Literacies for Learning in FE Project structure

1. Literacies for Learning in FE Project structure 2 universities 4 colleges 16 curriculum areas 32 units 100 students

2. Lancaster University University of Stirling Lancaster and Morecambe College Preston College Anniesland College Perth College Child Care Catering & Hospitality Travel & Tourism Media Studies Certificate in Child Care and Education Diploma in Child Care and Education NVQ 1 Intro to C&H NVQ 2 Food and Drink Service Working Overseas BTEC ND Travel & Tourism AS Media Studies Access to HE: Media Studies Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3 Level 2 Four students Four students Four students Four students Four students Four students Four students Four students

3. Two stages in the research • Actions for understanding: research and reflections on (A) The reading and writing which students encounter in college (B) The reading and writing involved in students’ everyday lives outside college • Actions for change: (C)Tutors made small changes in their practice to improve (A) in the light of (B)

4. Categories of literacy practices in learning vocational subjects in Further Education (A) • Literacy practices for learning (e.g. reading and making notes from a text book) • Literacy practices for assessment (e.g. producing an essay or a report) • Evidence-providing literacy practices (e.g. completing a log book or portfolio) • Literacy practices relating to the workplace (e.g. writing food orders; reading to children)

5. The washback effect • All literacies for learning were shaped and constrained by assessment requirements • The form, content, focus and delivery of assessment often determined thecurriculum and the way it was taught • As a result, these features in turn tend to affect the skills set which is the outcome of learning.

6. (B)The reading and writing involved in students’ everyday lives outside college • FE students CAN and DO read and write abundantly in their everyday lives; • Not only staff but also students were surprised to discover this

7. Literacies in everyday life

8. Mostly multi-modal, e.g. involving speech, music, gesture, movement, colour, pictures, symbols Mostly multi-media, e.g. including sound, electronic and paper media Shared, interactive, participatory – virtual and/or real Non-linear, i.e. involving complex, varied reading paths Agentic or student being in charge Purposeful to the student Clear audience perceived by the student Generative, i.e. involving sense-making and creativity Self-determined in terms of activity, time and place Literacy practices which students identify with tend to have the following characteristics:

9. Workplace and home literacy practices Mostly multi-modal Mostly multi-media Shared, interactive, participatory Non-linear Agentic Purposeful Clear audience Generative Pedagogic literacy practices Mostly mono-modal Mostly paper-based Individual, non-interactive, solitary Linear Non-Agentic Ambiguous purpose Ambiguous audience Information provided Comparison of workplace, home and pedagogic literacy practices

10. Fine tuning literacies for learning • Changes in practice which engaged with students’ everyday literacy practices tended to increase students’ engagement, recall and confidence • Changes in tutor practice not necessarily innovative but could be new to particular staff and students involved, e.g. Mind maps • Not all students wished to engage with their everyday literacy practices

11. Changes made by tutors to literacy for learning practices • Made students more aware of their own everyday reading and writing practices which could be used for learning • Made communication aspects of learning more explicit • Made reading and writing on courses more relevant to learning and to the futures for which students were preparing • Made reading and writing on courses more resonant with students’ own literacy practices

12. Things to think about in our discussion • How do we avoid teaching to the test? • How easily can the messages from literacy be used with numeracy/maths/ICT teaching and learning? • Where does a ‘problem solving approach’ fit with the findings? • How can a social practice model fit with a functional skills model?