Accessibility

Following the ‘Introduction and participants’ background’ section, the second sec- tion of the interview consisted of questions related to theAccessibility of in-sessional programmes. As mentioned earlier, the design of the interview questions as well as the initial analysis of the responses to these questions, were informed by the evalua- tion sub-criteria re-addressed in and emerging from the open-ended items collected via the survey in Phase One (see Table 4.5). To this end, the data was first analysed using predetermined codes defined based on the evaluation criteria used in the online survey, as well as those that emerged from the responses to the open-ended items in the questionnaire. The second approach sought to identify any differences among the three participant groups in the way they perceive the accessibility of in-sessional

programmes. Table 4.6 provides sample responses from each group, along with the count for responses related to each new theme (i.e. evaluation sub-criteria).

The analysis of responses to questions 2 to 4 revealed that, in addition to prede- termined codes informed by the evaluation sub-criteria used in the online survey, two new criteria emerged in relation to the accessibility of in-sessional provision. Table 4.7 shows both the predetermined codes as well as the new emerging criteria obtained from the analysis of the interview responses.

As shown in Table 4.7, one criterion was related to the delivery format of in- sessional provision in terms of it being in the form of a drop-in session or a continuous course. Another criterion was related to academic in-sessional providers and whether such provision is centralized and offered via a single unit or offered by different units including, but not limited to, the library, support service center, language center, and international office.

A combination of drop-in and continuous should be provided to suit needs of students at different degree levels

In terms of drop-in and continuous in-sessional services, while all participants unanimously believed that a combination of both needs to be provided, ‘students’ academic/degree level and needs specific to those levels’, was referred to as one factor determining what combination of the two formats to use. As one student participant stated,

‘. . . I think for the PG, especially for MA, there [courses] could be designed at the time of the year when they start writing their dissertation, because that is the time of the year they get serious, before that they are involved in the coursework, but for PhD students it should be throughout the year as we need help throughout the year at different times for conferences, publication, so they need help throughout the year, so, I think like a drop-in session for students’ specific needs and learning style (based on which stage of their degree they are) . . . ’

As this response suggests, the provision of both one-off drop-in sessions and a continuous format allows greater flexibility and, therefore, enables universities to cater for different students’ needs. As another participant added:

‘. . . So, there needs to be a combination of both to account with different learning style, so some may benefit from module, others may really benefit from the kind of emotional and pastoral support that a one-to-one session can actually provide, and they can ask questions a bit freer. Without the gaze of their tutor being there for example . . . ’

Table 4.6: Sample Responses for New Evaluation Sub-criteria Related to Accessibility of in-sessional Provision with the Number of Times Similar Comments Were Made.

Table 4.7: Evaluation Scale 1: Accessibility.

Different schemes (e.g. offered centrally via a language centre, and the library, and the student support service) providing in-sessional EAP causing confusion

Regarding the second criterion (i.e. all EAP provision to be delivered centrally), many participants from all three groups emphasized the importance of such pro- grammes being delivered from a central place such as an academic English support centre. One in-sessional tutor commented:

‘. . . I think it should be both, but I think it should come from the same place. At our university, the EAS (English academic support) that I am associated with tends to do longer courses, but there is also support in other places, so there is a writing centre but has got nothing to do with the EAS and they are also a lot of one off workshops with study skills and I would like us all to be working together and everything to be delivered from a central place rather than 2 or 3 different areas are delivering all these things and delivering to different students as well; the writing centre is used more by domestic students, internationals tend not to notice them, although I do point them to that direction as well, but there is a lot of things going on; I think, so I think both are important but, it needs some one person, it needs to be coming from one place where everyone is going in the same direction as things are being duplicated and mixed up otherwise; it needs more orientation and I think coming from one place it could be oriented better. So, both, but the organization of both is really really important rather than having both . . . ’

centrally increases the accessibility of such programmes as there is less confusion about where to go for support. Table 4.6 provides a summary of sample responses for the new evaluation sub-criteria related to accessibility of in-sessional provision, along with the number of times similar comments were made in each participant group.