Group assessments: Dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms'Group is good, and group is good for curing all social ills' was the cynical observation of one of the lecturers in this study. Her comment reflects the uneasiness of lecturers at tertiary institutions with the notion that the educational advantages of group assessments far outweigh the disadvantages and that such an approach promotes the integration of minority groups in multicultural universities. In this article, we reflect on the dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms when they adopt group assessment as a means of evaluation and highlight those challenges which often jeopardise the successful implementation of this type of practice.Keywords: group assessments; implementation; lecturers; multicultural; tertiary BackgroundThere is much research to support the contention that group work, or co-operative learning, is an effective tool for improving academic performance (Johnston & Miles, 2004;Karakowsky & McBey, 2001;Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998a, 1998bLejk, Wyvill & Farrow, 1997;Zhining, Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Researchers argue that students are involved in tasks that could not be attempted alone; multiple skills are brought to bear on problems and conflicting views are aired and considered (Young & Henquinet, 2000;McCorkle, Reardon, Alexander, Kling, Harris & Iyer, 1999;Gatfield, 1999). Olivera and Straus (2004, p.455) suggest that working in groups "fosters transfer of learning to individuals" and that this transfer can be attributed mainly to the "cognitive elements of group interaction". While the benefits of group work are clear, there is a need to differentiate between co-operative work and collaborative work, particularly when group assessment is involved. Panitz (1996) contends that lecturers move uneasily between the tenets underpinning co-operative learning and those that support collaborative learning. According to Panitz and Brufee (1995) an important difference between the two approaches appears to be the teacher's authority. In co-operative learning, teachers assume much responsibility. Bruffee (1995, p.16) notes they 'intervene frequently and randomly in the work of the groups'. In the collaborative approach, group governance 'remains as much as possible in the hands of the students' (Bruffee, 1995, p.17). Bruffee argues convincingly that the former approach, while suitable for students at school, is too restrictive for tertiary students and that the lecturer's vigilance in ensuring accountability undercuts one of the principal aims of tertiary education: that of shifting authority from lecturer to student groups. He points out (1995, p.18) that the controls imposed by co-operative learning 'are likely … to frustrate and discourage adolescents and adults by leaving in place, unquestioned, the hierarchical social structure of traditional learning'. Bruffee further asserts that 'self-governed peer relationships' are the advantages to be gained from collaborative learning but concedes tha...

No abstract

In this article I describe my interaction as an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioner with a supervisor and her two postgraduate international students, both of whom were second language speakers of English (L2). Because of linguistic and relationship issues the supervisory experience for the parties was challenging and frustrating. I discuss the implications of this research and suggest that while linguistic difficulties impact negatively on the supervisory relationship this is exacerbated by the differing assumptions and expectations of the stakeholders. I argue however, that what is regarded as 'acceptable' English at our institutions has not been sufficiently interrogated and the belief that English as a native language (ENL) is the only acceptable variety of English needs further investigation. Such an investigation needs to take place in a forum where the less powerful voices of the EAP practitioners and the students will not be marginalised.

This paper seeks to highlight the issue of learner agency in the supervisory relationship. Although this study is confined to the perceptions of a small group of Chinese-speaking international students, this issue is not one peculiar to them. Dealing with status imbalances in this relationship is a challenge that faces all students regardless of their cultural and linguistic background. However, it is undoubtedly more complex when the parties are drawn from very different backgrounds. In this paper we examine relationships between supervisors and their English as an additional language (EAL) students and the way in which these relationships influence the writing of the thesis, focusing on the dynamics between the two parties and language support offered by the supervisors. Taking the notion of agency as a point of departure, we interpret data from the point of view of the students and attempt to capture their voices. As Lea notes, research in this area 'has been practitioner-based and practitioner-led' (Studies in Higher Education 29, no. 6, p. 742). Students' first-hand accounts of their interactions with supervisors during the thesis writing process will hopefully provide different insights into this nuanced and often problematic relationship and its effect on students' sense of agency.

No abstract