PREFACE

As we enter the 21st century, universities are experiencing a period of unprecedented transformation: globalisation, corporatisation, internationalisation, increased accountability, restructuring and new technologies are reshaping our institutions. These external forces, in combination with developments in our field and related disciplines, cannot fail to impact on our identities as LAS staff within our institutions, on the identities of our students and on the identities of our academic colleagues. The one constant is change and our own changing identities as we grapple with the new demands we encounter daily.

With LAS advising emerging as an identifiable discipline, it was most appropriate to have the changing identities of LAS advisers and LAS centres a as central theme of the conference. This theme allowed for discussions about who we are within our universities and what role our centres play within the university system as well as about how and in what directions there has been change. Some of the papers dealing with this theme give an overview of the changes in identity of LAS advisers or centres that have taken place over the lifetime of the discipline. Some characterise the changes in identity as moving from technical experts to strategic partners while others have characterised them as moving from institutional casualties to academic partners. Some provide strategies for dealing with change while others question both the agenda for change and the drivers of change. All of the papers contribute to a discussion about change that is a welcome one at this point in time when we are all are redefining and negotiating our identities within our institutions. Papers which deal substantially with this theme are those authored by Bretag, Clerehan, Craswell, Ellis, Jansen, Jones et al, George, Hicks, Melles, Morgan, McKenna and Thomas.

Another theme of the conference was the changing work practices of LAS advisers. Discussions addressing this theme focused onthe ongoing demand for change and innovation in our work practices in order to remain effective as universities.Change and innovation were seen as responses toincreasing student diversity and new teaching technologies. The majority of papers addressing student diversity deal specifically with the issue of supporting international NESB students at the program and institutional level, and provide insights and approaches that should enhance our knowledge and practice in this area. Papers dealing with new teaching technologies focus on how these can be utilised to enhance the learning process or on the 'lessons learned' in moving 'online'. One paper acknowledges the strain these ongoing changes in work practice place on LAS advisers and provides strategies for dealing with resulting stress in the workplace. Some of the papers that specifically address these themes include Barthel, Bretag, Cargill, Drury, Hussin, Parkes et al, O'Regan, Thomas & Bennett, Thompson, Wilson.

The final theme in the conference was Changing Student Identities. As with the other themes in the conference, authors covered a wide-ranging territory in their responses. A number of papers chronicled the individual experiences of both local, international, undergraduate and postgraduate students as they engaged with the university and its often multiple and conflicting writing, reading, thinking and valuing practices. These papers invariably suggested implications for practice for those involved in language, literacy, numeracy and learning development. Other papers focused on particular programs (either peer or language/literacy/learning practitioner mediated) which aim to address the well documented experiences of students and to ease students' transition into the cultures and disciplines of the university. Papers which substantially deal with the issues of changing student identities are the following: Baskin, Carmichael, Chanock, East, Giorgio & Chinnappan, James & McInnes, Martins, Moodie, Price, Symons, Ridsdale.

Two colloquia sessions opened up a space for discussion about issues of practice which confront all LAS staff at some time in their professional life. During the first colloquium, these issues were presented as questions to individual LAS staff from four different institutions ( Chanock, La trobe; Hicks, University of SA; San Miguel, UTS; Skillen, UOW) . The questions can be summarised as follows: What quality assurance measures do you have in place; how do you deal with high demand for individual student appointments; how do you work with broader university demands to fulfil a 'gatekeeping' role on English language standards; and to what extent and with what strategies do you work towards change in curricula development, teaching and assessment practices inside degree programmes? The four participants in the first colloquium answered one question each. Their responses demonstrated that decisions about practice are often strategic in that they are informed by broader considerations of institutional policy and practice, involve multi dimensional responses, involve collaborative partnerships with faculty and other university staff, and are underpinned by both language and learning theories and an understanding of the process of institutional change. Summaries of the responses can be found in the colloquia section of the proceedings.

The conference's central theme, the changing identity of LAS advisers, or learning developers, is also the theme of Associate Professor Carolyn Webb's plenary paper. Her paper charts the historical growth of LAS centres in Australia and plots the changing role of LAS advisers, from 'remediators' to 'transformers'. It plots these changing roles in relation to the changing themes in higher education in Australia: first multiculturalism then massificiation and, currently, flexibility. Her paper also makes suggestions about the need for research into our current situations and practices and, perhaps more importantly, asks questions about our future, raising questions such as "What might the LAS professional evolve into?". Carolyn's paper both summarises our historical experiences in the field and signals current possibilities. It also puts into words some hopes for the future: for LAS advisers to be known as "catalysts for systemic change, as facilitators of organisational learning, [and] as partners in the transformation of university teaching and learning".

Bronwyn James, Alisa Percy, Jan Skillen, Neil Trivett

 

University of Wollongong - http://www.uow.edu.au/