The outsider(s) within

Introduction 

In-sessional provision for the School of Design started in 2015, and I have been seconded to the school since 2018. In the early days, participation was limited to a dozen or so students from across the whole TPG (taught postgraduate) cohort. I and another LC colleague delivered a fairly general series of sessions designed to develop the students’ writing and speaking in the context of Design. Things have changed considerably since my secondment to the school in 2018, and as a result of vastly increased numbers of PGT students entering the School. This has resulted in embedded in-sessional provision within the different PGT programmes. Currently, between timetabled in-sessional classes, drop-ins and 1:1 consultations we average contact with around 180-200 students across Semesters 1 and 2. 

I was keen to move away from the early deficit model whereby students were ‘selected’ to attend in-sessional according to nationality, first language, IELTS score, pre-sessional performance or ad hoc written task. In the interests of inclusion, in-sessional classes are now open to all PGT students, who sign up to the courses voluntarily.  

In-sessional provision 

Current in-sessional provision is delivered by myself and one other LC colleague. It primarily consists of: 

• Weekly 2-hour in-sessional classes in Semesters 1 and 2; the mainstay of our provision. Numbers allow us to group students by programme, and we liaise closely with programme and module leads to align sessions with input, reading lists, tasks and assignments on chosen core modules.  
• Optional online drop-ins: offered to all students across the programmes between the end of Semester 2 and the busy summer pre-sessional season, coinciding with when students are working on their dissertations. 
• 1:1 or small-group consultations by appointment.  

Drop-ins and consultations are student-led, and tend to focus on specific questions relating to assignment tasks they are working on, or that they have received feedback for.  Often students want help in understanding a task brief, or simply need reassurance that they are on the right track. 

One of the greatest challenges of teaching EAP in the School of Design stems from the disciplinary difference that exists between the programmes, perhaps in part due to the multi- and interdisciplinary nature of Design itself (Bremner and Rodgers, 2013). We work across all five of the School’s TPG programmes, whose diverse nature clearly evidences this potential for disciplinary difference:  

• MA Design 
• MA Advertising and Design (MAAD) 
• MA Fashion Enterprise and Society (FES) 
• MA Global Fashion Management (GFM) 
• MSc Textile Sustainability and Innovation (TSI) 

 The programmes are diverse not only in their content (encompassing what can be a mix of creative practice, the rhetoric of persuasion, fashion, business management, and many areas of science….to name just a few!), but consequently also in their language, discourse practices, delivery, research methods, and assessment practices. Tellingly, there is no single module shared across all five programmes; recent moves to offer a common Research Methods module have identified shared research practices, but ultimately the five separate modules remain. At the same time, students are able to sign up for optional modules from across the programmes, and in addition, three of the programmes include a number of modules run by the Business School. Students are thus having to navigate a complex mix of language and discourse practices on their programmes, so one of the key aims of the EAP in-sessional programme is to help students navigate the varying requirements within their chosen programme by raising awareness of and exploring the disciplinary discourses and practices that they might encounter.  

 Ongoing needs analysis from discussion with students and staff has identified ‘writing’ as a key priority; this has become a key focus, but we prefer to approach this from the angle of exploring discourse practices. Grouping the students by programme means that we can align classes to the specific needs and practices of each, making use of core readings and exemplars of students’ written assignments to inform our practice and that of the students. We spend time engaging students with academic and professional texts and guiding them to notice language, structure, tone and other salient features of the texts and guide them in using this to inform their own writing.  

 Student writing in Design is also very varied, and often very different from some of the more traditional genres that both we, as EAP practitioners, and often the students themselves, are used to. Rather than traditional essays, students will more likely have to produce design portfolios, reflective logs, business reports, campaign proposals, product analysis reports. In some cases, a single piece of work may include a combination of features from these genres. An important part of our practice is the scaffolded use of exemplars to help students understand task briefs and requirements, but also to explore situated language use and structure, and even to guide them towards a more autonomous use of exemplars to inform their own work.  

The outsider within 

In spite of the recent interruptions due to the Covid-19 pandemic, being physically based in the school since my secondment has made an enormous difference to how I perceive the school and its practices, and has increased my own feelings of belonging. Having an office space in the School, attending programme and school meetings, even walking the corridors, have all allowed me to experience the environment in a way that wasn’t previously possible. I have had more time to explore the content of the students’ programmes, attend lectures and workshops, and have deeper conversations with Design colleagues. All of this has given me a greater insight into the experience (and challenges!) of the students, how colleagues work, and the complexities of the discipline. This has had an impact on my in-sessional practice; not only in the design of the courses and materials, but also in recognising the affordances of the different approaches and spaces of Design, and learning to embrace them in order to enhance my practice (see Carr et al., 2021). 

 Seeking out colleagues within the school, and building productive working relationships has been central to the success of the Design in-sessional programme. Programme and Module Leads are key: they generously share programme and module information and learning materials, give access to the shared virtual learning environment, allow us to observe live and online lectures. They provide invaluable perspectives on students’ needs, clarify requirements for assessments and tasks, and share the much-needed exemplars of past students’ work. In return, we are able to provide feedback from our perspective of ‘outsiders within’, particularly when we become aware of challenges that students are facing, including misunderstandings or even anxieties in relation to assessments. This has resulted in our involvement in finding solutions and/or contributing to developments of aspects of the modules, such as the wording or instructions used in task briefs, or the timing and nature of summative assessments and relative feedback. 

 Collaboration does not stop at the PLs and MLs. It has been equally important to cultivate and maintain a rapport with many others, including: 

• TPG Coordinator: to understand wider TPG needs, and for key planning information, including school-wide decisions that impact all PG programmes, and for practical information such as monitoring student numbers etc. 
• Director of Student Education: to ensure that what we do aligns with the student education needs at school level. More recently we have engaged in discussions exploring how we can extend the reach of what we do working within staffing and time constraints. This has resulted in both student- and staff-facing interventions, including a short presentation at the Student Education Forum, and workshops on the International Foundation Year Design module. 
• SES and Timetabling staff: who work tirelessly to timetable the programme-specific in-sessional classes within the numerous constraints of each programme, including optional modules and Business School modules. 
• Head of School: we are fortunate that the HoS has always championed what we do, which provides an invaluable endorsement of our in-sessional activity to both students and staff, and beyond the school. 

 As the School continues to grow and evolve, staff changes, and programme and module changes mean dedicating time to a constant cycle of review and update of what we do. It also requires building new working relationships while maintaining those already established. Every year is different, and I am constantly considering new ways that we might reach more students, meet their needs more effectively, and have wider impact. Yet this constant cycle of change, while challenging, is part of what makes working in the space where language meets disciplinarity such a motivating and stimulating place to be. 

References 

 Bremner and Rodgers. 2013. Design without Discipline. Design Issues. 29(3) pp.4-13. 

 Carr, C. et al. 2021. EAP Teachers working in, with and through the Creative Arts: An Exploration. In MacDiarmid, C. and MacDonald, J.J. 2021. (eds). Pedagogies in English for Academic Purposes. Teaching and Learning in International Contexts. London: Bloomsbury. Ch.10