Creating epistemic access through a scaffold approach: Academic literacy skills development for South African first-year public administration students

Abstract

For higher education institutions to produce graduates capable of contributing to society and the economy in a productive manner, educational emphasis is placed on the development of critical thinking. The above necessitates that higher education institutions are able to engage in responsive curriculum design and delivery for enhanced student success and access. Public Administration programmes focus on equipping students to work within the broader government sector, able and capable of delivering public functions responsive to the needs of society. Literature suggests that there are a number of factors which influence the success ratio of any undergraduate programme in the South African context, including, inter alia, increased enrolments, student–staff ratios and the overall decline of professional and intellectual life in the country. Further complicating matters are classes too big to be participatory and crammed syllabi preventing in-depth discussions. The notion of embedding academic literacy development in curriculum design through a scaffolded approach aims to influence the academic performance of students through engaged and active learning in order to attain a higher level of achievement as well as benefit from the process of scaffolding. The research comprises a mixed method approach using a case study of the first-year students enrolled for a Public Administration degree. Data collected included an analysis of 2015, 2016 and 2017 student cohorts in: determining their academic literacy level upon registration (set as a baseline before any academic literacy intervention); tracking their academic performance through their formative and summative assessments (through a scaffolded approach); and reflecting upon their learning through their completion of a semi-structured survey. The research intends to argue that the use of a scaffolded approach to learning enhances epistemic access, which sees students moving beyond propositional, or foundation knowledge to epistemic or reflexive knowledge.

Keywords

Epistemic access scaffold approach academic literacy skills Public Administration

Introduction

For higher education institutions to produce graduates capable of contributing to society and the economy in a productive manner, educational emphasis is placed on the development of critical thinking. Higher education is also changing rapidly due to the effects of globalisation, the agendas of participation, increased access and equality, the marketisation of higher education and higher education’s entrance within the wider society system (Barnett, 2007: 62). The above necessitates that higher education institutions are able to engage in responsive curriculum design and delivery for enhanced student success and access. Using a mixed methods approach, the article explores the relationship between academic literacy development and academic performance of, specifically, first-year students enrolled for a degree developed for working individuals and delivered on a block release (contact) basis. Within each of the content modules, the academic literacies are scaffolded using an embedded approach aimed at not only improving the students’ academic literacy performance but also ensuring enhanced epistemic access to the discipline’s body of knowledge. The article presents the academic results of both the academic literacy and the content modules for the period 2015–2017 and concludes that the development of academic literacy through a scaffolded and embedded approach carries specific value for the immediate academic performance of students, but that challenges still exist in ensuring epistemic access not only to content modules but also to academic literacy as embedded within the degree.

Changing the higher education context

The higher education context is continuously changing and universities across the world (as well as in South Africa) are asked to prepare students with 21st-century competencies to face the complex challenges in the workplace. Due to the economies of countries becoming more technology-driven, and as a result of the unpredictable models of social and economic development, students are expecting teaching and learning practices to be more relevant to their everyday lives, which implies teaching to be transformed to equip students to deal with the challenges that working in an interconnected globalised workforce might pose (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016: 4). Higher education institutions should accept the challenge and should reconsider their learning processes and adopt a ‘new learning culture which moves away from a culture of learning based on the principle of indoctrination and is enabling-oriented, based on self-organisation and centred on competence’ (Barth et al., 2007: 419).

Because of changes in the social, technological and economic contexts, employers are valuing not only the cognitive competencies in critical thinking, analysis and problem solving but also the so-called ‘soft’ skills such as teamwork, relationship-building, collaboration and communication skills (Dede, 2010: 53; Pellegrino and Hilton, 2012: 55). Employability skills are divided into three categories, namely ‘fundamental skills (communicate, manage information, use numbers, think and solve problems); personal management skills (demonstrate positive attitudes and behaviours, be responsible, be adaptable, learn continuously) and teamwork skills (work with others, participate in projects and tasks)’ (Conference Board of Canada, 2000). The higher education sector in South Africa is also continuously involved in the discourse on graduateness (with an emphasis on increasing employability) with it being understood as a ‘suite of attributes which graduates acquire during the course of their university study’ (Coetzee et al., 2012: 9). These attributes or competencies are, according to Andrews and Higson (2008: 411), ‘professionalism; reliability; the ability to cope with uncertainty; the ability to work under pressure; the ability to work and think strategically; the capability to communicate and interact with others (teamwork and networking); good written and verbal skills; information and technology (ICT) skills; creativity and self-confidence; good self-management – and time management skills as well as the ability to learn and accept responsibility’. Public Administration programmes focus on equipping students to work within the broader government sector, able and capable of delivering public functions responsive to the needs of society. Contributing to the discourse regarding appropriate graduate attributes and skills, Kroukamp and De Vries (2014: 160) highlight that there are a number of factors that influence the success ratio of any undergraduate programme in the South African context, including, inter alia, increased enrolments, student–staff ratios and the overall decline of professional and intellectual life in the country. Further complicating matters are classes too big to be participatory and crammed syllabi preventing in-depth discussions.

The article argues that it is the responsibility of higher education institutions to structure their programmes in such a way that they assist students to develop the basic academic literacy skills needed for the attainment of the required level of intellectual content-related skills. A scaffolded and embedded approach to learning is used as the basis for the development of the required academic literacy skills.

Scaffolded and embedded learning for epistemic access

The term ‘scaffolding’ originated from Vygotsky’s sociocultural framework (1978), particularly the concept of the zone of proximal development, which refers to the gap between a student’s current developmental level and potential level of development. It is within this optimal zone that learning can take place if adequately supported. Original conceptualisations of scaffolding suggest a fairly linear process extending from the expert to the novice. Wood et al. (1976: 90) have been attributed with one of the earliest references to the metaphor scaffolding to describe the process of ‘an adult “controlling” those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learner’s capacity, thus enabling him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence’. More recent definitions of scaffolding emphasise an interactive process. Delen et al. (2014: 312) state that ‘instructional scaffolding is a term used to explain the relationship and interaction between learners and their guides, and is a process that enables a novice to achieve a goal or objective, which would otherwise be unattainable without assistance – instructional scaffolding is not one-way, but interactive and reciprocal process between the learner and the source of instruction’.

Although initially applied within an early childhood learning context with reference to the parent–child learning relationship (Bruner, 1975), the methodology of instructional scaffolding was quickly extended to a number of other learning environments to include expert/teacher–novice/learner interaction (Cazden, 1979; Fleer, 1990; Wood et al., 1976). Additionally, it was applied to a number of learning areas, predominantly that of language learning (Applebee and Langer, 1983; Graves, 1986) and more specifically second language learning (Donato, 1994; Gibbons, 2015). Deviations from top-down and unidirectional approaches are documented by Donato (1994: 39), who refers to Forman and Kraker (1985), supporting that peer-learning is equally effective to instructor–learner interaction in the context of second language learning. Further, Ochs (1990) corroborates the value of peer-learning within a scaffolded pedagogy.

As the literature on scaffolding increased, specific scaffolding classifications emerged. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) described six means through which scaffolding is supported, namely, assisting modelling, contingency management, feeding back, instructing, questioning and cognitive structuring. Wood et al. (1976: 98) considered six scaffolding functions as fundamental. Three of the functions, namely, ‘recruitment’, ‘direction maintenance’ and ‘frustration control’, address the affective component of learner motivation. The role of the tutor is seen in terms of motivating learners’ interest and taking steps to mitigate stress and demotivation that may accompany learning. The other three scaffolding functions relate directly to techniques used to adjust the level of the task by breaking it down into parts which are manageable for students’ current levels of competency (‘reduction in degrees of freedom’), modelling of the target competencies (‘demonstration’) and highlighting certain features of competency which the learner has yet to acquire (‘marking critical features’). Many (2002) and Silliman et al. (2000) started to differentiate between scaffolding strategies or the means/tools through which scaffolding is achieved and the goals or intentions of scaffolding. For the purpose of this research, emphasis is placed on the strategies through which scaffolding is facilitated.

Van Lier’s (2004) contribution to the theory of scaffolding is the four-quadrant model which supports the work of researchers discussed above, such as Forman and Kraker (1985), Ochs (1990) and Donato (1994). This model, as depicted in Figure 1, recognises four possible contexts for scaffolding, which extends scaffolding opportunities beyond the expert–novice context and the context of the learners’ existing resources to postulate that learning can be successfully scaffolded from interaction with both equal peers and interaction with less capable peers.

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of the four-quadrant scaffolding model. Source: Adapted from Walqui (2006: 168).

Building on van Lier’s non-linear approach, Walqui (2006: 169) emphasises a cyclical curricula, which recognises that movement from simple to less complex tasks oversimplifies the scaffolding process; it is necessary to revisit acquired competencies and extend the level of these competencies over a period of time. As such, Walqui (2006: 170–177) suggests six main types of instructional scaffolding which include:

Modelling, whereby students are provided with clear examples of what may be requested from them, that is, providing them with the model answer to an assignment question. Modelling is considered important in that it allows students to see what the expected product should look like. Model answers function as performance guidelines and standards to students.

Bridging, which entails using students’ prior knowledge and understanding to build bridges to new concepts and comprehension. Bridging is achieved by activating a student’s prior knowledge and instilling in students some level of surprise in what they may already know about a specific topic, thereby establishing a personal link between the student and the topic under discussion. Sharing personal experiences before assigned reading or lessons are introduced is one way of building a bridge between the known and the unknown.

Contextualising emphasises that language is situation-dependent and that students’ everyday language is embedded in a rich context while academic language is decontextualised, which may create a specific barrier to students. In content modules, students are expected to read textbooks and prescribed readings, which can be very dry and linear. The responsibility then falls on the lecturer to contextualise the information, either verbally or visually, in order for complex ideas to be brought closer to students’ world experiences.

Schema building, in which the development of schematas of knowledge are identified as a vital scaffolding strategy. Schemas entail how students organise knowledge and understanding, are able to see interconnections and are able to weave new knowledge into existing knowledge.

Representing text, in which students are asked to present information obtained in one form in another form, that is, text from a textbook be presented as a summary in an assignment. The purpose of representing text is to make students aware of the different manners in which academic text can be presented and what meanings may be associated with the different ways in which information is presented. The more adept a student becomes in presenting knowledge in different formats, the more internalised the knowledge becomes.

Developing metacognition is integral to the scaffolding process and is aimed at developing Quadrant 4 skills, as presented above. Walqui (2006: 176) suggests that not only do educators need to ‘continuously build scaffolds as the need arises, [but they also need] to communicate their purpose and uses to students’. Metacognition is a dimension of scaffolding also mentioned by early researchers in this area (Crookes and Oxford, in Donato, 1994: 38). This is interlinked with and extends the scaffolding strategy of modelling in that learners not only imitate the ideal, which the facilitator demonstrates but also become conscious of the mental processes involved in acquiring and demonstrating competency.

The importance of the above types is that none of these should be seen or be used in isolation. These six types work hand in hand as strategies through which scaffolding is achieved, specifically when academic literacy skills are embedded in content modules, as will be seen later in this article. Carsten’s (2016) work in the area of developing academic literacy skills in the context of higher education in South Africa, where students are linguistically diverse and are predominantly second and additional English language speakers, also draws on van Lier’s four-quadrant model (as discussed above) and argues that this model, in conjunction with Walqui’s six scaffolding types, provides a scaffolding model for subject-specific academic literacy interventions which can accommodate both monolingual and bi-/multilingual applications. This is of particular significance in the South African context where bi- and multilingualism is prevalent. Rose et al. (2008) used the ‘Scaffolding Academic Literacy’ pedagogy which followed the cycle of preparing for reading, independent reading, preparing for writing and independent writing, specifically in the context of an adult or mature student. The study found that there was an improvement in academic literacy across modules, however, it was found that literacy rates improved proportionately to the time spent in block weeks on the scaffolded academic literacy approach.

Similarly, Mahboob et al. (2010) reported on the Slate (Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments) project, which focused on providing scaffolded academic literacy support for students at English medium universities in Australia who are non-mother tongue English speakers. The SLATE project utilises Rothery’s teaching–learning cycle as the basis for their scaffolding intervention (Mahboob et al., 2010: 28). This cycle consists of three stages, namely, that of deconstruction, joint construction and independent construction. The approach can also be considered embedded in that draft essays for students’ module assignments were used as the vehicle for the intervention. Mahboob (2010: 37) report that the project has been successful in ‘produc[ing] well-structured texts that followed the generic conventions’ using a short-term and limited evaluation of the intervention. Wingate’s (2015) research concurs with Mahboob’s (2010) findings and she advocates for curriculum-integrated academic literacy instruction.

Thus, focusing on scaffolding academic literacy skills and embedding these within specific academic content modules, the research methodology used for the article is discussed below.

Research methodology

Previous studies, as highlighted above, are descriptive studies, evaluating the success of the scaffolded intervention using qualitative data of the classroom interaction between student and teacher (Van de Pol et al., 2010: 286). This study attempts to quantify the effects of the embedded, scaffolded intervention by analysing students’ module marks. The research comprises a mixed method approach with a case study of first-year students enrolled for the Bachelor of Administration (Public Management) Option Public Administration degree at the University of Pretoria. The degree was developed in 2009, specifically for full-time employed public officials, but the decision to embed and follow a scaffolded approach to academic literacy development was implemented in 2015. The degree is aimed at attracting individuals active in the practice of public administration and caters for the mature, working individual, since as a prerequisite a student should have at least three years’ working experience (University of Pretoria, 2018). This degree is offered on a block release (contact and not distance education) basis that will allow working individuals to study towards their degree while pursuing their careers.

To accommodate individuals wanting to register for the degree (taking into account that not all mature individuals had access to quality education which would enable them to meet the admission criteria to study towards a degree), the admission criteria for this specific degree was amended to also admit students in possession of an age exemption certificate from Universities South Africa (if the applicant does not have university endorsement). This degree comprises 18 modules specifically aligned with the public sector management competencies prescribed by the Department of Public Service and Administration. For the purpose of the research, the emphasis is placed on five first-year compulsory modules in which academic literacies are embedded using a scaffolded approach. The modules include Public Administration 112 (PAD112), Public Organisational Studies 110 (ODM110) and Public Resource Management 110 (PUF110) (all offered during the first semester) with Public Administration 122 (PAD122) and Public People Management 120 (PUT120) offered during the second semester. The academic literacy module (ALL124) is offered as a year module and assessments are embedded in all the content modules listed above. Since the modules are all compulsory and the degree is structured, Table 1 presents the total number of students who registered for and were active as first-year students for the three-year period.

Table 1.

Total number of registered students 2015–2017.

2015	2016	2017
37	94	52

Data collected included an analysis of 2015, 2016 and 2017 student cohorts who participated in:

the academic literacy assessments upon registration (set as a baseline before any academic literacy intervention);

the formative and summative assessments for both the literacy and the content modules;

a semi-structured survey assessing the overall quality and student experience in the academic literacy module.

The analysis of the data is done considering Walqui’s (2006) six types of scaffolding with a specific emphasis on arguing the role, purpose, manner and outcomes of the scaffolding types within the embedded academic literacy and content modules.

Analysis and findings

As was mentioned, the six scaffolding types are addressed in the manner in which the academic literacies are embedded and taught in the specific content modules. Important for the research is that the degree is offered in English to students whose mother tongue and even second or third language would not be English. According to Carstens (2016: 1),

South African university students display a wide range of English proficiencies: a small minority are mother-tongue speakers of English; some studied English as a subject for 12 years (primarily mother-tongue speakers of Afrikaans); some received tuition from Grade 4 through the medium of English (the majority of black South African students taught at public schools in rural and township schools); while a number of second language speakers graduated from private English-medium high schools and are well prepared for university study through the medium of English.

As argued by Kroukamp and De Vries (2014: 161–162), due to the differences and the policies of the past, many South African students are unprepared for the challenges, with only 35% being first-language English speakers and many having a limited foundational knowledge basis to rely upon. Based on the above reality, the importance of including an embedded and scaffolded approach to academic literacy is argued.

As the first measure of the academic proficiency of students, they are provided with the opportunity to participate (voluntarily) in the writing of an academic literacy test using the Test for Academic Literacy Levels (TALL). This test was developed by the Inter-institutional Centre for Language Development and Assessment (ICELDA) and was chosen as an instrument to assess the entry academic literacy levels of these students based on research into the TALL, validating the test as an accurate predictor of academic literacy levels required for tertiary studies (Weideman and Van der Slik, 2008; Weideman et al. 2016). Thus, the test was not used as a placement tool but as a post-entry assessment to identify the level of risk of the students registered for the degree.

For the purpose of the article, the TALL results are first used as a baseline to determine the levels of academic literacy and as indicators of the kind of intervention needed. The TALL results (averages) for the study period 2015–2017 are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Average TALL results 2015–2017.

TALL	2015 (Feb)	2016 (Feb)	2017 (Feb)
Averages	40%	41%	37%

Regardless of the individual TALL results, it is compulsory for all students to register for the credit-bearing academic literacy module (ALL124). However, the results presented above clearly indicate that an academic literacy intervention is needed. Contrary to the TALL, which assesses generic academic literacies divided into sections covering academic vocabulary, understanding texts, grammar and text relations, interpreting graphs and visual information, text types and scrambled text, ALL124 is a tailor-made Public Administration context-specific academic literacy module, embedded as it runs concurrently with the degree’s academic content modules. Research (Wingate, 2015) suggests that embedded programmes have more success than stand-alone courses.

Over the period of a year, students typically attend three-day block release lectures for each of their five content modules with the exception of the first module (PAD112), which is allocated five days. Two of these five days are used as an introduction to ALL124 and cover topics dealing generally with academic literacy such as learning tools, identifying resources, IT support and communicating with lecturers. More specific aspects related to academic literacy topics are also addressed, such as identifying and evaluating academic sources, academic reading strategies, note-taking and summarising skills and the process of academic writing. The concepts of plagiarism, paraphrasing and referencing are also introduced. Additionally, these orientation classes begin the process of developing meta-cognition as the process of reading and the importance of various stages and strategies of reading are made explicit. Students are also encouraged to become aware of their cognition in terms of their reading and writing processes. The emphasis on pre-reading strategies is used as a linking strategy in that students are made aware of the value of pre-reading strategies as a tool to connect new information with existing knowledge and to develop epistemological schemas

The first ALL124 contact session is an example of how modelling and contextualising are used as scaffolding types. For example, extracts from academic articles and essays written by students are evaluated in terms of the literacy construct being discussed (modelling) and contextualisation occurs as academic language is introduced as a specific discourse separate and different to the language used in a personal situation or the business environment. Examples of students’ essays are also used and in-group essay feedback sessions were given to enable students to understand where and why improvements are needed. The use of students’ work for modelling is supported by Wingate (2015), who argues that this may be less intimidating than using journal articles, specifically when students are still unfamiliar with the discipline’s language.

During subsequent block release modules, a session is allocated for the students to meet with the academic literacy specialist. This normally occurs in the last session of the three-day block once the students have covered the academic content required for the module. The duration of the session with the academic literacy specialist is also agreed to collaboratively depend on the specific academic literacy needs identified by the module lecturer and the academic literacy specialist. These sessions are typically two hours per three-day block release module.

The content of the academic literacy intervention is linked to the module’s assessment task, which is usually an academic essay of between three and eight pages, as an example of using bridging and representing text as scaffolding types. Preferably, the module lecturer and the academic literacy specialist discuss the wording of the essay question in advance in order to ensure that the wording is clear and accurately reflects the lecturer’s intended outcome. This is indicative of using the development of schemas and the representation of text as scaffolding types in ensuring that students realise the interconnectedness between various academic literacies. Furthermore, the emphasis is placed on understanding how knowledge is organised for enhanced understanding. When students are able to understand how an assignment should be structured and what the different headings mean and imply, they are able to reflect on the manner in which they will choose to organise and represent their work through their assignments. Additionally, these contact sessions place significant emphasis on the scaffolding strategy of contextualisation in the context of both the discipline of Public Administration and the development of academic literacies. Bridging and schema building are continuously built into the activities, with the aim of simultaneously developing students’ meta-cognitive skills. The approach is in line with Walqui’s cyclical curricula as discussed above.

Additionally, the module lecturer and literacy specialist agree to a timeframe for the intervention: the process is usually allocated one month from the contact session until the final essay submission to the module lecturer as the module assessment needs to be submitted before the block release session for the next module commences. The academic literacy specialist also ensures that they understand the module lecturer’s requirements for the essay in terms of sources, appropriate content, structuring and so on.

The approach (Figure 2) is that students write a draft of their module essay which is sent electronically to the academic literacy specialist. This draft receives detailed feedback and recommendations for improvement via Track Changes on Microsoft Word. Additionally, students receive a mark for this draft which is used as a mark for the credit-bearing Academic Literacy module (ALL124). Subsequently, students use the next week to revise their drafts and submit the final essay to their module lecturer. The module lecturer then assesses the essay and awards an assignment mark. Thus, this process emphasises the scaffolding techniques of modelling, bridging and representing, as it serves to assess the student’s academic literacy progress, which gathers marks for the compulsory academic literacy course while also considering the student’s performance in the content modules.

Figure 2.

Academic literacy model.

Instructional scaffolding is applied in terms of the content of the academic literacy workshops presented. Furthermore, the method used is based on integrating modelling, bridging, contextualising, schema-building and representing text as scaffolding types. Considering the above, the results (presented as averages for formative assignments in each module) for the five content modules in which the Academic Literacy module (ALL124) were embedded are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Results from scaffolded academic literacy module embedded in content modules.

Year	ALL 124	PAD 112	ALL 124	ODM 110	ALL 124	PUF 110	ALL 124	PAD 122	ALL 124	PUT 120
2015	39	49	24	54	36	52	34	50	24	46
2016	24	55	33	54	40	56	42	53	31	47
2017	46	48	37	50	37	57	28	53	34	64

The results presented in Table 3 clearly indicate that there was an improvement from the ALL124 intervention to the content module’s formative assignment. During 2016 and 2017, students were also asked to participate in a supplemental survey which focused on their participation and experience with the ALL124 intervention. Students were asked whether the comments given on their ALL124 assignments were helpful in preparing for their final content module formative assignment submission as well as whether the feedback was incorporated into their final submissions. In both 2016 and 2017, students indicated that the comments were helpful (97% in 2016 and 85% in 2017) and that they incorporated the comments in their final submissions (97% in 2016 and 96% in 2017). However, it must be noted that scaffolding did not occur in terms of the content and assessment of the core modules (namely the essays which students were required to submit for content modules). As mentioned above, lecturers devised essay questions (preferably in conjunction with the academic literacy specialist). However, these questions were generally pitched at Bloom’s higher level of cognitive functioning and required students to be able to write at a critical and analytical level (Krathwohl, 2010: 215) from the first essay. Thus, although the content of the academic literacy intervention was scaffolded, the module content was not adjusted to the tested academic literacy level of the students.

What this means is that the approach of the academic literacy intervention is developmental and the workshops are designed to incrementally build on skills/competencies needed to write an academic essay, indicative of using bridging as a specific scaffolding type. During the 2016 and 2017 student survey, students were also asked whether they found the classes beneficial. In both years, students indicated that the monthly interventions during their content module classes were extremely helpful (97% in 2016 and 85% in 2017).

The approach to the academic literacy intervention distinguishes between macro- and micro-skills: macro-skills are classified as broader skills which need to be acquired before micro-skills can be addressed. It is deemed necessary to first work on students’ broader abilities to analyse the essay question, identify credible and relevant sources and to develop reading strategies. The macro-level approach is applied in addressing writing strategies with the focus on global issues of structuring/planning an essay with clear, main points and identifying evidence to support the main points. At the micro-level, the style and tone of academic writing, sentence and paragraph construction and grammatical errors typically made by second and additional language speakers are addressed. The argument can be made that in terms of academic literacy, students’ participation throughout the year should contribute to their cognitive understanding and ability to transfer academic literacies between and beyond academic content modules. In order to demonstrate the use of scaffolding strategies, Figure 3 represents the averages of all the ALL124 assessments completed during the year.

Figure 3.

ALL 124 averages 2015–2017.

Figure 3 suggests very mixed results. While students were able to, in general, improve their academic achievement between the ALL124 intervention and the specific content module assignment, they do not seem capable of transferring and gradually increasing their ALL124 results throughout the year. While three years may not be enough to argue significance, consideration should be given to the following:

In all three years, the final assessment is significantly higher than the first assessment and while the graph does not show a single line of improvement, there is improvement within the year.

The results above indicate that 2017 starts off at 17% higher than 2015 and 22% higher than in 2016. While the academic literacy intervention started in 2015, it can be argued that the efforts show an increase in student performance and some evidence that the scaffolding of learning is effective.

Apart from the final results for the module in the years 2016 and 2017, none of the averages was above a pass mark of 50%. For 2016 and 2017 students were also asked to participate in a supplemental survey which asked questions specific to their participation in the ALL124 module interventions and classes. Students were asked to provide comments on how to improve the ALL124 interventions and specifically mentioned that more time should be spent on the ALL124 classes. Students suggested that time allocated to the intervention is limited and that instead of the two to three hours spent per module, a whole day be devoted to improving their academic literacies and understanding the epistemic requirements for the content modules assignments. This is also supported by Rose et al. (2008), who argue that literacy rates improve proportionally to the time allocated to them. Mention should be made that the overall pass rate for ALL124 is higher since it includes additional assessments for the module itself as well as an examination during which the theoretical understanding of academic literacy practices and the practical application thereof are tested.

When considering whether students were able to master the academic literacies as included in the ALL124 module, Table 4 reveals the relationship between the TALL (February) results and the ALL124 results for their final assessment.

Table 4.

Comparison between TALL and ALL124 results.

2015		2016		2017
TALL	ALL124	TALL	ALL124	TALL	ALL124
40%	47%	41%	54%	37%	57%

Again, the results reveal a marked improvement in the academic literacy of students. However, simply focusing on the results negates the difficulty experienced in ensuring that academic literacy development is transferred beyond the measurement of results. The difficulty seems to be prevalent in using metacognition as a scaffolding type. In describing the use of developing metacognition, Walqui (2006: 176) argued that ‘planning for future performance based on an evaluation of part performance’ should be integral to how students manage their thinking while promoting student autonomy. The premise here is that while students respond at the moment to the education and feedback received that would allow them to achieve better academic results during that specific intervention, the learning would actually become internalised and part of the student’s academic writing and representation skills. Herein lies the apparent trial for both lecturers and students – while the above results are evidence of some mastering of academic literacy skills, the results further confirm that students do not transfer their skills beyond that specific academic literacy intervention. The assumption that lecturers may have, that students should possess specific academic literacy skills which could be built upon (prior knowledge carried from previous ALL124 interventions), is proven to need a more nuanced understanding. The direct relationships between the scaffolded, embedded academic literacy intervention and academic (epistemic) performance are, thus, influenced by more than just what the expectations of the student and lecturers involved in both the ALL124 and content modules may be.

In order to determine whether epistemic access was achieved, Figure 4 represents the results (averages) exploring the relationship between the ALL124 formative assessment, the content module formative assessment and the content module’s summative (examination) results.

Figure 4.

Academic progression 2015–2017.

The results, presented in Figure 4, indicate that while there is a positive relationship between the ALL124 assessment and the module’s formative assessment, the relationship between the formative and summative assessment is not positive in five of the 15 different assessments. There is, however, an improvement between the years at the same points in time, using the same type and standard for evaluation. PUF110 and PAD122 are both cases where the academic literacy intervention should be given additional emphasis. The results indicate specific considerations for the design of a scaffolded approach to embedded academic literacy. The need to involve the discipline specialists is critical; it should not only be the academic literacy assessments that are scaffolded, but also the content module assessments should follow a similar approach to enhance epistemic access. The above deduction is supported by Jacobs (2007: 67), who argues that ‘[w]hen disciplinary specialists, rather than language lecturers, initiated and produced integrated teaching materials, there were deep levels of integration…It seems that the depth of integration achieved, when language lecturers take on a primary role, is compromised.’

Synthesis and concluding remarks

The study has revealed a number of positive contributions to understanding the academic literacy needs of both students and lecturers. Embedding academic literacy within a discipline context is arguably one of the foundations for ensuring student success in mastering both academic- and content-related requirements. The involvement of both the literacy expert and the disciplinary expert in the design of the assessments also shows favourable results. However, within the context of the study, the following observations are made:

Academic literacy is a sub-field of an own discipline with its own disciplinary knowledge. Specific time constraints in the embedded teaching of academic literacy have led to students not always being able to transfer their literacy skills beyond a specific academic module to which it was linked.

Following a scaffolded approach to academic literacy is proving to be positive, but the biggest lesson learnt is that the assessments within the academic content modules should also be scaffolded. In following a scaffolded approach in how learning takes place could influence the epistemic access and success of students.

Recognising the collaborative approach needed between the academic literacy expert and the discipline expert in planning how academic literacy will both be embedded and scaffolded, is undeniable.

Biggs (2012: 43) argues that learning leads to epistemic access if it is approached as systemic in that learning is the result of students’ learning-focused activities being the product of both their own input as well as the total learning context. For Luckett (2001: 55), epistemic access is visible when a student is able to move from receiving propositional knowledge through to practical knowledge, experiential knowledge and ultimately, reaching epistemic knowledge, presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Epistemically diverse curriculum. Source: Adapted from Luckett (2001: 55).

As can be seen from Figure 5, the development of meta-cognition and the ability to think (and by extension write) in an epistemic, contextual and systematically relevant manner is considered to be characteristic of a student’s reflexive competence. Meta-cognition is important as a scaffolding type but is also indicative of deep learning or the cognitive process dimension of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy as proposed by Krathwol (2010: 215). In the development of academic literacy, Van de Pol et al. (2010: 283–284) argue that measuring the effectiveness of scaffolding remains challenging since scaffolding is in its nature an intervention, which can be manipulated by the lecturer. Apart from the possible manipulation, the unit of analysis, which is the academic performance of the student, can be influenced by more than just the intervention since students respond to educational interventions in different ways – some are more verbal, while some respond to more non-verbal behaviour. Regardless of the challenges which may occur, consensus exists that the ability to transfer learning is an integral part of a scaffolded and embedded approach to learning. This could be achieved through a combination of a discipline-lecturer-driven academic literacy programme, scaffolding the content of the modules themselves and by increasing the time allocated for the academic literacy programme.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

This is to certify that this article is our original work and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lianne P Malan

References

Andrews

Higson

(2008) Graduate employability: ‘Soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European study. Higher Education in Europe 33(4): 411–422.

Applebee

Langer

(1983) Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts 60(2): 168–175.

Barnett

(2007) Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development 23(3): 247–260.

Barth

Godemann

Rieckmann

. (2007) Developing key competencies for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 8(4): 416–430.

Biggs

(2012) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research and Development 31(1): 39–55.

Bruner

(1975) The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Speech 2(1): 1–19.

Carstens

(2016) Designing linguistically flexible scaffolding for subject-specific academic literacy interventions. Per Linguam 32(3): 1–12.

Cazden

(1979) Peekaboo as instructional model: Discourse development at home and at school. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 17: 1–31.

Coetzee

Botha

Eccles

. (2012) Developing Student Graduateness and Employability: Issues, Provocations, Theory and Practical Guidelines. Randburg: Knowers Publishing.

10.

Conference Board of Canada (2000) Employability skills 2000+. Available at: www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/learning-tools/employability-skills.aspx (accessed 4 April 2018).

11.

Dede

(2010) Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In Bellanca

Brandt

(eds) 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press, pp.51–76.

12.

Liew

Willson

(2014) Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers and Education 78: 312–320.

13.

Donato

(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf

Appel

(eds) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp.33–56.

14.

Fleer

(1990) Scaffolding conceptual change in early childhood. Research in Science Education 20(1): 114–123.

15.

Forman

Kraker

(1985) The social origins of logic: The contributions of Piaget and Vygotsky. In Berkowitz

(ed.) Peer Conflict and Psychological Growth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.23–39.

16.

Gibbons

(2015) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

17.

Graves

(1986) Chapter 2: Vocabulary Learning and Instruction. Review of Research in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Jacobs

(2007) Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academic literacies: Making the tacit explicit. Journal of Education 41(1): 59–81.

19.

Krathwohl

(2010) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41(4): 212–218.

20.

Kroukamp

De Vries

(2014) The dilemma of public administration education in South Africa: Teaching or learning? Teaching Public Administration 32(2): 158–168.

21.

Luckett

(2001) A proposal for an epistemically diverse curriculum for South African higher education in the 21st century. South African Journal for Higher Education 15(2): 49–61.

22.

Many

(2002) An exhibition and analysis of verbal tapestries: Understanding how scaffolding is women into the fabric of instructional conversations. Reading Research Quarterly 37(4): 376–407.

23.

Mahboob

Dreyfus

Humphrey

. (2010) Appliable linguistics and English language teaching: The Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments (SLATE) project. In Mahboob

Knight

(eds) Appliable Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 24–43.

24.

Ochs

(1990) Indexicality and socialization. In Stigler

Schweder

Herdt

(eds) Cultural Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.287–308.

25.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2016) 21st century competencies, foundation document. Available at: www.ontario.ca/education (accessed 9 April 2018).

26.

Pellegrino

Hilton

(eds) (2012) Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. National Research Council. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

27.

Rose

Farrington

. (2008) Scaffolding academic literacy with indigenous health sciences students: An evaluative study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(3): 165–179.

28.

Silliman

Bahr

Beasman

. (2000) Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 31(3): 265–279.

29.

Tharp

Gallimore

(1988) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

University of Pretoria (2018) School of Public Management and Administration: Undergraduate course. Available at: http://www.up.ac.za/en/school-of-public-management-and-administration/article/42644/undergraduate (accessed 17 May 2018).

31.

Van de Pol

Volman

Beishuizen

(2010) Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review 22(3): 271–296.

32.

Van Lier

(2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

33.

Vygostsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34.

Walqui

(2006) Scaffolding instruction for English Language Learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9(2): 159–180.

35.

Weideman

Van der Slik

(2008) The stability of test design: Measuring difference in performance across several administrations of a test of academic literacy. Acta Academica 40(1): 161–182.

36.

Weideman

Patterson

Pot

(2016) Construct refinement in tests of academic literacy. In Read

(ed.) Post-admission Language Assessment of University Students. Cham: Springer, pp. 179–196.

37.

Wingate

(2015) Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Plenary address at the International Conference of English across The Curriculum, Hong Kong, 14–15 December.

38.

Wood

Bruner

Ross

(1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17(2): 89–100.