Presentation on theme: "Literacies for Learning in FE Project structure 2 universities 4 colleges 16 curriculum areas 32 units 100 students."— Presentation transcript:
Literacies for Learning in FE Project structure 2 universities 4 colleges 16 curriculum areas 32 units 100 students
Preston College Lancaster and Morecambe College Anniesland CollegePerth College Lancaster Lancaster University University University of Stirling Travel & TourismCatering & HospitalityMedia Studies Child Care Certificate in Child Care and Education Diploma in Child Care and Education NVQ 1 Intro to C&H NVQ 2 Food and Drink Service Working Overseas BTEC ND Travel & Tourism AS Media Studies Access to HE: Media Studies Four students Four studentsFour students Four students Four students Four students Four students Four students Level 2Level 3Level 1Level 2 Level 3 Level 2
Two stages in the research Actions for understanding: research and reflections on (A) The reading and writing which students encounter in college (B) The reading and writing involved in students everyday lives outside college Actions for change: (C) Tutors made small changes in their practice to improve (A) in the light of (B )
Categories of literacy practices in learning vocational subjects in Further Education (A) Literacy practices for learning (e.g. reading and making notes from a text book) Literacy practices for assessment (e.g. producing an essay or a report) Evidence-providing literacy practices (e.g. completing a log book or portfolio) Literacy practices relating to the workplace (e.g. writing food orders; reading to children)
The washback effect All literacies for learning were shaped and constrained by assessment requirements The form, content, focus and delivery of assessment often determined the curriculum and the way it was taught As a result, these features in turn tend to affect the skills set which is the outcome of learning.
(B) The reading and writing involved in students everyday lives outside college FE students CAN and DO read and write abundantly in their everyday lives; Not only staff but also students were surprised to discover this
Literacy practices which students identify with tend to have the following characteristics : Mostly multi-modal, e.g. involving speech, music, gesture, movement, colour, pictures, symbols Mostly multi-media, e.g. including sound, electronic and paper media Shared, interactive, participatory – virtual and/or real Non-linear, i.e. involving complex, varied reading paths Agentic or student being in charge Purposeful to the student Clear audience perceived by the student Generative, i.e. involving sense-making and creativity Self-determined in terms of activity, time and place
Comparison of workplace, home and pedagogic literacy practices Workplace and home literacy practices Mostly multi-modal Mostly multi-media Shared, interactive, participatory Non-linear Agentic Purposeful Clear audience Generative Pedagogic literacy practices Mostly mono-modal Mostly paper-based Individual, non-interactive, solitary Linear Non-Agentic Ambiguous purpose Ambiguous audience Information provided
Fine tuning literacies for learning Changes in practice which engaged with students everyday literacy practices tended to increase students engagement, recall and confidence Changes in tutor practice not necessarily innovative but could be new to particular staff and students involved, e.g. Mind maps Not all students wished to engage with their everyday literacy practices
Changes made by tutors to literacy for learning practices Made students more aware of their own everyday reading and writing practices which could be used for learning Made communication aspects of learning more explicit Made reading and writing on courses more relevant to learning and to the futures for which students were preparing Made reading and writing on courses more resonant with students own literacy practices
Things to think about in our discussion How do we avoid teaching to the test? How easily can the messages from literacy be used with numeracy/maths/ICT teaching and learning? Where does a problem solving approach fit with the findings? How can a social practice model fit with a functional skills model?