1 Introduction

This study undertook a detailed analysis of student reflections to determine whether a learning and teaching approach that integrates academic literacy with discipline content improves the student learning experience and simultaneously adds value to both the academic literacy course and the disciplinary content. The rationale for the study was that there is yet no common conceptualization and agreement at the selected institution and perhaps in the broader higher education landscape in South Africa but also beyond South Africa on the most effective model for designing and teaching academic literacy. Many models exist, creating the need for ongoing inquiry into the appropriateness, effectiveness, and value of the different models across the contexts which they are applied. Such inquiries should contribute to generating valuable insights that will guide practitioners on ways in which academic literacy can be better packaged, based on student needs and sentiment. When this happens, academic literacy may be moved from the periphery to the mainstream of the academic project and ensure that disciplinary discourse is made more explicit.

This study is in contrast to the approach that gives voice to lecturers rather than students for whom the courses are designed. To foreground student voices, the approach in this study was to engage in a deep and detailed analysis of student views and perspectives. It has been suggested that while instructors had a generally positive impression of integrating the two disciplines [academic literacy and the content subject which in the present case is Immunology], implementing these is not without challenges [1]. Some of the challenges relate to the time demands and resource limitations since a necessary component of integrative teaching is collaboration which requires significant time investment from the collaborators. Integrative teaching also requires that both the discipline lecturer and the academic literacy practitioner invest time to familiarize themselves with the discourse of the disciplines they are collaborating in. These challenges are highlighted in other higher education contexts in South Africa by cholars such as [2, 3] and in other contexts by scholars such as [4] (p. 9) who associated the integrated teaching of academic literacy and content with challenges, such as the sentiment from discipline lecturers that academic literacy development is not their responsibility, the view that team teaching is difficult and time-consuming, compounded by time constraints and the need to cover curriculum content in a limited period, leaving little room for additional learning activities that are peripheral to the discipline. But hesitance from instructors aside, of what value is such an integrative approach to the student learning experience, and does it enable the understanding of disciplinary content?

Integrative teaching and learning are the umbrella terms for, among other things, teaching and learning structures, strategies, and activities that bridge numerous divides and develop the “whole” person. [5] In integrative teaching and learning, meaningful connections are made between different disciplines, applying critical thinking to real-life problems. It also entails a transition from teaching single specific skills to multiple integrated skills and it is dynamic, broad, and inclusive [6] (p. 8); [7, 8]. These are the key elements of integrative teaching that in various ways characterize the teaching and learning model presently applied in the academic literacy course in the selected academic program. What is termed integrative teaching of academic literacy in this paper is termed discipline-specific literacy by scholars such as [4, 9, 10] or disciplinary literacy in studies such as [11,12,13]. This study elected to use the term integrative academic literacy to highlight the practice of integration which relates to the seamless combination, embedding, and application of academic literacy in the context of the discipline.

2 Theoretical framework

New Literacies Studies—NLS serves as a useful theoretical lens for engaging with student perspectives and reflections on how they experienced the integrated learning and teaching of academic literacy. Applying this theory to the study would enable the exploration of the nuances of student perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and expectations in the context of integrative learning and teaching of an academic literacy component embedded in the immunology subject, in a Biotechnology Programme. [14] identifies NLS as representing a new tradition in considering the nature of literacy, focusing not so much on the acquisition of skills, as in dominant approaches, but rather on what it means to think of literacy as a social practice.

Street [14] foregrounds the conception of literacy more as a social practice and less as the acquisition of skills but the two are mutually linked. The current study engages with the acquisition, application, and transferability of literacy skills as a social practice in the context of immunology, Biotechnology, or science broadly. [14] Further proposes a culturally sensitive view of literacy practices that vary from one context to another, suggesting that literacy is about knowledge: how people address reading and writing are themselves rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity, and being. Literacy is conceived to be "always embedded in social practices, such as those of a particular educational context [Immunology or Biotechnology in the context of this study], and learning that will be dependent on those particular contexts”. NLS also entails the recognition of multiple literacies that are contested in relations of power, problematizing what counts as literacy, and engaging with the question of whose literacies are dominant and whose are marginalized or resisted [14]. This study engages with related questions.

Suggesting that the term literacy comes loaded with ideological presuppositions [15], seeks to develop new terms, firstly attempting a working distinction between “literacy events" which is defined as any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants' interactions and their interpretative processes" and "literacy practices" which is employed as a means of focusing upon "social practices and conceptions of reading and writing".

Further, [15] draws an important distinction between the autonomous model of literacy that considers literacy as a decontextualised skill, which once learned can be transferred with ease from one context to another and the ideological model that highlights the contextual and social nature of literacy practices, and the relationships of power and authority which are implicit in any literacy event. Viewed from the later perspective, [15] suggests that literacy is not something that once acquired can be effortlessly applied to any context requiring mastery of the written word. Writing and reading practices are deeply social activities; familiarity with and understanding these practices takes place in specific social contexts, which are overlaid with ideological complexities.

New Literacies Studies offers new ways of defining literacy as much more than the ability to read and write but also see reading and/or writing as central to literacy. Emphasizing reading as a key literacy skill [16], draws attention to several considerations to bear in mind when thinking about reading. These are the importance of reading as a literacy skill, the need to be aware of what is read, the ability to read, the background knowledge and reading skills of the reader, ways of reading, levels of meaning in a text, reasons for reading, contestations around meaning in a particular text and how the ability to read is acquired. [16] concludes these postulations on reading by making the very vital point that a way of reading a certain type of text is only acquired when one is embedded (apprenticed) as a member of a social practice wherein people not only read texts of this type in this way, but also talk about such texts in certain ways, hold certain attitudes and values about them, and socially interact over them in certain ways. Thus, in the view of [16], one does not learn to read texts of type X in way Y unless one has had the experience of settings where texts of type X are read in way Y. In the case of this study, this setting or context is immunology, Biotechnology, and science broadly. Only a few of many New Literacies scholars are referenced here and only a few elements of this rich theoretical framework are highlighted here to illustrate the usefulness of the theory for this study.

3 Literature review

A key issue examined in this study was the collaborative and integrated teaching of academic literacy and content discipline. This is an aspect that has been covered by others [2, 11, 17,18,19], [11] for example undertook an analysis of two curricula for academic literacy offerings at a university that is in the process of introducing subject-specific academic literacy interventions. The study found that the effectiveness of the interventions is not necessarily dependent on team teaching approaches but on institutionally supported, regular, integrative, mutually consultative planning with all stakeholders involved in an atmosphere informed by study and ongoing review [27], (p. 109). A related study [3]’ (P.220, 242) borrows the term ‘transdisciplinary space’ from [2]to explain how collaboration between a formal science discipline, statistics, and academic literacy, in a context that does not allow for interdisciplinary options such as team teaching can be taught to increase disciplinary transfer between the two subjects and to ultimately improve the quality of students’ work. Whilst the present study explores a two-way collaboration at the level of the content and literacy lecturers, [2] it broadens the interpretation of collaboration to include multiple stakeholders at the institution.

An additional angle pursued in this study was exploring how an integrative approach to designing and offering academic literacy ensures that the acquired skills are appropriately applied in the discipline by students. Among others, scholars such as [2, 20, 21] draw on different academic contexts and academic literacy models to offer valuable perspectives and insights on how to design and offer academic literacy skills to ensure the effective application and transferability of academic literacy skills. A study by [22] explored a case at the University of KwaZulu-Natal where a year-long academic literacy skills course is offered with the intention that students transfer the practices and knowledge they have learned from this course to the context of their respective disciplines, however diverse. As is reported in many cases, including at the academic institution that is the context of this study, it is found that decontextualised academic literacy courses are not readily transferable to the context of the discipline, and students tend to underestimate the value of the intervention to their chosen discipline of study [21]. Argue that generic academic literacy skills are not sufficient, as learning requires practice, reinforcement, and the ability to transfer and apply skills in the appropriate context. In their view, this requires an iterative and reinforced approach over the course of the qualification.

The present study intends to offer insights that should contribute to building the capacity of lecturers who may be seeking innovative ways of packaging and teaching academic literacy. This may ensure an improved learning experience for students and may lay the foundations to mainstream academic literacy in the curriculum. The study will inform academic literacy practitioners and discipline specialists on the importance of leveraging the student perspective when designing or improving curricular and pedagogic approaches. It is against this backdrop that the study sought to attend to the following objectives:

  • Evaluate students perceptions of the effectiveness of an embedded and integrative model of teaching academic literacy within the context of an academic discipline.

  • Assess whether students believe they are more likely to apply academic literacy skills in the discipline when learning and teaching are done using the integrative approach.

  • Determine students’ perceptions of the value that is placed on academic literacy regardless of whether the integrative or any other model is used to teach it.

4 Methods

4.1 Design

The study took the form of a qualitative descriptive case study. The descriptive design ensured intense engagement to reach conclusions in the specific context. The design was suitable as it allowed for the obtention and description of deeper student insights into the attitudes, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of students about integrated academic literacy. These elements in various ways constitute “voicing” as the study sought to give voice to students, facilitating a better understanding of what seems a complex issue—the ideal model for packaging and teaching academic literacy. The questionnaire was administered to the entire student population of 80 in the selected year-one course that two of the three researchers taught. Fifteen students out of the 80 completed the questionnaire as participation in the study was voluntary. The qualitative questionnaire was selected as a data collection tool with the intention that, as large a percentage of the total student population in the class as possible could volunteer to participate and ensure the collection of rich data, which is the reason it was administered to all 80 students. A questionnaire, qualitative or quantitative, more than interviews, (focus group or semi-structured) holds the advantage that it can be answered at a self-paced and convenient time for the participants, resulting in more carefully thought-out and detailed responses.

Qualitative questionnaires have become a valuable tool for data collection with suggestions that since the early twentieth century, qualitative questionnaires generate rich and highly informative material that merits more attention from scholars [23]. The strength of a qualitative questionnaire, “lies in the deep insights that may be gained from its material; the respondents answers” [23]. Compared to focus group interviews and other types of interviews, respondents can complete the questionnaire (qualitative or quantitative) over time and can return to their answers, modify and enlarge them before they are sent back [23]. This has the benefit that a question can get surprising answers that can open unexpected perspectives. Also, it has been suggested that the lack of physical presence forces researchers to include detailed instructions for respondents about how to answer the questionnaire and this should be helpful to the respondents completing the questionnaire [23]. A key advantage associated with the “self-completion questionnaires” (qualitative, quantitative or mixed) is that they are more suited to issues where there are only a few questions that are relatively clear and simple in their meaning as was the case in this study [23]. They are also credited with the reduction of biasing errors caused by the characteristics of the interviewer and the variability in interviewers’ skills [23]. Absence of an interviewer in self-completed questionnaires also provides greater anonymity or a sense of anonymity for the respondent [23].

Despite the advantages associated with questionnaires and qualitative questionnaires in the case of this study, there are also disadvantages to using questionnaires to collect data. These include that questions in the questionnaires should be concise and clear as neither the researcher nor the participant has the option to seek or to provide clarification if required. It is possible in some cases that the questionnaire may be completed by a person different from the targeted respondent and the researcher may not be able to determine this. In some cases, a low proportion of the targeted population may complete the questionnaire and this may affect the reliability and validity of the findings [23].

Considering some of the weaknesses associated with questionnaires and intending to fill data gaps and to complement the responses provided in the questionnaire, drawing on the affordances of interviews and more particularly, focus group interviews, the researchers purposively selected ten students who had not completed the questionnaires from members of the student population for two focus group interviews. The interviewees were purposively selected to include students from various backgrounds (linguistic and more) and of differing academic strengths consequently holding diverse views on the course and the integrated model adopted. The sampling approach also ensured the selection of students who had not completed the questionnaires, thereby increasing the range of perspectives, considering that only 15 completed the questionnaires. Purposive sampling has been found to hold value as shown in the view by [25] thata relatively small and purposively selected sample contributes to increasing the depth (as opposed to breadth) of understanding. It ensures the targeted selection of participants who would potentially provide rich and valuable research data from a diversity of perspectives and reflect on the range of issues that a study such as this aims to address [25]. Focus group, rather than semi-structured interviews were used on the basis that they are valuable for “investigating complex behaviors and motivations on the basis of interaction” in focus groups, what has been termed “the group effect”. It has been suggested that “what makes the discussion in focus groups more than the sum of separate individual interviews is the fact that the participants both query each other and explain themselves to each other” [26]. Such interaction in the case of the current study enabled not just insights that complement what other respondents in the focus group say but also, counter some of those views. The interaction in focus group interviews also provided stimulation as participants may be prompted by the views of other participants to develop and share new insights. These, in addition to the intention to fill any gaps in the questionnaire responses, were some of the reasons for selecting the focus group interviews but they did not generate as much usable data as the qualitative questionnaires.

Interviews in general hold significant advantages. Firstly, the in-person nature of interviews allows the opportunity for unclear and misunderstood questions to be clarified. Secondly, interviewees are more likely to complete the interview session or process than in cases where respondent undertake the self-completion of data collection tools. Thirdly, important follow-up questions that may not be part of the original set of questions can be asked during the interview process fourthly, visual and nonverbal communication elements can be used to enhance the interview process. Fifthly the interviewer and the interviewee can through mutual agreement select the most suitable, convenient, and effective time and place for the interview and, during the interview, moderate the engagement toward the desired outcome [24].

A key weakness associated with interviews, in general, is that respondents, may not be as objective as may be the case when the data collection tool is answered in the absence of the researcher [24]. A disadvantage associated with focus group interviews is that the relatively public setting of a focus group may operate to inhibit the exchange of sensitive information. Those participants who do not ‘fit’ with the group may be silenced within the group setting and focus group studies also produce ‘messy’ data in comparison to other data collection methods. It may be time-consuming to analyse many transcripts and each group will naturally differ in terms of the order in which they address specific issues and how they are discussed.

Questionnaires and interviews in general have advantages and disadvantages and qualitative questionnaires and focus group interviews have advantages and disadvantages. Drawing on the strengths of the two data collection tools (qualitative questionnaires and focus group interviews) in this study was useful. The two data collection tools complemented each other and filled gaps resulting from the weaknesses of the other [27] to generate richer and more robust data.

A thematic analysis of the data from the two tools was undertaken, following a series of steps. In the familiarization stage, the researchers familiarized themselves with the data recorded and transcribed from the focus group interviews as well as that from the questionnaires. The data from the two tools was then coded according to themes formulated based on questions in the data collection tools. On this basis, the “deductive [or] a priori template of codes approach was used. This approach complemented the research questions” [28]. In this approach, the data is coded according to a set of codes that are predefined based on questions in the data collection tools. In the reviewing stage, the themes were read against the data to determine that the data truly captured what is in the themes were defined in ways that they could be easily converted into a write-up. The thematic analysis approach proved useful for this study as the researchers could very easily identify the depth and frequency of the issues that participants raised and easily create connections between the issues that were raised.

It is important to elaborate on the courses and the nature of integration here. The academic programme presently selected for study was Biotechnology, and the second semester subject ‘Immunology’, at a South African University of Technology. The academic programme does not have a standalone credit-bearing academic literacy course but there is a communication skills or academic literacy module embedded or integrated into the immunology subject. In this context, the Immunology lecturer, who is the discipline specialist, and the academic literacy lecturer collaborated over a duration of one semester from July to November to design and teach the academic literacy module. Given the integrated nature of academic literacy in this context, the assessments of academic literacy skills acquisition and application were part of the suite of assessments for the Immunology host subject, and the marks that students scored in the academic literacy component formed part of the overall mark for the subject. The two lecturers jointly agreed on the literacy skills that should be covered, agreed on three texts related to immunology that were used as the context to teach the literacy skills, agreed on the teaching approaches to be adopted, and determined the assessment strategy. The immunology subject was allocated five 45-min-long classes a week over 13 teaching weeks and this amounted to a total of sixty-five 45-min-long classes for the semester on the timetable. The communication skills or academic literacy component was allocated two 45-min-long classes a week and this over 13 teaching weeks totalled twenty-six 45-min -long classes for the duration of the semester, leaving the immunology subject with thirty-nine 45-min-long classes for the semester. Both the academic literacy practitioner and the Immunology lecturer sat in on some of the other’s classes and participated where there was a need. The academic literacy practitioner joined the content lecturer in eight immunology classes where immunology content knowledge was covered. In these classes, the academic literacy practitioner observed and made notes on the content knowledge covered and the teaching and learning practices in the host subject, for further and subsequent reflection. This contributed to shaping how the integrated academic literacy component was designed and offered. In a few instances, the academic literacy practitioner, with or without the prompting of the content lecturer offered input on aspects that were being covered but this was to a minimal extent considering that the literacy practitioner did not have sufficient mastery of the content in the discipline area and the integration and collaborative engagement in class was planned to take place more in the allocated academic literacy periods. The content lecturer joined the academic literacy practitioner in fifteen of the periods specifically allocated the academic literacy component. Based mainly on the fact that the content lecturer was more equipped in the conventions of academic literacy than the academic literacy practitioner was in those of Immunology and considering the intention that the more engaging collaborative space was going to be the allocated academic literacy classes, both lecturers team-taught in fifteen academic literacy classes where the content lecturer was present. This entailed planning the lecture jointly in advance and engaging in conversation between themselves and with students in the classroom. This is a useful approach that aligns with New Literacies scholarship that advances the view that student writing and other literacy activities and practices should be understood against a background of institutional practices, power relations, and identities, with meanings being contested between faculty (the academic literacy and content lecturer in this case) and their students, and an emphasis on the “different understandings and interpretations” that should and emanated in the integrated classes [15]

To ensure that students were equipped with academic literacy skills that were specifically relevant to the disciplinary context, the texts selected and used as a basis for teaching academic literacy skills covered topics in immunology and Biotechnology in general. The following texts were selected by mutual consent between the two lecturers and used as a context to teach academic literacy skills:

“Medicinal plants used by traditional healers for the treatment of malaria in the Chipinge district in Zimbabwe” [15].

“Utilization and practice of traditional/complementary/alternative medicine (TM/CAM) in South Africa” [16].

“Reducing the burden of anemia in infants and young children in malaria-endemic countries of Africa: from evidence to action [17].

An additional aspect that was considered in selecting the texts was the learning outcomes of the immunology subject and of the integrated communication skills or academic literacy component. The Immunology subject had as learning outcomes, to enable students to:

  • Receive an introduction to basic physiology and immunology,

  • Grasp the principles of immunity and the body’s response to defend against infection and,

  • Acquire a general understanding of some practical applications of immunology in clinical diagnostic laboratories and related fields [35], (p. 4).

The academic literacy integrated component on the other hand had as learning outcomes, to enable students to:

  • Write appropriately within a given context,

  • Read different types of text effectively,

  • Speak i.e. communicative competence: ability to speak appropriately within a context,

  • Demonstrate qualities of professionalism and good citizenship [36], (p. 1).

These learning outcomes are extracted respectively from the Immunology subject guide and the Communication Skills or Academic Literacy module guide. Both documents are provided to students at the start of the semester The data collection tools that were used solicited student reflections on aspects of the integrated communication skills or academic literacy module and the study analyses these reflections and perspectives.

5 Findings and discussions

This section engages with the main emergent themes of the study. These included students perspectives on: (1) the impact of the model of academic literacy and content integration adopted, (2) the need for broader and greater integration, (3) the nature of collaborative teaching that they experienced (4) on how and whether the integrated model that was adopted enabled the application of acquired skills and (5) the value that the communication skills or academic literacy component holds in the academic project.

5.1 Student perspectives on the impact of the model of academic literacy and content integration

Reading for meaning and understanding has been identified as a major challenge the education sector in South Africa is grappling with and students who participated in this study expressed the view that integrated teaching improved their understanding of Immunology (scientific) content knowledge. This is the subject where the academic literacy module is embedded or hosted. Several positive responses were elicited by the focus group interview question, “what is the value of the communication skills (academic literacy) lecturer and the content lecturer collaborating to offer an integrated communication skills (academic literacy) subject?”. A respondent stated,

“Much more information was learned. It helped in improving and better reading of articles. And how to understand words I do not know. It also helped in understanding the chapter on Malaria”. Yet another interviewee stated “It made us aware about malaria. The prescribed reading was focused on malaria so we are able to identify symptoms and how to prevent it” and yet another complimented the integration in the words, “It's a good thing because many students are not able to understand the content of something learning, but by the help of communication we can easily understand things”. Finally, on this point, a respondent commented that “It's a good thing [to integrate the two] because many students are not able to understand the content of something, but by the help of communication we can easily understand things".

These student opinions suggest that elements of academic literacy (effective reading and writing) that in this case were taught and practiced, drawing on the context of or integrated in the content subject matter contributed to equipping them with skills that ensured improved understanding of subject content. This is in the sense that the skills acquired enabled them to read the content texts and material with meaning and better understanding. The students further opine that integration enabled a better understanding of threshold concepts such as endogenous, exogenous and immunity. New Literacies Studies, the theoretical framework adopted for this study sees a crucial role of academic literacy to be the the facilitation of concept understanding [14].

Other models of teaching academic literacy may have yielded the same results, but in this specific case, student views related specifically to the model under study which they found effective. Integration that took the form of collaborative design of the academic literacy module and the collaborative engagement of the two lecturers in the same class, at the same time teaching the same cohort of students the same skills from a content lecturer and an academic literacy practitioner’s perspective was enriching. It contributed to what [19] (p. 871) has termed the “rhetorical process” which are the effective “ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, reading and writing that identify one as belonging to a particular discourse community”, in this case, Immunology, biotechnology and science broadly [10, 19, 30] are but a few of the many scholars who have recognised that integration and collaboration between academic literacy specialists and subject specialists can considerably enhance the development of students’ academic literacy skills such as reading as reported by the respondents here. Reading for meaning within a context has been emphasized as a key literacy skill in New Literacies Theory with [16] declaring that “literacy surely means nothing unless it has something to do with the ability to read” adding that “literacy must have something to do with being able to read something. And this something will always be a text of a certain type. Different types of texts call for different types of background knowledge, require different skills to be read meaningfully, and can be and are read in different ways”.

A second aspect to be explored based on student responses to the same question above, (besides meaning-making and understanding) was assessment. Respondents suggested that integrated teaching of academic literacy contributed to a positive experience in terms of assessments. Commenting on this, a student declared that “Being taught to communicate well helps a lot on the content lecture assessments as it is difficult to answer a question without having a full understanding”. The integrated academic literacy course sought to equip students with skills to interpret and answer questions in the context of Biotechnology and science in general. This is besides the other skills that were imparted in the integrated course. Though the student’s statement is not too specific, it is possible the view expressed relates to the acquisition and application of the skill to interpret and answer questions correctly, but it could also be referring to an improved understanding of the content and consequently, an improved ability to answer the questions.

Another respondent commented “It is a good thing as it has enabled me to write good practical reports. I just wish communications formed part of Analytical Chemistry instead. AC is a harder subject than Immunology and we could use a boost in [our] marks”. Again, it is possible that the boost would result from the contribution that academic literacy is anticipated by the student to make in improving understanding of the subject matter of the content subject. This points to the conception of disciplinary discourses as having “a tacit dimension, which makes it difficult for experts to articulate, and therefore difficult for students to learn”. The student’s statement resonates with the view that the “tacit dimension can be made explicit through a process of interaction between academic literacy practitioners and [content] lecturers” [19], (p. 871) in the students view, anticipated to result in “a boast in marks”.

5.2 Good but not enough: students call for increased and broader integration

Efforts to integrate content and academic literacy fell short of respondents’ expectations in some areas as few called for broader integration in responses to the questionnaire question: “Comment on whether the integration of the content and academic literacy (communication skills) was effective”. The opinions of three respondents who suggested that more elements of the immunology subject or Biotechnology content should be integrated or used as a context for teaching academic literacy are the subject of discussion here. One of the respondents declared that the academic literacy course “Didn't cover the majority of content” and another declared that “Not all aspects of Immunology were covered”. In a reflective perspective also calling on the integrative approach to draw on all the content areas of the disciplinary subject, the third respondent declared: "I will say the only weakness I found in that Communication subject, it was the choice of article because here, we are in the Biotechnology field and I feel like if we had a subject that specifically talks about something related to new techniques in, very involved in Biotechnology, I will give an example, such as the discovery of the work of the Crispa for example. We would have been more interested in that because when we had an article about agriculture, okay, agriculture can be part of Biotechnology but …” The communication skills or academic literacy component was integrated and embedded in the immunology subject and did not feature as a credit-bearing standalone subject in the curriculum of the programme, but it did not lose its identity as a module in the curriculum which is the reason the student reflects on it as a “communication subject”. When the third respondent quoted here attributes what they see as the “weakness” to the “Communication subject” (which is the embedded communication skills and academic literacy component) to the in/appropriateness of the article selected as a teaching context, it is an indication that, given the opportunity, students can form and express balanced views on the strengths and weakness of the curriculum that is designed for them. The respondent points out that the article focused mainly on agriculture and no other relevant topics in the discipline. Although the respondent suggests that “agriculture can be part of Biotechnology”, they note that “it’s a wide domain” and not specific to Biotechnology. The respondent feels that they (students) “would have been more interested” in the academic literacy component if it used a content “subject that talks explicitly about something related to techniques in Biotechnology. The three respondents hold the opinion that an effective and impactful integration should draw on more if not all topics in the academic programme—Biotechnology to teach academic literacy skills. These views raise an important question on the extent to which an integrated academic literacy course can feasibly draw on more or all the subject content areas as a context to teach the skills and the value of such a practice.

Further declaring the expectation that academic literacy should be integrated with more content subjects and areas (other than just Biotechnology) another questionnaire respondent declared,“I think if it was—if the work that was being covered in, for instance, we do Biochemistry. So, if you incorporate, the Communications subject directly into what we were learning at that point in time during the module or the course that we were doing then it would also be a good idea and I guess you could raise the weight of it as well seeing as it’s directly correlated to the course”. Here, the student highlighted the need to integrate or “incorporate” “directly” into “what we were learning at that point in time”. This statement points to the need to integrate communication or more specifically, academic literacy into every topic that is covered in the host subject “then”. The evaluative statement: “it would be a good idea” shows the student’s recognition of the affordances of integrating academic literacy in all content areas. Based on what the student sees as the value of such an integrated approach, they suggest that: “you could raise the weight of it as well seeing as it’s directly correlated to the course”, implying that when such integration happens, the value of the subject increases, deserving a higher weighting or credit value. Significantly, by offering this sophisticated perspective the student shows an ability to critique their learning and question their knowledge, beliefs, and understanding, and in so doing, develop greater self-reflection skills. Given the space, students can think critically about their learning, both in terms of subject content and their ability to articulate that knowledge as suggested in [31,32,33], This calls for the student voice to be given due consideration in curricula design and teaching.

Responding to the interview question “how can the integration of the content subject and academic literacy be improved?”, a focus group interviewee also made the case for broader integration, stating, “I think if you are going to plan on incorporating into a subject, it would be a good idea to incorporate it in a way that we learn the Communication subject and the subject that it’s been taught in simultaneously in a sense if that is possible”. Here, the interviewee also makes a call for most content topics to be integrated into the academic literacy course, suggesting that the “Communication subject and the subject that it’s been taught in [are taught] simultaneously”. This is an appeal that, when a specific topic is being covered in the content subject, the academic literacy subject should simultaneously use that content or topic as a teaching context for academic literacy skills.

The students make very interesting suggestions, but they may face some logistical challenges to implement partly due to the resource intensiveness of the models proposed. In other studies, resource intensiveness has been identified as a possible limitation to the kind of integration proposed by the students and this is because “a subject lecturer has to be allocated every [academic literacy] course” [2], (p. 117) and an academic literacy lecturer every content subject. Nonetheless, the student reflections are useful and would continue to be used in the latter years to continuously improve the model of integration, seeking ways to pilot and implement some of the proposals that may seem cumbersome. For example, considering the complexities that could accompany the model(s) students propose, a scaled-down option of such a model can be considered with some modifications to reduce resource intensiveness. In such a case, all content lecturers design their curriculum to create space for and ensure that academic literacy skills (which are heavily integrated into any one of the subjects as in the model reported on here) are then transferred and practiced in their subjects and where required, the content lecturers can further invite the academic literacy lecturer to reinforce selected skills where gaps are seen by the content lecturers when the practicing of skills happens.

Despite the challenges associated with an integrated model where every content subject has an academic literacy component, if such a model is successfully implemented, it may have the benefit that “academic literacy practitioners and disciplinary lecturers … [would] take co-responsibility for making the rhetorical dimensions of the disciplinary knowledge explicit for students”. In so doing, they create an ideal teaching context that has been described as a transdisciplinary rather than just a disciplinary community of practice [19], (p. 873 & 875). Making this point from the perspective of New Literacies Studies [15] emphasises that “students needed to be sensitive to different disciplinary ways of framing in their writing” arguing further that “if academics made the culture and its implicit ground rules of disciplinary writing explicit and accessible, students could grasp the way a discipline worked, and surface problems in their writing would disappear”. Also, one can read the call for integration across all content subjects as a nuanced appeal for all content lecturers to play the role of academic literacy practitioners (albeit minimally) by at least creating space in and designing their subjects for students to practice the skills acquired in the academic literacy course that is heavily integrated in or with one content subject. Some basic level of integration in all content subjects would be ideal as there is wide consensus in higher education today that literacy is not just the English teacher’s (or literacy practitioner’s) job anymore and that working together is working smarter [2]. Scholars both in South Africa [4, 19, 33, 34] and elsewhere [17, 18] are but a few who recognize the challenges associated with the approach and lack of consensus on the most effective model but argue that what has been termed variously as discipline-specific literacy, curriculum-specific literacy, content-specific literacy, discipline-based literacy, collaborative teaching of literacy and integrated design and teaching of academic literacy is valuable.

Advancing the argument for the adoption of integrated academic literacy, this paper therefore takes this conversation forward with the suggestion that it is feasible and necessary to adopt a model where academic literacy is heavily integrated in/with one content subject in the academic program (as in the case described in this study). All the other content subjects undertake a lighter form of integration that creates space for students to practice and apply the academic literacy skills acquired in the more heavily integrated teaching and learning scenario. Progressively, the heavily integrated case would then serve as a model and pilot that would inspire integration across the board over time and incrementally where challenges and constraints such as as financial and other resources, timetabling, attitudes, and various curricular limitations are dealt with.

5.3 The collaborative teaching of academic literacy

Although the (Immunology (content) lecturer and the academic literacy lecturer collaborated closely in designing, teaching and assessing the course, no explicit and detailed explanation was offered to students beforehand on the process and nature of collaboration. Nonetheless, their reflections on collaboration revealed that they were deeply aware of and experienced the course in a particular way based on the collaborative approach. Responding to the questionnaire question, “What is your view on collaboration between the content and the academic literacy lecturer if there was any collaboration?” a respondent commented, “They work together to present the subject better, decide on relevant subject content etc. They are able to fulfill each other's shortcomings through assistance”, a second stated “Since it's the same topic from both lectures, it was a good background” and a third indicated “. “Different personalities bring different views and perspectives”. Commenting further on the value of collaboration to promote diverse perspectives, a respondent indicated that, “it is a good thing because it allows diversity and to get the work in different perspectives and views”. Yet another student pointed out that collaboration between the two lecturers “creates perspective and relevance”. Yet another respondent indicated that, “They taught us in different ways so that we can understand more”.

The students make the point that collaborative teaching of academic literacy was characterized by a “diversity” of “perspectives”, “views” and “ways” of teaching which resulted in “relevance” and “understand[ing] more”. Collaboration ensured that the skills taught from multiple perspectives and views contributed not just to a deeper understanding but also gave greater relevance and impact to the academic literacy course in this case and cases studied elsewhere [17]. (p. 353) argues that there is a growing recognition that the collaboration between English for academic purposes specialists and subject specialists can considerably enhance students’ academic literacy development. However, the desired collaboration is in many cases constrained by the lack of interest on the part of lecturers who either do not see the value of collaboration, do not see it as their responsibility to participate in the project of academic literacy development, or are overwhelmed by workloads and so cannot engage in time-consuming collaboration. A starting point to changing this is targeting and working with discipline specialists (such as the content lecturer/scientist in this study) who are passionate about and can champion academic literacy integration and then, they would serve as models and pilots for other discipline specialists to consider also embracing collaboration and integration. The importance of a passionate and committed content lecturer as a partner and collaborator for integrating academic literacy has been highlighted in various studies including in [2, 17, 33, 35, 36].

5.4 Applicability of acquired literacy skills

A key reason for the approach described in this study is to ensure the application of skills with reading and writing as key skills. Responding to the interview question “how did the integration of academic literacy and content impact on the application of acquired academic literacy skills?” a respondent indicated that “it helped in improving and better reading of articles. And how to understand words I do not know”. Yet another added, “In communications, we are taught how to read, and we needed to read in the Immunology subject”. Students remain firmly aware of the specific role that the communication skills subject plays in the acquisition of literacy skills that they require to function effectively in the content area. The value of student perspectives and input lies in the fact that they do not simply speak to the acquisition of the skills but more importantly, the fact that the skills acquired are applicable and applied “to read in the immunology subject”. This points to the value of integrated teaching as the skills are not simply transferred in an abstract domain but in a content domain where they are immediately applicable.

However, one should remain alert to the reality that even in a discipline-embedded context, it may not be a given that students would transfer the skills acquired to a third subject [15]. New Literacies scholarship highlights the challenge associated with the transfer of literacy skills to contexts other than those in which those skills were acquired. Careful and intentional redesign of the curricula and the adoption of teaching and assessment practices that promote and enable transferability are vital. A possible solution is to design the curricula such that the skills are taught in an integrated, embedded, and collaborative model, ensuring immediate practice and application in the host content subject while negotiating further integration and practice across all other subjects and in higher levels of study as suggested earlier in this paper. To do this and to get gradual but increasing buy-in from more discipline specialists, models and pilots of implementation should be showcased to demonstrate possibility, feasibility, and benefits. One such benefit highlighted by the students is, “It allowed us to apply communication skills whilst using the content we have worked with”. Another student claimed that “It also helped in understanding the chapter on M.

alaria”. This is an apt reference to the fact that the context that is used to teach literacy skills is relevant (an article on malaria) but it likely also means that, by acquiring and using the literacy skills to effectively study the content knowledge on malaria, understanding is improved. It is however vital that students should be equipped to transfer the skills to other topics and subjects that may not serve as a context for teaching the skills.

5.5 The perceived value placed on academic literacy in the curricula

The actual and symbolic value placed on academic literacy in the curricula design of an academic programe is a significant factor that determines the reception and attitude by students and other stakeholders, including content lecturers. Respondents found the integrative teaching of academic literacy to add value to their learning experience, but they also felt that the academic program placed a low value on academic literacy judging (in their view) from the notional hours allocated to the integrated academic literacy component, the duration (which was a semester-long) as well as the marks allocated the academic literacy component in the immunology subject mark weightings. One student responding to the questionnaire question, “what is your view on the value that is placed on the communication skills or academic literacy subject in the programme you are studying?” declared: "Maybe give it a slightly higher weight towards the end percentage of that subject or yeah, I’m not sure. So, if the students were to miss a certain percentage of the lectures for Communication, then they’d get a decreased mark. maybe some sort of incentive like a better mark or like a bigger portion of the [host/Immunology] subject being devoted to the Communications Module.". Yet another student comments, “Like I would suggest that like the communication part stand on its own because if it can stand on its own like students will give value to it because if you fail, you know that you failed instead.”

The respondents highlight key elements above that they think would contribute to raising the value of communication skills or academic literacy subject. One respondent calls for an increase in the mark weighting of the academic literacy or communication skills module. The student justifies the call for a higher mark weighing on the presumption that it would serve as an incentive for increased student commitment to academic literacy. Second, in what can be read as an argument against the integrated or embedded model the student advocates for a standalone communication subject that would in their view be seen as valuable by students. In addition to the weighting, the respondents highlight fewer notional hours allocated to the academic literacy module as an important element to consider. A respondent indicates that “I think it [the academic literacy module] should have more time so that when we are told to write essays, we actually have time to discuss those essays we write and how to improve our essay writing skills”. The student appealed for an increase in the time allocated to the embedded academic literacy subject to ensure an in-depth engagement with the syllabus—in this case, essay writing. These student views and suggestions highlight the need to address these elements—mark weighting, nature of the course (standalone rather than embedded), and notional hours are vital. These are elements that should be considered in any curriculum initiative where academic literacy and any other subject are embedded into one another. Integration should not be used to make academic literacy even more peripheral than it is already by diminishing its status in terms of the elements that the students highlight.

6 Conclusion

To conclude, an engagement with the findings of this study showed that respondents attributed significant value to a pedagogy that integrates academic literacy and disciplinary content in a manner that simultaneously supports multiple learning outcomes. Students see value in an integrated model where academic literacy is in their view “incorporated” into the content area or where it draws on the content subject material to teach literacy skills. They, however, expressed the view that integration could be improved in several ways. Respondents suggested that every content subject should have elements of academic literacy. While it is not feasible to have all topics covered in all disciplines as context to teach academic literacy, we argue that certainly selected topics could be identified that best lend themselves to meeting the learning outcomes of an academic literacy intervention. Hence, the paper recommends that each academic program adopts an approach where academic literacy is well integrated into at least one or a few content subjects of the curriculum, and the remaining subjects undertake to incorporate some form of integration that, at the basic level creates space for students to practice and apply the academic literacy skills acquired in the more heavily integrated teaching and learning scenario or subject. In this model, the skills would be taught in the selected integrated subject, collaboratively, ensuring immediate practice and application in the subject area while negotiating further integration, application and practice across all other subjects of a given curriculum, i.e. academic literacy across the curriculum. This is an important aspect as academic literacy is a developmental process that is acquired in the context of several subjects that constitute a given curriculum. Practically, this may translate to designing rubrics that incorporate aspects of communication and assess for the proper acquisition thereof, within the context of the literacy of the discipline. Some students felt that the academic program placed a lower than sufficient value on academic literacy. This view was likely based on the limited number of notional hours allocated to the academic literacy module in relation to the host subject, which was a semester-long, as well as the weight (by marks or score) that is allocated specifically to academic literacy in this host subject. It will therefore be useful to give prominence to the importance of academic literacy acquisition by consistently assessing for it across subjects, through rubrics that contain a component of literacy across disciplinary contexts and practices. If such rubrics are collaboratively designed at the start of a course, then the assessment of academic literacy skills can simply be a part of the normal suite of assessments of the course.

The study further revealed that collaboration ensured a better understanding of both the discipline content and the literacy skills taught from multiple perspectives, and this contributed, from a student perspective to the attainment of greater relevance to the academic literacy course. The paper however notes that effective and impactful collaboration is in many cases constrained by the lack of time, space, and sometimes interest on the part of most discipline or content lecturers who either do not see the value of collaboration, do not see it as their responsibility to participate in the project of academic literacy development, or are overwhelmed by workloads and so cannot engage in collaboration, which, is time-consuming in its initial design. The paper recommends that more should be done to shift perceptions and better manage workloads towards more holistic learning outcomes and ensure that both academic literacy and content lecturers embrace collaboration.

Finally, significant value can be gleaned by drawing from the student's voice and adapting, shaping, and creating curricula that meet the dynamic learning needs of students, and that also evolve concerning what it means to be academically literate in the digital age.