The diagram below (Figure 1) is a summary of the factors that I consider to form part of the context in which I teach Science in Context 178. In particular I want to focus on two aspects of my teaching context that plays out in all three levels of this diagram namely, the increased role of learning technologies and online learning in higher education world-wide (Bosman and Strydom, 2020), as well as the focus on development of academic literacies, especially in the STEM disciplines (Rootman-le Grange and Retief, 2018).

During the current pandemic and the national lockdown higher education was required to make some very quick and drastic adjustments in order to keep teaching and learning going. Yet, a lot of groundwork has been done over the last years, which meant we had options available. At Stellenbosch University we have been using Learning Management Systems (LMS) for a number of years. We also have been supporting the development of blended learning as a teaching approach (strategy for teaching and learning policy document) and I myself was co-presenter of blended learning training courses for academics, offered by the Center for Learning Technologies (Addendum D: 2017 Advert). Finally, the instatement of blended learning coordinators (BLCs) in all faculties in the university has greatly supported these goals.

My own initial exposure to learning technologies was during my postdoctoral studies in science education at Stellenbosch University. After this I was appointed as one of the first BLCs in the university and my blended learning approach to teaching and curriculum design has strongly benefited from this position. The following quote summarizes my sentiment towards the use of learning technologies in the higher education context.

In my design of the Science in Context 178 curriculum the current LMS, SUNLearn, has been instrumental. Since the module is offered collaboratively between the Faculty of Science and the Language Centre, servicing over 800 students and employing 8 lecturers, SUNLearn has become the “home department” of this module (Addendum E: Partial image of 2020 SUNLearn module page). Due to the nature of my role in this module I have very limited face-to-face contact with the students, and I rely heavily on the online discussion forums for communication with them. Also, making use of the available learning technologies has helped immensely in being able to manage group projects with such a large cohort of students (Addendum F: MS Form used for peer assessment). All of these experiences, and the work that was already in place, has made it possible for us to continue with the group projects even during the current lockdown and COVID pandemic.

I recently posted a poll on the module page, to get a feeling of how students are coping with the online collaboration and I was very pleasantly surprised. At the start of the semester students were very apprehensive of this experience, but as we communicated with them, shared instructions and resources and scheduled meetings via TEAMS they became more and more confident in this process (Addendum G: Initial communication with class representative, Summary of poll responses). One of the most powerful feedbacks I’ve had from a student during this time was during a TEAMS meeting (unfortunately not recorded) with a project group where I started asking just how everyone was doing and whether they’ve all been able to meet and introduce themselves to each other already and the one student immediately replied that she is extremely excited about the project, because she already feels less isolated than she did in the first semester simply because she can work with other students on this project. This speaks to aspects of a humanizing pedagogy as it attests of student engagement and a virtual community (Czerkawski and Schmidt, 2017; Delmas, 2017).

The second aspect that I wish to highlight is the importance of the development of academic literacies in STEM disciplines (Stewart et al., 2016; Jones and Seybold, 2016), which is also intertwined in Stellenbosch University’s graduate attributes and the current project on competencies (strategy for teaching and learning policy document). Below is a definition for academic literacies as proposed in the updated Academic literacies guideline document of the university (pending approval, 2019). Due to my involvement in Science in Context 178 and my role as BLC in the science faculty I was invited to form part of the task team that was assigned to update this document in 2019.

“‘Academic literacies’ entail demonstrating the disciplinary discourse* competence required for success in higher education in textual, digital, visual, gestural, numerical and other modes.”

*‘Academic discourse’ stresses the way that language is used, but includes values and attitudes, ideology, and the way that academic literacy is influenced by social class and biography (Gee, 1992).

Focussing specifically on Science in Context 178, the collaboration between the Faculty of Science and the Language Centre is based on research by Jacobs (2005, 2010) and Chadha (2006) that highlights the value and importance of offering academic literacies through an embedded approach in the disciplines of science and engineering, in contrast to the models of stand-alone courses that have been followed before (and in some cases still are the norm). Furthermore, studies have shown that inquiry driven literacy activities results in students learning how to read and write more scientifically while mastering the subject content (Pearson et al., 2010; Osborne, 2010; Norris and Phillips, 2003). This is the second project where I have had the privilege to coordinate such a collaboration. The first project was the Pet Ionic Compound Project that myself and Dr Liesl Retief instated in Chemistry 176 when we were teaching that course under the mentorship of Prof Ed Jacobs (Addendum H: Student project brief).

References:

Bosman, J.P. and Strydom, S. (2020) Building the knowledge base of blended learning: Implications for educational technology and academic development, in McKenna, S., Wilmot, K. and Winberg, C.(eds.) Building Knowledge in Higher Education : Enhancing Teaching and Learning with Legitimation Code Theory. Routledge, pp. 198-219.

Chadha, D. (2006) A curriculum model for transferable skills development. Engineering Education, 1(1), pp. 19-24.

Czerkawski, B.C. and Schmidt, N. (2017) Editorial: Why We Need to Humanize Online Education, Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 5(1), pp. 1–3. 

Delmas, P. M. (2017) Using VoiceThread to Create Community in Online Learning, TechTrends. TechTrends, 61(6), pp. 595–602. doi: 10.1007/s11528-017-0195-z. 

Gee, J. (1992) The social mind: Language, ideology and social practices. New York: Bergin and Garvey.

Jacobs, C. (2005) On being an insider on the outside: new spaces for integrating academic literacies. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), pp.475-487, DOI:10.1080/13562510500239091

Jacobs, C. (2010) Collaboration as pedagogy: Consequences and implications for partnerships between communication and disciplinary specialists. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28, pp.227-237.

Norris, S. P., Phillips L. M. (2003) How Literacy in Its Fundamental Sense Is Central to Scientific Literacy. Science Education, 87, pp.224– 240.

Osborne, J. (2010) Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science, 328, pp.463-466.

Pearson, D. P., Moje, E., Greenleaf, C. (2010) Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other. Science, 328, pp.459-463.

Rootman-le Grange, I. and Retief, L. (2018) Action Research: Integrating Chemistry and Scientific Communication to Foster Cumulative Knowledge Building and Scientific Communication Skills. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(8), pp.1284–1290.