Teaching disciplinary discourse and implementing language-across-the-curriculum at tertiary level problems and prospects

Abstract

The premise of this thesis is that "learning", particularly in terms of students and universities, is capable of being seen as a specific and developed culture. This study is a contribution to the ethnography of that learning, the ultimate aim being to produce a descriptive theory of learning as a cultural system. This research was conducted within the context of the recent proposals made by the South African Commission on Higher Education. The proposals relevant to this study were, broadly, increased access to higher education and national funding for academic staff development programmes. There are, however, serious obstacles in the way of realising the aims of the higher education system outlined by the NCHE. Given the limited time and resources available for higher education development, it is imperative that the major flaws and obstacles in the system be identified and addressed as soon as possible. In view of this need, it was the concern of this study to conduct research which would assist in the designing of staff development programmes for academics teaching in English-medium tertiary institutions, like Rhodes University, where more than half the intake of first-year students already speaks English as a second, or other, language. Founded on the social constructionist view of knowledge, the aim of the study was to identify the needs of academic staff as well as the possible obstacles to the implementation of a "Language Across the Curriculum" policy. A genre-centred, ethnographic approach was used to access a disciplinary discourse community (the Psychology Department) in order to describe the practices of the community as well as to analyse the community's orders of discourse, particularly those which occurred at points of contact between lecturers and first-year students. It is argued that staff development programmes should promote the use of collaborative learning, which implies a reframing of the roles of both academic staff and students.