1887
Literacies: Tertiary contexts
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In at least one fundamental respect, our universities are failing to clarify what they expect of students and what students and other stakeholders can expect of them. This failure concerns communication skills. The present paper identifies particular problems of academic literacy and proposes a coordinated institutional approach to their solution. Standards of oral and written communication among those who enter universities are often deplored by academics. Standards of oral and written communication among those who graduate are often deplored by employers. What evidence do we have about actual competencies at various levels of the higher education system? What are the practical implications for curriculum, pedagogy and assessment? How significant are cross-cultural aspects of literacy in academic settings? How distinctive are the literacy demands of different fields of study? Such questions must be explored if universities are serious about devising an appropriate framework of institutional policies to support improved literacy practices. This paper draws in part on a recently completed multi-university research project funded by the Australian Research Council on "Framing Student Literacy". Its theoretical background includes concepts of framing, particularly as developed by Tannen (1993) and MacLachlan and Reid (1994).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.25.2.03rei
2002-01-01
2019-12-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bernstein, B.
    (1975) On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. InClass, codes and control: theoretical studies towards a sociology of language (pp.202–230). New York: Schocken Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cummings, R.
    (1998) How should we assess and report student generic attributes? Proceedings of the 1998 Teaching and Learning Forum, University of Western Australia, Perth.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cumming, R. & Ho, R.
    (1996) Survey of key competencies in selected industries in Western Australia. Perth: Murdoch University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Latchem C. , Parker, L. & Weir, J.
    (1995) Communication-in-context. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. MacLachlan, G. & Reid, I.
    (1994) Framing and interpretation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Marginson, S.
    (1993) Generic competencies. Higher Education Series Occasional Paper, no.4. Canberra: DEET.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Parker, L.
    (1997) Institutional practices in promoting tertiary literacy: the development and implementation of a university-wide policy for enhancing students’ communication skills. In Z. Golebiowski (Ed.) Policy and practice of tertiary literacy: selected proceedings of the First National Conference on Tertiary Literacy: Research and Practice, vol.1 (pp.20–36). Melbourne: Victoria University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Parker, L. , Kirkpatrick, A. & Slaney, K.
    (1997) Communication skills in the context of postgraduate supervision of students from language backgrounds other than English. Internal report. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Reid, I.
    (1996) Higher education or education for hire? Language and values in Australian universities. Rockhampton: Central Queensland University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Reid, I. , Kirkpatrick, A. & Mulligan, D.
    (1998) Framing reading. Sydney & Perth: NCELTR in association with the Centre for Literacy, Culture and Language Pedagogy.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ryan, J.
    (1998) Struggling with academic language: tertiary literacy. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 7 (2), 55–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Savery, L. , Dawkins, P. & Mazzarol, T.
    (1995) Customers’ views of Australian management: Asian-Pacific viewpoints. InEnterprising nation: renewing Australia’s managers to meet the challenges of the Asia-Pacific century. Canberra: AGPS.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Tannen, D.
    (1992) That’s not what I meant!London: Virago.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1993) Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.25.2.03rei
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error