Reframing the First Year Experience: The critical role of ‘recognition work’ in achieving curricular justice

Division of Communication and Education, University of Canberra.

Keywords: first year, freshman, teaching and learning, higher education, professional education.

Article style and source: Peer reviewed, paper first presented at the 6th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference 2002: Changing Agendas - Te Ao Hurihuri, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 8th to 10th of July, 2002.

Contents

• Abstract
• The First Year as a site of contestationn
• The course and its students
  • Student profile
  • Student performance
  • Staff responses
• Reframing: making recognition work explicit
• Confronting forced enrolment
• Confronting the discourses and literacy practices of academia
• Confronting participation in two divergent communities of practice
• Aiming for structural equity
• From deficit to curricular justice
• Low floor, high ceiling designs for learning
  • Seamless student support
  • Situated or authentic assessments
  • Access to learning
  • Equity in flexibility
• References

Abstract

For many non-mainstream students, the First Year Experience (FYE) constitutes an induction into an esoteric community of practice. It represents a fundamental challenge to their social identity, and as such is often fraught with debilitating frustrations and failure. This paper, centred on an in-service diploma course for police officers as a case study, explores the nature of this challenge, and formulates a response that promotes structural equity in educational outcomes. It argues for the reframing the FYE around ‘recognition work’ - the making visible by students and educators, of who they are and what they are doing vis-a-vis academic Discourses. This reconceptualisation allows us to foreground issues of Discourse dissonance and construct equitable designs for learning. This case study illustrates the need for a critical reframing and its broader relevance to educational praxis in mainstream as well as professional education courses in higher education.

The First Year as a site of contestation

Recognition work is the term coined by Gee (1999) to describe a process wherein people

“try to make visible to others (and to themselves, as well) who they are and what they are doing. People engage in such work when they try to recognise others for who they are and what they are doing.”

For most mainstream students, that is those from upper working, middle and upper class milieux, who are at home in the world of education, going to university poses relatively minor challenges. Generally, recognition work is of minimal consequence. Unlike those from poor, and or minority group milieux, the fundamental nature of who they are and what they are doing is merely confirmed rather than disputed. Hence, for many non-mainstream students, entering university constitutes an induction into often very different worlds. Moreover, for those non-mainstream students who enter universities as working adults, they may also enter into very different communities of practice. For them, the First Year Experience (FYE) constitutes a fundamental and bewildering challenge to their social identity; to who they are and what they are doing. As such, it is often fraught with debilitating stresses, frustrations and often failure. At the centre lies a contest between often fundamentally different ‘big D’ Discourses, or ways of being in the world, and their language and literacy practices, the ‘small ‘d’ discourses. Essential to the success of any transition, in which the first year is critical, is the effective negotiation between divergent Discourses. However this is an environment characterised by severe power imbalances. In these negotiations, students, be they insiders or outsiders, have little if any power, and they operate in an environment where certain Discourses are privileged, and by implication, others are disprivileged. Non-mainstream students face the often-overwhelming challenge of having to make far-reaching adjustments to their social identities; who they are and what they are doing. Here academic literacy looms large. However, it is but one aspect of a much more encompassing issue. It is the language-literacy tip of the academic Discourse iceberg. As Gee (999) notes,

“making visible and recognisable who we are and what we are doing always involves a great deal more than “just language.” It involves acting-interacting-thinking-valuing-talking – (sometimes writing-reading) in the “appropriate way” with the “appropriate” props at the “appropriate” times in the “appropriate” places.”

Furthermore, recognition work can be conscious, so that people have labels and can articulate their positioning and those of others, and can act to accept, contest and/or transform their positioning and the new D/discourse to be learned. On the other hand, it can be an unconscious process, where participants are unable to articulate relationships of complicity or contestation. Having no Discourse grid, that is, no framework against which to map the relevant Discourses such as those of academia and police education, they have a limited understanding of the dynamics involved, such as, as in this case, of the FYE. The case study illustrates how the first year experience as embodied in the Constable Education Program, became a site of contestation between divergent D/discourses and communities of practice. At the same time it provides a valuable point of departure for identifying some key requirements for constructing equitable designs for learning. The case study information is based on an eighteen-month involvement as a Senior Consultant/Senior Lecturer within the program. back

The course and its students

The Constable Development Program (CDP) provides a professional education course for serving police officers with the rank of Constable and who have a minimum of two years service. The NSW Police Service offers this program in partnership with Charles Sturt University (CSU). Based on a collaborative agreement, this program represents a significant milestone in police education, as it aims to bring policing in line with other comparable emerging professions. Established in1993, and designed for recent graduates of the now superseded Police Recruit Education Program, its principal purpose is to support the development and career options of junior police officers. Successful participants receive the nationally accredited Diploma of Policing awarded by CSU. They are then also eligible for promotion to the rank of senior constable.

The course is offered via traditional, print-based distance learning mode and consists of six session-length subjects taken over a two-year span. Students normally enrol in three subjects per year. These vocational subjects are designed to enhance the knowledge and professional capacities of participating police officers.

Student profile

With few exceptions, CDP students are in their first five years of service. This is itself a major issue as this is a crucial time for ‘tuning into the job’ and hopefully moving beyond ‘survival’ and ‘strategic compliance’ into ‘strategic redefinition’, a process in which the CDP can play a major role (Eijkman, 1992a). Attempting to move through these stages (and seeing the CDP as a support mechanism for doing so) may in itself be a difficult and contentious issue. Despite nearly a decade of increasing involvement with the higher education sector, Reiner’s (1986) observation that policing tends to operate out of an anti-intellectual mindset which celebrates ‘practicality’ still seems to hold true.

At the same time, these officers/students are not only in their early years of service, but most are also young adults. As such many are developing or settling into relationships, starting families, purchasing and setting up home and bringing up young children. So far, one could argue that this may not fall outside the profile envelope of distance education students. However, I would argue that added aspects such as twelve hour shifts, often with overtime and performing in an often stressful working environment represent significant barriers to enthusiastic participation for many (Eijkman, 1990; 1992b).

These factors become evident when it comes to the submission of assignments and their quality as key indicators of course participation and progress in learning and professional development.

Student performance

Whilst many officers perform as well as other distance education students, there appears to be a relatively high incidence of resistance epitomised by a refusal to submit assignments outright. There are also major problems with the partial and late submission of assignments. Moreover, a considerable percentage of assignments would be marginal in terms of achieving a pass grade. The serial non-submission of assignments is relatively high and of major concern to both NSW Police and University staff. Concerted and varied efforts are made to encourage and promote participation, often to no avail. These range from personal contact with subject coordinators whenever possible, to written communications and field trips. Partial assignment submission (for instance the submission of the first assignment but a failure to submit the second, mostly without any attempt to discuss this with the subject coordinator) is another significant problem. Research of these students’ academic history within the CDP indicates a common pattern. Usually there is an initial indicator of a performance problem, e.g. failure of first assignment or subject, which is often followed by ‘automatic’ non-submission with very little of any student initiated contact with any CDP staff. However, anecdotal evidence suggest that some students do contact their subject coordinator, but may not always receive adequate support, thus confirming to these students their status as a ‘lost cause’. Regardless of non-performance, students are continually enrolled in successive subjects without ever submitting an assignment. Late submissions, both with and without permission are also endemic, and a major problem for subject coordinators who have huge student loads (sometimes up to nearly 800 per subject) and whose subjects run back to back. These problematic assignment submissions result of course in significant failure and fail/withdrawal rates. Whilst some students perform very well academically, and achieve credit grades and above, all subject coordinators express frustration at the generally low level of student motivation and the effort required to get them to submit assignments of a pass grade quality. This results in a considerable number of resubmissions and extra student support, which again increases the already heavy workload of subject coordinators. At the same time, innovations designed to produce educationally sound results using a streamlined and competency-based approach were rejected in favour of continuing a patently problematic but traditional approach to assessments. This is a point to which we shall return later.

Anecdotal evidence (all that’s possible with a 350:1 + student /staff ratio) from students and subject coordinators about late assignment submissions and other indicators of student unpreparedness would tend to reflect the results of Salmon’s (1995) study of distance education management students and that of Pitts et al. (1999) who analysed the experiences of educators confronted by prevalent student academic unpreparedness. In terms of problematic assignment submissions, by far the largest ‘excuse’ category is associated with work pressures. As noted by Salmon (1995:59) “students were typically becoming more pressured at work and less able to accommodate unyielding course deadlines making distance education … less attractive and harder to achieve.” Next come family problems, e.g. birth of baby, ill health of self or member of family, moving or buying house etc. A substantial number of students cite essay-writing problems as reasons for late submissions and for poor quality assignments. Other, less common reasons relate to technical problems e.g. computer/diskette failures, and to things like holidays. Quite a few students report composite problems involving both work pressures and family problems. back

Staff responses

The non-, partial, and late submission of assignments and the often poor quality of those submitted presents subject coordinators with massive problems, and as such constitutes an ever present topic of discussion amongst CDP staff. As in Pitts et al. (1999), CDP staff also express concern and frustration at these high levels of student resistance, perceived tardiness and low levels of motivation. These problems are exacerbated by having to handle huge student cohorts and managing casual markers spread out all over NSW. Generally, staff perceive these under or non-performing students as having low levels of academic literacy and time management skills, subject matter knowledge, poor motivation and attitude, and a passive approach to learning, manifested by “a reluctance on the part of many students to pursue self-help strategies despite strong encouragement to do so.” (Pitts et al., 1999:349). If nothing else, this case study indicates that to some extent at least, the CDP experience regarding problematic student performance is not an isolated instance but part of a much wider problem in higher education today.

However, the crucial issue is where we, as educators, perceive the problem to be. Our assumptions, the way we frame the problem and position both our students and ourselves will inevitably inform our response strategies. In case of the CDP, the problem tended to be perceived primarily as being about student resistance to an enforced course of study. Occasionally, some staff conceded that for a few students at least, it could be indicative of academic unpreparedness regarding academic skills, or of legitimate pressures associated with police work.  Nevertheless, problematic assignment submissions and poor quality assignments are seen as key indicators of reluctant participation. However, for any response to be effective, it needs to be informed by an accurate analysis of the situation. We need therefore to move beyond an uncritical acceptance at the level of appearances and probe deeper to discover those factors that give rise to this participation and achievement gap, and what constitutes an appropriate set of responses to the problem. back

Reframing: making recognition work explicit

The case study provides sufficient grounds for arguing that both students and educators were unknowingly engaged in the critical task of recognition work. Subject coordinators were making visible to students (police officers) who they are and what they are doing; namely (and even though most were police officers themselves), being university educators engaged in academic practices, which found its visible expression in academic literacy. For instance, virtually all assessments were essay type assessments. The CDP staff were very clear as to their positioning as university educators and to the Discourse of academia, and ipso facto positioned participating police officers as university students. However, many of those given the social identity of ‘student’ by the CDP staff saw their social identity and associated D/discourse as being that of police officer. They actively contested their positioning and the value of the academic Discourse and its discursive practices. The assignments became the focal point for resistance and the field of contestation. Within this environment, all participants were, in the process of recognition work, confronted by a combination of three significant factors, which surfaced in various combinations, namely:

• Forced enrolment
• Their positioning vis-à-vis the D/discourses of academia
• Their participation in two divergent communities of practice

Confronting forced enrolment

Many staff and not a few students raise the issue of “forced enrolment”, that is, officers are unable to proceed beyond the rank of constable unless they have successfully completed the CDP. Having done so, they are eligible for promotion to the rank of senior constable and a pay rise of around A$ 5000 pa. However, on the basis of further probing during discussions with students who express resentment on having to complete this program, it appears that for many of them, the real issue is not of having to enrol in the CDP per se, but having no choice other than to enrol in the CDP as a distance education course, when their only experience of police education and training has been on-campus. It is significant to note that all of these students completed the Police Recruit Education Program (PREP). This program allowed for non-HSC entry on the basis of students having completed a minimum of a level IV TAFE certificate, or trade certificate. Also students of Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander descent, and who did not meet these standards, could gain entry on the basis of successful completion of a TAFE bridging course. It is also important to note that PREP was delivered in a full time, on campus mode. Even then, many struggled but succeeded on the basis of peer support and ready access to lecturers and tutors, and without the pressures of full time work in new and often busy environments. Anecdotal evidence to this effect is confirmed by a large body of research that identifies full time study, on-campus attendance and a high level of interactivity between and amongst students and their teaching staff as among key conditions for fostering student learning and development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998).

There is sufficient evidence to sustain the argument that the real issue centres around an obligation to enter into a distance learning study program, which is foreign to them and for which many are not equipped. This problem is only exacerbated by other factors, such as having to adapt fast to the Discourse and practices of policing. I maintain that a real issue here is not that they are forced to enrol in the CDP but that (a) they are not given a choice to attend all or at least some of the course on campus, or (b) they are not appropriately oriented to learning via distance mode. Given the problems many of these students experience and at such a critical juncture in their career, a compromise of having an induction program into distance learning, or a distance education course with optional residential schools, or a combination of both, would greatly boost student academic performance and confidence. These in turn would also translate into an active promotion of lifelong learning. In terms of my own ‘success’ indicators, I maintain that we have been truly successful not just when CDP students receive their diploma, but when (a) we as educators have widened the notion of ‘what counts’ in the new Police higher education Discourse (Gee, 1999), and (b) they have gained sufficient confidence in their academic ability to enrol in any other tertiary course, should they want to, as part of their ongoing professional development. back

Confronting the Discourses and literacy practices of academia

The literature clearly indicates that when it comes to equitable participation in higher education, students from non-mainstream social groups and life worlds are already decidedly disadvantaged (DEETYA, 1999). One convincing explanation lies in the disprivileging of their cultural milieu, their Discourses (their ‘ways of being in the world’) and their linguistic realisations and literacy practices when compared to those of the predominantly white and middle class mainstream (Bernstein, 1996). The middle class, having their Discourses and literacy practices accepted as the norm in mainstream institutions such as in education are unequivocally privileged as ‘insiders’ to the prevailing Discourses and literacy practices of academia. In so doing, educational institutions devalue and marginalise those social groups whose Discourse histories and literacy practices are different (Bernstein, 1996; Heath, 1983).

Although demographic data is not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that a relatively large number of PREP students came, in educational terms, from non-mainstream life worlds, and struggled through their initial training course, and I can only suppose that it is these who now in the CDP, consistently inform subject coordinators that they have, in our terms, great difficulty with the essayist literacy practices of higher education [Zamel, 1998 #90].

The significant disparity that exists between the primary Discourses and literacy practices of many of  CDP students and those of the academic community of practice calls attention to the prime role of critical literacy pedagogy vis-a-vis academic literacy and the need to broaden the boundaries of dominant academic Discourses, and giving these students access to the D/discourses of power. This ensures equitable access to and successful participation in higher education and professional career opportunities.  Again, it is interesting to refer to the study by Holder et al. (1999) in whose study, almost half the enrolling students lacked adequate English language resources necessary for tertiary study. The feelings of many students are clearly captured, and epitomised by the recent response of one (intelligent and refreshingly honest) student to a mail out regarding problematic assignment submissions. The response is worth quoting at length,

“…I do wish to submit my second assignment … and I would like to speak with you about this on the telephone. I freely admit that I have struggled with the CDP course on a whole because I have not experienced this type of self-education before.

I left school when I was 16 y.o. and have very limited study and essay skills. I found your tutorials a great help but due to my workload over the Olympic period, I found it difficult to complete the 2^nd assignment in time … I was given an extension. However my assignment was not received … and when I attempted to send a second hardcopy, I discovered my essay floppy disk had been corrupted.

This frustrated me no end and I basically threw my hands up in the air and surrendered to the situation. However I am not happy with this situation and I would jump at the chance to not only complete this course [subject] but I desperately need help with the others. I have already been given a FW grade in …because when I asked for assistance from the course coordinator, I didn’t get it. This may seem hard to believe but I took the wrong attitude, got angry and did nothing, which really hurt only myself in the long run.

I need help, I want help and I would like to discuss this with you further … I hope to hear from you.” (Used with permission) back

Confronting participation in two divergent communities of practice

Another element to this problem is that students are in essence required to renegotiate their social identity in terms of belonging to two different communities of practice, that of the police and that of higher education.

Being active participants in the practices of social communities shapes our identity; it influences what we do, who we are, and how we interpret what we do (Wenger, 1998). Here ‘community’ gives its participants a way of talking about the social configurations in which their mutual activities are defined as being of value and where participation is recognisable as competence. Again, I think there is sufficient evidence to at least suspect that significant elements of the police community of practice do not define academic activities as being of value and who see participation as irrelevant to operational competence. Reiner’s (1986) observation is most pertinent as a police community of practice which, having a preference for the anti-intellectual and practical, is increasingly invited into a close partnership with an academic community of practice “committed to the ideal of liberal education … e.g. intellectual values, critical thinking, tolerance, intellectual flexibility, and liberalization of social attitudes” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998:154).

Although people can, and in some ways mostly do participate in multiple communities of practice at once, the crossing of some boundaries, as in this case can be problematic and may demand a considerable transformation. One factor inhibiting multimembership is the presence of strong boundary. In some instances, such as in policing, strong, implicit and explicit boundary markers exist that readily distinguishes between insiders and outsiders. This includes their sworn status, uniforms, a military-like command structure, etc. (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984).

These elements, and possible response strategies have striking implications for universities offering courses to police or other emerging professions whose Discourses and practices are not aligned with those of an academic community of practitioners, whose members draw from populations deemed ‘disadvantaged’, and/or who are in full time employment and therefore consigned to distance education to obtain necessary academic qualifications.   back

Aiming for structural equity

As indicated earlier, our response depends fundamentally on how we frame the problem and position the players. Applying C. Wright Mills’ (1980) schema, we can interpret problematic academic achievement as primarily associated with ‘personal troubles of milieu’ or as ‘public issues of social structure’.

Traditionally, problematic academic performance is perceived as a deficiency within the student, and/or their family and community environment. The continuum ranges between what, unintentionally or otherwise amounts to a ‘blame the victim’ approach that targets a range of compensatory or remedial programs or activities for ‘at risk’ students to a more benign approach that identifies ‘at risk programs’ but still targets the students of these programs as the target for change.

I propose something of a paradigm shift, by suggesting that the prime cause for any achievement gap lies primarily within the educational structure, that is within the curriculum and/or the pedagogical strategies employed. This places educators within a position of having to make choices about where our allegiances lie, and decide whose side we are on. Despite all the talk about student-centred teaching, it is my experience that when confronted by problematic academic achievement, educators by and large tend to follow the traditional approach and put the pressure to change fair and squarely on the shoulders of the students. I’m suggesting, that in the light of the issues discussed earlier, this may be quite unfair, and that in order to do justice, we may need to transform our curricular, pedagogical and administrative practices. To do otherwise is to unquestioningly maintain inequitable curricular and pedagogical practices and the formally sanctioned and official ways of attaining knowledge, that is, of ‘the middle class way of doing educational business’ but at the expense of current and future students from non-mainstream social groups and life worlds.

In reality, rather than getting caught up in an unproductive binary either/or predicament, I opt for a dialectic both/and approach. Reality dictates that even with attention to curriculum and pedagogy, students from non-mainstream life worlds still need to be empowered by being taught the codes and genres of power in order to gain access to social capital and successful achievement at the university and the workplace. At the same time whilst that is necessary, it is not sufficient. Educators must distinguish between systemic or structural and personal performance inhibiting factors, and both need to be identified, and appropriate support mechanisms for both need to be developed. For the purposes of this paper, I wish to focus on structural performance inhibiting factors. back

From deficit to curricular justice

At present, a minimum prerequisite for the effective participation of non-mainstream students in higher education is to have access to, and become proficient in the Discourse and literacy practices of an academic community of practice. That is, to be able to understand, use and manipulate this Discourse and its discursive practices effectively. The question however is about the focal point of this intervention (Zamel & Spack, 1998). Is it about focusing on the students and on enhancing their (lack of) skills, or do we make the curriculum more accessible by broadening the Discourse and discursive practices of academia?

A more critical school of thought proposes that hegemonic curriculum and pedagogical strategies are integral to inequitable reproductive patterns in education. Given that there are multiple ways of organising the knowledge content of education, what is needed above all is ‘curricular justice’, a strategic focus on curriculum construction and pedagogical practices from the viewpoint of the least advantaged [Connell, 1994 #10]. Adapted accordingly, the three operating principles of curricular justice in higher education are, first, to reconstruct mainstream curriculum to include the perspective of the least advantaged, second, to construct an inclusive curriculum that recognises and values the Discourses of traditionally marginalised social groups and life worlds, and, third, to construct a curriculum whose social impact is geared to the historical production of equality. Any moves towards broadening the Discourse of academia and embracing multiple academic literacies in tertiary institutions are increasingly pertinent with the diversification of student populations and the decline of the once dominant white, middle class male university student population (Zamel and Spack 1998). At the same time, non-mainstream students need to understand and have access to the codes and genres of power if they are to succeed academically and economically. As Delpit (1997 :1) notes,

“[W]hile having access to the politically mandated language form will not, by any means, guarantee economic success …not having access will almost certainly guarantee failure”.

At this stage I hear a chorus of scholars, singing in a distinctly middle-class accent declaring the imminent lowering of standards. Let me make it clear that I’m arguing for a low floor, high ceiling approach to designs for learning. back

Low floor, high ceiling designs for learning

Although the purpose of this paper is predominantly targeted at reframing the First Year Experience, I will, by way of a conclusion begin to identify a few strategies I have initiated within the CDP, and which are compatible with creating low floor and high ceiling designs for learning.

Seamless student support

Teaching, tutoring and student support activities are inextricably linked, any divisions are arbitrary and counterproductive to effective participation, especially in distance education courses. Rather than being ‘assignment shufflers’, subject coordinators have been encouraged to increase the use of all existing facilities, including the intranet and internet as means of promoting interactivity between students and coordinators. I commenced weekly online tutorials using the Police intranet bulletin board, and have simultaneously used the subject’s CSU website’s forum. I have also strengthened our liaison with CSU student support and have created a ‘Study Skills Support’ bulletin board on the Police Intranet. The feedback from students has been most positive. As Mandell and Herman (1996:8) point out, when confronted by an increasing population of non-traditional students to whom academic life is unfamiliar, “friendly assimilation means expanding our repertoire by imaginatively integrating the seemingly diverse realms of teaching and counselling into a new faculty role. 

Situated or authentic assessments

I have modified the assessment items to incorporate a critical reflection on professional practice. The essay format has been abandoned in favour of reflective narrative. These assessment items invite students to consult with professionals via the readings as an aid to an analysis of an actual situation.

Assess for learning

Assessments are too easily perceived by students as ‘hoop jumping’ activities, a notion easily enforced by educators who rigidly adhere to administrative rather than pedagogically sound practices. Subsequently, I have initiated a resubmission policy for assignments that normally would have failed. This emphasizes that learning is what counts, and not a rigid adherence to time constraints. We must realise that for some students, and for various reasons, learning cannot take place within the confines of time limits arbitrarily set by and for the convenience of educational institutions. This is especially the case when engaged in professional education via distance learning, as stressed for instance by Salmon (1995).

Equity in flexibility

I acknowledge on-time submissions of assignments and high quality work, but am realistic of the pressures of students who work 12 hour rotating shifts, often under high levels of stress and who also have a family life. This is especially pertinent given that the risk rates for divorce and stress among police is considerably higher than in the general population. As educators, we should not add to those risk factors. This entails a preparedness to place teaching and learning before administrative considerations, and perhaps to put the pressure up into the system rather than down onto the student. back

References

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. London: Taylor and Francis

Connell, R. W. (1994). Poverty and Education. Harvard Educational Review, 64 (2), 125-149

DEETYA. (1999). Equity in Higher Education . Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Delpit, L. (1997). "What should Teachers do? Ebonics and Culturally Responsive instruction." Rethinking Schools Online 12(1 Fall): 1 - 7.

Eijkman, H. (1990). Police as victims: implications for police welfare services and education. Journal of the Australasian Society of Victimology, 1(2), 1-8.

Eijkman, H. (1992a). The field experience in police education: exploring the nexus between experiential learning and reflective practice. Paper presented at the 2nd World Congress on Action Learning, Brisbane.

Eijkman, H. (1992b). Police, Victims and Democracy: Rewriting the Priorities. In P. Moir & H. Eijkman (Eds.), Policing Australia: Old Issues, New Perspectives (pp. 266-298). Melbourne: MacMillan.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London, Routledge.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holder, G. M. (1999). Academic Literacy Skills and Progression Rates Among Pharmacy Students. Higher Education Research & Development, 18 (1), 19-30.

Mandell, A., & Herman, L. (1996). From teachers to mentors: Acknowledging openings in the faculty role. In R. Mills & A. Tait (Eds.), Supporting the Learner in Open and Distance Learning . London: Pitman Publishing.

Mills, C.W. (1980) The Sociological Imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying College Students in the 21st Century: Meeting New Challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165.

Pitts, J., M., White, W. G., & Harrison, A. B. (1999). Student academic unpreparedness: effects on faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 343-365.

Reiner, R. (1986). The Politics of the Police. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Salmon, G. (1995). Tardy assignment submission by distance learning management students. Open Learning, November, 58-62.

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, s. (1984). Occupational communities: culture and control in organizations. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 6, 287-365

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice; learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zamel, V., & Spack, R. (Eds.). (1998). Negotiating Academic Literacies: Teaching and Learning Across Languages and Cultures. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. back

About the authors

Henk Eijkman
Doctoral Student
Division of Communication and Education
University of Canberra
Senior Consultant/Senior Lecturer, NSW Police College

email: heijkman@ozemail.com.au

The views and the opinions expressed in this document are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Police or of Charles Sturt University.