The first part of this chapter reported on the results of the data obtained in Phase One of this study regarding the features and effectiveness of in-sessional EAP provi- sion currently offered at British universities. While, in Phase One, the features and effectiveness of provision were investigated through an online questionnaire consist- ing of multi-item Likert scales and short answer items, the second phase consisted of
follow-up interviews in an attempt to shed further light on participants’ perceptions of the effectiveness of in-sessional programmes and the criteria underlying those per- ceptions. To this end, both the recurring and new evaluation sub-criteria used in Phase One were used as a source of reference for developing interview questions as well as categories for the deductive content analysis of the interview data. This was done in order to establish whether there are other evaluation criteria and sub-criteria on which participants’ evaluation of the effectiveness of in-sessional programmes is based.
The follow-up interviews with students, academic lecturers and in-sessional staff consisted of 7 sections and 14 questions investigating the effectiveness of in-sessional programmes in terms of their position and accessibility, needs analysis mechanisms used in the in-sessionals, relevance to other degree courses’ content, and their ade- quacy.
In terms of the position of in-sessional provision within universities, in addition to the sub-criteria used in the Likert scales as well as those emerging from the responses to the open-ended questions in the online survey, new evaluation criteria emerged from the analysis of responses to interview questions 1-3. According to these emerging criteria, the following need to be considered by in-sessional providers in order to improve the status of in-sessional provision within an institution:
• Awareness on the part of academic departments of the importance of in- sessionals and what they offer and do not offer
• Promotion of in-sessional classes as an option for all (thereby helping reduce any possible stigma attached to them)
• Being offered as a part of another skills development module rather than an independent module only focusing on EAP
• A systematic collaboration between in-sessional staff and subject specialists The analysis of the responses regarding the accessibility of in-sessional provision showed that both the delivery format of in-sessional provision (for example, drop-in sessions or a continuous course) as well as whether such provision is offered cen- trally rather than being offered by different support services across a university play a determining role in improving the accessibility of such provision. Participants unanimously believed that providing a combination of drop-in and continuous pro- vision, enables in-sessional providers to properly satisfy various needs of students from different degree levels and helps take account of attendance constraints that can govern students’ attendance. In addition, when delivered centrally, academic
English in-sessional programmes become more easily accessible and reduces confu- sion over where to go for such support.
In terms of the relevance of in-sessional provision to degree coursework and con- tent, two new evaluation criteria emerged from the participants’ responses. The first factor in increasing in-sessional relevance to degree course content and assessment concerned collaboration between in-sessional staff and the subject specialists. The second emerging evaluation criterion was related to the flexibility and dynamism of in-sessional programmes in meeting the specific needs of certain groups of students as well as those of individual students. According to these two criteria, consulting with subject specialists as well as including students in determining the content of such provision play an important role in establishing relevance between in-sessional provision and particular disciplinary contexts.
As for adequacy, three new evaluation criteria emerged from the analysis of the responses; namely, the adequacy of human resources, the adequacy of ESAP pub- lished resources and self-access resources (with guidelines on how to use them), and the physical space available for academic and peer mentor support. Having sufficient human resources was seen by the majority of participants as an important factor in the adequacy of in-sessional provision. This was particularly so in relation to a need for more one-to one-support via writing centers focusing on students’ written work. In addition, peer mentor support was another human resource factor high- lighted, particularly by student participants some of whom believed that having a peer-mentoring system provides the opportunity to share learning experiences.
Finally, regarding the needs analysis mechanisms used in in-sessional programmes, while no other new themes emerged from the responses, certain pre-determined evaluation sub-criteria were repeatedly referred to by most participants in regard to improving needs analysis mechanisms. This included involving both students and subject specialists in analyzing students’ needs as well as including the needs of all cohorts of students. As many participants stated, the lack of subject specialists and of student participation in any process of needs analysis can lead to in-sessional staff making assumptions about their needs which might be incorrect. In addition, they added that methods used to identify needs are limited to lower proficiency levels, leaving unattended to the needs of many other students who either possess more advanced English proficiency and/or who are native speakers of English.