Position

The third section comprised questions related to the position of in-sessional pro- vision within an HE institution. As shown previously, five evaluation sub-criteria were identified for use to create survey items for this evaluation criterion (see table 4.5) in section 1 of the online survey. In addition to this set of sub-criteria, two fur- ther sub-criteria emerged from the analysis of the text-based responses at the end of Section 1 of the online survey. These were,whether in-sessionals are ‘embedded’ within degree courses, and whether they are ‘credit-bearing’.

Interview questions 6-9 investigated the position of in-sessional programmes within HE institutions in the UK. The analysis of responses to questions 6-9 showed that, in addition to evaluation sub-criteria used in the Likert scales as well as those emerging from the responses to the open-ended questions in the online survey, some other factors concerning the position of in-sessional emerged. Table 4.8, below, shows both the initial evaluation sub-criteria related to the ‘position’ of in-sessional programmes within HE institutions from Phase One of this study, as well as those that emerged in Phase Two.

Table 4.8: Evaluation Scale 2: Position in Institution.

quantitative phase of the study, four new themes emerged regarding the evaluation of the position of academic English in-sessional provision. These new themes were as follows:

• Awareness on the part of other (non-English language) departments of the importance of in-sessionals and what they offer and do not offer

• Promoting in-sessional as an option for all (thereby reducing the stigma) • Being a part of another skills development module

• Systematic collaboration

Awareness on the part of other departments of the importance of in-sessional provision and what it offers and does not offer

The first theme that emerged in the evaluation of the position of in-sessional programmes at universities investigated in this study was ‘awareness on the part of other departments of the importance of in-sessionals and what they offer and do not offer’. According to responses from all three groups, in order for this provision to be perceived as effective, departments need to have a clear understanding of its existence and the type of services it offers and does not offer. As one of the in-sessional staff stated:

‘. . . in terms of highlighting the importance of it, that usually comes out in one-to-one discussions with ourselves, you know departments. We [EAP providers] sometimes need to re-educate departments, if they need to, about what we offer and what we don’t offer’.

This suggests that transparency in promoting such programmes is essential, oth- erwise incorrect assumptions may be made regarding the services they provide. As one of the student participants commented, ‘there is an assumption, a mistakenly assumption, that it is purely linguistic focused and not on study skills and other more important elements that we [students] all could benefit from.’

As well as transparency concerning features of in-sessional provision and what service it offers, another related factor highlighted in some responses was the need to ensure that information on in-sessional provision gets circulated to key staff in departments who can then transfer this information to other academic staff and to students. As an in-sessional tutor added:

‘. . . it can be probably who are important the contact people in departments, either they are admins, and again you have to target the key admins, so

it could be a UG admin or a PG admin of a course, depending on which course you are targeting, and of course the academic course leaders who are responsible for the course and who know the cohort of students they are getting and they have; and also who cascade the information down in the hierarchy of the university, so targeting key academic people’.

Promoting in-sessional as an option for all (reducing the stigma)

The second evaluation criterion regarding the position of in-sessional provision at universities was related to ‘promoting in-sessional as an option for all students’ in order to reduce the stigma that can be attached to it. One in-sessional tutor stated: ‘My experience here working alongside tutors to deliver embedded programmes is to ensures that all the students participated; but they [students] know it is more or less compulsory not optional and it is for all; [this way] the stigma towards it is kind of removed that is kind of opt in if you are not strong enough’.

Meanwhile, one student participant commented:

‘from the beginning your supervisor should be able to tell you, “ok I know that this is going to be a struggle for you and I think this [the in-sessional provision] will help you”, but not a reactive way saying your English is not good and you should have your work proofread for you and so on’.

It seems that offering in-sessional provision to only a certain cohort of students risks marginalising those students, while promoting it as an option for all students may reduce this risk and the possibility of a stigma being attached to taking up in-sessional support.

Being a part of another skills development module

The third notion emerging in the evaluation of the position of in-sessional provi- sion suggested that according to participants ‘being a part of another skills develop- ment module’ improves the status and importance of such provision. As a subject specialist asserted:

‘In our school, we do quite a lot of credit bearing in-sessional and are moving towards that and the one that works particularly well I think is through the business school because they have a graduate award which means there is a lot of extra activities that students can participate in regardless of whether they are home or international; it doesn’t matter but if they participate in four of them, they get an additional award and that includes in-sessional

courses. But it also includes working in seminars, it includes the graduate ball, it includes social activities as well as academic activities as well as employability activities so they have done a really good job because they set out all the different things that students can take and it is very easy for them to see; and they only had to promote one thing which is the graduate award program and then you can see what is available for everyone there and also it is the only school which invites a tutor from the EAP to go and talk to students in the induction, and all the students can go.’

It seems that by including in-sessional provision as a component of a skills de- velopment module or award such as a ‘graduate award programme’, this provision will be promoted as a part of one thing and will not be missed out among many other services offered across a university. However, it also takes away the stigma associated with in-sessional English language provision as it is seen as part of a programme offered to and for the benefit of all students.

Finally, and in relation to the fourth emerging theme, while ‘collaboration’ had already emerged in Phase One as a criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of in- sessional programmes in terms of its position in a HE institution, a new dimension of this criterion was highlighted, particularly by in-sessional staff and other sub- ject specialists; namely,systematic collaboration between in-sessional providers and departments that are the recipients of in-sessional provision. As one in-sessional staff member shared their experience of collaborating with subject specialists, they remarked that:

‘. . . you need to have it organised by the institutions, so it is not just you on your own approaching subject specialists and saying -can I come in and get some advice from you-, so that doesn’t work. So my current job ,as I mentioned I am working on a psychology module for academic development module, so that had been much more structured and that has been instigated by our head of department, and he has organized that whether there is going to be meetings between us so that has been really productive, in that those content people [subject specialists] have been told in advance; this is what our module is, this is what we do, this is helps we need from you, this are the specific things we need, we need copies of old students’ essays, we need feedback, examples from you on those essays, or we would like some text to see what is the genre, so that we can do some genre analysis on these texts, so explain what we do and what we need from them and why we need them . . . ’

As this comment illustrates, while collaboration is seen as something that improves the position of in-sessionals in an HE institution, how systematic it is is also impor- tant as this will help ensure collaboration will not be left on the will of in-sessional tutors and if attempted by the EAP tutors, is responded positively and effectively by subject specialists. Table 4.9 presents more sample responses from each group, along with the count for each similar response related to each new theme.