Steve Campitelli Dr Jane Page Academic Skills M

Steve Campitelli Dr Jane Page Academic Skills M Teach Early Childhood Academic Skills Anatomy of a successful partnership http: //www. ptid. com. au/assets/images/projects/Uni. Melb%20 GSE/Uni. Melb_Grad. Sch. Edu_04. jpg

Presentation Part 1: collaboration Part 2: research project Academic Skills

Academic Skills Master of Teaching, Early Childhood (EC) MGSE Globally ranked Graduate Program Clinical model Interventionist teachers Theory / practice nexus Local and international cohort Sts from range of backgrounds http: //www. ptid. com. au/assets/images/projects/Uni. Melb%20 GSE/Uni. Melb_Grad. Sch. Edu_04. jpg http: //education. unimelb. edu. au/__data/assets/image/0005/1144292/early-childhood-web. jpg

Academic Skills (AS) Uo. M professional group – 11 staff Working in academic area Context*: Faculty/Discipline based Individuals: 1 -to-1 ‘itutes’, 4 X 30 -min appts / semester, sts self-book, can choose adviser – focus shift from provider to user Groups: workshops / presentations - open & targetted Construct*: “teaching of academic literacies” Academic independence – not long term dependence Skills – not proofreading Ability to engage with academic program Collaborate with academics (*Stevenson & Kokkinn, 2012) Academic Skills

Academic Skills Enabling independence through skills, not content

Nature of the collaboration Academic Skills AS-EC collaboration well-established & multi-faceted Advice to Academics Feedback on assignment briefs: focus clarity, accessibility Support for students - Group Meet academics, discuss assignment Targeted (tailored) workshops in Sem 1 Support specific assignments Tails off in Sem 2 - independence Initial student contact AS workshop – Transition to PG Diagnostic writing assessment Support for students - Individual Follow up individual sessions at AS for any sts Also sts flagged as requiring assistance at diagnostic and during program

Nature of the collaboration Academic Skills Attendance at EC staff meetings AS attend EC meetings Keep abreast of program Have input into program issues Advice to Academics Join EC Committees E. g. assessment, international sts needs Developed assessment grading documents

Key elements of collaboration Academic Skills Starts early – AS support from day 1 Continues through semester in a linked way Multi-faceted initiative – dichotomous Students & teaching staff Group & individual level In class & out of class

Key elements of collaboration Academic Skills Tailored for target group Consistent communication between AS & EC Academic (staff) buy-in AS knowledge of what EC is doing and viceversa

Why does it work? Graduate School Academic Skills Strong knowledge of each other’s work and focus Shared common vision and commitment to interdisciplinary partnerships Valuing of expertise of AS and MGSE Meaningful to both academic and AS staff members – collaborative learning Integrated throughout the program Relates and flows into student support processes

Academic Skills Why does it work? Academic Skills Interventionist orientation – positivist model Sts know AS – relationship established AS is viewed as ‘part of the EC team’ – workshops, meetings, committees – not external or ‘add-on’ Good service fit: EC values AS work (not always a given!) Complementary: EC content + AS skills EC highly values student welfare, committed to engagement Understanding of nature of service – not just ‘remedial’ Champions in Graduate School set tone

Key Learnings Academic Skills Locate / cultivate a champion Champion needs to be proactive, a ‘doer’, as do you! Encourage a ‘can do’ or a ‘do what you say you will’ attitude (within reason) Source good service fit – AS fits the interventionist model of MGSE

Key Learnings Academic Skills Value of the service related to provision, but also to the attitude of the other party – champion is essential in this Identify key stakeholders – get on board Communicate and deliver Multi-faceted, timely, linked approach is successful Led us to thinking about evaluating impact …

Academic Skills Research: “So … what difference does it make? ” Project Measure impact of individual advising What differences does academic advising make? Focus on writing – most common assistance EC a rich and willing research area

Literature Academic Skills Tendency to focus on justification rather than evaluation Wider context of economic rationalisation on 1 -1 service provision (Stevenson & Kokkinn, 2009; Chanock, 2007) Evaluation of 1 -1 is difficult & lags behind program evaluation; often not open or scrutinised (Chanock, 2002) Kasper (1997): content-based instruction courses for ESL students Song (2006): impacts of content-based instruction courses on results and pass rates Woodward-Kron (2009): how writing improves with disciplinary knowledge Baik & Grieg (2009): impact of a first-year adjunct ESL program Storch & Tapper (2009): impact of an EAP course on writing of postgrad students

Literature Academic Skills Clerehan (1997) & Chanock (2000): dialogic learning Chanock (2007): how 1 -1 informs classes, rel’n to group teaching (also 1996 conf. ) Berry et al. (2013): evaluation process of individual consultations Chanock (2002): variables that make 1 -1 eval difficult; intangibles of the 1 -1 context & wide range of influences on student success; cautions reliance on marks Mc. Lean & Webb (2002): assumptions our work impacts positively, variables influencing outcomes are beyond our control

Academic Skills Research Intention - aims To quantify the effect of Academic Skills (AS) intervention with a selected group of 1 st year Master of Teaching Early Childhood (EC) Teacher Candidates (TCs) Internal question: What if we weren’t here? Research question What measurable effect does AS intervention have on the performance outcomes in academic writing tasks completed by first year Master of Teaching (EC) TCs in the first semester of their academic program? https: //zombiesruineverything. files. wordpress. com/2013/09/pro 6. jpg

Research Academic Skills How? Students produce an essay response to an assessment requirement in their first semester 2000 w / 50% Examine non-assisted & assisted versions of a piece of writing for differences in result Tried for a ‘closed loop’

Research - process Workshop on essay task Sts work on Draft Paper # Sts submit Draft # Academic Skills Draft blind marked # unassisted 1 st AS itute* on Draft paper Sts work on Draft paper itute: indiv. 30 min all cohort can access 2 nd AS itute on Draft 2 papers compared Submit Final paper marked

Participants work on draft papers, unassisted AS Workshop 5/3 – all cohort 2 X AS appts from 27/ 3 to 17/4, Participants work on Final paper Academic Skills Submit draft 27/5 All cohort submit Final paper 19/4 Workshop to 1 st draft: 22 days 1 st to Final draft: 22 days

Analysis Academic Skills Quantitative Analysis Difference in marks btw draft and final Post-assistance questionnaire to participants Qualitative Analysis Comments on papers from markers Comments on papers from Adviser Reflections from markers and Adviser

Participants Academic Skills Participants: 12 students 9 int / 3 Eng L 1 (looking for 40! …) First semester, first year Masters Issues around timing re placement: early in program Academic Markers: 2 Pre-marking meeting: papers blind marked, same markers Familiarity with assessment Rubric / criteria developed internally

Marking mechanism Conceptual understanding 50% Analytic criteria - generic Raw scores out of 10 then re-weighted Bands correspond to Uo. M grading bands: H 1, H 2 etc. Academic Skills Structure & organisation 30% Evidence of research 20%

Academic Skills Results of marking from draft to final All marks went up, none went down! 1 grade pos average shift - ave Pass grade to ave H 3 grade* (*cohort final average H 3) 11 of 12 sts improved 1 -2 grades; 1 sts’ grade stayed same (improved 3%) 14. 3% average positive mark shift Shift varied from 3% to most dramatic shift of 30% (2 sts) 4 fails in draft 1 to 0 fails at final 6 students with word count issues to 1 (penalties apply) H 1 80+ H 2 A 75 -79 H 2 B 70 -74 H 3 65 -69 P 50 -64 F <50

Academic Skills Results of marking from draft to final Gain areas (out of 10): 1. 0 ave gain in Structure / organisation 0. 95 ave gain in Research / referencing 0. 8 ave mark gain in Conceptual understanding Shifts: Draft: Final: So: 1 X H 2 B 4 X H 2 B Managed to flip profile 2 X H 3 5 X Pass 3 X Pass 4 X Fail 0 X Fail H 1 80+ H 2 A 75 -79 H 2 B 70 -74 H 3 65 -69 P 50 -64 F <50

Survey of participants Academic Skills Survey results: Likert scale N=10 – all agreed that Workshop increased confidence Itutes helped me better understand task; structure & org; express myself; grammar; referencing Open question results How itutes most helped you: Linking & flow / Structure organisation of ideas 5 Grammar / Language help / expression - word choice 4 Helped me get it in on time / pace myself 3 Referencing 3

Survey of participants Academic Skills Open question results Closed question results Effective features of itutes : Get other help? Instructions on cohesion / linking 4 No 5 Structure and organisation of essay 3 Yes 5 (classmates, partner) Citation and referencing 3 “Really good for my mental health”! Used AS before? : No 9 Yes 1 Least effective features Nothing 3 Would use again? Only 30 mins long / Felt rushed 2 Yes 10

Academic Skills Results – what did markers identify as issues? Expression / language – awkward, unclear, grammar, word choice, sentence length, lack of signposting, run-on sentences or overly complex confusing sentences , ‘shopping list’ expression, inappropriate (overly informal) Organisation – paragraphing (at times, severe), distinct sectioning and separation of information Inappropriate presentation of info – tables bullet lists Referencing / citation issues – use of first name, not in list, conventions, missing citations, overuse of long quotes, ref too old, not what authors said Clarity of argument – point being made, argument hard to follow Representative of common student issues (Berry et al. , 2012)

Academic Skills Results – what did markers identify as strengths? Most had very clear intro and conclusion sections Clear expression Good support, link to theory / literature Good examples, clear definitions Strong points – well expressed Logical structure and flow Main learnings The markers and I agreed on the weak and strong points BUT … I did not identify the places for extra theoretical support or particular academic sources as much as the academics did AS focus on expression, structure, links, cohesion, citation – though there is flow-on effect from the mechanical to the conceptual

Limitations Academic Skills Sts knew 1 st draft had to be ready to be marked, but knew assistance was going to happen, so may not have ‘tried’ 100% to submit a ‘finished’ first draft On placement, time - rushed Submitted first version earlier than everyone else Markers subconsciously looking for improvement No access to markers’ draft feedback Small group, one paper, single discipline Not longitudinal

Markers’ reflections Academic Skills Disconnect between workshop and what sts are doing Made me think about how I can connect to AS service Made me analyse what a mark is, what it means, what an essay looks like, my feedback Made me change my assessment structure Value of clear marking rubric – shared understandings Emotional landscape of writing – making sure the feedback and marks are right Training in feedback – marking private, not scrutinised Reasonable for ppl to want to know what we do (Chanock, 2002)

Effects of advising on writing? Academic Skills Advising on the right things Most effect in expression/language, structure, organisation, linking, citation, word count, getting paper submitted Limited content influence … but it is also there We do make a positive difference Importantly… we don’t muck things up! – great points stay as great points!

Adviser’s reflections Academic Skills Disconnect between stated workshop advice and what they are doing – timing? Early v JIT Greater awareness of support being required at key content points boundaries between the mechanical aspects of writing and content (Berry et al. , 2013) Some students feel the itute context is rushed Itutes providing the windows into issues (Chanock, 2007) Value of being on the ‘same page’ as academics in terms of task, expectations, structure, marking system – holistic

Conclusions Academic Skills Make a positive difference – this study: a grade’s worth Areas where we have expertise – structure, org, expression, citations – but that this has positive flow-on effect in content Adjustments to cultural requirements of writing required –– the ‘craft of academic writing’ (O’Mahony et al. , 2013) Linked, multifaceted, holistic approach works – esp. when there is shared understanding of the task Timing of workshop intervention – early to JIT Approach to marking: emotional investment, feedback Approach to assignment structure: 1 -1 effect on classes (Chanock, 2007) One-to-one assistance works

Future directions Academic Skills More research – follow marks, does advice apply further? * *crude result: all sts rec. higher marks for subsequent essay in other subj. suggesting advice being applied out of 1 -1 context Longitudinal, cross-disciplinary study …

So … Academic Skills … what would happen if we weren’t here? Students wouldn’t perhaps do as well as they could, but … Would perhaps not be able engage as completely and rigorously with the program as they could We are able to enhance engagement with the program: enabling sts to optimise the academic inputs they receive with the skills to engage with them

Questions Academic Skills

Bibliography Academic Skills Baik, C. & Grieg, J. (2009). Improving the outcomes of undergraduate ESL students: the case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education Research & Development. 28(4), 401 -416. Berry et al. (2013) Individual consultations: towards a 360 -degree evaluation process. Journal of Academic Language & Learning. 6(3). 16 -35. Chanock, K. (2000) ‘You get me to explain myself more better’: Supporting diversity through dialogic learning. In R. James, J. Milton & R. Gabb (Eds). Research and Development in Higher Education volume 22: Cornerstones of higher education (pp. 53 -67). Melbourne: HERDSA. Chanock, K. (2002). Problems and possibilities in evaluating one-to-one language and academic skills teaching. In J. Webb & P. Mc. Lean, P. (Eds. ). Academic Skills Advising: Evaluation for program improvement and accountability (pp. 199 -221). Melbourne: VLLN. Chanock, K. (2007). Valuing individual consultations as input into other modes of teaching. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 1(1), 1 -9. Clerehan, R. (1997). How does dialogic learning work? In K. Chanock, V. Burley, & S. Davies (Eds. ). What do we learn from teaching one-to -one that informs our work with larger numbers? Proceedings of the conference held at La Trobe University November 18 -19, 1996 (pp. 69 -81). Melbourne: Language and Academic Skills Units of La Trobe University. Kasper, L. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic progress of ESL students. English for specific purposes. 16(4), 309 -320. O’Mahony, B. , Verezub, E. , Dalrymple, J, . & Bertone, S. (2013). An evaluation of students’ writing support intervention. Journal of International Education in Business. 6(1), 22 -34. Song, B. (2006). Content-based ESL instruction: long-term effects and outcomes. English for specific purposes. 25(2006), 420 -437. Stevenson, M. & Kokkinn, B (2009). Evaluating one-to-one sessions of academic language and learning. Journal of Academic Language & Learning. 3(2). 36 -50. Storch, N. & Tapper, J. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 8(2009), 207 -223. Webb, J. & P. Mc. Lean, P. (2002) (Eds. ). Academic Skills Advising: Evaluation for program improvement and accountability. Melbourne: VLLN. Woodward-Kron, R. (2009). ‘‘This means that. ’’: a linguistic perspective of writing and learning in a discipline. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 8(2009), 165 -179.