Swamping and Spoonfeeding

8/11/2019 Swamping and Spoonfeeding

1/20

Swamping and spoon-feeding: literacies for learning in further education

Richard Edwards and June Smith

Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning

Institute of Education

University of Stirling

Stirling

FK9 L!

Email" r#g#edwards$stir#ac#u%

&


2/20

Swamping and spoon-feeding: literacies for learning in further education

Abstract

'his article re(orts on the outcomes of the first (hase of the Literacies for Learning in

Further Education (ro)ect* which is e+(loring the literacy (ractices re,uired for successful

study within different curriculum areas in four Further Education College* two in Scotland

and two in England# It draws u(on initial interview data with staff and students to e+(lore the

(erce(tions of literacy as an issue for learning within further education# 'his suggests a

com(le+ (icture of assum(tions and e+(ectations on the (art of staff and students* which are

not always aligned* and which im(act u(on the teaching and learning situation# In (articular*

issues are raised of -swam(ing. students with te+ts which there is little e+(ectation of them

reading and of -s(oon/feeding. students 0ecause of a (erce(tion of their limitations in

literacy#

Introduction

Recent wor% on literacy 12arton 3 4amilton &995* 2arton* et al# 67778 has noted that there

are strong lin%s 0etween the activities of reading and writing and the social settings in which

(eo(le live* wor% and study# 'his suggests that the ways in which (eo(le use and understand

reading and writing in their daily lives are de(endent on different local cultures and conte+ts#

'he focus here is not on 0asic s%ills as a set of individual s%ills and com(etences alone* 0ut

on literacy as situated in (articular social conte+ts# Some of the starting (oints for this area of

research are"

eo(le often ma%e sense of life through a variety of ways of writing and reading

6


3/20


4/20

on the use* refinement and diversification of literacy events and (ractices in further

education#

'he (remise for the (ro)ect is that the literacy (ractices of colleges are not always fashioned

around the resources (eo(le 0ring to student life* and that students may have more resources

to draw u(on than (eo(le wor%ing in colleges might 0e aware# Aver the three years of the

(ro)ect* we are e+(loring ways of mo0ilising students. everyday literacy (ractices in different

ways to enhance their learning in eleven curriculum areas in further education# 'he intention

is to achieve a critical understanding of the movement and flows of literacy (ractices in

(eo(le.s lives" how literacy (ractices are ordered and re/ordered* networ%ed or overla((ed

across domains 1home/college* virtual/real* reading/writing8* across social roles in students.

lives and what o0)ects might mediate such mo0ilisations# 'he LfLFE (ro)ect e+(lores the

literacy (ractices that each (artici(ant has accumulated during their life/course to date* the

literacy (ractices re,uired 0y their course of study and* crucially* the (otentials of the on/

going develo(mental interaction 0etween these literacies# In other words* we e+(lore the

0eneficial interaction 0etween students. informal vernacular literacy (ractices and the formal

literacies re,uired 0y their college learning#

'he (ro)ect is in three hases# hase &* 0etween January and July 677* was an Induction

(eriod* in which we were involved in the recruitment of university/ and college/0ased

researchers to the (ro)ect# :e also used this hase to e+(lore the literacy (ractices re,uired

0y students in 0ecoming a student in further education# hase 6* which will run until July

677B* is e+amining in detail the literacy (ractices of students in eleven curriculum areas

across the domains of college* wor%* home and community# 'he final hase of the (ro)ect

will involve develo(ing and evaluating (edagogic interventions 0ased u(on our initial data


5/20

collection and analysis* to try and esta0lish whether there are ways of mo0ilising learners.

resources to su((ort learning* retention and achievement#

'his article re(orts on the outcomes of hase & of the (ro)ect and is in three (arts# In the first

we will s%etch the conce(tual framings that are informing our research# 'hese include wor%

in ew Literacy Studies and multimodal social semiotics 12arton* et al# 67778# 'he second

(art of the article will outline the methodology ado(ted for hase & of the (ro)ect# >iven the

length restraints of an article* we will focus more on methods than 0roader methodological

considerations# In the third (art we will outline the %ey outcomes of analysis of hase & data#

'he analysis is illuminative of issues 0eing carried forward within the (ro)ect* 0ut we feel it

to offer insights* which may 0e of interest to the wider field# :e will only focus on the %ey

outcomes* once again for length reasons* 0ut also 0ecause the analysis is not something that

sim(ly comes to an end* 0ut is recursive as we (rogress the (ro)ect over time# :e therefore

e+(ect some as(ects of the analysis to 0e ta%en further and others less so# 'he concluding

(art of the article will outline the ways in which hase & analysis is influencing hase 6 data

collection#

?ultimodal literacy (ractices

'raditionally* literacy has 0een ta%en to mean reading and writing formal (a(er/0ased te+ts

using (redetermined rules surrounding the use of a national language# 'his view sees literacy

as an autonomous value/free attri0ute laying within the individual / a set of singular and

transfera0le technical s%ills which can 0e taught* measured and tested at a level of

com(etence# ! range of initiatives* such as the government.s res(onse to the 'omlinson

Review in England and 4igher Still in Scotland and the com(etence/0ased framewor%s for

ational Docational ualifications 1Ds8 and Scottish Docational ualifications 1SDs8

B


6/20

are aimed at enhancing the attainment of literacy as (art of the agenda for the im(rovement

of -0asic s%ills.* -%ey s%ills.* -core s%ills.* -core com(etencies.* or -learning to learn.#

Em0edded in such initiatives is a focus on communication s%ills* com(uter literacy* and

literacy/de(endent transfera0le s%ills# 'hese initiatives focus on the induction of (eo(le of all

ages into at least -functional. Literacy and umeracy#

'he LfLFE (ro)ect see%s to com(lement and inform (ractice and (olicies in relation to these

initiatives# 4owever* we do not treat literacy sim(ly as a set of autonomous s%ills and

com(etencies# 'o do so* leads to a view of literacy as a cognitive (ro(erty of each individual

mind* to an idea that literacy can 0e taught* learned and demonstrated entirely inde(endent of

a conte+t of use* and to attem(ts to measure how much literacy each individual has#

Aur a((roach draws u(on the ew Literacy Studies* which offers a socially situated and

constructed view of literacies as multi(le* emergent and situated in (articular conte+ts

12arton* et al# 67778# 'his is what is referred to as a social (ractices a((roach to literacy#

'his a((roach encourages us to tal% differently a0out how documents get read and written as

em0edded in the everyday activities of life# It also leads us* li%e others 1'uomi/>rohn and

Engestrom 677


7/20

e+tends this idea to include descri(tions of values* understandings and intentions# !s such*

literacy (ractices are not static and one literacy event can 0e invested with multi(le values

and intentions# 'his leads us to focus on differences in literacy (ractices from one conte+t to

another* and on the values* %nowledge* and e+(ectations which are ascri0ed to them* and

which sha(e the identities of those who (artici(ate in them# 4ere conte+t can 0e read at a

variety of levels* such as life* college* su0)ect* course* and teaching session#

'he LfLFE (ro)ect 0uilds on a (ilot study which found that further education students

engaged in a so(histicated and com(le+ variety of literacy (ractices outside the college

which were not mo0ilised into college/related literacy events 1Smith 6778# It was this study

that has led us to conceive our tas% as to su((ort the border crossingof literacy (ractices

from the vernacular and informal to the formal# 'hese include literacy (ractices associated

with the screen as well as those of the (age and the hy0rid forms of multimodality e#g# te+t*

icons* (ictures* through which (eo(le read and write these days# 'his is in order that these

literacy (ractices can 0ecome resources for learning in the teaching and assessment

associated with attainment in (articular su0)ect areas#

'his (ers(ective on literacies (otentially has (rofound effects on how we name the

(edagogical im(eratives relating to literacy in all educational sectors and* in (articular* the

(lace of further education in addressing the UK government@s lifelong learning agenda# It

also indicates that relating the literacies re,uired 0y study in further education to those from

other conte+ts is an activity in its own right and not sim(ly a transfer of technical s%ills from

one conte+t to another#

G


8/20

Methodology and methods

'he methodology informing this (ro)ect is 0roadly ethnogra(hic* hermeneutic and refle+ive#

It is ethnogra(hic as we see% to descri0e in as much detail as (ossi0le through fieldwor% the

literacy (ractices re,uired 0y the study of (articular su0)ects* in 0ecoming a further

education student and those that learners manifest in the diverse conte+ts of their lives# 'his

dimension is largely descri(tive as we attem(t to understand the culture and rituals of further

education* and the artefacts and totems through which literacy is mo0ilised# :e are trying to

o0tain -thic% descri(tion. from the inside rather than merely act as o0servers from the

outside# For this reason* we are (artnering further education staff and students as mem0ers of

the research team rather than them 0eing sim(ly res(ondents# 4ere our aim is to su((ort

(artici(ants in 0ecoming ethnogra(hers of their own e+(erience# 'he (ro)ect is hermeneutic

insofar as we recognise the recursive role of inter(retation in the understanding of social

(ractices* that is* the ways in which understanding is mo0ilised through the interrelationshi(s

0etween (ersons and artefacts and that these understandings hel( to sha(e future (ractices#

:e are therefore loo%ing to understand as well as descri0e literacy (ractices* 0ut from within

rather than a0ove#

'his has resulted in a mi+ed method a((roach to the (ro)ect as a whole and to hase & in

(articular# hase & involved the a((ointment of a university/0ased researcher to each

university and a college/0ased researcher* seconded for B/6 days (er wee%* for each

college# 'hey have 0een involved in o0servation* semi/structured interviews and the

collection of documents# A0servations in hase & were generated 0y sim(ly 0eing in the

colleges and e+amining the artefacts availa0le e#g# signs on notice0oards* leaflets in guidance

centres* and their use 0y staff and students# 'hese were recorded in research diaries and

hel(ed to inform interview schedules# Interviews were held with a randomly chosen sam(le

5


9/20

of staff and* to a lesser e+tent* students# 'he num0er of interviews and categories can 0e

found in 'a0le

'a0le & hase & interviews

Su0)ect teaching staff Su((ort staff Students

!nniesland &7

Lancaster and B G

?orecom0e

erth B B

reston B B &9

'otal 66 67 &

'hese interviews lasted a0out an hour and were transcri0ed# In addition* there was a

,uestionnaire distri0uted to college staff* which sought information on the artefacts and te+t

ty(es used in further education and the (ur(oses for their use# 2oth ,uestionnaire and

interview schedule were (iloted and modified on a num0er of occasions in the light of the

e+(erience of use and feed0ac%#

For this article* we have drawn from the analysis of interviews* which were recorded and

transcri0ed* and ,uestionnaires and sought confirmation of emerging issues or challenge to

them from o0servations# 'he interviews were analysed from two (ers(ectivesH theory/driven

and data/driven# 'he theory/driven coding framewor% was derived from the ,uestionnaire*

which itself had 0een modified from an e+isting !ustralian ,uestionnaire instrument to ta%e

9


10/20

account of a different conte+t and more recent research# Each interview was coded using this

framewor%# In a distri0uted research (ro)ect such as this one* with many (eo(le involved in

the coding* ,uestions of relia0ility arise# In order to address this* sam(les of transcri(ts were

inde(endently coded 0y each mem0er of the research team* who had 0een su0/divided into

college/focused grou(s# 'hese grou(s met to discuss their coding and to address any

differences# 'o a large e+tent there was a high consistency of coding across the research team

and differences were reconciled through discussion# In this way* we sought to 0uild inter/

researcher relia0ility# 'he data driven coding loo%ed for emerging themes within the

interview data and a similar (rocess of discussion was used to generate inter/researcher

relia0ility#

'he returns of the ,uestionnaire (roved somewhat disa((ointing# 'his a((ears to have 0een

due in (art to the (a(er overload 0eing e+(erienced 0y further education staff* which results

in the (rioritising of that which is immediately most im(ortant* that is* their teaching# It may

also have 0een in (art due to the unfamiliarity of some of the conce(ts within the

,uestionnaire and their o(enness to inter(retation# !lthough (iloted and amended* in

retros(ect* we feel such instruments have limited value for research of this sort# 'he (oor

res(onse rate meant that we did not attem(t to analysis the data statistically* as it would not

have 0een significant# Instead* we have drawn u(on it to triangulate our interview data#

Coding is only (art of analysis* as the latter still entails a sense/ma%ing (rocess# :e do not

claim the outcomes of our hase & analysis as findings in any com(lete sense# :e (resent

them here as the sense we have made to date of the data as su((orta0le 0y the evidence we

have and the methodology of the (ro)ect# 'he analysis is illuminative of a num0er of themes

and issues in researching this to(ic in the conte+t of further education#

&7


11/20

'his 0rings u( to the refle+ive as(ect of the methodology* as the a0ove suggests a relatively

smooth im(lementation of a research design* a genre of writing more associated with

e+(erimental designs 1and not the natural sciences (er se8 than with social science in the

conte+t of naturalistic environments# Refle+ivity entails us surfacing our own assum(tions

and rationales and (ointing to the wor% we are doing through the genre of discourse through

which we are communicating# For the (ur(oses of this article therefore* we have smoothed

over the -strategic im(rovisations. 1ol%inghorne &99G8 that have 0een (art of our hase &

activities# ! large distri0uted research (ro)ect in naturalistic environments is not the same as

conducting the same e+(eriment in a distri0uted num0er of la0oratories* nor would we

e+(ect it to 0e# 4owever* it is the latter which often semiotically codes readers.

understanding of -research.# So it is im(ortant that this (ro)ect is not read in this way#

!rticles of limited length can only 0e summaries of some (art of a large research (ro)ect and

we will discuss our im(rovisations elsewhere#

Similarly* we would not li%e the analysis we offer to 0e read as e+haustive and definitive#

'he latter is often coded in terms of -findings. and with ,ualitative data the notion of

saturation is often used to suggest that as much as is (ossi0le has 0een e+tracted from the

data collected# Aur view is somewhat different* as* while 0eing rigorous* we do not 0elieve

data can 0e either saturated or e+hausted 1unli%e the researcher (erha(s8# ata is always

o(en to reinter(retation in the light of changing circumstances and different theoretical

(ers(ectives# 'hus our analysis is more of a finding* 0ut within a certain conte+t of wor%#

'hat finding is one 0ased u(on multi(le data sources and the (rocess of inter/researcher

relia0ility# 4owever* any finding also involves a covering u(* as in 0ringing to the fore %ey

themes* others are (laced to one side# Ance again* this is 0oth for (ractical reasons = articles

&&


12/20

can only 0e of a certain length* 0ut also refle+ively* we would argue that this is inherent in

sense/ma%ing (rocess# :e follow Stronach 3 ?acLure 1&99G8 that every o(ening relies

u(on a closing and vice versa# In o(ening u( our finding* we are closing others that 0oth we

might have travelled* there0y (roducing a (articular ma( of a landsca(e# :e would claim

this to 0e a methodological strength of this (ro)ect#

Finding literacy practices

hase & of the LfLFE (ro)ect has (roduced emerging insights into the inter/related (rocesses

of 0ecoming a student in further education and 0ecoming a student of a certain su0)ect in

further education# 'here is thus a dual (rocess at (lay in 0ecoming a student* em0racing 0oth

institution and su0)ect#

'hus* for instance* on entering college* students receive a large amount of induction

materials designed to hel( them understand (rocesses and (rocedures and identify sources of

hel(# Induction is at three levels" the college* the faculty or de(artment and the su0)ect# Some

of this material can therefore tend to 0e re(etitious# 4owever* our interviews with 0oth staff

and students indicate that neither antici(ated that these will 0e read# 'he (ur(ose of the te+ts

(roduced and their introduction to students early on in their college lives would therefore

a((ear to have a certain sym0olic value more than su0stantially hel(ing students in

navigating their way into student life# 'his situation is also (otentially e+acer0ated 0y the

(rovision of su0)ect induction materials in addition to college/wide materials# 'here is thus a

swam(ing of students with written information at an early stage in their college lives#

'here is the antici(ation of students not reading te+ts (roduced for them and often the

assum(tion that students are not a0le to navigate large amounts of te+t# 'his raises ,uestions

&6


13/20

of why such te+ts are (roduced# Some staff identified strategies to hel( inter(ret te+ts for

students# 4owever* the students interviewed suggested that their lac% of interaction with

materials (roduced for them is 0ecause they are unclear of their use and relevance and

0ecause they are not engaged 0y the tone* language and visual design of that with which they

are (resented# :hile we are cautious as to the e+tent to which this is the case for all

students* there would a((ear to 0e an interesting issue that written information does not

necessarily inform students in the ways in which staff would li%e#

In relation to 0ecoming a student of a (articular su0)ect* lecturing staff interviewed tended to

assume that students do not read* in (articular e+tended te+ts# 'o hel( students* staff in some

area indicated they sim(lify teaching and assessment artefacts* which they identify

themselves as unsatisfactory -s(oon/feeding.# For instance* a Com(uting lecturer commented

a0out handouts to students"

-ah thin% I really did )ust redo it and ma%e it )ust easier for them to read and not so

muchnot so challenging ah don.t thin%.#

'his sim(lification often ends towards a reductionism* (resenting students with a 0ulleted

te+t* which deconte+tualises the material (resented# ! (ro0lem arises when this

deconte+tualisation ta%es (lace to such an e+tent that the content of the artefact loses

su0stantive meaning#

'hus* students tend not to 0e introduced to e+tended te+ts in their su0)ect settings# Inevita0ly*

there are e+ce(tions to this* such as the use of com(lete (lays in rama# 4owever* the

overall tendency emerging from the data suggests limited engagement with e+tended te+ts in

&


14/20

most su0)ect areas# :hen discussing this with students* we found that a significant

(ro(ortion tal%ed of the teaching artefacts as -unchallenging.# 'his suggests that at least

some of the strategies ado(ted 0y staff to assist students with their learning* 0ased on their

(erce(tions of the inade,uacy of student literacy (ractices* is not effective for a lot of those

students# hase & student interviews indicated that students mostly do engage in a wide range

of screen/ and (age/0ased literacy (ractices in their everyday lives* in (articular in relation to

reading# 'his has 0een confirmed in our hase 6 data collection* which suggests a lecturer

e+(ectancy effect in terms of the te+ts (roduced to su((ort student learning* which may

-over/crutch. the students* there0y limiting (ossi0le attainment# 'his may 0e an issue a0out

the timing and level of the literacy (ractices re,uired 0y students in learning their su0)ects

rather than a generic -lac% of reading.#

!lthough the literacy of students is a concern and learning su((ort availa0le* there seems to

0e little e+(licit engagement 0y either staff or students in the conte+t of su0)ect study of the

literacy (ractices necessary for learning# For instance* note/ta%ing can ta%e a variety of

forms* 0ut few su0)ect teachers address e+(licitly what is e+(ected# 'he assum(tion tends to

0e that the generic courses (rovided 0y learning su((ort staff are sufficient"

Interviewer" 4ow do you feel that the students get on with ta%ing notesdo they %now

what to dohow to ta%e notes

!rt 'eacher" oh I would thin% so 0ecause ah mean they.re involved in the

communication unit so 0y thenso they can write re(orts and things li%e

that

&


15/20

Similarly* -essays. is used a generic term for a wide range of different ty(es of form of

assessment#

Interviewer " and do you teach re(ort writing

Com(uting 'eacher" o#no##no## ah mean they do Communication class so M# would

do that with them 0ut no I don.t do re(ort writing

Literacy (ractices tend to 0e (art of the hidden curriculum of su0)ect teaching* which can

result in lac% of alignment e#g# lecturers using smart 0oards and advanced software to teach

0ut e+(ecting students to ma%e notes using (en and (a(er# Su0)ect s(ecialists tend to view

the e+(licit teaching of literacy as the role of learning su((ort staff* although this is not

universal# 'hree 0road views can 0e identified here# First* students are e+(ected to 0ring the

necessary literacy (ractices with them to their su0)ect of study# Second* students are e+(ected

to develo( the necessary literacy (ractices through emulation within the curriculum conte+t#

'hird* and to a lesser e+tent* literacy (ractices are to 0e taught e+(licitly# 'he (recsie

assum(tions de(end u(on su0)ect* level of course* teacher and student grou(#

Averall* students are e+(ected to read a large variety of (age/ and screen/0ased te+ts#

4owever* there is less variety in the forms of writing that are e+(ected of them* in (articular*

more e+tended te+t during class time or for writing for assessment# ?any students* in

(articular vocational students identified a disli%e of -writing.* often associated s(ecifically

with handwriting# E+tended writing is more li%ely to 0e re,uired in core s%ills

communication classes and academic su0)ects than in more vocational su0)ect classes# 'he

nature and (ur(ose of the curriculum therefore influences the literacy (ractices e+(ected

students# For instance*

&B


16/20

Interviewer" do your students emli%e to write ah mean you %now if you gave them the

o((ortunity to go and write a

!rt 'eacher" o

Interviewer" Right

!rt 'eacher" ,uite 0luntly mine are more into doing the arty things so to 0e honest I

don.t really have the need for them to the writingon myon that side of the

coursea(art from communications##

'he res(onse in ?otor ?echanics was similar"

Interviewer" they don.t do a lot of writing in this course

?echanics 'eacher" o a(art from the notes that I as% them to ta%e they really don.t do

very much

Interviewer" so they don.t do a lot of writing when they go on to the D other

than that

?echanics 'eacher" other than )o0 cards that.s a0out all they do yeh

'his has im(lications for ty(es and forms of (rogression 0y students onto further learning

once they have com(leted their courses#

:riting was most often identified with the assessment of %nowledge and com(etence rather

than the 0roader learning of the su0)ect# Lecturing staff identified themselves as s(ending

considera0le time -translating. assessment tas%s for students# 'hus* the ?echanics lecturer

commented"

&


17/20

-'hey.re usually ,uite short#they can 0e am0iguous sometimes even during the

test they will as%wewe.ve told them that we.ve said loo% if you come across a

wordthat you don.t %now the meaning ofthen as%.#

!lso* the literacy (ractices of assessment are not always constructively aligned with those of

the su0)ect teaching# For instance* an assessment tas% of writing an email as%ed students to

write the message using (en and (a(er# 'his is (artly due to an a((arent elision of the

differences 0etween screen and (age literacy (ractices in views of writing# Using a (en is not

the same as using as %ey0oard* 0ut 0oth tend to 0e su0sumed under the heading of -writing.#

'his can 0e (artly a resource issue of course* as funding affects the range of artefacts

availa0le for staff to draw u(on in their teaching#

'here are certain (erce(tions among some staff that the literacy (ractices re,uired 0y the

su0)ect are higher than those re,uired in the vocation for which students are 0eing (re(ared#

'here also a((ears to 0e a tension around what staff would li%e to do and what they feel they

have to do regarding assessments# Some of these issues may 0e the result of the am0iguous

(ur(oses of (articular vocational ,ualifications to su((ort (rogression within the su0)ect and

to ena0le transitions into the occu(ational sector# 'he literacy (ractices develo(ed within the

su0)ect for educational (rogression may not 0e those re,uired in the occu(ation and vice

versa

:e see therefore* even from our hase & data* issues emerging which (oint to the com(le+ity

and diversity of literacy (ractices in further education* the ways in which teaching is 0ased

&G


18/20

on certain e+(ectations and resources* and the mismatches that can arise 0etween lecturers

and students. (ers(ectives on what is e+(ected#

'a%ing issues forward

'he a0ove summarises the outcomes of the hase & analysis of data within the LfLFE

(ro)ect# !s we have said* this cannot 0e ta%en to 0e a ro0ust set of findings* due to the

random nature of the interviewees and the reliance on data of re(orted (ractice# Ane

significant issue we have noted in our interviews of staff* for instance* is that they usually

gave their (ers(ectives of students that they teach in general# In other interviews we have

conducted with staff within the (ro)ect since* discussing s(ecific students* a far more diverse

range of (ers(ectives is emerging#

4owever* the indications arising from this initial analysis have 0een used to sensitise us to

(articular issues in ta%ing forward the (ro)ect into hase 6# 4ere we are e+amining in detail

the literacy (ractices re,uired 0y the teaching of two units at different levels within eleven

curriculum areas# 'his involves e+amining the te+ts and forms of reading and writing

associated with very (articular areas of learning# It also involves wor%ing with students of

these units to e+amine the literacy (ractices in which they engage in their everyday lives as

well as those they manifest in college#

4ere* in (articular* we are interested in the nature and e+tent of the reading and writing

students engage in outwith college* the e+tent to which this does or does not conform to

lecturers. e+(ectations and the range of reading and writing and artefacts with which students

engage in learning their su0)ect# In the (rocess* we ho(e to 0e a0le to confirm or challenge

some of the issues that have arisen a0ove# 'he outcomes of this wor% will 0e (u0lished in

&5


19/20

later articles# Clearly 0eing swam(ed with te+ts to read or s(oon/fed that which is necessary

to (ass one.s courses a((ears to 0e unsatisfactory to significant (ro(ortions of staff and

students# 'his leaves the ,uestion of how this has come to 0e the case and how the somewhat

shared (ers(ectives of staff and students might 0e drawn u(on to im(rove the situation#

'entatively* it would a((ear that the (erce(tion of a -(ro0lem. of literacy may 0e resulting in

(roducing a -(ro0lem. of literacy#

Note

'he article is 0ased on data collected and analysed for hase & of the LfLFE (ro)ect# 'he

authors would li%e to than% the other team mem0ers whose wor% has 0een drawn u(on in

writing this (iece* in (articular* Noe Fowler and RoO Ivanic# 'he research u(on which the

article is 0ased is funded through the ESRC 'eaching and Learning Research rogramme

1RES/&


20/20

Stronach* I 3 ?acLure* ?# 1&99G8Education Research #ndone: the $ostmodern Embrace#

2uc%ingham" A(en University ress#

'uomi/>rohn* '# 3 Engestrom* P# 1Eds8 1677

Documents

Swamping and Spoonfeeding