendations.............................................................................. 65 Bibliography............................................................................................. 67

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

441

CHAPTER 0: INTRODUCTION Any work to be considered a research work must have some components as considered by Nunan (1992) “research is a systematic process of inquiry consisting of three elements or components: (1) a question, problem, or hypothesis, (2) data, (3) analysis and interpretation of data” (p.3) This introductory chapter discusses the rational for the study, the statement of problem, research aim and objectives, the research questions and at the end, the significance of the study. 0.1 Rationale for the study The assessment of the skills and knowledge of EFL students is and has always been part of the teaching and learning process. Harmer, (2007) stated: “Teachers and other education professionals spend a lot of time testing, evaluating and assessing students. Sometimes this is to measure the students’ abilities to see if they can enter a course or institution. Sometimes it is to see how well they are getting on. Sometimes it is because the students themselves want a qualification” (p.379)

What is the most efficient technique to be used to assess the students’ writing or reading skills and vocabulary or grammar knowledge for example? Actually, there are many testing techniques, but the ones researched in this work were multiple-choice and gap-filling tests. Worldwide, many researchers (like Harmer and Hughes for example) consider multiple-choice and gap-filling tests to be good techniques in the assessment of receptive skills like listening as well as in the assessment of knowledge like grammar and vocabulary. However, during the years that I have been working at Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171, I realized that in terms of grammar testing, teachers do not use multiple-choice test, instead, they find gap-filling and questions and answers tests as the valuable tools for testing grammar, reason why I decided to carry out a research to find out between multiple-choice test and gap-filling test which is the most efficient technique in measuring the students’ grammatical knowledge. 0.2 Statement of the problem The multiple-choice testing technique has been used by many teachers and found by many language researchers, to be an adequate measurement instrument in assessing receptive skills such as reading and speaking as well as English language knowledge such as vocabulary and grammar (Harmer, 2007; Hubbard et al, 2008; Lindsay and Knight, 2006). Further, Hugues (1989) stated as follow:

442

Appendices “Multiple-choice technique is a quick, economical and easy to mark tool of assessing many different areas of language skills and general knowledge, its scoring can be perfectly reliable, and as in order to respond the questions the learner has only to make a mark on the paper, it is possible to include more items than would otherwise be possible in a given period of time, and making all these aspects multiple-choice to be a reliable and valid testing method (p.75).

Authors or researchers on ELT like Harmer, Lindsay and Knight, have also found Multiple-choice technique to be an efficient and adequate method of assessing grammar knowledge apart from reading and speaking skills for example. Lindsay and Knight (2006) stated that: “Multiple choice questions are a common type of test and can be used to test both individual language items, such as vocabulary or grammar, or listening or reading comprehension” (p. 126). In addition to the above statement, Harmer (2007) argues as follow: “For many years, multiple-choice questions were considered to be ideal test instruments for measuring students’ knowledge of grammar and vocabulary” (p. 382) Although researchers point out all the advantages above presented, Multiple-choice tests have also some disadvantages both for the teacher and the students, as Ur (1991) stated: “The reading of the question-and-options is fairly time-consuming; the process of comprehension of the actual question items may take more time and effort than the point ostensibly tested, which raise problems of validity. Another important problem is that good multiple-choice questions are surprisingly difficult to design: they often come out ambiguous, or with no clear right answer, or with their solutions over-obvious” (p.39)

Similar to multiple-choice tests, gap-filling tests have also been used by many teachers and taken by many language researchers, to be appropriate measurement instruments in the assessment of the skill like reading as well as English language knowledge like vocabulary and grammar ( Hugues,2003; Ur, 2007; Lindsay and Knight, 2006). Although many teachers use this technique and many researchers claim it to be appropriate in the grammar and on the listening skill or writing assessment for example, it has also some drawbacks as Ur stated “It is tedious to compose, though not so difficult as multiple-choice; it is more easily administered in writing than in speech…You may need to be aware that there is more than one possible answer” (p.39). In addition, Hugues (2008) stated that: …But it does not work well where the grammatical element to be tested is discontinuous, and so needs more than one gap” (p.80). I have been working at Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171 since the year 2004, and, during all this period of time, I observed that when the teachers are assessing the students’ grammatical knowledge, they do not

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

443

use multiple-choice test, instead, they only use gap-filling and questions and answers tests. Having noticed about all the advantages and disadvantages of using multiple-choice and gap-filling tests stated by ELT researchers (like Hugues, Harmer, Heaton, etc.), being an L2 learner as well as a Practitioner of English Language Teaching and having observed at Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171 the phenomenon of not using multiple-choice test, I proposed to carry out a research by comparing the students scores obtained from two different testing techniques namely, multiple-choice and gap-filling, in order to find out between them, which is more efficient than the other in grammar assessment and through an interview, to understand the reasons why the teachers in this institution (Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171) do not use multiple-choice testing technique. 0.3 Research aim and objectives The major purpose of the research is to investigate the efficacy of multiple-choice versus gap-filling tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students. In other words, this study seeks to find out between multiple-choice and gap-filling test, which is better or more appropriate for assessing grammar. Taking into account that many researchers have considered multiplechoice to be an adequate and efficient technique in testing grammar and, since little researches have been carried out in the area of testing in the Angolan context, it is an objective of this study, through multiple-choice and gap-filling students’ scores comparison, to determine which of them is more efficient. The last but not the least objective of this study is, through teachers’ interview finding, to understand the reasons that make the EFL teachers of Complexo Escolar São domingos-1171 to avoid using multiple-choice testing technique when assessing their students. 0.4 Research questions In order to research about the efficacy of multiple-choice tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students, 2 research questions were set and they are as follow: - Between gap-filling and multiple-choice, which is more efficient testing technique in the assessment of 10th grade EFL students’ grammatical knowledge?

Appendices

444

-

Why do English teachers at Complexo Escolar São Domingos1171avoid using the multiple-choice testing technique when assessing their students?

0.5 Significance of the study In Angola, specifically at ISCED-LUANDA, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Diploma of Education in English language teaching, many researches have been carried by the students (the candidates on the degree) on improving tests, suggesting testing techniques to certain schools, etc. (Miranda, 2008; Cavala, 2010, etc). However, there is not any known research carried out in there, in order to find out between multiple- choice and gap-filling testing techniques which is the most efficient in assessing EFL students’ grammatical knowledge. That is why this study will be significant for the teachers of English, particularly in the Angolan context where most of them in the primary and some secondary schools do not have ELT course. In addition, this study will also be significant for the students of English because the assessment of grammatical knowledge using Multiple-choice tests might be set in practice by the teachers. This study will also be of considerable interest to many English language researchers who tend to keep investigating on the topic. 1.3 Summary of the chapter(1) This chapter has given a prior look at the historical background of the institution in which the researcher has chosen as the research site, the teachers, students as well as the materials used in there by the English teachers. Chapter 2 will look at some existing literature on the area of English language testing. 2.5 Summary of the chapter(2) This chapter reviewed the existing literature on the area of English language testing. The starting point of this chapter was an introduction and then the definition of key terms. The third point focused on language testing in where were seen two sub points, namely the reasons for testing and the characteristics of a good test. The fourth point which is designing tests has three sub points. The first sub point talked about some aspects of designing tests in general, the second one, described some little but important aspect of how to design grammar tests. The fifth point talked about aspects to be followed when administrating tests and the sixth point of this literature review was: direct and indirect

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

445

test item types. This point dealt with many existing testing techniques such as monologue, true/false, questions and answers, matching, etc. This point (the sixth), has two sub points. The first one focused on important aspect of Multiple-choice tests, whereas the second one focused on the gap-filling tests aspects and the seventh point is the whole chapter summary. The next chapter will deal with the methodology used in the present study. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Any research needs to have a methodology to be taken as a scientific work and, it is the methodology that leads everything in the work in order to get the expected results. This study (entitled “The efficacy of Multiple-choice test versus gapfilling tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students”) seeks to examine the tests score results in order to determine which of both testing techniques is more efficient in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students. On the other hand, it also seeks to give answers to the reasons that make São Domingos-1171 EFL teachers to avoid using multiple-choice technique when assessing their students. In order to research about the efficacy of Multiple-choice versus gapfilling tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students, it was set 2 question and they are as follow: - Between gap-filling and multiple-choice, which is more efficient testing technique in the assessment of 10th grade EFL students’ grammatical knowledge? Why do English teachers at Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171avoid using the multiple-choice testing technique when assessing their students? This chapter will provide information about the research site, subjects, methods, data collection procedures and the method of data analysis. 3.3 Research Methods Considering the constraints, like limited time period of thesis presentation at the first and second semesters at ISCED-Luanda and the fact that only one researcher undertook this study, it was considered most appropriate and beneficial to carry out this research first by analysing some official documents at São Domingos-1171 (English tests and the English scheme of work from INIDE) and then an interview for the teachers in order to understand the reasons that make them not to use multiple-choice test. For the students, it was used the experimental method (using a multiple-choice and a gap-filling test) as sustained by Nunan (1992) “Experiments are

446

Appendices

carried out in order to explore the strength of relationship between variables” (p.25). And in the end, they were given a questionnaire and an oral test using the same techniques in order to reach the core of the matter (as well as guaranteeing the test results reliability), which is to find support for determining which of the two testing techniques is more efficient than the other in assessing grammatical knowledge. Following once again Nunan’s ideas that say: “Questionnaire enable the researcher to collect data in field settings, and the data themselves are more amenable to quantification than discursive data such as free-form field notes, participants observes’ journals, the transcripts of oral language” (p.143)

Two different kinds of tests, namely one multiple-choice test and one gap-filling test built up using or even testing a single tense, namely present simple tense were the instruments for data collection of this study. The tests were prepared using ideas and elementary grammar structures from three books, namely, How English works-a grammar practice book (Swan and Walter. 2009), Essential Grammar in use” (Murphy. 1998) and from a headway elementary student book (Soares, Liz and Soares, John. 2010). The tests were then scored by the researcher with only one scoring method which is “the objective scoring method” because this method says that the scores depend on the student making a key that shows the correct response and then the score is given for the right answer and also because this method is claimed to be quick, reliable, and the tests are easy to correct as well as appropriate to be used when large groups of students are to be assessed (www.utadanacenter.org). In the end, the tests were presented to Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171 English coordinator in order to be analysed and then give a feedback about them. Each test was composed by 20 questions in which each one was given 1 mark. In the Multiple-choice tests, in each question, there were four options (a, b, c and d) in which 3 were the distractors and 1 was the correct option or the key, following Lindsay and Knight (126:2006) statement: “A multiple-choice question usually gives the learner a choice of one correct answer and two or three incorrect ones which are the distracters The Gap-filling test was divided into 3 parts. The 1st part which was the affirmative form had 8 questions. The 2nd part was the negative form and the 3rd part was the interrogative form. The negative and the interrogative forms had 12 questions divided into 6 questions for each form.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

447

3.3.1 Data collection procedure After having analysed the official documents, on the 18th March 2013 the interview was conducted with the teachers. On the 21st March the tests were prepared and then given to São Domingos-1171 English coordinator and had then received his feedback about them. Before handling them to the real research participants, in order to guarantee their reliability and validity, they were first piloted with the other 3 classes’ students who are at the same level as the real research participants, following Harmer (2012) ideas that say: “When we write tests, it is very good idea to give them to colleagues (or students who are not going to do the tests later) to try out first. This will help us to identify questions that don’t work so that we can make changes before we use the test for real” (p.195)

For sure, before this act of piloting took place, similar to the real research, participants the students were given an explanation about the reasons that made piloting those tests, about the importance of the study, ensure them that their identities and marks would be kept confidential and that they could give any kind of feedback that they could have during and after the piloting process. When the piloting process got over, the tests were corrected and modified according to the necessities regarding on the students’ individual differences and tests validity. On the 2nd May, it was carried out the testing session with the real participants of the study in an appropriate and large classroom. Before the test started, once again the researcher gave the research participants all the necessary explanations about the importance and the main aim of the study as well as the importance of the Multiplechoice and gap-filling tests in assessing English language skills and knowledge. On the other hand, before starting the tests, once again the researcher ensured the students that their participation was voluntary, their identities as well as their marks would be kept in secret, meaning it that their marks would not be revealed to anyone and they would not at any way affect on their trimester results. The students who were interested in knowing their marks after the thesis presentation were asked by the researcher to write their names on the verse of the answer shit. In order to find out the efficacy of Multiple-choice versus gap-filling test in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students, the correct and wrong answers were very important for the study reason why, it was of paramount importance for the students to know that both answers (positive and negative) were necessary and that they should not only care about the correct ones but it did not mean that they should fail on some questions on purpose. In addition, the researcher explained that all the gaps in every question should be filled and that only one option in each

448

Appendices

question was correct, reason why they should think well before circling the correct one and encouraging them not to guess the answer but being sure about what to choose. After giving all these explanations to the students about the research, the researcher made the distribution of the tests ensuring the students how important they should make them on their own without cheating and, they were also informed that they had 90 minutes to complete both the two tests. During the time that the tests were taking place, the researcher was present in the classroom clarifying all the doubts the students were presenting. After the tests time got over, the answer shits were collected by the researcher and it was given the students, a questionnaire of 4 closed questions about the tests that they had just done to guarantee the reliability of the results and then, once again the students were thanked for their precious collaboration. On the 8th May, after having corrected the tests and made the analysis and interpretation of the data, in order to support the reliability of the findings, an oral test using the same instruments and techniques was given to the research participants. Some days after, the oral test results were analyzed and interpreted and then the study conclusions and recommendations were made. 3.4 Methods of data analysis The data that were collected from the multiple-choice and gap-filling tests scores (total tests scores average, The percentage of positive and negative scores, etc.) were compared to see how many students could pass and fail in order to determine which of these two testing techniques was better in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students. The data were analyzed following the statistical analysis of test data tool by Hughes (2008). There are essentially two kinds of statistical information on tests: The first relates to the test as a whole (or sometimes to sections of tests); the second relates to the individual items that make up a test (p218). … “One begins test analysis with a list of the score made by each individual taking the test” (p219).

3.5. Limitations of the study There were several limitations to this work that must be noted. The sample that represents the population of the study was very small in size, totalizing 5 teachers and 56 students as research participants. In order to do the written tests, the students had a limited time in which was 90 minutes and in a single day whereas for the oral tests, they were two days and, in each day, each test lasted for 180 minutes. The participants had a

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

449

different English language background because every year, students are admitted in that school without attending any placement test in order to see their English background and be set in the right place per level. Finally, although they were grammar tests, both multiple-choice and gap-filling assessed only the present simple tense. 3.6 Summary of the chapter This chapter which is number 3 argued important information about the research site, participants, the research instruments in which has a sub point talking about the data collection procedure, followed by the methods of data analysis point. The last but one point is the limitation of the study whereas the last one is the chapter summary. The coming chapter will deal with the data presentation, analysis and interpretation. CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION In the research methodology chapter, it was presented in there, the research site, participants as well as the research instruments, the data collection procedures and the data analysis methods. Having discussed all the aspects above stated, now, in this chapter will be presented, analyzed and interpreted the research findings that will give the answers to the research questions, the solution of the research problem as well as give a contribution on the understanding of the research aims and objectives of this work. In so doing, all the attention will be focused on the teachers’ interview and then on the students questionnaire as well as on the written and oral tests scores analysis in where it will be analyzed the multiplechoice versus gap-filling tests total scores, multiple-choice versus gapfilling total scores average, multiple-choice versus gap-filling tests total scores on the scale of five, multiple-choice versus gap-filling total positive and negative test scores, etc. According to Heaton (1988:174-180), there are many ways of scoring grammar tests and they can be for example by measuring central tendency, measuring dispersion, by counting the index of the difficulty, etc. And Hugues (2008) goes also in accordance with what was stated by Heaton by saying: “The analysis of a list of score made by individual taking the test is called frequency table. It helps on the understanding of how the people performed on the test (P.218). Further, he concludes that: “Through frequency table, it is still difficult to get a general picture of performance, especially when there are a large number of different scores. To get this general view of students’ performance the frequency distribution can be condensed into what is called histogram” (P.221)

450

Appendices

For the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the findings of this work, it will be used all the statistical tools above stated by Hugues. 4.1. Presentation, analysis and interpretation of the teachers’ interview The interview conducted with the teachers, aimed at gathering information from them about their academic degree, teaching experience, ELT course, and the use of multiple-choice and gap-filling testing techniques. This information was helpful for the solution of the problem in study. 4.1.1 Presentation of the teachers’ interview 1. What is your academic degree? After having asked this question to my interviewers, they answered like this: Teacher A: “I attended the English language and literature at faculty of arts. Actually, I have the 4th year and I am waiting for my thesis presentation” Teacher B: “I am a bachelor of art. I attended the African language and literature at faculty of arts from Agostinho Neto University” Teacher C: “I attended the 4th year of accounting at the faculty of economy and now I am on my way of writing my dissertation” Teacher D: “I am attending the 4th year at faculty of law” Teacher E: “I am attending the 2nd year of accounting course at faculty of economy” 2. Do you have any ELT course? If “yes”, in which institution? In answer to this question, all the teachers said that they do not have any English language teaching course but they have been attending some refreshment seminars, although these seminars have not been at the field of English teaching. 3. How long have you been teaching English? Teacher A: “I have been teaching English for 10 years”

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

Teacher B: “I have been teaching English for 7 years but at private schools, I was already other subjects’ teacher for more than 4 years” Teacher C: “I am an English teacher for 9 years” Teacher D: “Apart from teaching moral education for 2 years at a private school, I have been teaching English at São Domingos-1171 for 9 years. Actually since this school was reopened” Teacher E: “I have been teaching English for 5 years. 2 years at São Domingos-1171 and 3 at a private school” 4. Do you know the characteristics of a multiple-choice test? Teacher A: “I do not know very well but there are always some options for the student to choose” Teacher B: “All I know is that it is an American system test” Teacher C: “Yes I do” Teacher D: “It is American system. Isn’t it?” Teacher E: “I am not quit sure about the characteristics of this test. Can you give me a little explanation about it? 5. Do you know the characteristics of a gap-filling test? Teacher A: “Yes I do. They are those tests that the students must fill an empty space” Teacher B: “Yes I do” Teacher C: “Yes I do” Teacher D: “Yes I do. The students have to fill a gap as the name says” Teacher E: “I know the test but I do not know its characteristics”

451

452

Appendices

6. Why do you frequently use gap-filling test in the assessment of students’ grammatical knowledge and not multiplechoice test? In answer to this question, all the teachers agreed by saying that they use this testing technique because it is easy to design. Furthermore, teacher E said also that he uses this technique because he can find it in almost all the students’ books. 7. Between multiple-choice and gap-filling test, which of them do you have more difficulties in designing? Teacher A: “I think that it is multiple-choice because gap-filling is very simple to design” Teacher B: “I have never used multiple-choice technique so, I can not say if it is easy or not to design but I prefer using gap-filling because I can take it from students books” Teacher C: “Of course it is multiple-choice” Teacher D: “It is Multiple-choice” Teacher E: “I have never tried to design a multiple-choice test” 8. In your opinion, between multiple-choice and gap-filling test which of them the students get higher scores? When answering this question, teacher B and E said that they have never handled multiple-choice testing technique to their students so, they could not say in which of them the students get higher scores whereas the other 3 teachers agreed to be multiple-choice. 4.1.2 Analysis and interpretation of the Teachers’ interview Through some empirical questions asked to teachers, the interview results analysis and interpretation showed that there are many reasons that make them to avoid using multiple-choice technique when assessing their students. For example when answering the questions 1 and 2, it was noticeable that all the 5 teachers (100%) interviewed were not trained to be teachers of English and, some but little teaching experiences and knowledge came from some in-service trainings like 1 or 2 days seminars. Keeping analyzing and interpreting the teachers’ interview results, it was realized that to some extents, the majority of EFL teachers in that

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

453

institution are in luck of “the practicality principle” because from 5 EFL teachers interviewed, 4 (80%) of them are in luck of multiple-choice testing technique knowledge because when answering the questions 3, although the 5 (100%) argued to have some years teaching experiences, in the question 4, only 1 of them (20%) said for sure to know about the characteristics of multiple-choice testing technique whereas, in answering the 5th question, 4 teachers (80%) affirmed to know the characteristics of gap-filling testing technique and 1 (20%) of them affirmed to know the test but not its characteristics. The 6th question that aimed to know the reasons that make them to use most the gap-filling testing technique in the grammatical knowledge assessment, the 5 teachers (100%) stated to use it because they find it easier to design and, furthermore, 1 of them said also to use it most because he finds it in almost all the students books. These affirmations made me to believe them to know this testing technique better than gapfilling. Furthermore, when answering the 7th question, 2 teachers (40%) said that they have never used or tried to design a multiple-choice test when testing their students that is why they could not say which of them is more difficult to design whereas 3 of them (60%) said for sure to be multiple-choice the most difficult test to design. Similar to the 7th question, in the 8th question, 2 teachers (40%) stated that they have never used multiple-choice technique reason why they could not determine which of them the students should get higher scores whereas 3 of them (60%) agreed that the students get higher scores when they are tested using multiple-choice test. In this work, it has over and over been stated that the main purpose of the study is to investigate if there is a significant difference in the results of the students in both tests, namely, multiple-choice and gap-filling, in order to determine which of them is more efficient in the assessment of grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students at Complexo Escolar São Domingos-1171. Keeping analysing the test takers’ results in the scale of 5 scores in both tests, it was once again realized that there is a great dissimilarity in the students results in these two testing techniques, and once again it was realized that all the students succeeded in the multiple-choice test better than in the gap-filling test as it can be seen in the table 4 and graphics 2, 3 and 4 above presented. To demonstrate this reality, we can see first that in the interval of 0-5 scores in the multiple-choice test, none of the students scored these marks, representing it 0% of all the students as we can see in the graphic 3 and 4. On the other hand, in this scale, in the gap-filling test, 16 students had

454

Appendices

these marks, which made 28% of all the students as it is seen in the graphic3 and 5. As many students could get these negative marks, it is a good indication of multi-choice being more efficient than gap-filling. In the interval of 6-10 scores, we can see in the graphics 3 and 4 that there were 22 students in the multiple-choice test and being it 39% of all students, whereas in the gap-filling test there were 20 students and representing 36% of all the students. Focusing my attention to the interval of 11-16 scores, it is noticeable that once again, as in the scale of 6-10, in the multiple-choice test, 22 students got these points and representing once again a quantity of 39% of all the students against 29% of all the students in the gap-filling test because there were only in this scale 16 students. The most interesting thing is that from this scale, I could see that more and more students could get the highest scores in the multiple-choice test than in the gap-filling test. Finally, in the scale of 16-20, there were 12 students in the multiplechoice test and they represent 22% of all the students while in the gapfilling there were only 4 students in which represent 7% of all the test takers. In this scale, there was a significant dissimilarity in the students’ results in both tests because we can see in the above graphics that from 18 to 20 marks the students’ results were not balanced, just to make it clear, we can see that 4 (7.14%) students got 18 marks in the multiple-choice test against 1(1.78%) in the gap-filling test; 1(1.78%) student had 19 marks in the multiple-choice test while 0 (zero) student reached this point and 1(1.78%) student reached the highest score which is 20 mark in the multiple-choice test whereas none of the students could get this scores in the gap-filling test. Concluding, this point analysis, I would like to say that there was a significant dissimilarity in students’ results in both test techniques. However, I would like to state that it was once again realized that the students performed better in the multiple-choice than in the gap-filling tests….. ….In conclusion, we can say that in this part of analysing the students’ oral scores in the scale of 5 marks, there were some ups and downs in comparison to the written test but it is still multiple-choice in which leads the students scores results, making it more efficient than gap-filling testing technique because in this dissertation, it is always this testing technique (multiple-choice) that has been in advance in terms of students getting higher scores. In addition, these students’ answers were also a good indication of multiple-choice “validity and reliability” because when answering the oral

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

455

tests, it was also realized the same situation, the students found gap-filling more difficult than multiple-choice. In answer to this question, as it is represented in the graphic 15, 38 (68%) students from all the ones (56) had the opinion that were surer in completing multiple-choice test whereas 18 (32%) students affirmed to be surer in answering the gap-filling test. In comparison to multiple-choice test, we can see that there is a difference of 36%. In so doing, it indicates that there was a “positive Washback” in completing multiple-choice test rather than gap-filling and if the students had more difficulties in completing gap-filling test whereas they were surer in completing multiple-choice, it also indicates multiple-choice to be more efficient than gap-filling testing technique and, I agree with it. After the students answered the questionnaire and I realized that most of them had this opinion in this question, I asked them the reasons that made them to think like that, they all agreed by saying that as there is always a correct option in multiple-choice tests, it is easier to remember the form whereas gap-filling is more thoughtful. So, in my opinion, when teachers know that are going to test their students using gap-filling testing technique, they have to use the “transparency principle” so that the test can have a “positive Washback” on the students’ performance. 4.5 Summary of the chapter This chapter reported the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the gathered data through the use of the research analysis method stated at the methodology chapter. The issues that compose this chapter are as follow: Teachers interview, students written and oral tests, and at the end, the students’ questionnaire. The coming chapter will provide the research findings discussions, conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the last chapter it was made the research findings presentation, analysis and interpretation. Now, in this one, we will discuss about these findings in order to set the study conclusions and the right recommendations. 5.1 Findings discussions and Conclusions in relation to the research questions, aim and objectives This research study investigated the efficacy of multiple-choice versus gap-filling tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students. It was carried out in a secondary school named São Domingos-

456

Appendices

1171 at Rangel district with the participation of 5 EFL teachers and 56 students whose age ranged from 16 to 18 and they were 22 male and 34 female. The teachers, as research participants, were interviewed in order to understand the reasons that make them to avoid using multiple-choice testing technique in the assessment of their students’ grammatical knowledge and their answer served also as a support for solution of the aim of the study, the students as research participants, were tested using two different testing techniques, namely multiple-choice and gap-filling to find out which of them is more efficient in the assessment of grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students, and at the end of the test, they were given a 4 questions closed questionnaire which would also be a support for determining the efficacy of one of the tests in the grammar assessment as well as serving to determine the tests validity and reliability. The tests assessed a single tense which was the present simple The research questions of this study are: - Between gap-filling and multiple-choice, which is more efficient testing technique in the assessment of 10th grade EFL students’ grammatical knowledge? - Why do English teachers at Complexo Escolar São Domingos1171avoid using the multiple-choice testing technique when assessing their students? On the other hand, its main aim is: - To investigate the efficacy of multiple-choice versus gap-filling tests in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students or even, in other words, to find out between multiple-choice and gap-filling test, which is better or more appropriate for assessing grammar. Its objectives are as follow: - To compare the students scores in order to determine the efficacy of multiple-choice or gap-filling testing technique in the assessment of students’ grammatical knowledge. - To understand the reasons that make the EFL teachers of Complexo Escolar São domingos-1171 to avoid using multiple-choice testing technique when assessing their students. The research findings analysis and interpretation made us to reach to the following conclusions: The teachers at São Domingos-1171, avoid using multiple-choice test for many reasons such as, for them not to have ELT course, not to be trained at education faculties, most of them not to know the characteristics

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

457

of multiple-choice test, and lastly for them to find gap-filling an easier testing technique to design. Concerning to the study topic (the efficacy of multiple-choice test versus gap-filling test in assessing the grammatical knowledge of 10th grade EFL students), we concluded multiple-choice testing technique to be more efficient in the assessment of grammatical knowledge because we could realize that the students performed better in this testing technique rather than in the gap-filling testing technique either in the written test or in the oral test. On the other hand, the students’ questionnaire answers revelled multiple-choice to be more valid and reliable and the majority of the students when answering to this questionnaire, was unanimous by saying that they felt fewer difficulties in answering multiple-choice questions, they were surer in answering multiple-choice questions, that multiplechoice requires less time preparation and that in their opinion their teachers should use this testing technique rather than gap-filling testing technique when assessing grammatical knowledge. In addition, 60% of the teachers at São Domingos-1171 were unanimous in saying that the students get higher scores when tested using multiple-choice rather than gap-filling testing technique. 5.2 Recommendations After having presented, analyzed, interpreted and discussed about the study findings and having reached to the study conclusions and taking into account all the advantages of multiple-choice testing technique, we give the following recommendations: - São Domingos-1171 English teachers as well as all other ones in the Angolan context who need to get better and better their ways of assessing their students, use multiple-choice testing technique in the assessment of grammatical knowledge. - It has been seen in the Angolan society and stated by São Domingos-1171 EFL teachers that at every beginning of academic years, the Luanda province education direction through the Angolan Ministry of Education, has been carrying out in almost all the schools, teachers’ seminars but unfortunately these seminars have not been specifically at the ELT field, so, it is recommended to the Luanda province education direction, to acknowledge many English teachers lack of this testing technique (and probably many teaching methods), and starting to promote seminars at the ELT field in order to overcome or minimize these difficulties.

Appendices

458

-

To INIDE (Instituto Nacional de Investigação e Desenvolvimento da Educação), it is recommended the insertion of multiple-choice testing technique in the English scheme of the work because the programme does not specify the testing techniques that should be used by the teachers when testing a specific grammar language.

-

Taking into account the limitations of this study, it is recommended any researcher from ISCED-LUANDA or other institution to carry out another research on the topic with more participants, time and more grammar language (for example Preposition, verb tenses, adverbs, adjectives, etc) in order to confirm the findings of this study.

Bibliography Bachman, Lyle F. 2011. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University press. Cheng, Liying et al. 2004. Washback in language testing – Research contexts and methods. Lawrence Erlbaum associates. Davis, Paul and Eric, pearse. 2000. Success in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford university press. Doff, Adrian. 2011. Teach English – A training course for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Forsyth and Lavender. 1994. Grammar activity1. Oxford: Macmillan. Forsyth and Lavender.1995. Grammar activity 2. Oxford: Macmillan. Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to teach English. Harlow: pearse education. Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: pearse education. Harmer, Jeremy. 2012. Essential teacher knowledge. Harlow: pearse education. Heaton, J. B. 1990. Classroom testing. Harlow: Longman, Heaton, J. B. 1988. Writing English language tests. Harlow: Longman. Hubbard et al. 2010. A training course for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University press. Hugues, Arthur. 2008. Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Lindsay, Cora and Knight, Paul. 2011. Learning and teaching English. Oxford: Oxford University press. Murphy, Raymond. 2007. Essential grammar in use. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Academic and Research Literacy Practices of Final Year Teacher Trainees in Luanda, Angola

459

Nunan, David. 2007. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Purpura, E. James. 2005. Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Richards, Jack C. and Renandya, Willy A. 2010. Methodology in language teaching – an anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richards. 2002. Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Longman. Sambeny, Celeste and Gonzalez, Ana Sofia. 2010. English teaching methodology I. Mayamba Editora. Soares, Liz and Soares, John. 2010. Headway - elementary book. Oxford: Oxford University press. Swan, Michael and Walter, Catherine.2009. How English works – a grammar practice book. Oxford: Oxford University press. Ur, Penny. 1991. A course in language teaching - practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Yule, George. 2008. The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Waters, Mary and Waters, Alan. 2009. Alan. Tasks in English. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Weir, Cyril J. 2005. Language testing and validation – an evidence-based approach. Palgrave: Macmillan. www.englishvls.hunnu.educ.cn Www.utadanacenter.org