DIVERGENCIAS DEL MOVIMIENTO INDIGENA CON LA SENAIME

When attempting to assess student preparedness for university there is no sure-fire, results-guaranteed, tick-box system, a kind of question and answer table which allows students or educators to accurately gauge all the factors which affect an individual student‟s level of preparedness. This is precisely because students are all individuals and a myriad of personal and socio-cultural factors interact in virtually countless ways for each individual. In 2006 Stellenbosch University‟s annual Fact Book highlighted a list of factors which “may impact on student success” (24). Although this attempts to be comprehensive, one can surely add to it. In an attempt to summarise the list to allow for easier reading, Susan van Schalkwyk tabulated it as follows in her doctoral thesis entitled Acquiring Academic

Literacy: A case of first-year extended degree programme students at Stellenbosch University:

Variable Factors

Academic

 The transition from school to higher education

 Inappropriate career choices as a result of inadequate information  Unequal preparation at school level

 Poor class attendance, a poor work ethic

 Under-estimation of what is to be expected at university  Lack of time management and study skills

 Language of instruction

 Examination and assessment expectations  Quality of teaching

 Academic support systems  Computer support is also important Figure 1.7 continues on page 37.

Personal

 Adapting to the new environment  Failed personal relationships

 Unable to cope appropriately with sudden freedom

 Difficult home circumstances (finances, recent divorce, etc.)  Qualities such as self-discipline, a sense of responsibility,

motivation, dedication and perseverance. Health  Stress and depression

 Other health factors. Financial

 Students who have to work to support their studies

 Concerns about being unable to pay fees - can also motivate students to work harder in order to pass.

Social

 Substance dependence  Too much socialising

 Involvement in too many non-academic activities  A poor learning culture in residences

 Students who feel alone and isolated, with no support network.

Accommodation

 Commuter students travelling by train or in lift clubs can face academic disadvantages, particularly where tests and examinations are written in the evening

 Optimal access to learning and other resources may not be available to commuter students

 Residential students experience the support they receive in the residences positively, but social activities in residences can be a problem.

Cultural  Minority groups may feel isolated and alienated. Figure 1.7: Factors which may impact on student success (Van Schalkwyk 84).

Even this list can be expanded upon. It is clear from Van Schalkwyk‟s summary that the Stellenbosch list downplays the primary importance of Bourdieu‟s notion of habitus, which would lead to a more extensive focus on social factors like class, race, language background and gender. The issue of accommodation is only considered for commuting students, while no mention is made of the increasing difficulty of finding suitable accommodation at a reasonable price on campus – a situation which affects mainly poorer students, who more often than not are not “white”. This indicates once again the effect of financial pressures, which one could argue are as important as the academic factors, if not more so, in the struggle to succeed in higher education. Given this complexity, or “supercomplexity” as Ronald Barnett terms the growing number of factors influencing the modern curriculum (255), it is best to focus on the one academic factor which arguably affects all areas of study

in higher education and constitutes the foundational skill upon which the English 178 course builds.

This factor is „Academic Literacy‟, and as the previous section indicated, South African students are being let down by the national education system at a primary school level, where “27.26% of grade 6 students are functionally illiterate” (Policy Report 2) and at a high school level, where, as was argued earlier in this thesis, “53% of all students taking the National Benchmark test during the pilot phase in 2009 were not suitably academically literate to complete their university studies without „extended or augmented programmes‟”. Academic literacy is not only essential for the study of literature; it is one of the cornerstone skills for any student in any degree or programme. Without „basic‟ academic literacy skills students will not be able to understand the texts they are required to read for their studies. With only an “intermediate” level of academic literacy understanding the prescribed texts will take a student significantly longer to read and understand, than would be the case for a student who is “proficiently” academically literate. In her research Schalkwyk stated the following about academic literacy:

Academic literacy in higher education points to reading and writing in the different disciplines where such reading and writing constitute the central process through which students learn new subjects and develop their knowledge. Reading and writing therefore play a fundamental role in student learning, and their acquisition during the first-year at university could be regarded as a critical factor in student success. For most students, the nature of this reading and writing will differ from that which they have been accustomed to at school. Nevertheless, many students enter university with the ability to adapt their approaches and methods in order to effectively participate in the different disciplinary discourses or communities of practice that they encounter. The literature suggests, however, that this is not equally straightforward for all students and that underprepared students will, for example, experience the gap between school and university more acutely.

(Van Schalkwyk 223).

With this in mind it is important to attempt to establish what constitutes academic literacy. A helpful point of departure is The National Benchmark Tests and what they propose to test in terms of academic literacy. The academic literacy test (which all students

taking The National Benchmark Tests write) “aims to assess a learner‟s ability” to do the following (“Academic Literacy” n.p.):

 “Read carefully and make meaning from texts that are typical of the kinds that they will encounter in their studies;

 Understand vocabulary, including vocabulary related to academic study, in their contexts;

 Identify and track points and claims being made in texts;

 Understand and evaluate the evidence that is used to support claims made by writers of texts;

 Extrapolate and draw inferences and conclusions from what is stated or given in text;

 Identify main from supporting ideas in the overall and specific organisation of a text;

 Identify and understand the different types and purposes of communication in texts;

 Be aware of and identify text differences that relate to writers‟ different purposes; audiences; and kinds of communication;

 Understand and interpret information that is presented visually (e.g. in graphs, tables, flow-charts); and

 Understand basic numerical concepts and information used in text, and be able to do basic numerical manipulations.”

From an English 178 perspective, the first eight points are of vital importance and from the students‟ survey responses it is clear that there are specific and serious problems with at least two of these points. Firstly, students are unfamiliar, even at the end of their first-year of study, with the “vocabulary related to academic study” (“Academic Literacy” n.p.). This was made clear by the fact that although only 43% of students reported that they would like to go on to take English Literary studies at second-year level (Figure A.2.14), 77% of the students reported that they wanted to “major” in English Literary Studies (Figure A.2.16). This statistical anomaly is discussed in Chapter 2.1. in greater detail, where it is argued that students did not understand what it meant to elect a “major” in their degree.

This lack of familiarity with the vocabulary of academia was also identified by Jill Bradbury and Ronald Miller in their “analysis of the performance of students from disadvantaged schools in first-year psychology examination[s]” (1). The “findings indicate that success or failure is not simply a measure of the reproduction of content but is a function of the [in]appropriate form of responses that students generate in engaging with different

kinds of questions” (Bradbury and Miller 1). This statement holds true for English Literary Studies, where first-year students also struggle to develop the correct academic register and tone for writing an academic essay. This can sometimes appear pedantic but it is nonetheless an essential part of the academic essay format and the lessons learnt in maintaining a formal academic register and tone are readily transferable to the formal style of professional communication39. This should stand students in good stead once they graduate from university.

However, shortfalls in “academic literacy” (and therefore being poorly prepared for university) “serve[s] to hide the student‟s real potential” (Van Schalkwyk 80), rather than indicating a fundamental flaw in the student. The lack of preparedness exhibited by some students can at times be frustrating for tutors, but it is important that tutors and lecturers “cannot just not care for them [the students]” as one of the lecturers explained during the interviews (Interview 2: Lecturer). On a very pragmatic level, it is the “task [of the English 178 course] to try to educate the people who are put under [its] nose”: complaining about the varying levels of preparedness will not help as the English Department does not “make the entrance requirements” (Interview 2: Lecturer).

Again one has to question if a Literary Studies course is appropriate for teaching academic literacy. In the introduction to Albert Weideman‟s workbook aimed at developing students‟ academic literacy – Academic Literacy: Prepare to Learn – Weideman states that “all new students will benefit from a course such as [the one laid out in] Academic Literacy:

Prepare to Learn, but [if the student has been identified as] at risk, [he/she] will certainly

gain from doing the tasks” in the workbook (Weideman viii). With this in mind one has to question the lack of a specialised, across-the-board, academic literacy or professional communications course in the Arts and Social Sciences Faculty – especially if the Science and Engineering Faculties have identified the need for such courses and begun to introduce them. The irony of the matter is that these courses in the Science and Engineering Faculties are by and large staffed by tutors from Social Sciences postgraduate programmes. Many of the Social Sciences courses are writing-intensive and therefore at postgraduate level these

39 _{It was the severe problems in professional communication exhibited by a large number of students which led} one tutor to suggest the English 178 course should teach these skills explicitly (Interview 3: Tutors). From the small issue of students sending blank emails with their essays just attached, lacking even a subject line, to blatantly rude emails (making demands rather than polite requests), many students exhibit a worrying disregard for the basic standards of professional communication.

students tend to have developed a fair array of writing skills. It must be asked though if these skills were explicitly taught or if these students managed to learn as they went through the course because their prior-learning, preparedness or habitus allowed them to do so. From speaking to postgraduates in the English Department and from my own experiences as an undergraduate at Stellenbosch University, I doubt that the necessary skills are explicitly taught throughout.40

There is not enough time, in a course which is attempting to provide students with a foundation for progression in the field of Literary Studies, to comprehensively teach academic literacy – even to the stronger students. The 2009/2010 “reconfigure[ing] of the English 178 curriculum and course structure in light of a […] 2005 Departmental emphasis on staff research and postgraduate research output” has left the students without an inclination for Literary Studies. Alternatively, or in addition, academic literacy is under- served by the current course pedagogy (Viljoen41). Students with an inclination for Literary Studies continue on much as their predecessors did, but one can still question how well the course is preparing them for postgraduate English Literary Studies. This reconfiguration has caused conflict within the course as students, tutors and lecturers often differ on what the course should be teaching.

These differences are problematic in that they affect the success of the course in general. The problem does not stop there, however, because students in the English 178 course interact far more closely with their tutors than they do with the lecturers, and the tutors often come to personify the department in the minds of students. This may be because the role of the tutor is not clearly outlined by individual tutors, or because the English 178 course relies so heavily on tutors that they in effect replace the lecturers as the personification of the Department, especially for students who do not attend lectures. The views and beliefs of individual tutors can have a significant impact on their students‟ perceptions of their own preparedness. As Van Schalkwyk explains: “The value that the university, often personified in the first-year lecturer, places on the knowledge with which the student enters the university has much to do with the extent to which she or he is perceived to be prepared or not” (82).

40 _{I count myself very lucky to have had Dr. Mathilda Slabbert as a tutor in both my 2}nd _{and 3}rd _{years of English} Literary Studies, her teaching and feedback on essays made a real difference to my own understanding of the subject.

41 _{This is taken from a paper Dr. Viljoen presented at the 2007 Higher Education Learning and Teaching} Association of Southern Africa, conference.

When students make a link with lecturers, most of whom have years of teaching experience, there are often discrepancies between lecturers in terms of style and approach, and this can lead to students developing erroneous perceptions of what is expected of them. One wonders then, about the discrepancies between the tutors with regard to what is deemed essential to student preparedness as many tutors have very limited teaching experience. Coupled with the the conflicting views expressed by tutors and lecturers on a supposedly simple matter like the function of the English 178 course, this can lead to individual students developing significant differences in perceptions of what is expected of them.