English language proficiency of international students in Australian universities: Who’s responsible? Presenter: Paul Moore, University of Wollongong, Australia. The role of academic language and learner advising and learner autonomy in improving the educational outcomes of international students in Australian universities has received significant attention in recent years. A combination of research findings, governmental pressure and media scrutiny has provided renewed impetus for universities to address issues of language proficiency and academic literacy amongst the growing population of onshore international students for whom English is an additional language (EAL). In this paper, I discuss learner advising practice in the Australian university context, including how this practice is influenced by a range of practical, pedagogical, disciplinary, institutional and political factors. I highlight some of the challenges and tensions which impact on the advising process, and discuss the roles and responsibilities of students and advisors in improving educational outcomes.

1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE
PROFICIENCY OF
INTERNATIONAL
STUDENTS IN
AUSTRALIAN
UNIVERSITIES:
WHO’S RESPONSIBLE
Paul Moore - Virtual Presentation
IATEFL Advising Conference 12 November 2011

2. About the presenter
Paul Moore works at the University of Wollongong
(UOW) as a lecturer in the Learning Development Unit.
He has also taught on the postgraduate TESOL
program. His work in Learning Development involves a
range of activities from student consultation and
teaching, to collaboration with teaching staff from a
range of faculties, to policy development. Current
research interests involve several aspects of task-
based language learning and teaching,
including influences of interaction on performance and development, form-
focused instruction, and use of the first language in the EFL classroom.
email: paul_moore@uow.edu.au
To
C

3. Contents & Navigation
Table of Contents Navigation
About the presenter (slide 2) Underlined textis hyperlinked
The Australian tertiary context (slide 4)
Contextualising advising practice (slide Some images are
5) also hyperlinked
Political & policy contexts (slides 6-7)
Professional community contexts Arrow keys and
(slides 8-11)
mouse clicking
Institutional Context (slide 12)
are also enabled
Individual consultation advising (slides
13 – 18
Roles and Responsibilities (slides 19-
20)
The Future (Slide 21)
References (Slides 22-23)
To
C

4. The Australian Tertiary Context
•Increasingly reliant on international student
income;
•English language proficiency of EAL
international students has become a major
focus;
•Academic Language and Learning (ALL)
advisers provide support to all students
(variety of contexts and modes).
To 28%
C International

5. Contextualising advising practice
Political & policy contexts
Professional community contexts
Institutional Context – Academic
language and learning practice @ UoW
Individual consultation (IC) advising
To
C

6. Political & policy contexts
2009
After two years of symposia and
deliberation, the government
2006 releases:
“Birrell report” Good practice principles for
Graduating EAL overseas English language proficiency for
students‟ English language international students in
proficiency prevented them from Australian universities
getting work or meeting visa (AUQA, 2009; linked to quality
requirements audits)
2007
Changes to Education Services
for Overseas Students (ESOS)
Act – aimed to improve
completion rates and provide
timely support for “at risk”
overseas students.
To
C

7. Political & policy contexts
Although Birrell‟s contributions to the higher
education debate reinforced the portrayal of EAL
students as “deficient” and in need of remedial
and supplementary English classes (cf. Birrell
2006, p. 63), it appears to have had the effect of
raising the profile of English language proficiency
issues in higher education on the federal agenda.
Good Practice Principles (GPPs):
http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/Documents/Final_R
eport-Good_Practice_Principles.pdf
For critiques of the GPPs, see Murray (2010; in press) and Harper et al. (2011)
To
C

8. Emergentand diverse
professional community contexts (Chanock 2011a;
2011b)
2005
Association for Academic
1950s Language and Learning
ALL first provided by (AALL) formed
counselling services See http://www.aall.org.au
1980s
Changes to Education
Services for Overseas
Students (ESOS) Act –
aimed to improve completion
rates and provide timely
support for “at risk” overseas
students.
To
C

9. professional community contexts:
issues and approaches
What should ALL advisers focus on?
“Generic academic skills”
vs
“academic literacies” (Lea & Street, 1998)
vs
“professional communication”
vs
“(contextualised or generic) language
proficiency”
To
C

10. professional community contexts:
issues and approaches
How should language and learning support be
done
(and who by)?
Workshops / online / one-to-one / peers /etc.
Independent ALL units / staff based in discipline
Academic staff / general staff
Discipline specialists / applied linguists /
language teachers / others
To
C

11. professional community contexts:
the individual consultation
A major issue with the government‟s focus on English
language proficiency is that much of the focus of individual
consultations in ALL centres has been the development of
academic literacies based on current assessment tasks. One
indicator of this is the AALL‟s statement: “Who are ALL
advisers/lecturers?”
Our primary role therefore is to assist students to understand the
cultures, purposes and conventions of different academic genres
and practices. In this respect, our work is developmental, not
remedial. We don't 'fix' problems - rather, we teach students the
strategies and skills with which they can achieve the outcomes to
which they aspire. This objective of teaching students how to
take control of their academic writing and learning is fundamental
to our pedagogic philosophy. http://aall.org.au/who
To
C

12. Institutional Context
Practice of Learning
Development at UoW
•Working with students to identify
learning issues and assist them in
their negotiation of academic
literacies, language and learning.
•Collaborating with faculty to
enhance student learning and the
development of academic literacies.
•Working across the University to
link individual learning issues with
the wider teaching and learning
policies.
http://www.uow.edu.au/student/servi
ces/ld/staff/UOW021301.html
To
C

13. Individual consultation (IC)
advising
This section draws on Carson &Mynard‟s (in
press) analysis of the role of “advisors for
language learning” in terms of the following:
aims; practices; skills; location; discourse.
While the practices and skills are somewhat
similar to academic language and learning
advisors in Australia, the
aims, practices, location and discourse
deserve mention
In addition I look at particular contextual issues
and challenges related ALL
To
C

14. 1. Aims
While the ALL adviser‟s aims may be fostering the
development of disciplinary language and learning
skills in the learner, the majority of students in the
current context engage in ICs with a strong focus
on written assessment tasks. Although not often
noted in this context, such a focus finds support in
task-based language learning and teaching
principles (cf. Shaw, Moore &Gandhidasan, 2007, for an example of
integrated learning support in a task-based curriculum)
As ALL advising is often construed by non-
specialists as editing (Woodward-Kron, 2007) or
„fixing learners‟ language problems,‟ learners may
also attend ICs with the express purpose of having
the grammar or expression in their written
assignments „fixed;‟ hence the need for explicit
To
guidelines re ICs.
C

15. 2. Practices
Given their common focus on disciplinary
discourse, ICs often involve advisers attempting to
deconstruct this implicit discourse and make it
explicit to the learners. This often involves placing
the learner in the position of content expert
(e.g., Clerehan, 1997), while the advisor, along
with the learner, attempts to interpret the
disciplinary discourse and the learner‟s attempts
at constructing „appropriate‟ texts. This work is
informed by a range of fields, including genre
theory, applied linguistics, systemic functional
linguistics, corpus linguistics, and (critical)
discourse analysis.
To
C

16. 3. Location
While ALL advising with students generally
takes place in advisers‟ offices or in common
advising areas; the principles are applied in
several ways and locations at UoW, as noted
earlier. One area of research in Australia (and
the topic of a 1996 conference) investigates
the question „What do we learn from teaching
one-to-one that informs our work with larger
numbers?’ (cf. Chanock 2007, for example).
To
C

17. 4. Discourse(s) and related
challenges
While little research has gone into analysing IC
discourse, the increasing need to „objectively‟ evaluate
funded activities (Chanock, 2007), and to combat „bad
press‟ (Clerehan, 1997), has led to some studies being
undertaken.
Clerehan (1997) explored the dialogic construction of
learning in ICs, providing evidence of learning of both
participants.
Woodward-Kron (2007) similarly investigated ICs from
the perspective of systemic functional linguistics
(SFL), providing a rich analysis of discourse, including
joint construction of meaning and scaffolding and
addressing a wide range of aspects of textual and
To
contextual features of the learner‟s text.
C

18. 5. Discourse(s) and related challenges
(cont.)
Chanock (2007) argues that the effectiveness of ICs is „invisible‟
in that it is not possible, for example to objectively link them to
learner outcomes. She argues that the input from ICs to other
forms of learning is invaluable, citing one ALL adviser, who‟s
IC program was discontinued (p. A2):
We no longer see students; therefore we no
longer have their version of their problems.
(cf. Stevenson &Kokkinn, 2009, for a comprehensive attempt at
IC evaluation.)
Collins et al. (1996) investigated links between ICs and
autonomy, outlining a range of teacher-
dominated, collaborative and student-dominated strategies
evident in the discourse that may lead to “autonomous
outcomes” (p. 4). (cf. also Wilson et al., 2011, for an
extension of this research)
To
C

19. Roles and responsibilities for
improving student outcomes
While enhancing student learning in the disciplines is a shared
responsibility (including ALL advisers, faculty lecturers and
other university teaching and support staff – see GPP#1), it is
clear that individual students are major stakeholders in their
own learning, with the majority of the responsibility for that
learning (see GPP#3).
[GPP#1Universities are responsible for ensuring that their
students are sufficiently competent in the English language to
participate effectively in their university studies]
[GPP#3 Students have responsibilities for further developing
their English language proficiency during their study at
university and are advised of these responsibilities prior to
enrolment.]
To
C

20. The responsibility for English
language proficiency development
Given that ALL advising has emphasised disciplinary learning, and language
focus is generally defined in terms of its inextricable links from the
disciplinary context, the GPPs requirement to focus on “language
proficiency” (including at least proficiency for social and professional
contexts) is a challenge for full-time students (Reinders, 2006;
Murray, 2010) and for the implementation of GPP#6:
[ GPP 6. Development of English language proficiency is integrated with
curriculum design, assessment practices and course delivery through a
variety of methods.]
With regard to the broader focus on English language proficiency, university
responsibilities are even less clearly divided among ALL advising units
and other stakeholders in „language‟ (e.g., applied
linguistics, TESOL, university-based language college educators).
ALL is still commonly construed by non-specialists as teaching generic skills to
students who are “deficient” in some way (e.g., Chanock 2007). This
“deficiency” discourse is also common with regard to the language skills
of international students (e.g., Benzie, 2010), meaning that similar
challenges can be expected with regard to integrating language
To
proficiency-related work into coursework.
C

21. The future
Given the stronger, if not clearly defined, focus
on „English language proficiency‟ in Australian
higher education contexts, the field of
Academic Language and Learning advising,
there is much to be learned from the
burgeoning fields of Advising for Language
Learning and Learner Autonomy in terms of
broadening our focus from the „academic‟ to
other fields of communication in order to
support our students‟ social and professional
language and learning-related goals.
To
C

22. Selected References
Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) (2009). Good Practice Principles for English language
proficiency for international students in Australian universities, Report to theDepartment of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.
Birrell, B. (2006). Implications of low English standards among overseas students at Australian
universities, People and Place, 14(4): 53–64
Birrell, B. Hawthorne, L. & Richardson, S. (2006). Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration
Categories Report. Australian Government: The Department of Immigration and Citizenship
(DIAC) Report. Retrieved on 9 November, 2011 from
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/gsm-report/index.htm
Carson, L. &Mynard, J. (in press). Introduction. In J. Mynard& L. Carson (Eds). Advising in language
learning: Dialogue, tools and context (pp. 1-32). Harlow: Longman.
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 largernumbers?
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.
Collins G., Shrensky, R., & Wilson, K. (1998). Visions of autonomy: Teaching strategies in one-to-one
support for international students. Proceedings of the 9th International Student Advisers Network
of Australia (ISANA) Conference, 1–4 December 1998, Canberra: ISANA.
Harper, R., Prentice, S. & Wilson K. (2011). English language perplexity: Articulating the tensions in
the DEEWR “Good Practice Principles.” The International Journal of the First Year in Higher
Education, 2(1): 36-48.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach.
Studies in Higher Education,23: 157–72.
To
C

23. Murray, N. (2010). Conceptualising the English language needs of first year university
students. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 55-64.
Murray, N. (in press). Ten „Good Practice Principles‟ … ten key questions: Considerations in
addressing the English language needs of higher education students. Higher Education
Research and Development.
Percy, A., & Stirling, J. (2005). Representation for (re)invention. In S. Milnes, G. Craswell, V.
Rao, & A. Bartlett (Eds.), Critiquing and reflecting: LAS profession and practice.Refereed
proceedings of the Language and Academic Skills in Higher EducationConference 2005
(pp. 141-154). Canberra: Academic Skills and Learning Centre, The Australian National
University.
Reinders, H. (2006). University Language Advising: is it Useful? Reflections in English
Language Teaching, 5(1): 79-92.
Stevenson, M. &Kokkinn, B. (2009). Evaluating one-to-one sessions of academic language
and learning. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 3(2): A36-A50.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2007). Negotiating meanings and scaffolding learning: Writing support for
non-English speaking background postgraduate students. Higher Education Research and
Development, 26(3), 253-268.
Wilson, K., Li, L. Collins, G. &Couchman, J. (2011). Co-constructing academic literacy:
Examining teacher-student discourse in a one-to-one consultation. Journal of Academic
Language & Learning, 5(1): A139-A153.
To
C

24. End of Presentation
contact: paul_moore@uow.edu.au
Please click on icon below to return to title
page