27.64, Review: Applied Ling: Wingate (2015)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-64. Mon Jan 04 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.64, Review: Applied Ling: Wingate (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:10:19
From: Laura Dubcovsky [ledubcovsky at ucdavis.edu]
Subject: Academic Literacy and Student Diversity

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36066197


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-2138.html

AUTHOR: Ursula  Wingate
TITLE: Academic Literacy and Student Diversity
SUBTITLE: The Case for Inclusive Practice
SERIES TITLE: New Perspectives on Language and Education
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Laura Dubcovsky, University of California, Davis

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The book “Academic literacy and student diversity. The case for inclusive
practice” poses the question of academic literacy in four Anglo speaking
countries: United States, United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. Ursula
Wingate takes into account a diverse student population, with special emphasis
on international students, whose admission is currently a popular trend in
modern universities around the world. The author offers a linear and clear
structure, moving from a general state of the art of academic literacy at the
university level (Chapter 1), to specific models and instructional approaches
(Chapters 2-3). She describes principles and features inherent to
discipline-based approaches (Chapters 4-5) and classifies major themes among
students’ academic experience (Chapter 6).  Finally Wingate proposes an
inclusive model of academic literacy for all, considering content, methodology
and evaluation (Chapter 7). She concludes with challenges and institutional
changes embedded in current force market (Chapter 8).
 
In the first chapter, “Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: What is the
problem?” Ursula Wingate attempts to define academic literacy.  She starts by
departing from superficial features of grammar and style that have dominated
the scene through discourses of deficiency and remediation.  She also proposes
to reach all students, claiming that although universities show higher numbers
of underrepresented students, there are still persistent inequalities and
serious disadvantages that need to be overcome.  Then the author outlines her
epistemological and sociocultural understanding of academic literacy, drawing
on communicative competence parameters (Hymes 1972), community of practice
models (Lave & Wenger 1991), and language socialization theories (Duff 2010).
Finally the author addresses the instructional aspect of academic literacy,
arguing that university professors and lecturers rarely  give explicit
explanations to improve their advanced literacy skills in the specific content
area  to students. They either overlook language use as they feel responsible
for teaching subject content only, or they send “struggling” students to
remedial classes, which mainly focus on language skills and generic academic
English. In her view, students from all backgrounds need to be taught how to
communicate competently in academic language to be successful in their study
programs. 

In the second chapter Wingate focuses on the writing aspect of “Approaches to
academic literacy instruction.” First she provides a general overview that
includes skills, processes, genres, social practices, and socio-political
approaches.  She also presents clear “Classifications of approaches to
teaching academic literacy” (Table 2.1 p. 16) and exemplifies with distinctive
models (Lea & Street 1998, Ivanič 2004, Hyland 2002). Then the scholar
analyzes three genre traditions in-depth, comparing and contrasting types of
orientation, teaching aims, and theoretical and contextual underpinnings (Hyon
1996). While  Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) has a sociological orientation,
it is interdisciplinary in nature and questions the explicit teaching of
genres in the classroom, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) share linguistic orientation, believe in social
functions of genres and promote a visible pedagogy.  After her detailed
examination of genre-based approaches, the author advocates for a joint effort
among different genre traditions and an added socio-political layer to textual
analyses in order to improve current teaching of academic literacy. 

In the first part of Chapter 3, titled “Current practice in academic literacy
instruction,” Wingate addresses four main limitations observed in university
classrooms: generic teaching, trivialization and marginalization, exclusive
targeting of specific learner groups, and inadequate distribution of
responsibilities between writing experts and subject teachers.  The author
provides evidence of reductive practices from thirty-three curricula of
British universities. These programs mostly limit the teaching of academic
literacy to a set of grammatical structures, spelling errors and syntax, focus
on skills and accuracy, and employ fixed templates disengaged from the content
areas. Additionally teachers provide neither explicit instruction nor
systematic and formative feedback. In the second part Wingate revises goals,
methodologies and scope of transformative practices, typically concerned with
nontraditional, non-native and international students. The author concludes
that challenging pedagogies, such as Academic Literacies, Critical English for
Academic Purposes, English as Academic Lingua Franca, and Multilingualism,
call for deeper transformation to embrace more seriously linguistic and
cultural diversity. Among other suggestions, she proposes to abandon dominant
monolingual and one-directional policies, accommodate the needs of all
students, enable minorities to express their views, and incorporate new genres
and social media.

Chapter 4 “Discipline-specific approaches to academic literacy instruction”
discusses the need for collaboration and integration in order to enhance the
quality of academic teaching for all students. As Wingate explains, the
stronger and more consistent the relationship between the writing expert and
the subject matter instructor is, the more successful the academic literacy
instruction will become.  To illustrate this joint effort, the scholar traces
a continuum from lower to higher involvement, showing stages of ‘cooperation,’
‘collaboration,’ and ‘team-teaching.’ She also draws examples from Australian
and South African curricula and presents a table with “Increasing levels of
integration” through ‘extracurricular, additional, curriculum-linked, and
curriculum- integrated’ programs (Table 4.1 p. 60).  Later in the chapter
Wingate resumes the genre-based literature review, limiting it to empirical
studies based on instructional settings only (Tardy 2006). Although the author
seeks for evidence, she acknowledges that data-driven studies may lack a
strong theoretical framework, show only indirect applications, and employ
authority, rather than experience, as the basis for pedagogical interventions.
 Finally Wingate focuses on two effective teaching practices. She finds that
popular textual modeling and explicit teaching may not always be effective.
For example, students often receive inauthentic, limited or less suitable
models, while teachers sometimes implement a “visible pedagogy” that turns out
to be too prescriptive and normative, or driven by monolithic forms and linear
transmission.  To overcome theoretical and practical limitations the author
advocates a genre-based approach that combines an informational corpus with
qualitative text analyses in addition to socio-political layers (Adel & Reppen
2008, Biber 2006, and also Chapter 2). 

In Chapter 5 “Reading and writing” Wingate complements the construct of
academic literacy by focusing on  reading activity. Equally important as
writing (already described in Chapter 2), the reading aspect is nevertheless
often taken for granted (Swales 2002). To compensate for this common
disregard, the author enumerates the beneficial components of skilled reading:
automatic recognition skills, vocabulary and structural knowledge, formal
discourse structure knowledge, content/world background knowledge, synthesis
and evaluation skills/strategies, and metacognitive knowledge and skills
monitoring (Grabe 1991). Then she summarizes three models that include
relevant reading epistemologies: transmission, translation and transaction
(Schraw & Brunig 1996). After claiming that reading and writing are strongly
related, Wingate selects source-based activities that involve both literacy
components to succeed in academic literacy, such as identifying sources,
selecting relevant information from these sources, and evaluating and
integrating sources in arguments (McCulloch 2013).  Finally the author shows
examples of academic reading courses from different universities, emphasizing
academic skills of referencing, paraphrasing and summarizing. Above all she
praises the teaching of academic reading and writing within the context of the
subject area, and the opportunities such teaching  affords for practicing
academic skills, socializing in the academic language, and appropriating
literacy behaviors. 

In Chapter 6 “Academic literacy development and the student experience”
Wingate describes students’ difficulties as they become novice writers of
academic discourses, especially focusing on international students, because
they constitute an appealing population for universities. The scholar follows
three major themes from the student’s perspective. First, interviewees agree
in the frequent mismatch between academic requirements and student life
experience. Usually instructions are not very explicit, or critical policy
measures, such as plagiarism and attributions, are not clearly spelled out to
foreign students (Lillis & Turner 2001).  The second theme refers to critical
thinking and argumentation, closely related to students’ prior knowledge and
background experiences, as well as to their further language and rhetorical
socialization, as expected at the university level (Turner 2011). For most
foreign students identity is the third theme, as it affects how they position
themselves in the classroom, express themselves in their own voices and gain
agency (Morita 2004).  Interestingly, these themes are also reflected even in
support-oriented programs that fail to recognize differences in time
management and uses of sources, or in well-intentioned lecturers who offer
superficial feedback and do not facilitate reasoned stances, among other
failures.  The scholar claims that these themes demonstrate the need for
explicit teaching, supporting the notion that academic literacy is in fact a
very complex phenomenon that involves technical, conceptual and
epistemological underpinnings.

In Chapter 7 “Towards an inclusive model of academic literacy instruction”
Wingate first shows various literacy models rooted in exemplary practices, and
then introduces her own study, conducted in a UK university  across four
disciplines: Applied Linguistics, History, Management and Pharmacy.  She
describes her intervention and includes achievements and limitations of “An
inclusive model of academic literacy instruction” (Figure 7.1 p. 128). Through
the visual representation and further explanations, the author clearly
connects the inclusive model to the four principles of (1) focus on genres and
their social context, (2) broad range for all students, (3)
discipline-specific and integrated curriculum, and (4) collaboration between
writing and subject experts. Additionally Wingate describes the content of her
approach, which follows particular SFL features of rhetorical moves (Chang &
Schleppegrell 2011), discourse-semantics (Martin 1992, Ravelli 2004) and
lexico-grammar  (Schleppegrell 2004). She also points at the methodology of
her approach that facilitates the teaching/learning cycle of deconstruction,
joint construction, and independent construction. Overall the model embraces
constructivist theories (Vygotsky 1978) and creates scaffolding conditions to
favor genre awareness and critical awareness, especially through group
discussions and tutors’ guided conversations.

The last chapter moves “Towards the implementation of an inclusive model of
academic literacy instruction.” Wingate links the theoretical principles and
arguments developed throughout the chapters to the practical intervention
conducted in her study.  She confirms some limitations of the model that
conflict with the cited principles. For example the low number of participants
inhibits the availability for all students, the “add-on” workshops recommended
interfere with an integrated curriculum, and the lecturers’ extra volunteer
work do not reflect institutional support and cooperation.  In light of these
findings, Wingate urges for changes at the institutional level, so that
students and instructors receive structural, financial and organizational
support, while universities benefit from a broader and more varied spectrum of
students, as expected in current highly competitive markets. On the one hand
faculty and staff need better preparation for teaching academic literacy in
the content area, high qualitative feedback, as well as better defined defined
working roles and load (Sadler 2010). On the other hand the “inclusive model” 
should reach not only typically “needy” students, but a broader diversity of
home and international, native and non-native English speakers, traditional
and non-traditional, first college generation and high-fee paying students.
Finally the “literacy for all” model should tap all aspects of academic
literacy, including communicative competence, the literacy process and  text
production (Wingate et al. 2011). 

EVALUATION

“Academic literacy and student diversity. The case for inclusive practice” is
a straightforward account of current academic literacy at the university
level. Ursula Wingate reviews relevant literature and summarizes main topics
that affect the epistemology and practice of advanced literacy for a diverse
population. The clear and straightforward tone will capture the interest of
university professionals, especially writing experts and subject lecturers who
work with international and non-English speaking students. 

The author presents a neat organization, where goals, contents, methods and
intervention are clearly developed. The accompanying tables and figures
throughout the chapters contribute to the overall tight structure.  Moreover
Wingate strengthens her proposed model by including data-driven studies and
anecdotal examples from different experiences in Anglophone countries. The
book has, however, some limitations, as the scholar recognizes, mainly given
by the low-scale of her intervention.  It also presents information which is
not entirely new for scholars and practitioners in the field of academic
literacy. However novice instructors and researchers will find the
hierarchical organization and the literature review helpful for  deepening and
up-dating understanding. Furthermore they could extract ideas for a practical
manual, useful for collaborative teaching between subject lecturers and
writing experts.

REFERENCES

Adel, A. and R. Reppen (eds.) 2008. Corpora and discourse: The challenges of
different settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and
written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chang, P. & M. Schleppegrell. 2011. Taking and effective authorial stance in
academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in
the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10(3). 140-151.

Duff, P. 2010. Language socialization into academic discourse communities.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30.169-192.

Grabe, W. 1991. Current developments in second language reading research.
TESOL quarterly 25(3). 375-406.

Hyland, F. 2002. Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (eds).
Sociolinguistics  (269-293) London: Penguin.

Hyon, S. 1996. Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL
quarterly 30(4). 693-722.

Ivanič, R. 2004. Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and
Education 18(3). 220-245.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lea, M. & B. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23(2).157-172.

Lillis, T. & J. Turner. 2001. Student writing in higher education.
Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education
6(1). 57-68.

McCulloch, S. 2013. Investigating the reading-to-write processes and source
use of L2 postgraduate students in real- life academic tasks: An exploratory
study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(2).136-147.

Martin, J. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Morita, N. 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language
academic communities. TESOL quarterly 38(4). 573-603.

Ravelli, L. 2004. Signalling the organization of written texts: Hyper-Themes
in management and history essays. In L.J. Ravelli & R. Ellis (eds) Analysing
Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks. (104-129) London: Continuum.

Sadler, D. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex
appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(5). 535-550.

Schleppegrell, M. 2004. Technical writing in a second language: The role of
grammatical metaphor. In L.J. Ravelli  & R. Ellis (eds.) Analysing academic
writing: Contextualized frameworks. (172-189) London: Continuum.

Schraw, G. & R. Brunig.1996.  Readers’ implicit models of reading. Reading
Research Quarterly 31(3). 290-305.

Swales, J. 2002. Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus
linguistics. In J. Flowerdew (ed.) Academic Discourse. (150-164) Harlow:
Pearson Education.

Tardy, C. 2006. Researching first and second language genre learning: A
comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of second language writing 15(2).
79-101.

Turner, J. 2011. Language in the academy: Cultural reflexivity and
intercultural dynamics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
functions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wingate, U., Andon N.  & Cogo, A. 2011. Embedding academic writing instruction
into subject teaching: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education
12(1). 1-13.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Laura Dubcovsky is a lecturer and supervisor in the Teacher Education Program from The School of Education at the University of California, Davis. She has a Master’s in Education and a PhD in Spanish linguistics with special emphasis on second language acquisition. Her areas of interest combine the fields of language and bilingual education. She is dedicated to the preparation of prospective bilingual Spanish/English teachers, especially on the use of Spanish for educational purposes. She collaborates as a reviewer with the Linguistic list serve and bilingual associations, as well as with teachers, principals, and specialists at the school district. She has taught a course that addresses Communicative and Academic Spanish needed in a bilingual classroom for more than ten years. She also published the article, Functions of the verb decir (''to say'') in the incipient academic Spanish writing of bilingual children. Functions of Language, 15(2), 257-280 (2008). Laura continues working
  on uses of Spanish by bilingual teachers , bilingual home/school connections , and academic language across school disciplines.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-64	
----------------------------------------------------------