Estudios de transporte público gratuito sobre individuos

In terms of EAP best practice principles from a macro-perspective in the UK con- text, different guidelines have been introduced in several relevant documents in the past ten years. In a 2009 report published by the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) titled Thematic Enquiries into Concerns about Aca- demic Quality and Standards in Higher Education in England, one theme highlighted concerned the admission of international students and institutional language entry requirements (Murray, 2017). Focusing mainly on the issue of English language proficiency, the report specified three actions that HE institutions are required to take in relation to the English language competence of international students. These were as follows:

• a review of the efficacy and appropriateness of established schemes for testing the English language skills of international students, in determining English language competence and support needs before acceptance on to higher edu- cation programmes and while studying in the UK

• institutions, either individually or collectively, should provide clear guidance to international students and their advisers about higher education teaching, learning and assessment practices in the UK and, further, both facilitate in-

ternational students’ understanding of these expectations and support them in making the transition to studying in the UK

• a general statement or guidance about the support arrangements that inter- national students should expect from higher education institutions, including English language support and personal and academic support, be developed. (QAA, 2009; p.3).

The three statements provided in the document, however, only briefly refer to actions related to the English language competence of international students as part of other issues related to this cohort of students. And even in the case of international students, the document does not provide any detailed and descriptive guidelines on how such actions need to be taken in EAP programmes.

It should be noted, however, that in recent years BALEAP has produced docu- ments such asthe BALEAP Competency Framework for EAP teachers (BALEAP, 2008), the BALEAP Accreditation Scheme Handbook (BALEAP,2011; 2016), and

theBALEAP Can Do Framework for EAP Syllabus Design and Assessment(BALEAP,

2016), all of which can be used as reference guides by EAP providers in higher ed- ucation institutions.

The competency framework for EAP teachers was created in response to a lack of descriptors for EAP-specific teacher qualifications (BALEAP, 2008). In it a set of competencies for EAP teachers is specified. Such competencies are defined as ‘the technical skills and professional capabilities that a teacher needs to bring to a posi- tion in order to fulfill its functions completely’ (Aitken, 1998 as cited in BALEAP, 2008; p.2). This competency framework was developed based on ‘best practice as viewed by experienced practitioners’ in the field of EAP (ibid, p.2). The competency statements in this document are provided in relation to academic practice, EAP students, curriculum development, and programme implementation. Intended pri- marily for less experienced teachers and their trainers, this best practice document provides guidelines which can be used as a reference for an ‘agreed set of descrip- tions of good practice’, ‘professional development of EAP teachers’, and ‘raising the profile of the profession within institutions and the further and higher education sector’ (ibid, p.2). While the competencies framework is mainly focused on EAP tu- tors, the BALEAP Accreditation Scheme handbook provides a more comprehensive blueprint of best practice, with a set of criteria addressing various aspects of an EAP course. As the title suggests, this document provides guidelines on the accreditation scheme BALEAP provides for English language and study skills courses offered at HE institutions. Eight criteria for accreditation are included in the 2011 edition of

this document, along with details of the documentary evidence institutions seeking accreditation are required to provide. These criteria are Management and Admin- istration, Staffing, Resources and Facilities, Course Design, Teaching and Learning, Assessment, Student Welfare, and Course Evaluation. In a recently amended ver- sion of the handbook, now entitledQuality Enhancement for English for Academic

Purpose Courses and Programmes (BALEAP, 2016), these areas of assessment are

condensed into five, namely: Institutional Context, Course Management, Course Design, Teaching and Learning, Assessment, Evaluation and Progression. In addi- tion to changes to the areas of assessment, there are changes to the scope of the scheme. In the older version of the handbook only full-time courses designed for

international students to prepare them with ‘thelanguage and study skills required

for higher education or research in the English-speaking world’ (BALEAP, 2011) were eligible for the accreditation assessment. In the recent version, however, this has expanded to ‘any course or programme which is designed to preparestudents with theacademic literacy and study competence required for further or higher ed- ucation or research through the medium of English’ (BALEAP, 2016). As can be seen in the two eligibility statements, while in the first edition the accreditation was only offered for full-time courses (e.g. foundation and pre-sessional), the second edition includes any courses or programmes, making the scheme more inclusive. In addition, whereas in the previous edition only EAP courses targeted at interna- tional students and offering language and study skills were eligible for the scheme, in the latter edition, ‘the international student’ is changed to ‘students’ (without referring to any specific cohort), and ‘language and study skills’ to ‘academic lit- eracies and study competence’. Such shifts suggest that EAP programmes are no longer solely targeted at international students and what they offer is not limited to general English proficiency and study skills; instead it is geared more towards academic literacy. While one would assume that such changes in the document happened as a result of new directions EAP programmes have been taking in recent years, there is as yet not much evidence in the literature showing such shifts in institutional practices particularly in the case of post-entry EAP provision in the context of the UK. One of the few exceptions to this is the study by Porte (2010) (see section 2.6.3 for a review of this study). In the context of Australia, however, there have been more reports, such as that by Bohemia et al (2007) of a project in which academic skills were located within the discipline rather than taught gener- ically outside of the discipline. According to this report, in a five-year project, a group of academics from Industrial Design Engineering and the Learning Skills Unit (LSU) in an Australian university developed a collaborative curriculum incorporat-

ing Academic Literacy Skills into the Design and Engineering curriculum. In their evaluation of this project, Bohemian et al concluded that ‘the growing collegiality among academics has meant increased effectiveness and efficiency in the teaching of critical literacy skills and thus has produced an integrated subject as well as a foundation for future collaborative activities’ (2007; p.3).

Another change to the document is the addition of a new assessment criterion (Institutional Context) which focuses on how the EAP provision is positioned in the wider HE institution. In other words, how ‘well-integrated [an EAP course/programme is] within the wider institution in terms of relevant institutional policies and proce- dures’ is now a determining factor in securing accreditation (BALEAP, 2016; p.13). Despite such changes to the eligibility and assessment criteria in the new edition of the Scheme handbook, the document still does not provide a unified set of EAP best practice principles to be followed in the higher education sector as a whole. For instance, while the word ‘full-time’ has been removed from the eligibility statement, most assessment criteria statements are still only applicable to full-time pre-entry courses (e.g. pre-sessional). Referring to ‘pre-sessional’ courses in many statements, or other phrases such as ‘transitioning from the course to university programmes’ receiving departments’, or ‘visa extension and registration’−which applies to pre- sessional programmes where some students are initially granted a shorter visa to attend the course and upon successful completion of the course their visa will switch to a longer tier 4 visa−suggest that these best practice guidelines are still mainly limited to pre-entry courses rather than those offered alongside degree courses. As such, in no statement is the word ‘in-sessional’ used. Moreover, in the literature on in-sessional provision (e.g. Flowerdew and Peacock, 2001, Jordan 2002, BALEAP, n.d.), in-sessional courses are referred to as part-time language support services provided to international students alongside their degree programmes. However, considering the increasing diversity of student cohorts over the past two decades, it is important to discern whether the provision has adapted accordingly and how well

current in-sessional provision fits into the new best practice principles provided in

documents such as the BALEAP Accreditation Scheme handbook. In order to do this, an updated and more thorough understanding of this provision is needed.

Finally, theBALEAP Can Do Framework for EAP Syllabus Design and Assess- ment (BALEAP, 2016) provides a list of competencies students studying in UK universities at Master’s level are required to possess. These competencies, which were identified through interviewing subject specialists from a range of disciplines and universities, describe student competencies which can be used to guide method- ology, materials development and assessment in EAP courses. The competencies

framework is divided into the four skills of writing, speaking, reading and listening, with a range of competencies included for each, namely ‘Academic Context’, ‘Aca- demic Discourse’, ‘Discipline Related’ and ‘Practical Skills’ (ibid; p.1). Both generic and specific academic English skills and competencies are emphasised in the doc- ument, highlighting the importance of both generic and specific academic English knowledge and skills.

A report on an in-depth content analysis of the three BALEAP documents listed above is provided in the methodology chapter where it is shown how such information was used to define evaluation criteria in this study and design the research tool to evaluate in-sessional provision at UK universities.