Search

This article reflects on Stellenbosch University Writing Lab’s pedagogical approach to multilingualism and inclusivity within the complex and political nature of multilingual language policies at a South African university. The Writing Lab has always been promoted as a facility for all students, not just those in need of ‘remedial’ support. This was a departure from earlier academic literacies models that tended to view students from nondominant language groups in terms of deficits. Academic literacies research has pointed to the shortcomings of these earlier approaches and to the value conflicts that arise from them. We, in contrast, argue that Carter’s (2009) writing centre paradox provides a dynamic rhetorical space in which to explore issues around South African multilingualism and inclusivity in higher education, and for this reason we do not wish to resolve the paradox. Instead, we use it to critically appraise our type of equitable multilingualism and maintain and honour multivocality. We also argue that South African writing centres enjoy a somewhat different trajectory from that of many other academic literacies spaces by virtue of the one-to-one pedagogy and mutualistic approach we follow at these writing centres. This has allowed us simultaneously more agency and less agency and we need to use this paradoxical position strategically in our institutions. Using the Writing Lab as a case study, we reflect on the ways in which the Writing Lab gives life to its ethos of being a multilingual and inclusive space for academic transformation within the institution’s language policy. To support our reflections, we draw on descriptions of the organisational structure of the Lab, feedback received from strategic role players and observations of interactions performed in the various Lab spaces. We also consider the Writing Lab in terms of South African writing centre scholarship to see how the Lab’s philosophy and ethos compare with the ideals.

In post-apartheid South Africa, writing centres exist in almost every university to address the academic writing needs of students. At Stellenbosch University Writing Lab, writing consultants use collaborative learning and peer feedback in their work with writers in one-to-one consultations. As part of a larger research project about how students in a Health Professions Education Master’s degree responded to different types of feedback, our study focuses on whether the feedback received in a writing consultation compares to, or differs from, the feedback from the class group members. Our findings suggest that in general the students were open to interventions such as writing consultations. Furthermore, peer feedback from both a class group member as well as a writing consultant was experienced as useful. The study further shows that the consultants’ approach to giving feedback was in line with the pedagogy practised in writing centres. The article concludes with measures that were implemented to address uncertainties identified in the study. We recommend that the purpose of consultations be clarified to lecturers, that consultations be integrated in the writing process before the assignment is marked and, to minimise role confusion, that consultants describe to students the way consultations work at the beginning of the consultation.

he study on the relationship of identity, language and teaching and learning was conducted by a team of eight members at a higher education institution in the Western Cape. The aims of the research were to investigate the relationship between language, identity and learning, to show how this investigation can benefit dialogue about transformation, and to facilitate the research development of the team. The research design made use of narrative and educational biography in semi-structured interviews with 64 staff members and 100 students. The study supports views of identity as constructed and non-unitary. It shows how language, both as proficiency in the dominant medium of communication and as discourse, is a key component of identity in a higher education institution. The interviews demonstrated how, according to lecturers and students, language and discourse function as primary influences on individuals’ acculturation and integration into the academic community. According to the interviewees, language as a marker of identity is interwoven with other aspects of identity. It is both a resource and a source of identification and affiliation. The research demonstrated that dialogue and self reflection can be facilitated via research into identity, teaching and learning, and that this can be beneficial for both the interviewees and the research team.