From a local to
international client base.
A story outlining the development of the
first year of The literacy project at
Canning College, Bentley, WA.
Erica,
the narrator
1
Preamble
At the end of 2008, literacy identified as a Canning College
priority.
Literacy Priority Committee established *.
“The literacy priority committee will require teacher
representation from across College curriculum areas.”
(Each College Learning Area (LA) and is represented as is
Management.)
Two BROAD FOCUS AREAS for the Literacy Priority
Committee in 2009:
• Teaching and learning
• College processes and structures that affect the
placement, transition and achievement of students in
the areas of literacy and language acquisition.
0.6 job advertised for adult literacy specialist.
2
MODEL : AT JOB INTERVIEW
4. Referral system
(for severely ‘at risk’ students)
3. Workshop series (week 6 +)
(for both remediation and
extension.
2 Six week, academic skills workshop
program
1 ORIENTATION program for students *
(including academic and library skills workshops)
What do I need to know?
What do I already know?
What don’t I know?
Where/how can I find/develop the
knowledge and skills I need? (Where to next?)
* Run by Library, and literacy specialists.
3
1 Orientation
• 2 – 3 hour session for all students – run by literacy
specialists
• choice of many session days and times (continuing into
weeks 2 or 3)
• separate sessions designed and delivered for first
language English speakers and those for whom English is
not their first language
• diagnostic tasks included (eg: reading for main idea,
writing sentences/paragraphs…..)
• self assessment options with ‘Where to next?’ options (online and workshops)
• student academic handbook
• some sort of passport/stamp… to show student has
attended sessions
4
3. Workshops – to further develop academic skills (from
weeks 1-6) and to improve literacy
Remediation (term 1)
Extension (term 2)
4. Literacy referrals – for severely at risk students
(identified after first assessment tasks)
A referred student is managed by a team comprising:
• Literacy Project Manager
• All that student’s lecturers
• Psychologists (where appropriate)
5
The introduction
Yes, I have set up and run things for
students:
•
•
•
•
orientation sessions (beginning of 2009),
workshop series (weeks 1-6),
Power learning website on StudentNet,
established “English speaking zones”
throughout the College and
• referral system * (pp.4,5 on pink handout)
(* more about this later)
6
7
8
but, between early December,
2008 and late January, 2009, I
changed my focus.
….and so, by the beginning of
February, this story, involving all
College staff, began.
9
10
Staff :A) Peer mentoring and
modelling good practice
(existing models/mentors identified)
Some topics covered to date:
• topic/task analysis (to also help students) (me),
• how to design and write documents/resources to
enhance their readability (me),
• encouraging student participation in class
discussion (Social Science),
• creating glossaries for students (Maths),
11
• creating annotated answers using tools on
the computer,
using rubrics effectively (Science),
• Nings and other things (English),
• modifying set content to better suit learner
needs (Computing),
• effective preparation and practice for setting
research assignments (Library) and
• ESL strategies in mainstream classes
(ESL).
These sessions were part of each general staff
meeting during terms 1 and 2 (semester 1) and are
available on StaffNet.
12
Literacy Priority
13
..and between these whole
staff PD sessions…
• I mentored staff one: one or in small
groups.
• They then mentored and shared work in
progress with others.
• The mentoring network was expanding
and getting stronger.
• Staff were gaining confidence re their
literacy skills.
14
B) Professional development
(PD) needs analysis survey
(preparation for future orientations – embedded)
Versions for teaching and non-teaching staff
(need to all be on ‘same page’).
Aim to build staff literacy skills to help day to
day and to prepare for orientation 2010.
(pp.1,2 on pink handout)
15
B) Professional development
(PD) needs analysis survey
Informed:
• PD program (at staff meetings) for
semester 2 (terms 3 & 4)
• Program for ‘Lens on literacy’ mini
conference, at the College, on 12
Oct, 2009.
16
So, have I lost the plot?
Didn’t I say that this was about
International students?
Have I confused literacy and
language?
17
I spoke to students too.
They identified barriers to their success.
Yes, language is a major issue.
However:
a) inconsistent/inappropriate teaching
practices,
b) poorly designed and written resources,
c) inappropriate/difficult texts etc
create extra barriers to learning.
(LA discourses/sets of literacies).
18
a)
and b) being addressed, to a degree, by PD and
mentoring
c) All LAs:
•
making better informed choices about texts and
their readability
•
redesigning print and on-line documents
Library is:
•
purchasing a range of texts (for subjects) with
easier to harder options
•
redesigning on-line resources
•
using virtual tours and Ipod downloads more
(students can do/redo in own time – not tied to
classes or workshops)
19
Preparation for 2010 (some)
• Flying Start orientation survey (semester
2) (p.3 on pink handout) (Inform/plan)
• Focus on entry testing for all programs
(international and local) – some changes
needed
• Student transition between programs
reviewed
• Counselling and advising of students
student placement more appropriate → fewer ‘at risk’
students
20
The model now:
1. At enrolment
• Diagnostic tasks, eg:
- reading for the main idea
- paragraph structure
- using a library data base
• Answers given for student self-evaluation
• If can’t do/need help – Where to next?
Some print resources in back of diagnostic
booklet, most on-line (interactive sites)
21
2. Before classes start
(and during first few weeks)
Academic orientation program in addition to
usual College orientation sessions
• Academic skills
• Library and
• Confidence building workshops
BUT… the students who need this most
probably won’t self diagnose
22
3. Embedded, LA programs
• First 4 - 6 weeks of term in every class
• All teaching staff involved
• Key skills/knowledge focus (currently
being trialled and discussed)
• Each course has ‘Course booklet’*(a
reference text) to aid transition
* Common content, layout (Q & A, columns…) and format
to enhance student navigation and comprehension.
(Much discussion has occurred here.)
23
4.
Review of student progress –
week 6
5.
Remediation offered weeks 7+
• individual teachers
• workshops (based on identified needs)
6.
Referral system
24
The end?
• This project is a ‘work in progress’
• 2010 will see changes and modifications
• Staff empowerment and collaboration will
continue
• More focus will be on groups of students
who are at risk (What is happening in
these programs? What can be done to
address common issues?)
• The referral system (for individuals) will
continue
25