Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes: Current Research and Practices (Languages and Linguistics) 1536128147, 9781536128147

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
List of Contributors
Part I
Current Research on Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes
Chapter 1
What is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ in ‘English for Academic Purposes’?
Abstract
Introduction
The ‘Academic Purpose’ of the ‘English’ and ‘Content’ of EAP
The Importance of Subject Context to the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’
Method and Sample
Data
1. Nursing Lecturers
2. Psychology Lecturers
3. Design Lecturers
4. Engineering Lecturers
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Chapter 2
Vocabulary in EAP: Undergraduate and Postgraduate Differences in Hong Kong
Abstract
Introduction
Vocabulary and EAP
Technical Vocabulary: The Elephant in the EAP Classroom?
LFP as a Learning Tool
Developing Local English Wordlists and a Customised LFP
Customising the LFP Software
Hong Kong Primary and Secondary Wordlists (KS1, KS2, KS3, KS4)
Customisation for Post-secondary Institutions
The Study
Design
Results and Discussion
Undergraduate Writing and LFP
Research Postgraduate Writing and LFP
Conclusion
References
Chapter 3
Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom: An EAP Course Redesign to Foster Learning and Engagement of International Students
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Participants
Methodological Approach
Evaluation Instruments
Results
Discussion
References
Chapter 4
Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction in English: Implications for EAP
Abstract
Introduction
Research into Speaking for Academic Purposes
Factors Affecting Spoken Communication in EAP
Postgraduate Educational Environments
Research Question
Methodology
Findings and Discussion
Language
Domain Knowledge
Social Relations
Prior Learning Experiences
Limitations and Implications for EAP Practice
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 5
Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes: Pedagogy and the Demands of Writing Persuasively
Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Issues in EAP Pedagogy and Learning
Cultural Change and the Question of Accommodating Western Funds of Knowledge
Considering Pedagogical Styles in the Quality of Teaching and Learning
The Demands of Writing Persuasively
Key Aspects to Consider for Pedagogical Change and Application of Principles of Gamma Pedagogy
References
Chapter 6
Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing: A Corpus-Based Study
Abstract
Introduction
The Importance of Lexical Constructions
Construal of Meaning in Lexical Constructions
Methodology
The Corpus
Data Analysis
Results
Difference in Interpersonal and Ideational Meanings
Discussion and Conclusion
References
Chapter 7
A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality in Freshman L2 Academic Writing
Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Research Questions
Methodology
Participants
Study Design
Assessment
Results
Discussion
Structural Complexity
Perspectives and Tone
Lexical Diversity and Sophistication
Overall Writing Quality
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 8
Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language: Linguistic and Metalinguistic Skills
Abstract
Introduction
Processes in Reading and Writing
Studies of L2 Reading and Writing
Vocabulary
Learning Strategies and Perceptions
Planning and Monitoring Literacy
Conclusion
References
Part II
Practices of Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes
Chapter 9
Innovation in EAP Programmes: Shifting from Teaching to Learning in Curriculum Design
Abstract
Introduction
The English Language School
Developing a Philosophy
The Programme Evaluation Process
Understanding the Environment
Resources and Constraints
Understanding Student Needs
Principles and Pedagogy
From Evaluation to Development
Curriculum Documents
Organising the Curriculum Documents: Writing
Learning Outcomes beyond the Four Skills
Summative Assessments
Conclusion
References
Chapter 10
The Practice of EAP in Australia: A Rose by Any Other Name?
Abstract
Introduction
A Short History of EAP
The Historical Practice of EAP in Australia
The Historical Practice of EAP in the UK
Common Ground, Common Controversies?
Conclusion
References
Chapter 11
Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill Needs through Textbook Supplementation
Abstract
Introduction
Component Skills of Academic Reading
Large Vocabulary
Strategic-Reading Abilities
Discourse-Structure Awareness
Main-Idea Comprehension
Reading Fluency
Motivation to Read
Extensive Reading
EAP Textbook Evaluation
EAP Textbook Supplementation: A Case Study
Vocabulary Building
Strategic Reading
Main-Idea Comprehension
Fluency Development
Motivation
Extensive Reading
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Appendix
Textbook-Evaluation Tool
Chapter 12
The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms in Hong Kong
Abstract
Introduction
The Role of Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms
Hong Kong Chinese Culture and Learning
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding
Scaffolding Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms in Hong Kong
Cultivating Intellectual Risk-Taking by Establishing a Supportive Learning Environment
Understanding Students’ Prior Knowledge
Simplifying Complex Tasks into Smaller and Manageable Tasks
Selecting Engaging and Culturally Relevant Materials
Implementing Cooperative Learning by Giving Explicit Instructions and Guidelines
Conclusion
References
Chapter 13
Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers in a University in Singapore
Abstract
Introduction
Context
Teaching Academic Writing in Universities
Embryonic Novice Researchers
Novice Researchers
Advanced Novice Researchers
English for Academic and Professional Purposes – Embryonic Novice Researchers
Academic Discourse – Novice Researchers
Academic Writing for Postgraduates – Advanced Novice Researchers
Conclusion
References
Chapter 14
Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand: Making Sense of Genre-Based Instruction
Abstract
Introduction
Towards Conceptual and Terminological Clarity
The Overall Rhetorical Structuring of Texts
Generic Rhetorical Structures
Communicative Functions and Textual Functions/Genres
Genres and Internal Discourse Structures
The Framework
A New Zealand-Based Example of a Genre-Based Academic Writing Programme Designed Primarily FOR Tertiary Level Māori Students
Background
The Writing Resource and the Trial Units
Participant Responses to the Units
Final Comments
Appendix
Sample Text on ‘Text Structuring’
References
Chapter 15
Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English: A Dialogic Teaching Approach
Abstract
Introduction
Participant Profiles
Daphne
Lucy
Anita
Debra
Study Design
Individual Interviews
Group Session Recordings, Observation Notes, and Transcriptions
Initial Meeting
Dialogic Teaching
Academic Literacy Learning and Teacher Knowledge
Phase 1
Results
Appreciation of Learning
The Practitioners Appropriate a Dialogical Stance
Phase 2
Phase 3
Examples of Applications Taken from Classroom Observations
The Role of Modelling
Another Application of the Dialogic Teaching Method
Discussion
Practitioner Resistance
Dialogic Teaching and Learning
Dialogic Teaching Matters
The Power of Literacy
Disrupting the Power of Tests
Conclusion
References
Chapter 16
Webquests and Screencasts: Strategies for Teaching EAP at the National University of Singapore
Abstract
Introduction
The Ubiquity of Technology
Learning Theories Related to the Use of Technology
The Argumentative Persuasive Essay (APE) Genre
The Study
Problem One
Solution
Problem Two
Solution
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Chapter 17
Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom
Abstract
Introduction
EFL Learners’ Challenges and Needs for Developing Academic Presentation Competence
Linguistic Demands on EFL/ESL Students
Challenges in Developing Personal Voices, New Identities and Roles in Academic Discourses in EFL Contexts
Oral Academic Presentation Competence
Need to Apply the Knowledge of Academic Presentation as a Genre
Need to Develop Skills to Perform Specific Roles and Speech Functions Expected in Academic Presentations
Need to Develop Metacognitive Strategies, Enquiry and Research Skills in Preparing for a Focused and Well-Structured Presentation
EAP Courses/Instruction on Developing Oral Academic Presentation Competence
A Pedagogical Model to Developing Oral Academic Presentation Competence
Explicit Instruction and Discussion about Expected Performances
Awareness-Raising Tasks: Uncovering Gaps between the Expected Outcomes in the Academic Communities and Learners’ Beliefs
Discourse-Analysis Tasks on Common Discourse Features and Discourse-Organisation Skills
Audience-Oriented Activities to Enhance Learners’ Metacognitive Strategies and Enquiry and Reflective Skills
Peer and Self-Evaluation as Formative Assessments
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Appendix A. Sample Awareness-Raising and Discourse-Analysis Tasks
Instructions:
Task A (Awareness-raising): Watch the two clips about presentations on the topic of ‘compensated dating’ given by Speakers 1 and 2. In small groups, discuss which speaker gives a more convincing and insightful speech by answering the following questions.
Task B (Discourse-analysis): Read the transcripts of the two clips. Analyse the language used by the two speakers, and discuss what makes script 2 a more attractive and insightful speech. You could consider areas such as the use of vocabulary and expr...
Appendix B. Sample Proposal and Outline
Appendix C. List of guided questions for critique
References
Index
Blank Page

Citation preview

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES CURRENT RESEARCH AND PRACTICES

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the Series tab.

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website under the eBooks tab.

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS

TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES CURRENT RESEARCH AND PRACTICES

LAP TUEN WONG AND

WAI LAM HEIDI WONG EDITORS

Copyright © 2018 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN. For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact: Copyright Clearance Center Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: [email protected]. NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: H%RRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS Preface

vii

List of Contributors

ix

Part I - Current Research on Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes

1

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

What is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ in ‘English for Academic Purposes’? Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards Vocabulary in EAP: Undergraduate and Postgraduate Differences in Hong Kong Arthur McNeill Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom: An EAP Course Redesign to Foster Learning and Engagement of International Students Natalia Romanova

3

21

35

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction in English: Implications for EAP Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

51

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes: Pedagogy and the Demands of Writing Persuasively Shirley O’Neill

69

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing: A Corpus-Based Study Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa

97

vi Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Contents A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality in Freshman L2 Academic Writing Gavin Bui Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language: Linguistic and Metalinguistic Skills Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed and John Everatt

Part II - Practices of Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes Chapter 9

Innovation in EAP Programmes: Shifting from Teaching to Learning in Curriculum Design Martin Guardado and Justine Light

111

125

141 143

Chapter 10

The Practice of EAP in Australia: A Rose by Any Other Name? Douglas Bell

Chapter 11

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill Needs through Textbook Supplementation Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

179

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms in Hong Kong Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

199

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers in a University in Singapore Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

219

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand: Making Sense of Genre-Based Instruction Diane Johnson

239

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English: A Dialogic Teaching Approach Rosemarie Brefeld

255

Webquests and Screencasts: Strategies for Teaching EAP at the National University of Singapore Mark Brooke

285

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom Sabina Ho-yan Mak

307

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Index

161

327

PREFACE In the era of globalisation, English has become the world language of research and publication in academia. Apart from native English-speaking countries where English is used as the first language, there are many other countries where English is used as the second language and/or has official status and where it too functions as a major language in higher education. The discipline of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in the field of English language education has become increasingly important. With the rapid growth of students using English for tertiary studies in both native and non-native contexts, it is essential to examine the teaching and learning of EAP in a research perspective, globally, in order to reinforce students’ English language proficiency and help them achieve successful academic communication in the English language learning environment. Reviewing practices in different EAP classrooms can help readers reflect on the effectiveness of current classroom practices and teaching methodologies. The purpose of this book is to provide insightful information on current research and practices in EAP education across different contexts. This book also explores the teaching and learning of English academic discourse in an international perspective so that readers can gain a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of how EAP education is practised in different parts of the world. The first part of the book, Current Research on Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes, focuses on empirical educational research in EAP and its implications for future pedagogical development. The second part of the book, Practices of Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes, is more closely related to the practical issues of course design and delivery in EAP classrooms. This edited volume is designed for undergraduate and postgraduate students on applied linguistics and English language programmes, EAP practitioners, educational researchers and policy-makers. The chapters will bring readers to the forefront of EAP education by exploring current EAP research and practices in both English-speaking and non-English speaking countries. It is a useful reference work for future research

viii

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

development on curriculum planning, material development and teaching methodology in English language classrooms. Last, but by no mean least, the editors would like to extend their heart-felt appreciation to Nova Science Publishers and all the contributors, without whose input this book project would not have been realised. A debt of gratitude is also owed to Dr Leo Hoye for his professional advice on this edited volume.

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong September 2017

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Douglas Bell (PhD) is currently Professor of Education, Head of the School of Education and Executive Director of English Language Education at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China, where he also serves as course leader for the MA TESOL. Prior to his work in China, he was Head of the School of Academic Language and Learning (SALL) at Charles Darwin University, Australia. Douglas has been involved in TESOL since the late 1980s, and has a particular professional interest in the fields of EAP and ESP. He was awarded his PhD from the University of Nottingham, and also holds an MA in Teaching English for International Business and further postgraduate qualifications in EFL, ESP, TESOL and teacher training. His most recent research examines the specific factors which have influenced the historical disciplinary development of EAP, and proposes a socio-cultural framework in accounting for EAP’s current positioning and status. Rosemarie Brefeld (PhD) is an Associate Teaching Professor and the Coordinator of English for Academic Purposes at the University of Missouri, St Louis, USA. She has been teaching English as a Second Language all of her professional life. She has directed English for Academic Purposes programmes at Washington University, and worked in other higher education settings for more than thirty years. She has also published articles in peer-reviewed journals, Linguistics in Education and The Geography Teacher, and has had her work included in The Conference Proceedings for MIDTESOL: Cultivating best practices in ESL, 2013-2014 and in the Missouri Reader (2012). Rosemarie has also had a chapter of her work included in an anthology: English Language Education in a Global World: Research and Practices (2017). Mark Brooke (EdD) is a Lecturer at the National University of Singapore’s Centre for English Language Communication. He received his MSc in TESP from Aston and his Doctorate in Education from the University of Durham. He currently designs and teaches

x

List of Contributors

on Content and Language Integrated Courses (CLIL) to improve first- and second-year undergraduates’ academic research and writing skills. His research interests include CLIL, EAP, SFL, Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and reflective practice. His work has appeared in The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL; and the Asian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. He is co-author (with Ho Mun Wai) of Practical Guide to Project-Based Learning (2017, World Scientific Publishing) published to enable students to conduct and write IMRD papers. Gavin Bui (PhD) is an Associate Professor in the Department of English, Hang Seng Management College, Hong Kong. He obtained his PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests lie in task-based language teaching, development of L2 fluency and lexis, L2 writing, and multilingual motivation. Gavin’s recent publications have appeared in Language Teaching Research (2016, Sage) and TESOL Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching (2017, Wiley). He is a coauthor (with Mark Feng Teng and Laura Man) of Motivational Dynamics in L2 and L3 Learning – Motivation, Identity and Multilingual Education (in press, Springer). Shahrbanoo Cheraghi is an English educator and researcher. She completed her BA in English Translation and MA in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at Islamic Azad University, Iran. Shahrbanoo has been appreciated for upgrading and improving the training status by the Ministry of Education in Iran. Her passion for helping English language learners in all aspects of language acquisition, in particular reading skills, is exemplary. Averil Coxhead (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her research interests include English for specific purposes and English for academic purposes, vocabulary, multi-word units, and measures of vocabulary size. Averil is the author of Vocabulary and English for Specific Purposes Research (2017, Routledge), a co-author with Jennifer Greene of Academic Vocabulary for Middle School Students (2015, Brookes) and the editor of New ways in teaching vocabulary, revised (2014, TESOL). She is currently working on single and multi-word vocabulary in the trades and vocabulary in international school contexts, amongst other projects. Peter De Costa (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Languages at Michigan State University. His primary areas of research are identity and ideology in SLA. He is the author of The Power of Identity and Ideology in Language Learning (Springer, 2016). He also recently edited Ethics in Applied Linguistics Research (Routledge, 2016). His work has appeared in AILA Review, Applied Linguistics Review, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language

List of Contributors

xi

Policy, Language Teaching, Linguistics and Education, Research in the Teaching of English, System, TESOL Quarterly, and The Modern Language Journal. He recently guest edited special journal issues on scalar approaches to language learning and teaching (Linguistics and Education, 2016; with Suresh Canagarajah), and teacher identity (The Modern Language Journal, 2017; with Bonny Norton). He is the incoming co-editor of TESOL Quarterly (starting January 2018). Mary Ellis (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, where she teaches communication skills for teachers, academic discourse skills and information technology in the language classroom. She is the Chief Examiner of the English Language Entrance Proficiency Test (Speaking) at NIE and a certified IELTS examiner. Research interests include information literacy, ICT in education and academic writing. Currently she is involved in a funded research project investigating the correlation between school libraries and reading skills of Singaporean students. She is also a co-developer of an online blended course in communication for teachers at NIE and a mobile application for pronunciation, Well Said, which is based on standard Singapore English pronunciation. She has experience as a presenter at local and overseas conferences and workshops and has also organised and chaired panel presentations. John Everatt (PhD) is Professor of Education at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He received his PhD from the University of Nottingham, UK, and has lectured on education and psychology programmes at universities in New Zealand, England and Wales. His research focuses on literacy acquisition and developmental learning difficulties, and includes work considering literacy skills in a second/additional language, as well as how to identify literacy problems in an additional language and potential interactions across languages within multilinguals. His current work is also looking at how the characteristics of different scripts/orthographies might lead to variations in learning/acquisition. Martin Guardado (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and the Academic Director of the English Language School at the University of Alberta, Canada. His research interests include English for academic purposes, TESL and technology, and heritage language development. His work has appeared in edited books and journals such as Computers and Composition, The Canadian Modern Language Review, and TESOL Quarterly. Diane Johnson (PhD) is an applied linguist and Chair of the School of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. She has published a number of articles on issues in language teaching and learning and has

xii

List of Contributors

conducted a variety of pre- and in-service, teacher-training seminars both in New Zealand and abroad. She has been a principal writer of National Curriculum Guideline documents for the New Zealand Ministry of Education and has co-authored two textbooks on genrebased academic writing. Her research interests are centred on language teaching methodology, language teaching materials development, curriculum and syllabus design, language-teacher training, and discourse analysis as it relates to language teaching. Yushiang Jou (PhD), as a former Fullbright Scholar, holds an MS from the University of Pennsylvania, USA and a PhD from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. His primary research interests in applied linguistics have focused on English for Academic Purposes and Systemic Functional Linguistics. He has taught academic writing courses in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures at National Taiwan University and in the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan. Justine Light is an English for Academic Purposes instructor and curriculum developer in the English Language School at the University of Alberta, Canada. Her teaching and research interests include task-based language teaching, curriculum development and grammar in second language learning. She is also an Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Education and is a Sessional Lecturer in the TESL programme. Sabina Ho-yan Mak (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Centennial College, Hong Kong. She obtained her doctorate in Applied English Linguistics specialising in language teacher education and language development. Her research interests include: teacher beliefs, task-based language teaching, ELT in the Chinese Context, learning task-types for oral enhancement, EAP course design, Academic speaking skills development, language learning strategies and liberal education. She has taught EAP courses to undergraduate students, general English language and ESP courses to secondary school and adult learners, and has conducted various types of activity-based workshops and language enhancement programmes for university and secondary school students in both Hong Kong and Mainland China. As a teacher educator, she has also conducted teacher development workshops/programmes and postgraduate courses for in-service and prospective language teachers. Arthur McNeill (PhD) is Senior Advisor in the School of Humanities and Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). From 2009 until 2016, he was Director of HKUST’s Center for Language Education and Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Science. He was formerly Associate Professor at Hong Kong Baptist University’s Department of Education Studies, Head of the Education Department at Asian University, Thailand, and Head of TESOL at Edinburgh University Moray House School of Education, UK. Recent publications include the co-edited

List of Contributors

xiii

Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing (Multilingual Matters) and the co-authored on-line course English for Academic Studies (Epigeum/OUP). He holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Wales, Swansea, UK. Shota Mukai (PhD) is a Lecturer in Language and Information Studies, Kanagawa Dental University, Japan. He has extensive experience of teaching English to secondarylevel students in Japan as well as teaching Japanese to adult learners in New Zealand. He received a PhD degree from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand in 2017 under the supervision of Averil Coxhead and Jonathan Newton, for the thesis titled ‘Peer Interaction Opportunities for Non-Native-Speaker-of-English International Students in Postgraduate Courses of a NZ University.’ His research interests include English for specific purposes, English for academic purposes, educational interaction, international communication, and discourse analysis. He is currently working on designing a preparation course for Japanese students who aim to participate in EAP/ESP programmes in English-speaking countries. Shirley O’Neill (PhD) is Professor of Language and Literacies Education in the School of Linguistics, Adult and Specialist Education at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. She has a special interest in TESOL, dialogic pedagogy, building students’ capacity and knowledge building. Her teaching includes language and literacy assessment, young second language learners, language programme management and vocational and workplace literacies. With a research focus on ESL/EFL/diverse learners, improvement of formative assessment through the use of mobile video technologies and GAMMA pedagogy, her book Teaching English as a Second Language is widely used in teacher education. She has worked in schools in Australia and the UK and is founder and Editor-in-Chief of the peer reviewed cross-disciplinary International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning. Nick Pilcher (PhD) is a Lecturer in the Business School at Edinburgh Napier University, UK. He is a programme leader for the MSc in Intercultural Business Communication (with TESOL). His research interests centre around language and culture, qualitative research methods, and education. He has published and contributed to articles in journals such as Qualitative Research, Psychology of Music, Teaching in Higher Education, Quality in Higher Education, the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Power and Education, and The International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics. Anitha Devi Pillai (PhD) is a Lecturer in the English Language and Literature Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is the Chief Examiner of the English Language Entrance

xiv

List of Contributors

Proficiency Test (Writing) at NIE and a certified IELTS examiner. At NIE, she teaches courses on Academic Discourse to undergraduates, Academic Writing for Postgraduate Students, Language Teaching Approaches, Language Teaching Experience, Language and Literacy as well as Communication Skills for Teachers. Her doctoral dissertation examined the discourse structures of student research papers and the acculturation practices of students to writing. Her expertise lies in text-analysis of student papers, development of written tests/tasks and in writing pedagogy. She has recently completed funded research projects exploring the impact of peer-review on student’s writing, the role of digital story-writing tools in a language proficiency module and the use of secondary literature in undergraduate students’ academic writing papers. Kendall Richards is a Lecturer in the School of Computing at Edinburgh Napier University, UK. His professional interests include academic support, retention, progression and widening access for international, mature and direct entrants. His research interests are in education as social justice and language. He has presented globally at the European Society of Research in the Education of Adults and the 4th Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin, and has published in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Higher Education Research and Development, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal, and Power and Education. Natalia Romanova (PhD) is a Lecturer of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in the EAP Program at the George Washington University, USA, helping international graduate students master the process and conventions of research writing. She has 20 years of experience in the fields of second language acquisition and education, teaching methodology, curriculum development, assessment, instructional design, and teacher training and is a recipient of several awards for excellence in teaching. Her research interests concern primarily second language learners’ ability to process grammatical information and cognitive mechanisms underlying processing. She is also interested in investigating advanced literacy development in second language learners and effective instructional interventions, including the incorporation of cutting-edge technology into language instruction. Amir Sadeghi (PhD) is a Lecturer of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languges (TESOL) at the Islamic Azad University, Iran and an Adjunct Researcher at the Language and Literacy Research Lab, University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He obtained the UC Doctoral Scholarship for his PhD programme at the University of Canterbury. Amir is interested in language and literacy development among bilingual/multilingual speakers, focusing on how oral language skills are acquired and how they relate to literacy outcomes.

List of Contributors

xv

Abdul Saeed is a PhD Candidate at the College of Education, Health and Human Development at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He completed his MPhil in Applied Linguistics and has been serving in the Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Pakistan as an Assistant Professor of English. He has been teaching English as a Second Language for almost thirteen years. This vast experience has given him an impetus to explore different cognitive aspects of second language writing particularly in adult ESL learners. He has published articles on different aspects of adult ESL learners’ writing. Fredricka L. Stoller (EdD) is Professor of English at Northern Arizona University, USA, where she teaches on the MA-TESL and PhD in Applied Linguistics programmes. She is co-author of Teaching and Researching Reading (2nd ed., 2011, Routledge); coeditor of A Handbook for Language Program Administrators (2nd ed., 2012, Alta English Publishers); and co-author of Write Like a Chemist (2008, Oxford University Press). She has published in numerous journals, including English for Specific Purposes, English Teaching Forum, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, and Reading in a Foreign Language. Her professional areas of interest include L2 reading, content-based instruction, project-based learning, disciplinary writing, teaching methodology, and curriculum design. She has trained EFL teachers, teacher trainers, and language programme administrators in over 30 countries. Eleanor Kashmar Wolf is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics and a Presidential Fellow at Northern Arizona University, USA. She teaches reading courses and develops programme-wide assessment tools for Northern Arizona University’s Program in Intensive English. She has taught English for Academic Purposes in the United States, Peru (as a Fulbright English Teaching Assistant), and Armenia (as an English Language Fellow). During her English Language Fellowship year, she conducted teacher-training workshops and organised a regional English Language Teaching conference. Her primary professional and research interests include L2 academic reading, broadly, and digital reading, more specifically, as well as materials development, and classroom instruction. Lap Tuen Wong (PhD) is Dean of Arts and the Major Coordinator of the BA Programme in Language and Communication at Centennial College, Hong Kong. He has extensive teaching and administrative experience at tertiary level and has published papers in academic journals on topics relating to second language teaching and learning and community college education in Hong Kong. His research interests include needs analysis of second language learners, language teaching methodology, critical discourse analysis (CDA) and post-secondary education in Asia. He received the Teaching Excellence Award from Centennial College in 2015 and 2016 respectively and was

xvi

List of Contributors

awarded the Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fellowship in 2001. Lap Tuen has also served as an Honorary Professor in the Australia Asia Research and Education Foundation. Wai Lam Heidi Wong (PhD) is an Adjunct Lecturer of English in HKU SPACE Community College and a Lecturer (Part-time) in the Department of English at Hang Seng Management College, Hong Kong. She teaches courses on general English, English for academic purposes and business English. Heidi obtained her PhD in Education from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Her research interests lie in the areas of second/foreign language education, critical thinking and the teaching and learning of EAP.

PART I CURRENT RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

WHAT IS THE ‘ACADEMIC PURPOSE’ OF ‘ENGLISH’ IN ‘ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES’? Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards Edinburgh Napier University, UK

ABSTRACT In this chapter, we suggest abandoning the current form of EAP for a form of EAP that is actively explorative of and taught within individual subject contexts. We argue that for students to meet the ‘academic purposes’ in academic subjects requires them to think in these subjects, and that this thinking is expressed through the contextualised ‘English’ they use. Accordingly, we argue that although many of the base elements of EAP (e.g. focus on academic style, organisation of content and so on) are sound, the underlying ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ in ‘English for Academic Purposes’ is linguistic, and only trains students to think ‘English for Academic Purposes’. Instead, the ‘English’ to prepare and support students in their subjects must be aligned with the ‘academic purpose’ and thinking of those subjects. We first review literature related to EAP and then review theories and empirical studies around the importance of context and thought to language. Following this, we draw on empirical data from interviews with subject content lecturers in the broad subject areas of Psychology, Nursing, Engineering, and Design regarding the ‘academic purposes’ of describing and critically evaluating an object (in this case a teapot) from their subject perspective. What these lecturers say illustrates how the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ for their subjects necessitates thinking in the subject. We argue that we need to be teaching (and students need to be learning) thinking, ‘academic purpose’ and ‘English’ in the academic subjects, and not teaching the subject of English. We propose an existential refocusing of current EAP, from its current linguistic focus, to one that explores and emulates the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ in subjects and develops this usage through training students to think in the subject.

4

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

Keywords: EAP, ESP, ‘English’, subject context

INTRODUCTION Sufi tradition tells the famous story of the twelfth-century fool and sage, the mullah Nasruddin, on his hands and knees searching under a street light. ‘What are you looking for?’ his neighbours ask. ‘My key,’ he replies. The neighbours all join in the search, carefully and systematically perusing every inch of ground in the vicinity of the lamp. No one finds the key. ‘Wait, Nasruddin,’ someone finally says, ‘just where did you lose this key?’ ‘In my house.’ ‘Then why are you looking out here?’ ‘Because I can see much better here, under the light.’ (Maté, 2011, p. 242)

In this chapter we argue the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ in ‘English for Academic Purposes’ is too focused on being for ‘English for Academic Purposes’ and needs to be abandoned in favour of an ‘English’ that helps students express ‘academic purpose’ and thinking in their subjects. Analogously with the Sufi tale above, we argue EAP has always tried to find the key to help students through taking English as a linguistically analysable and deliverable objectivised entity (where EAP can see better), but that the real place it should be looking for information is in the academic subjects themselves (where the ‘English’ really is). We use a teapot (see Figure 1.1) as a tool to illustrate how the ‘English’ subject lecturers (Nursing; Psychology; Design; Engineering) use for the ‘academic purpose’ of describing and critically evaluating an object is inextricably connected with thinking in the subject (i.e. as a Nurse, a Psychologist, a Designer or an Engineer). We propose an existential refocusing of EAP to be on the thinking and ‘academic purpose’, and thus, the contextualised ‘English’ of subjects. Our chapter is structured as follows: first we review literature and research around the ‘English’ and ‘content’ of EAP, and then literature outlining the importance of context to language use. Following this we describe our method and sample before presenting and discussing our data. We end by suggesting ways forward for EAP.

THE ‘ACADEMIC PURPOSE’ OF THE ‘ENGLISH’ AND ‘CONTENT’ OF EAP In EAP courses, academic argument is considered generically and linguistically (Bacha, 2010; Wingate, 2012b). Critical analysis is contrasted with description as though the two are composite entities (Woodward-Kron, 2002), or critique is considered regarding how students in an EAP context be helped with it (Kiely, 2004). Whenever such critique is analysed in the subject area this is done so linguistically (e.g. Bruce,

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

5

2016). Although aspects such as culture (Xu et al., 2016), academic literacies and social practices (e.g. Wingate, 2011a) are considered. Yet, what is not considered is how this critique is appropriated in the actual subject context, i.e. whether it would alter in its ‘academic purpose’ and the ‘English’ used if it were, for example, a ‘nursing’ critique or an ‘engineering’ critique. Such a focus is inaccessible to EAP because its focus is a linguistic one of genre, corpora or systemic functional linguistics, i.e. the thinking and ‘academic purpose’ of EAP’s ‘English’ is for EAP. Further, when EAP is embedded into courses, this is done to promote EAP rather than prioritise the subject. For example, the Contextualised Embedded Model (Sloan & Porter, 2010, p. 199) is ‘a practice-based model designed to improve the management, design and delivery of EAP [our italics].’ It is similarly argued there is a perennial need of ‘educating administrators’ about ‘what it is that we [EAP/ESP practitioners] do and why it is important’ (Swales et al., 2001, p. 455). Also, ‘that ESP practitioners have a legitimate role in providing instruction to IMGs [International Medical Graduates]’ (Hoekje, 2007, p. 328) in acculturating into the US medical context. EAP also continually seeks to establish its transferability (e.g. James, 2014) to students’ ‘real’ academic contexts (cf. Gillett & Wray, 2006). With regard to ‘content’, what is considered ‘content’ in the EAP literature is specific to EAP rather than to specific subjects. For example, Garner and Borg (2005) define ‘content’ as a textbook about a generic issue (global Issues) and argue this should be the focus of the EAP course rather than standard aspects of EAP such as genre, corpora and so on. EAP content is indeed usually described as being ‘EAP’: for example, integrating ‘EAP’ reading and ‘EAP’ listening (Murphy, 1996), or, in ‘EAP’ focused materials, for example ‘The making of Modern Japan’ to develop summary writing (McCormack & Slaght, 2005), or ‘The application of renewable energy technology in remote areas’ for writing conclusions (ibid, 60). In the latter two examples, the focus is on linguistic analysis for the ‘academic purpose’ of EAP rather than the ‘academic purpose’ of History or Engineering. Often, EAP materials draw on newspapers to give writing tasks on Statistics (e.g. Pallant, 2004), or on the sizes of mountains and the lengths of rivers to help with comparison and contrast (Jordan, 1999). Processes are taught to consist of certain stages of, for example, making paper (Jordan, 1999). Here it is implicitly assumed that students will need to describe processes, and that if students are describing a process, similar ‘English’ and ‘academic purpose’ will apply. Elsewhere, EAP considers risks and hazards in the context of a university field trip, contextualising language for probability in terms of everyday events such as the weather in the UK or learning English on a computer (Argent & Alexander, 2010). EAP’s ‘academic purpose’ is to get students to think in terms of linguistic features such as textual ones of fiction, scientific text, Greek myth and so on (Cox & Hill, 2004). Even arguments for more academic discipline writing instruction focus on writing rather than the subject and consider such elements as critical thinking from a generic

6

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

linguistic perspective rather than a subject fronted one (e.g. Gimenez, 2008). Arguments and discussion often focus on how EAP contrasts with EFL (Alexander et al., 2008) or on how specific the ‘E’ should be (e.g. Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). For example, the fact that Thai engineering students need to read in English is argued to justify a need for EAP rather than for reading in English in their subject content of Engineering (Ward, 2009). Subjects are typically assumed to have writing which is the same, or equally valued as an assessment tool, as for example, when IELTS writing is compared with the writing of a huge range of subjects to look for correlation (Moore & Morton, 2005), or when EAP writing of pre-sessional students is assessed using EAP criteria (Seviour, 2015). Even EAP teacher training criteria focus on the linguistic ‘English’ rather than the subject, and when the subject is emphasised, this is in the sense of linguistically understanding the ‘English’ within it rather than the subject (Alexander et al., 2008). Further, that any teacher methodology is of teaching EAP rather than the subject (Todd, 2003). Thus, from its inception, and throughout its history and development, the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ for EAP has always been (Jordan, 2002), and its sub-fields have increasingly been; linguistic (e.g. genre, corpus linguistics, systemic functional linguistics). Research is done linguistically into writing processes (e.g. Woodward-Kron, 2009), into using genre to analyse plenary speech structure (Shalom, 1993), small and large class lecture introductions (Lee, 2009), abstracts (Swales & Feak, 2009), introductions (Feak & Swales, 2011), literature reviews (Feak & Swales, 2009), or linguistic studies of writing in, for example, the sciences (Selzer, 1993). Indeed, it is argued that EAP textbooks could work more effectively they are researched more from linguistic perspectives (Harwood, 2005), using corpora for example. However, these easy to see linguistic features mean that EAP fails to look to the crucial importance of subject context to the thinking, academic purpose and English students need.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBJECT CONTEXT TO THE ‘ACADEMIC PURPOSE’ OF ‘ENGLISH’ Philosophically, context is key to language as it gives it meaning in a chain of unending dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981), a continual oscillating process between words and thoughts (Vygotsky, 1934). Words alter their meaning according to their context, having meanings for the addresser and addressee within a specific context (Bakhtin, 1986). The ‘academic purpose’ of any ‘English’, and thus the ‘English’ used, will alter depending on the context of its use. Importantly, when removed from context and studied independently, such language becomes decontextualised and neutralised, somewhat akin to how dictionary definitions define language (Bakhtin, 1986). Such removal is only of

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

7

the inert hardened crust of the language (Voloshinov, 1929) and is based on an abstract objectivist view of language that sees language as stable, immutable, and removable for study and teaching (Voloshinov, 1929). Yet, language has underpinning ideological and individual elements (Voloshinov, 1929), is connected with thought (Vygotsky, 1934), and thus linked to developing knowledge. Words can have individual subject context meanings and how lecturers and students understand key assessment terms differs greatly (Richards & Pilcher, 2013, 2014). Thus, although the ‘English’ may on the surface appear linguistically the same, its ‘academic purpose’ can be very much subject determined, for example how nurses and designers use ‘empathy’ differently (Pilcher & Richards, 2016) or how lecturers use key assessment terms differently according to subject areas (Richards & Pilcher, 2014). Further, significant non-textual elements are intertwined with language when it is placed in its subject context, meaning that words cannot be counted in a corpus due to their having different meanings in different contexts (Richards & Pilcher, 2016). Thus, underpinning any ‘English’ usage are key psychological and ideological elements, or paradigmatic hearts (Pilcher & Richards, 2016) such as emotional and empathetic elements in nursing, or numerical and profit generating aspects in business (ibid). Such elements underline the importance of context and the inextricable coupling of language and thought (Vygotsky, 1934), meaning that the ‘English’ used depends and changes with the context. Whatever context (‘academic purpose’) the language (‘English’) is taught in dictates how that language is linked with the thoughts. The context creates the thinking through a process of moving back and forth between words and thoughts (Vygotsky, 1934). Hence, the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ used, and the ‘English’ used itself will alter according to each specific subject.

METHOD AND SAMPLE Our data are taken from interviews with subject lecturers (n = 21) in the broad subject areas of Nursing (n = 5), Psychology (n = 5), Design (n = 5) and Engineering (n = 6). Interviews were approved by the relevant ethics committees (cf. Christians, 2011) and lasted an average of 22 minutes each. These interviews were then transcribed by the authors (cf. Bird, 2005) and analysed diffractively (Mazzei, 2014) using a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2011) and continual reading and re-reading of the data for emergent themes. Our task had no set interview questions. Rather, we presented a teapot (see Figure 1.1) to each lecturer as a focus to explore the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ in the subject. We asked each lecturer how they themselves (or how their students) would describe and critically evaluate the object from their own perspective: as nurses; psychologists, designers or engineers. In this way, the teapot served as a focus to explore

8

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

subject-contextualised use of ‘English’ to fulfil ‘academic purposes’. In Figure 1.1, the photograph of the teapot is black and white but the actual teapot is boldly coloured in blue, yellow and orange.

Figure 1.1. Teapot.

DATA In this section we now present our data to show how the different subject lecturers described and critically evaluated the teapot from their own specific subject perspectives.

1. Nursing Lecturers For nurses, when asked to describe and critically evaluate the teapot a number of comments related to cleanliness, for example, that ‘I’m a bit concerned because… it’s very dusty… we’d want it cleaned up a bit before we’re using it for anything.’ Another key concern for nurses was that of safety, for example that, ‘if there were any substances in it… then it might have to be locked away… patients could get hold of it.’ There may also be key issues with burning: ‘with mental health and burning… rules about where you pour cups of tea how you deliver them to the locker what kind of cups you put tea in… if somebody’s infirm… can’t drink properly or… likely to drop or wobble… this is breakable, our teapots are all stainless steel in hospitals’ Compassion was a key element: ‘it’s underpinned by compassion… thinking about person-centred care… we also need to think about is a relationship-centred care.’ Practicality was also a key consideration, and that we ‘might just have to simulate tea out of it because I think it’s probably too heavy and not the appropriate handle for lifting it

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

9

or moving it.’ Related to this was the idea of requiring training: ‘people possibly would need some additional training to use it.’ In a midwifery context, the size of the teapot was important: ‘it’s way too small, midwife you need a pot which is about the size of an urn… if it’s going round a ward of patients’ Suitability was another key consideration, the teapot could be suited to older patients, in that, ‘especially older people with dementia… bringing some… things back that they would have been involved in when they were younger just to jog their memory.’ The teapot may also be suitable for children in that, ‘we could… see if they would want to sort of play with it, but it’d be too heavy for them to lift… and… if they dropped it and broke it then it would probably be quite a sort of health and safety thing.’ With mental health nursing the teapot could be used to help make a clinical environment more suitable: ‘in an acute sort of mental health setting where people are, maybe got potential to be aggressive… if you say to them ‘Here, what do you think of that teapot, do you like it? Let’s put it on that shelf’ and if they like it, they will look after it.’ In a midwifery context, ‘if that woman thinks having a pot of tea in the first stage of labour with her partner or sister or whatever is going to make her more relaxed, have a better birth experience… this might be an item which was her grandmother’s or her mother’s. She wants it to be part of her experience.’ In a Learning Disability context the ideas of actually making a teapot and of its social associations were key: ‘having a cup of tea from a whacky teapot… a cup of tea can be a social thing… a reassuring thing, comforting thing, you can tell bad news over a cup of tea, you can comfort someone… you can construct relationships… having a cake with it you know, so for pleasure.’ Underpinning literature for such elements could be ‘in relation to the children… and accident prevention there’s ROSPA… to find out you know… the likely accidents… at certain ages’ or, ‘occupational therapy guidelines what sort of activities would be used with the elderly’ and ‘some underpinning literature on that in relation to hygiene.’ Regarding safety, ‘information… in patient safety programmes… along the lines of safe administration of medication, falls prevention, tissue viability, and a lot of it is about risk assessment.’ Description and critique in midwifery may well be informed by ‘the reflection in practice you know, like Gibbs’ reflection in practice.’ In Learning Disability such literature would be related to ‘lots of evidence about the importance of building relationships with people with learning disabilities… around engagement with people with learning disabilities… Emerson, 2008 I think… Bob Gates… Linda Hulme’ Sometimes, nursing lecturers would comment on how their thoughts and academic and purpose were informed by a particular mindset; that ‘I’m always looking at things from a safety aspect from a caring aspect from a health aspect from a hygiene aspect… looking and thinking and observing’ or, ‘as soon as you said teapot I was already thinking cups of tea, making things… I think that’s just a mindset you know I wasn’t thinking about circumference or the height you know… I was thinking ‘Oh, we could make that!’ And that’d be a really good thing to do.’

10

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

Thus, the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ for description and critique in Nursing involved thinking around safety, compassion, practicality, and suitability. Such elements were underpinned by individual care and compassion. All these aspects underpinned the ‘academic purpose’ of the description and evaluation and the ‘English’ used, and were underpinned by subject specific references, both academic and official.

2. Psychology Lecturers In Psychology, descriptions and evaluations of the teapot were closely linked with perception. For example, ‘in autism, children would be attracted to it because of its colours… it could have a gamelike or a cartoon resemblance.’ However, this had to be balanced with safety as, ‘when we talk about autism, if they get burned… that will be enough for them to forget… all the positive connotations and say I never touch this pot again I hate this pot.’ Any perception would be very much linked to emotion, ‘maybe it gives the idea of warmth because tea is usually warm you know, there is a set of other things… maybe it reminds you of when you had tea with your mum and dad… of your grandma that always made you tea… so an emotional component.’ However, ‘maybe actually they’re very negative because you lived in a household that was very violent and everything, the boiler [sic. kettle] was going, you know, it brings about an argument.’ For therapists, description and critical evaluation were very much linked with perception of the person who had made the teapot and its impact on others: ‘I’m interested in people, relationships so instantly I go about what’s the person behind it and what’s his or her relationship with that object and then… what impact this teapot has on me on others and… that’s… when I see it attracts my attention is it to my taste?’ Thus, ‘the object is about… the meaning that we attach, but it’s the meaning that the other person who’s creating the object is attaching… then it is whether I can identify with the meaning or I can identify with their own viewpoint.’ Regarding psychology and aesthetics, ‘what makes something pleasant to look at… you’ve got complementary colours… the blue and the orange.’ In particular, ‘the sort of dimensions of the teapot whether it is aesthetically pleasing… the magic rules of aesthetics.’ Shapes would be important, ‘there’s certain spaces that you need to use or there’s a triangular formation that seems to be particularly attractive… where your eyes move naturally and it sort leads you into one part and another… we’ve got eye tracking equipment here.’ Any evaluation in terms of psychology and aesthetics would need to consider, ‘does it sort of break… the golden rules of aesthetics and maybe that’s why people don’t find it as attractive as maybe another teapot’ Evaluation could be focused on methods. In child psychology the teapot could be used to look at drawing methods of visual or intellectual realism: ‘what young children under 7 do is they draw it from an intellectual realism perspective so they would always

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

11

draw it side on even though it wasn’t side on, and they would always draw the handle and the spout so that is a way of analysing your teapot from a psychological perspective.’ In social psychology, the teapot may determine the outcome of a meeting, where one group could be having a meeting about something and the teapot would suddenly be brought in. In aesthetics, methodological considerations might involve, ‘this technique called the consensual assessment technique where you get judges who are kind of experts to independently rate the creativity of an object.’ Underpinning literature for such elements could be highly subject specific in nature, and would be unique in the thinking and ‘English’ used. Thus, in psychology, the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ for any description and critique very much involved thinking around perception, both of the creator, of the person undertaking the evaluation, or of those working with the object. It also could involve aesthetics, and could be very much linked with describing and critiquing methods and approaches. It would be underpinned by key academic literature and theories. This academic purpose would express students’ thoughts and be very much linked with the ‘English’ used. As one lecturer commented: ‘thought only exists within the language framework… if you change the language then the thought process will change… the more advanced your language the more advanced is your thinking, end of.’

3. Design Lecturers The element of the visual was very prominent in description or critique of the teapot in Design. This often referred to theories, for example, that ‘maybe… post-modern because the Memphis group for example use very bright colours… before… was very minimalistic.’ The idea of unpicking things visually was key: ‘purely visually I would kind of unpick, just like an art piece and look at the texture and colour and the balance, the form. But as far as design is concerned the function of that, what is it responding to, what is needed when somebody designed this.’ Also, in Advertising design, ‘it sort of echoes… something art deco… about it for me, and also something quite post-modern and… from the Memphis style… Eltore Sottsass, he was the Italian designer. But that would probably be more angular, it is the polkadot patterning and the colours that give me that sort of feel.’ In product design, the creation process was key to any evaluation: ‘From a designer's point of view… I would be questioning why they had done all the things with the form, surface, texture, colouring, patterning, decoration that they had done, I would be saying that it is maybe unprofessional, but maybe more of a craft-based sort of origin.’ Further that, ‘well, if you are talking to students you need to talk about how there is a decision behind every element of design of every object. A lot of people don't really appreciate that before they start generating forms and objects themselves… It is about a considered

12

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

decision at each stage of the process.’ Often, functionality was key. For example, in architecture and interior design, ‘my first thought when you talk about the teapot is does it pour well?’ In design, often the description and critique would involve undertaking some research, ‘another module I taught called visual research methods and you can unpick things visually. I would probably get the students to do some semiotic analysis of that. What do the colours mean to them? What do they think the colours mean contextually? What does the form mean? The way that is handmade, shiny, unpick it semiotically.’ Higher level assessments may mean contextualising these processes in a wider societal perspective. The research could involve designing and making a number (up to 100) of teapots, for example that, ‘I would be asking them to critically reflect on the process of making the teapot. And so that what they end up with is in knowing for themselves about the process of making. They would have an intention, they might sketch, they might look at other teapots, they might try to pour with them, try to critically evaluate and figure out what works and what doesn't. We might have a process of filmmaking or something that allows us to observe things.’ Often, visuals would be used rather than writing: ‘what we have done in our Chinese teaching with things like this is to encourage the students to make a one-minute little presentation film. Almost as an infomercial which covers their process and how to user test it, and it becomes a really, really rich record of it. It allows a great tool for distance learning.’ Such research could also involve studying other people’s reactions as well: ‘You could put it in a place and observe people interacting with that. That might have some benefits for design students… in third year actually... that sort of physical interaction, how people held it. If they expressed any distaste or positive feelings towards it… When it was dropped, when it was smashed, when it was spilled.’ Regarding references underpinning these elements, ‘it depends… there would be philosophy references, they would be phenomenologists.’ For product design, ‘there would be using lots of contemporary resources all the time. Looking at design magazines and encouraging them to engage online with design publications and all that sort of stuff. We try and get them to dig into some historical things as well.’ Also, although writing was important: ‘probably the last thing I would do with the type of students that I've got is initially to do a piece of critical writing… if I was to ask a cohort of Chinese students, English students and Lithuanian say to talk about this there would be much more empowered and much more enriched through showing a thirty second film than writing on it.’ Thus, in design, the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ involved thinking about the process of making the teapot, of how it was designed, possibly also to make teapots themselves. Also, observing and thinking about how others reacted to it, to try and unpick visually what colours were used, why, and for what purpose. The specific design school

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

13

could be considered, and often for the ‘academic purposes’ of description and critique, a more film-based visual presentation was used, underpinned by a range of references, including philosophical references or design magazine type references.

4. Engineering Lecturers For engineers, calculation, materials and analysis were often key. Evaluation of the teapot could involve seeing how it performed, for example in ‘QFD – Quality Function Deployment… they will be provided with three different examples of a particular artefact, say three coffeemakers… and then… we use other groups as… consumers… to use it and assess the coffee that was made by the coffee maker.’ Often, students would be asked to design a product themselves: ‘I teach… Integrated engineering design, and one of the things that we do… is get students to think about what products are used for rather than just accept that our product appears.’ Such evaluations would help students understand simplicity as, ‘the biggest problem we have is over-complexity. Because they don't have any experience making decisions, they think it has to be something that is really complicated. They go overboard so the job is to rein them in.’ Functionality was also key, but seen from an engineering rather than a design perspective, ‘in engineering terms, it's [the teapot] overcomplicated for the use of what it needs to be. There is a lot of finery and additional… I mean look at the lid here, there's this spring effect going around the lid which is purely decorative, the handle is overly complex for what it needs to be… in engineering terms I would expect things to be clean, neat and efficient.’ Connected to functionality were materials design and considerations, for example, ‘It's got the right thermal properties… as an engineer I would imagine, probably because of its porous structure and it's made of clay, it's been fired but it would be very brittle if you dropped it. The spout would probably break and wee ball on the top would probably fall off.’ This lecturer explained that, ‘this year, one of my reports was a 1L, carbonated drinks vessel. They had to critically evaluate the application to get the properties required and then to work out the materials you could use. And then from the choice of materials which would be evaluated they would then choose the manufacturing process. That is year two’ Critique and evaluation could also be according to particular aspects such as thermal fluid properties: ‘I could look at ductility and brittleness of the ceramic… I might look at this and say putting hot water in here, 100°C, what is the thermal conductivity of this material. How quickly will my tea cool down? In this pot. Looking at the shape of the spout, and the diameter of your spout – we've been doing some work this semester looking at friction losses in pipes so... as you are tipping the pot you would be able to, in very rough terms, calculate a flowrate.’

14

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

Other engineering descriptions and critiques could be mathematical. For example that ‘as a mathematician you could describe it in lots of ways. You could imagine it as a solid of revolutions… or you could be thinking about what it holds – volume. So, it's a 3-D object… when I talk to students about turning points of surfaces I actually get them to imagine a mountain usually. The maximum is the top of the mountain and you could equally do the same for this teapot. We would measure it using calculus.’ In architecture, description could be related to Disney, for example: ‘Disneyesque is possibly a good way of describing it… these days we live in a very rational society… from the point of view of architecture, we try and minimise the amount of material and have buildings as rational as possible… this is a departure from that.’ In some types of engineering, references were not as important as students being able to, for example, ‘demonstrate… understanding by applying it. That's what's important here. Don't get me wrong I'm not arguing against the need for references when that's appropriate.’ Further that ‘You might not be searching for information until you decide what the information is… you need. The information might first of all be what other competitors for this product. It might be what the known problems with the existing products are… some other information that you need might well be what do consumers think about this? What do they find difficult? Possibly not going to find that when you literature search.’ Elsewhere, references would be needed to support particular claims: ‘if they come up with a property of it's got to have high heat resistance, I would then expect them to reference some literature that states what that temperature should be and therefore the material can be used and reference that.’ Such writing and references may be numerical: ‘numerical work, numerical analysis. In terms of written prose, not a great deal.’ Thus, in engineering, the ‘academic purpose’ of the description and evaluation, and the ‘English’ that would be used was very much focused on thinking around and conveying knowledge about function, material, purpose, and also design. Such evaluation could be done mathematically, and calculations were heavily relied on to evaluate properties and capabilities of the object. It was very much how it had been engineered, and this underpinned the ‘academic purpose’ of the ‘English’ used.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Taking a teapot and using it as a tool to ask lecturers in the very broad areas of Nursing, Psychology, Design and Engineering how they would critique and describe it reveals much about the ‘academic purpose’ underpinning the thoughts and the ‘English’ used (cf. Vygotsky, 1962). This ‘English’ is inextricably connected to thought, not in a deterministic linguistic Whorfian sense, but in a contextual (cf. Voloshinov, 1929) way to frame and channel the ‘English’ used. In Nursing, the ‘academic purpose’ of the

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

15

‘English’ requires thinking about compassion, emotion, safety, and care. Yet, in Nursing a wide range of critically evaluative aspects existed, often such a purpose could be to remind patients of home, to be a comfort during childbirth, to be an activity of construction involving very little English. Likewise, in Psychology, a range of possible evaluative aspects existed, again very much defined by the context. Often the description and critique and perceptions involved academic purposes and thinking about the effect the teapot would have on others, as well as the rationale and motivation of the person who made the teapot. In Design the academic purpose was very much according to visual criteria, and may be linked to function or to particular schools of thought, such as the Memphis school. Thoughts also related to the creation of the teapot, form over function, or its perception by others, all requiring expression with a context specific ‘English’. In Engineering, description and critique could be mathematical, and could be functional (in an engineering sense), based on the material properties of the object. In terms of references, these ranged from government Nursing guidelines, to mathematical theorems, to different designers, to Wikipedia, and to more traditional journal sources. At times, although writing was considered important, it may not be needed, especially when the critique would involve a film or a mathematical calculation. Context (Bakhtin, 1982; Voloshinov, 1929) was of fundamental importance to the academic purpose of the ‘English’ and the thinking and sources used. In our interviews we did not see any of the thoughts or possible uses of English that we see in EAP literature or research, and that we have ourselves previously taught in EAP. For example, if we take the process of paper manufacture from Jordan (1999) referred to above, as EAP specialists we have focused on the linguistic form of the passive when teaching this, as textbooks and EAP guides advocate. We encourage students to think linguistically and the academic purpose is assumed generic. Yet, the above data would suggest that for Nurses, this process would involve thinking and communicating knowledge of safety, compassion, and the impact of the environment (e.g. noise) on certain patients. For Engineers, it may involve calculating the ductility of the components, measuring ventilation and cooling. In each case the thinking would revolve around specific elements to underpin the academic purpose and thus mean different ‘English’ was used. What, then is the ‘Purpose’ of the ‘Academic English’ in English for Academic Purposes? The literature and materials reviewed above arguably show that the purpose is linguistic. We cannot see how this can help prepare students for the subjects we described here. We see no similarities of thinking or academic purpose between the English used in EAP and that used in the above subjects regarding purpose or underlying elements of description and evaluation. In short, if someone is successful in EAP this shows they have been able to perform in the context of EAP. What it has not shown is their ability to fulfil the ‘academic purpose’ in the ‘English’ and thinking required for Design, Nursing, Psychology, or Engineering.

16

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

We thus advocate an existential refocusing of EAP from linguistics to the subject. If EAP focuses on style, it needs to focus on style in the subject. If it focuses on the purpose of the English used, it needs to focus on how this is done in the subject. Argument is not generic (contra Wingate, 2012), and neither is critical evaluation (contra WoodwardKron, 2002). The ‘English’ is not immutable, stable and removable for analysis and teaching (Voloshinov, 1929) in a generic EAP context. Instead, it is undertaken uniquely in each subject. EAP needs to focus on how these elements are undertaken in the specific subjects the students are studying. For too long, analogously with Nasruddin in the Sufi tale quoted at the start of this chapter, EAP has been searching for the key to help students under the light of linguistics because it is here, in linguistics, that EAP can see better. Yet, the purpose of the academic English here can only be for EAP itself. Like the mullah Nasruddin, instead of looking simply where it can see better in the ‘light’ of linguistics, EAP needs to start looking for the key in the house where it has lost it, i.e. in the subject. To restate the words of one of the lecturers above: ‘thought only exists within the language framework… if you change the language then the thought process will change… the more advanced your language the more advanced is your thinking, end of.’ By existentially refocusing EAP on the ‘academic purpose’ on the ‘English’ within its subject context we will be connecting the language with the thought processes of the subject and at the same time helping advance student thinking processes.

REFERENCES Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher's guide to principles and practice. Reading, England: Garnet. Alexander, O., Bell, D., Cardew, S., King, J., Pallant, A., Scott, M., Thomas, D., & Goodbody, M. W. (2008). Competency framework for teachers of English for Academic Purposes. Retrieved from https://www.baleap.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/04/teap-competency-framework.pdf Argent, S., & Alexander, O. (2010). Access EAP. Reading, England: Garnet Education. Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229-241. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V.W. McGee, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bird, C. M. (2005). How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qualitative inquiry, 11(2), 226-248. Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in University essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

17

Charmaz, K. (2011) Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In Denzin, N. K & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 359-380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 61-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cox, K., & Hill, D. (2004). English for academic purposes: EAP now!. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Feak, C. B, & Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Feak, C.B and Swales, J.M (2011) Creating contexts: Writing introductions across genres, revised and expanded edition of English in today’s research world, vol. 3. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Garner, M., & Borg, E. (2005). An ecological perspective on content-based instruction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 119-134. Gillett, A. J., & Wray, L. (Eds.). (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of EAP programmes. London, England: BALEP. Gimenez, J. (2008). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline-specific writing in nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 151-164. Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 149-161. Hoekje, B. J. (2007). Medical discourse and ESP courses for international medical graduates (IMGs). English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 327-343. Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 1(1), 1-12. James, M. A. (2014). Learning transfer in English-for-academic-purposes contexts: A systematic review of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 1-13. Jordan, R. R. (1999). Academic writing course: Study skills in English. Harlow: Longman. Jordan, R. R. (2002). The growth of EAP in Britain. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 69-78. Kiely, R. (2004). Learning to critique in EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 211-227. Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small-and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42-57 Mazzei, L.A (2014). Beyond an easy sense: A diffractive analysis qualitative inquiry, 20(6), 742 – 746. McCormack, J., & Slaght, J. (2005). English for academic study: Extended writing & research skills. Reading, England: Garnet Education.

18

Nick Pilcher and Kendall Richards

Moore, T., & Morton, J. (2005). Dimensions of difference: A comparison of university writing and IELTS writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 43-66. Murphy, J. M. (1996). Integrating listening and reading instruction in EAP programs. English for Specific Purposes, 15(2), 105-120. Pallant, A. (2004). English for academic study: Writing: Course book. Reading, England: Garnet Education. Pilcher, N., & Richards, K. (2016). The paradigmatic hearts of subjects which their ‘English’ flows through. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-14. Richards, & Pilcher, N. (2013) ‘Discuss, analyse, define…. Non-traditional students come to terms with cultures of learning in the UK. In Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (Eds), Researching intercultural learning: Investigations in language and education (pp. 135-151). Hampshire, England: Palgrave MacMillan. Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2014). Contextualising higher education assessment task words with an ‘anti-glossary’approach. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(5), 604-625. Richards, K., & Pilcher, N. (2016). An individual subjectivist critique of the use of corpus linguistics to inform pedagogical materials. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 4. Selzer, J. (Ed.). (1993). Understanding scientific prose. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Seviour, M. (2015). Assessing academic writing on a pre-sessional EAP course: Designing assessment which supports learning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 84-89. Shalom, C. (1993). Established and evolving spoken research process genres: Plenary lecture and poster session discussions at academic conferences. English for specific purposes, 12(1), 37-50. Sloan, D., & Porter, E. (2010). Changing international student and business staff perceptions of in-sessional EAP: Using the CEM model. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 198-210. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swales, J. M., Barks, D., Ostermann, A. C., & Simpson, R. C. (2001). Between critique and accommodation: Reflections on an EAP course for masters of architecture students. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 439-458. Todd, R. W. (2003). EAP or TEAP?. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2(2), 147-156. Vološinov, V. N., Matejka, L., & Titunik, I. R. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York, NY: Seminar Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

What Is the ‘Academic Purpose’ of ‘English’ …

19

Ward, J. (2009). EAP reading and lexis for Thai engineering undergraduates. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 294-301. Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154. Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A ‘literacy’ journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26-37. Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for academic purposes, 1(2), 121-143. Woodward-Kron, R. (2009). ‘This means that…’ A linguistic perspective of writing and learning in a discipline. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 165-179. Xu, M., Huang, C., & You, X. (2016). Reasoning patterns of undergraduate theses in translation studies: An intercultural rhetoric study. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 68-81.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

VOCABULARY IN EAP: UNDERGRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE DIFFERENCES IN HONG KONG Arthur McNeill Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT It has long been recognised that insufficient vocabulary knowledge represents a serious obstacle to academic success. Some recent studies have suggested that the vocabulary size required of university students may be higher than previously assumed, with Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010) recommending that the optimal threshold is the knowledge of 8,000 word families. Since many students currently enter university knowing fewer than 3,000 words, it follows that EAP courses should attach priority to students’ vocabulary growth. Unfortunately, the vocabulary goals of many EAP courses are restricted to the acquisition and use of academic (sub-technical) words. In fact, vocabulary research in EAP has been largely dominated by the production and evaluation of academic wordlists. This chapter advocates a broader approach to vocabulary within EAP and proposes that discipline-specific (technical) vocabulary needs to be addressed. Recent research has concluded that the role played by technical vocabulary in specialised texts has been significantly under-estimated (e.g. Chung & Nation, 2004). The chapter also reports a study that explores the potential of a customised version of the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) as a learning tool. LFP was developed by Laufer and Nation (1995) and was originally intended for assessment purposes. The software provides a profile of a piece of writing by assigning each of the words to its frequency level in English. When used by language learners rather than teachers, LFP allows students to check the lexical richness of their written texts and make appropriate adjustments to the vocabulary content before submitting a final draft. In the study, the

22

Arthur McNeill LFP software was reconfigured, replacing the original frequency-based wordlists with Hong Kong’s four new official English wordlists for primary and secondary schools. It is argued that a LFP based on local lists is likely to be more meaningful to learners who use the software to monitor and redraft their written output, particularly if the prescribed vocabulary of individual university courses is included in the customised software. The results of the study, which examined initial and revised drafts produced by undergraduate and research postgraduate students, suggest that undergraduate students can benefit substantially from the feedback provided by LFP. The initial drafts produced by the research postgraduates already demonstrated high levels of lexical richness, including familiarity with the technical vocabulary of their specialisms. Addressing vocabulary development within EAP appears to represent a particular challenge at undergraduate level.

Keywords: Academic vocabulary, academic writing, technical vocabulary, assessment for learning

INTRODUCTION One of the main challenges facing university EAP programmes globally is how to equip students with an adequate vocabulary for studying successfully through the medium of English. The problem is particularly acute in Hong Kong, where the majority of local undergraduates enter university knowing fewer than 3,000 English words (Chiu, 2005; Fan, 2000). Although it has long been recognised that insufficient vocabulary knowledge represents a serious obstacle to academic success, much of the related interest within EAP circles has tended to focus on academic vocabulary and the creation of lists of academic words which might form part of an EAP curriculum. This chapter discusses university students’ English vocabulary needs in a broad sense and makes a case for looking beyond academic words in EAP. In a field in which at least three academic wordlists are now influential (Coxhead, 2000; Browne, Culligan, & Philips, 2013; Gardner & Davies, 2014) and where little consensus exists about the ideal composition of academic wordlists (Hyland & Tse, 2007) and their role in EAP instruction, it may be appropriate to consider the vocabulary content of university EAP courses from the perspective of student needs. Durrant (2016) has highlighted some of the limitations of academic wordlists in supporting students with discipline-related academic writing. The chapter also reports a small-scale study which attempts to raise students’ awareness of the vocabulary content of their writing by using a customised version of the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) software as a learning tool (Laufer & Nation, 1995). It is argued that vocabulary development at university can be enhanced by providing students with electronic feedback on the lexical richness of draft papers and requiring them to reflect on lexical choice during the revision process.

Vocabulary in EAP

23

VOCABULARY AND EAP EAP’s narrow focus on academic vocabulary is understandable, particularly in the light of some of the claims made about the benefits to students of learning academic words. As Coxhead (2000) and others have argued, studying the 570 words of the Academic Wordlist (AWL) can provide students with access to 10% of the vocabulary of academic texts. Useful shortcuts to vocabulary growth are to be welcomed. However, the total number of words students need to know in order to succeed with academic reading was estimated to be around 5,000 (Laufer, 1989), with this lexical threshold subsequently revised upwards by Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010): We suggest two thresholds: an optimal one, which is the knowledge of 8,000 word families yielding the coverage of 98% (including proper nouns) and a minimal one, which is 4,000–5,000 word families resulting in the coverage of 95% (including proper nouns). (p. 15)

L2 vocabulary size targets were also recently re-assessed by Schmitt and Schmitt (2014) and revised upwards: … we argue that ‘high-frequency vocabulary should include the most frequent 3,000 word families in English. We also propose that low-frequency vocabulary boundary should be lowered to the 9,000 level, on the basis that 8,000-9,000 word families is sufficient to provide the lexical resources necessary to be able to read a wide range of authentic texts. (Nation, 2006, p. 84)

However we respond to these recent revisions of university students’ desired vocabulary size, we need to address the issue of vocabulary growth within EAP courses, since it is apparent that vocabulary acquisition needs to take place during university studies. But can we realistically expect students who enter university knowing only 3,000 words to acquire an additional 5,000 words during their four years of undergraduate education? In the case of the Hong Kong learners mentioned above, their 3,000 words were acquired over a period of twelve years of English courses during primary and secondary education, which suggests that the rate of vocabulary acquisition may be as low as 250 words per year. However, following Hong Kong’s introduction of a new vocabulary curriculum (McNeill, 2009, 2011), students will be expected to know 5,000 word families by the time they enter university. Nevertheless, substantial additional vocabulary will need to be acquired during university studies, both through EAP and content courses.

24

Arthur McNeill

TECHNICAL VOCABULARY: THE ELEPHANT IN THE EAP CLASSROOM? An obvious implication of the need to expand the vocabulary content of EAP courses is for EAP teachers to address technical vocabulary. Unfortunately, it is often assumed that students do not require assistance from language teachers with technical words since these will be acquired during the study of content courses. However, recent research suggests that the role played by technical vocabulary in specialised texts has been significantly under-estimated (Chung, 2003; Chung & Nation 2003, 2004; Sutarsyah, Nation, & Kennedy, 1994). Based on their analysis of anatomy and applied linguistics texts, Chung and Nation (2004) concluded that technical words account for 31.2% of the anatomy and 20.6% of applied linguistics texts. The same study also concluded that technical vocabularies can differ greatly in the kinds of words they contain. For example, 64.4% of the technical terms in the anatomy text are peculiar to anatomy, while 88.4% of the technical terms identified in the applied linguistics text are words that also occur in other uses of the language. Furthermore, the challenges related to specialised vocabulary in reading texts appear to be particularly serious when students study through a second language (Gablasova, 2014). Technical vocabulary represents challenges for second language learners both in reception and production. At the receptive level, texts which are rich in technical lexis can be difficult to decode (e.g. through reading or listening), particularly if the technical words are new to the students. At the production level, students may be less likely to try to use words (in speaking and writing) which they do not fully understand or whose usage is not clear to them. The challenges represented by technical vocabulary in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) subjects taught at secondary school are also receiving special recognition internationally, particularly for second-language learners: ESL students will not be able to understand STEM subject area objectives or texts without understanding the technical vocabulary within each. This is why it is crucial for content-area teachers and ESL teachers to work together in teaching STEM vocabulary. (Crumpler, 2013, p. 1)

Yager’s (1981) analysis of secondary level science textbooks reported technical vocabulary loads ranging from 2,173 words for a physics textbook to over 17,130 words for a biology textbook. A similar study conducted by Groves (1995) concluded that the heavy load of technical vocabulary may even contribute to science avoidance by secondary students. Requiring EAP teachers to deal with technical vocabulary can be problematic. The EAP programmes of many institutions are modest in size and their curricula often adopt a

Vocabulary in EAP

25

generic approach to academic English without paying much attention to the way English is used within specific academic disciplines. In large university language centres, EAP teachers may be required to develop expertise in the use of English within particular disciplines. Nevertheless, even EAP teachers who are familiar with English use in particular disciplines may not feel comfortable or competent about handling all of the specialist lexis. The study reported below examines an approach to raising students’ awareness of the vocabulary content of the documents they produce in the hope that they can assume greater responsibility for their lexical decisions.

LFP AS A LEARNING TOOL In the minds of many educators, assessment and teaching are activities that need to be distinguished clearly from each other. In examination-dominated education systems, such as those of China and much of Southeast Asia, the use of examination papers as teaching materials has been criticised on the grounds that the practice promotes test-taking skills at the expense of developing students’ understanding of the subject matter. Yet the current interest in Assessment for Learning (e.g. Berry, 2008; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2007) has encouraged new perspectives in language assessment, including a reappraisal of some established language tests. The original purpose of LFP was to measure the lexical richness of texts. Lexical richness has been identified as one of the most important features of second language writing and can determine the quality of a text (Koda, 1993; Šišková, 2012). The classic version of the software provides a profile of a text’s lexical content by grouping the vocabulary items into four categories: (a) words from the first 1,000 frequency level, (b) words from the second 1,000 frequency level, (c) words included in the Academic Wordlist, and (d) words not included in the previous three categories, i.e. ‘off-list.’ The words included in the first and second 1,000 frequency levels are basically the items in West’s (1953) General Service List of English Words (GSL). A later version of LFP divides a text’s lexis into twenty levels based on the British National Corpus (BNC), plus ‘off-list.’ LFP has typically been used by teachers to assess texts written by students. It has also been used to scrutinise texts when considering their suitability for use in examinations and textbooks. The LFP performs a quick analysis of a text’s lexical content by showing the frequency level of the words used and providing some basic descriptive statistics about the text based on word frequency. The profile shows the extent to which a text consists of low frequency and academic words. Undergraduate and postgraduate students studying through English medium, also benefit from LFP and use it to check the vocabulary content of course assignments and academic papers before submitting them. Unfortunately, however, this use of the software for checking drafts is currently less accessible to intermediate level learners

26

Arthur McNeill

because the wordlists used in the original LFP are based on the frequency of occurrence of words within the language in general, rather than a particular L2 vocabulary syllabus where the prescribed lexical content may vary considerably from frequency lists such as GSL and BNC, which comprise the databases of LFP. The present study is based on a customised version of LFP, in which the original frequency-based wordlists (GSL and BNC) were replaced by the four wordlists (Key Stages 1 – 4) that were developed as part of a new vocabulary curriculum for Hong Kong schools (Curriculum Development Council, 2009, 2012; McNeill, 2012). The study also shows how institutional wordlists, such as the prescribed words of a university English course can be included within a customised LFP. It is argued that students will benefit more from using LFP as a learning tool if its lexical database corresponds to the vocabulary curriculum they are expected to study. In its original form, LFP is driven by wordlists that consist of lexical items selected because of their frequency of occurrence in English generally.

DEVELOPING LOCAL ENGLISH WORDLISTS AND A CUSTOMISED LFP Few education systems that use English as a medium of instruction have prescribed English wordlists underpinning their curricula. In the case of Hong Kong, increasing evidence had emerged to suggest that many students leave school with an inadequate English vocabulary (e.g. Chui, 2005; Fan, 2000). In order to promote higher English vocabulary targets for Hong Kong school leavers, the Education Bureau commissioned a study of the vocabulary needs of Hong Kong primary and secondary students, with a view to developing an English vocabulary curriculum for primary and secondary education. The first stage of this project involved the creation of four wordlists, consisting of the vocabulary items that students could be expected to know at different stages of their education. Selecting potential items for the wordlists began by considering frequency lists of English words. It was assumed that the frequency of occurrence of a word in the language would provide a useful provisional ranking of the vocabulary items to be included. This initial ranking would then be subjected to scrutiny by a number of stakeholders, including teachers familiar with the student population for whom each list was intended, before arriving at a final selection of target lexis. However, when analysing the patterns of response from teachers, it soon became apparent that the number of words rejected from the frequency-based lists was greater than the research team had expected (McNeill, 2011). The use of the BNC corpus was, at first sight, attractive to the team because of its spoken component. The Hong Kong word lists were intended to reflect vocabulary used in spoken as well as written English. However, because BNC is representative of contemporary usage within UK, a large number of words were judged to be inappropriate

Vocabulary in EAP

27

for an English vocabulary curriculum in the Southeast Asian context. Many of the items were considered to be restricted to users of colloquial British English or relied on familiarity with contemporary British culture. The high number of rejected items from the 4,000 level of BNC illustrates the enormous difference that appears to exist between the high-frequency vocabulary in the English used by British people for everyday communication among themselves and the kind of vocabulary which ESL learners might be expected to learn for the purpose of education and employment in their own countries. The words in GSL presented fewer cultural barriers to being accepted into the Hong Kong lists than the comparatively ‘newer’ vocabulary of BNC, probably because of their very high frequency within English. In spite of the emergence of enormous corpora in recent years, there remains little controversy over the words that constitute the first 2,000 words of English. However, when GSL words were rejected in the teacher decisionmaking tasks of KS1 and KS2, it was usually because the items were judged to be unsuitable for young learners. The majority of these items were eventually included in the lists for KS3 and KS4. Therefore, unlike the original LFP, the customised Hong Kong version does not assume that the first 2,000 words of English, by themselves, should be the starting point of an L2 vocabulary curriculum.

CUSTOMISING THE LFP SOFTWARE This section first describes the customisation of LFP based on the four new wordlists of the Hong Kong school curriculum, then illustrates how the software can be further amended to include prescribed wordlists of post-secondary institutions.

Hong Kong Primary and Secondary Wordlists (KS1, KS2, KS3, KS4) The task of replacing one word list with another in the LFP software is technically straightforward. However, one of the challenges for LFP, particularly when serving as a learning tool, is to assign a text’s lexis to the prescribed lists (in our case the vocabulary of the four Key Stages) as accurately as possible. Basically, the software needs to anticipate and accommodate all morphological variations of the words in each list. While the vocabulary target for Hong Kong students by the end of secondary education is 5,000 English words, the number of word forms which students actually know is much larger than 5,000. The lists contain 5,000 word families, which means all the derived forms of each headword need to be included in the database so that the LFP will recognise them and place them in the correct category when profiling students’ texts. If a word form is not recognised, LFP places it in the ‘Off-List Words’ category. Since all 570 of the AWL

28

Arthur McNeill

words are included across the four KS lists, there is no separate AWL list. The basic LFP report format is shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Categories Used to Profile Lexis Based on Hong Kong’s Local Wordlists Tokens

Percentage

KS1 Words KS1 Words KS3 Words KS4 Words KS1+KS2+KS3+KS4 Off-List Words Total

Customisation for Post-secondary Institutions The main appeal of producing a customised version of an assessment software programme such as LFP is the opportunity to focus learners’ attention on the language they are expected to know according to their local curriculum, rather than being judged according to knowledge of words that may not be relevant to their own situation and needs. Preparing a version of LFP based on the Hong Kong primary and secondary school vocabulary lists can make the tool available and accessible to the local student population. However, for students who proceed to post-secondary education, the tool will be more attractive if it includes additional lists, such as the prescribed words of particular English courses and any institution-approved lists of discipline-specific vocabulary that are available. By way of illustration, the course ‘English for University Studies’, is taken by the majority of undergraduates at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) during their first year and focuses on developing academic literacy as well as improving overall English proficiency. The course has a prescribed wordlist, derived mainly from the course reading materials, which students are expected to master. A wordlist consisting of the prescribed words for ‘English for University Studies’ was added to the Hong Kong version of LFP and students taking the course were encouraged to make use of the tool by submitting drafts of their course assignments into LFP and making revisions to their texts in the light of the lexical profile. Many university writing courses adopt a process approach, whereby a student submits a draft of a writing assignment to the instructor, who then provides formative feedback on the written text so that the student can re-draft and improve it. The pedagogical advantages of process writing are undisputed and it has long been established that re-drafting a text in the light

Vocabulary in EAP

29

of feedback results in improved writing quality (Manchón & Matsuda, 2016). However, as every writing instructor knows, giving feedback on drafts can be time-consuming. In some respects, LFP allows students to learn to write in a process mode by providing them with an individual lexical profile of a draft. Students can then decide whether they need to make changes to the content in order to demonstrate that they are able to use the words that have been prescribed for study on a particular course.

THE STUDY Design Two writing samples were examined in the light of students’ experience of using LFP. The first consisted of 20 400-word texts produced by Year 2 undergraduate students of engineering. The second consisted of 20 200-word texts written by research postgraduate students majoring in science. The undergraduate students were asked to write about their experience of learning English vocabulary. The writing task was completed at home and submitted electronically to their instructor. The students knew that the task was not part of their assessed coursework and was simply intended to provide them with writing practice. The students were then introduced to the customised LFP software and asked to undertake an analysis of their own writing sample. They were then asked to try to improve the vocabulary content of their texts and re-submit them to their instructor. The 20 postgraduates were PhD students from the School of Science. They were given a 200-word structured writing task, which asked them to describe their research topic and explain how their research was expected to contribute to their field.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Undergraduate Writing and LFP The lexical profiles of the first and second drafts of undergraduate writing are summarised in Table 2.2. As the results indicate, the lexical richness of the texts increased substantially in the revised draft. In particular, there was a marked reduction in the proportion of KS1 words used (from 73% to 59%). Since the KS1 list contains most of the grammar words, such as pronouns, auxiliary verbs and conjunctions, it was apparent that students made a serious attempt to increase the lexical content of their writing by substituting words from KS2, KS3 and KS4 for the relatively ‘easy’ words of KS1 when they made their revisions. Two

30

Arthur McNeill

independent judges were asked to compare the revised texts with the original drafts. They confirmed that the overall quality of the revised texts was higher than the first drafts. The results of the undergraduate writing task suggest that students typically produce first drafts with an over-reliance on high-frequency items, then, when prompted to do so, make a serious effort to monitor their lexical choices and improve the sophistication of the vocabulary in the light of their LFP profile. Since LFP uses different colours to represent the words from the various lists when displaying the analysed text on the screen (e.g. KS1 words – blue; KS2 words – green; KS3 words – yellow; KS4 words – brown; off-list words – red), students receive a visual indication of a text’s lexical profile. When editing the vocabulary of their draft, their task is to reduce the number of words in the lower-level lists (e.g. blue KS1 and green KS2 words) and replace them with more ‘advanced’ vocabulary from KS3, KS4 and any institutional lists that have been included (e.g. prescribed words for a particular course). This lexically-focused editing gives students the opportunity to review the vocabulary of a topic when substituting words in the original draft. The conscious engagement with lexical choice is also a meaningful activity as far as students’ L2 vocabulary growth is concerned and can contribute to new word acquisition at university level. Table 2.2. Comparison of Lexical Profiles of Initial and Revised Drafts (Undergraduate)

KS1 Words KS2 Words KS3 Words KS4 Words KS1+KS2+KS3+KS4 Off-List Words Total

Initial Draft (Mean %) 73 12 10 2 97 3 100

Revised Draft (Mean %) 59 15 14 9 96 4 100

Research Postgraduate Writing and LFP The lexical profile of the students’ first drafts is shown in Table 2.3. As the results show, the lexical richness of the first drafts was already very high. In fact, it is considerably higher than the revised versions of the undergraduate writing task. When the first drafts were examined, it was obvious that it would not have been appropriate to ask the students to try to improve the lexical content of their writing. Because each of the texts was about a focused research topic, much of the lexis was discipline-related and low-frequency in nature. The fact that 15% of the lexis fell into the

Vocabulary in EAP

31

‘Off-List’ category shows that many of the words were highly technical in nature. For this group of students, the language issues which required attention related mainly to grammar and syntax rather than lexis. Table 2.3. Lexical Profile of Initial Drafts (Postgraduate) Initial Draft (Mean %) 47 12 16 10 85 15 100

KS1 Words KS2 Words KS3 Words KS4 Words KS1+KS2+KS3+KS4 Off-List Words Total

CONCLUSION This chapter has examined the place of vocabulary in EAP courses. It was noted that recent L2 vocabulary research recommended that students should know between 5,000 and 8,000 English words just to cope with the reading demands of English-medium education. Since many students enter university with much smaller vocabulary sizes, it will be necessary for them to acquire additional vocabulary during their university studies. It was also noted that EAP vocabulary research has been pre-occupied with the notion of academic vocabulary and trying to produce academic wordlists upon which EAP curricula can be based. It was proposed that EAP courses need to look beyond academic vocabulary and support students in their acquisition and use of disciplinerelated lexis. It was also recognised that the challenge of acquiring several thousand new words during university studies was daunting, both for students and EAP teachers. The empirical work reported in the chapter suggested that EAP units of English-medium institutions in non-English-speaking countries may wish to develop English wordlists that are relevant and useful to their own students. Encouraging students to edit their draft texts based on customised (i.e. local) LFP software is a valuable activity which is likely to contribute to vocabulary growth. As the results of the study showed, undergraduate students whose English vocabularies are still growing are likely to benefit from revising their draft texts based on an electronic lexical analysis. Postgraduate research students, on the other hand, are more likely to have acquired the relevant academic and technical lexis before commencing their studies and may benefit less from LFP analyses of their written texts.

32

Arthur McNeill

REFERENCES Berry, R. (2008). Assessment for learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013). The new academic word list. Retrieved from http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org. Chui, S. Y. (2005). An investigation of the English vocabulary knowledge of university students in Hong Kong (Master’s thesis). The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Chung, T. M. (2003). Identifying technical vocabulary (Doctoral thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Chung, T. M., & Nation, P. (2003) Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 103-116. Chung, T. M., & Nation, P. (2004) Identifying technical vocabulary. System, 32, 251-163. Coxhead, A. (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238. Crumpler, B. (2013, October 17). Fostering STEM vocabulary development in ESL students. Retrieved from http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/fostering-stemvocabulary-development-in-esl-students/education. Curriculum Development Council. (2009). Enhancing English vocabulary learning and teaching at primary level. Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department. Curriculum Development Council. (2012). Enhancing English vocabulary learning and teaching at secondary level. Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department. Durrant, P. (2016). To what extent is the academic vocabulary list relevant to university student writing? English for Specific Purposes, 43, 43-61. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.01.004. Fan, M. (2000). How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the active and passive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. RELC Journal, 31, 105-119. Gablasova, D. (2014). Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 976-991. Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305-307. Groves, F. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 231-235. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2017). Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235-253. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40264352. Koda, K. (1993). Task-induced variability in FL compositions: Language-specific perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 332-346.

Vocabulary in EAP

33

Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132). London, England: Macmillan. Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322. Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30. Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2002). Companion website for word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Retrieved from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/bncfreq. Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (2016). (Eds.) Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Boston/Berlin, MA: de Gruyter. Marshall, S., & Gilmour, M. (1990). Problematical words and concepts in physics education: A study of Papua New Guinean students’ comprehension of non-technical words used in science. Physics Education, 25, 330-337. McNeill, A. (2009). Theoretical underpinnings of vocabulary learning and teaching. In Curriculum Development Institute, Enhancing English vocabulary learning and teaching at primary level (pp. 1-5). Hong Kong: Education Bureau. McNeill, A. (2011). From corpus to language curriculum: A data-based or data-driven exercise? In International Association for Technology, Education and Development, Proceedings of EDULEARN11 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 519-525). McNeill, A. (2012) Theoretical underpinnings of vocabulary learning and teaching. In Curriculum Development Institute, Enhancing English vocabulary learning and teaching at secondary level (pp. 3-7). Hong Kong: Education Bureau. Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2007) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075 070600572090. Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484-503. Šišková, Z. (2012). Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives. University of Reading Language Studies Working Papers, 4, 26-36.

34

Arthur McNeill

Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P., & Kennedy, G. (1994). How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A corpus-based study. RELC Journal, 25(2), 34-50. West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London, England: Longman. Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

TEAM-BASED LEARNING WITHIN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: AN EAP COURSE REDESIGN TO FOSTER LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS Natalia Romanova The George Washington University, USA

ABSTRACT The study sought to examine the effect of a flipped classroom approach enhanced by a team-based learning component on international students’ learning in two courses of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). It was found that a classroom in which most of in-class time was spent practicing complex language and skills in a collaborative setting had positive effects on students’ linguistic development and attainment of course learning objectives. The study demonstrated that a flipped classroom can provide optimal conditions for international students to develop linguistic sophistication, improve realtime production and comprehension skills, and build a wide array of cognitive and functional abilities that are crucial for a professional level of language proficiency they need in order to be successful in global academic and professional contexts.

Keywords: flipped classroom, team-based learning, English for Academic Purposes

36

Natalia Romanova

INTRODUCTION The number of international students in U.S. universities grew by 85% in the 10 years between the 2005/2006 and 2015/2016 academic years, reaching a total of 1,043,839 students in the 2015/2016 academic year (Institute of International Education, 2016). Seventy-six percent of all international students were from Asia, with the highest percentage of students coming from China (32%) and India (17%). Moreover, this rise in international student numbers has been most marked in graduate coursework degree programmes. International students who already have strong English language skills, as evidenced by high scores on standardised tests, dive straight into a degree programme and are usually left to their own devices in terms of language development, and those students, whose scores fall below the minimum test score, are required to participate in a programme of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), which they take alongside other courses. If students did not study in an English-speaking environment before, they face tremendous challenges trying to navigate a new academic culture and to function in a new language of academe. The issues related to international students’ problems are manifold, and, besides language, include the cultural, social and administrative aspects of study abroad (Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Research suggests, however, that inadequate English language competence is a major reason for negative progression rates for international students in U.S. universities (Fass-Holmes & Vaughn, 2014). Furthermore, percentages of students who are at risk of failure due to unsatisfactory English skills are much higher for graduate students than for undergraduate students (Paton, 2007). At a time when English has become an academic ‘lingua franca’ (Rostan, 2011; Seidlhofer, 2004, 2005), and the most common language of instruction in universities globally (Tilak, 2011), developing advanced English proficiency in university students to prepare them to be effective and confident participants in academic or professional contexts in the global society should be the top priority for universities in non-Englishspeaking countries. On the other hand, universities in English-speaking countries that undertake the training of international students in various disciplines need to ensure that EAP programmes they offer facilitate students’ academic endeavours in English (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001) by building their academic language skills and familiarising them with the cognitive, social, and linguistic demands and practices of the academic community and specific disciplines (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). These skills typically describe professional levels of proficiency (at the 3/4 levels on the Interagency Language Roundtable [ILR] Proficiency Guidelines [United States Government Accountability Office, 2010]), or Superior/Distinguished levels of proficiency, according to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012).

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

37

Writers at the Superior or General Professional Proficiency (ILR Level 3) levels are able to produce in-depth summaries, reports, and research papers on a variety of social, academic, and professional topics, demonstrating the ability to discuss abstract concepts, explain complex matters, and to present and support opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses. Writers at the Distinguished or Advanced Professional Proficiency (ILR 4) levels are able to write analytically, precisely, and accurately in a wide variety of prose styles pertinent to professional/academic needs (e.g. position papers and journal articles), using persuasive and hypothetical discourse, expressing subtleties and nuances, and demonstrating control of complex linguistic features, organisational patterns, and appropriate cultural and disciplinary conventions. These levels of proficiency are characterised by (1) linguistic sophistication, i.e. a large and flexible rhetorical and lexico-grammatical repertoire, including a full range of syntactic structures, compound and complex sentences, grammar, spelling, both general and specialised/professional vocabulary, cohesive devices, and punctuation; (2) automaticity of processing that underlies and conditions real-time production and comprehension in the second language, and (3) ‘multiple literacies,’ which include a wide array of cognitive skills and functional abilities, and deep sociocultural awareness. Evidence shows that (1) linguistic sophistication can be developed through performing activities that require the analysis of various discourse elements, including text organisation, genre differences, contrasting viewpoints, tone, style, register, and a wide range of lexical terms and syntactic structures (Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002); (2) automaticity of processing can be developed by means of focused practice, with extensive comprehensible input and meaningful interaction opportunities (e.g. DeKeyser, 2007; Gass, 2003), immediate positive and negative feedback that facilitates noticing of language features (Ellis, 2008; Schmidt, 2001); and (3) ‘multiple literacies’ can be developed through performing higher-level cognitive tasks, such as understanding, evaluating, and developing hypotheses and argumentation, making inferences, and analysing and synthesising information across texts and genres, and through examination of both linguistic and extra-linguistic elements, such as values, beliefs, traditions, etiquette, time concepts, etc. (Byrnes, 2002). Developing these high levels of proficiency during one EAP course presents multiple challenges to instructors, who need to work through a large volume of material, to teach complex cognitive skills, to engage heterogeneous groups of students from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds and majors, and to provide extensive opportunities for them to practise their new knowledge and skills. Thus, identifying systematic and pragmatic ‘hands-on’ approaches (Aguado, 2009; Kilburn, Nind, & Wiles, 2014) that would optimise L2 learners’ acquisition of advanced linguistic and cognitive skills during a short period of time is a pressing need. Every instructor is well familiar with the question: ‘What is the best use of my class time?’ We all know that individualised instruction is essential for quality learning — the

38

Natalia Romanova

question is: ‘How could it be achieved with 15-18 students in a class?’ We also know that guiding students’ specific questions while they are working on a task is important to their success — the question is: ‘How could we make ourselves available to all the students while they are practising their new knowledge and skills?’ We all want our students to develop higher-order critical thinking and problem-solving skills but where do we find the time? How could we challenge the higher-achieving students to go deeper without discouraging the lower-achieving students, and the other way round: how do we support lower-achieving students without slowing down higher achieving ones? How could we encourage students to guide their own learning and develop to the best of their ability? One pedagogical approach, the Flipped Classroom, seems to answer these questions. In a flipped classroom, direct instruction and homework elements of a course are reversed, and in classroom experiences are reconstructed to actively engage all students (Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Students become familiar with the content prior to/outside of class and come to class to practise real-life tasks in a guided collaborative setting. In terms of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Atherton, 2013), it means that students engage in the lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of class, and focus on the higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation) in class, where they have access to the instructor’s expertise and peers’ feedback (Park & Howell, 2015). Importantly, flipped instruction, allows them to take responsibility over their learning, gives them control over ‘time, place, path and/or pace’ (Staker & Horn, 2012), and develops self-motivation and learner autonomy necessary for successful performance in academic contexts (Leaver & Campbell, 2014). Competence is fostered through focused, guided in-class practice and feedback that enables students to identify their own strengths and weaknesses in mastering the content and developing language skills to express complex ideas. Collaborative setting is created by using the Team-Based Learning (TBL) format (Michaelsen, Sweet, & Parmalee, 2009), which enhances student interaction, develops higher-level cognitive skills (Hamdan, Mcknight, Mcknight, & Arfstrom, 2013), and builds a sense of responsibility towards their individual and team performance. While students are required to explore the material and develop new skills on their own, they know that they would apply this new knowledge through various collaborative active learning activities and discussions with peers and the instructor in class. Flipping is more than a model — it is a guiding principle of how content is delivered and instruction is organised. Therefore, it is also known as Flipped Learning or Flipped Teaching. ‘The spirit of a flipped classroom is innovation and individualisation’ (Cockrum, 2014, p. 26). It is ideology, not a methodology (Bennett, 2011), and its ultimate goal is to practise a student-centred, task-based learning in a collaborative environment.

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

39

There are five basic models of flipped instruction: 









Traditional Flip (Bergmann & Sams, 2012), when content video is front-loaded, followed by in-class activities based on that content (this is the most criticised model due to lack of student engagement); Writing or Reading/Writing Workshop (Calkins, 1986), with direct instruction mini-lesson followed by in-class writing/reading time, with the instructor providing modeling and guidance, and students sharing their work with each other; Explore-Flip-Apply model (Musallam, 2011), when knowledge is intentionally withheld and revealed as the students work to construct or discover it, and applied in practice and assessment; Flip-Mastery model (Bergman & Sams, 2012) that combines flipped videos with a number of in-class assignments completed at students’ own pace to reach the teacher-defined mastery of specific skills; and Peer-Instruction Flip model (Mazur, 1997), when students engage in class discussion to agree on an answer to a question based on content they worked through prior to class, and the instructor reviews the answers and provides feedback.

These models continue to evolve, with their elements being revised or used in combination with elements of other models. Benefits of flipped instruction have been demonstrated in various disciplines: e.g. in computer science (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014), science, engineering, and mathematics (Freeman et al., 2014), economics (Roach, 2013); dental medicine (Park & Howell, 2015); ESL teacher education (Egbert, Herman, & Lee, 2015), to name just a few. Language instructors are also reporting positive results after implementing the flipped classroom in their language teaching (Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord, 2012; Rubio & Thoms, 2012; Scullen, 2014; Shrager, 2014; Stigter, 2014; Witten, 2013). Some studies, however, reported lower level of student satisfaction with flipped formats than traditional formats (Strayer, 2012) and student resistance to regular weekly preparations and collaborative activities (Davis, Neary & Vaughn, 2013). Despite the plethora of studies examining the effectiveness of the flipped approach in various fields, no study so far has investigated how flipping a classroom may impact EAP students’ learning. In view of the typical challenges of EAP instructors balancing multiple complex components in a typical EAP classroom, the purpose of this exploratory study was to use the flipped instruction model to overcome these challenges by engaging all students in interactive class activities allowing them to practise complex skills in a guided setting, supporting transformation of declarative knowledge (first stage)

40

Natalia Romanova

to procedural knowledge (second stage) and gradual skill automatisation (third stage) (DeKeyser & Criado-Sanchez, 2012; Paradis, 2009). The research questions that guided the exploration were as follows: 1) Do international graduate students in a flipped EAP classroom show evidence of linguistic development as a result of the course? 2) Do international graduate students in a flipped EAP classroom show evidence of attaining course learning objectives? 3) What are students’ perception of the effectiveness of the flipped format and team collaboration? What aspects of this learning environment do they find most beneficial and most challenging? The positive results of the exploration suggest that flipping an EAP classroom is a promising educational model that can promote the development of high-level cognitive and linguistic skills and functional abilities, and that team collaboration, although viewed negatively at the beginning, had a positive effect on students’ learning. The following sections of the chapter describe the flipped classroom approach and present and discuss the findings, and implications.

METHOD Participants Participants in the study were international graduate students who attended two 3credit-hour courses in an EAP programme at a large private university in the U.S.A. in 2015: one section of an EAP Oral Communication (OC) course (N=9) and two sections of an EAP Writing and Research (WR) course (N=41). Most of the students were from China (78% in the EAP WR course and 67% in the EAP OC course), and several students were from India (N=3), Korea (N=2), Mexico (N=2), Turkey (N=2), and Arabic-speaking countries (N=4). Table 3.1. Participants’ Demographics

Participants’ mean age (years) Males (%) Females (%) Number of teams

EAP OC 23 33 67 3

EAP WR 24 59 41 12

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

41

Almost all the participants only studied English in classroom and had no studyabroad or living/working abroad experience. Participants’ demographics are presented in Table 3.1.

Methodological Approach The EAP courses used a semester-long Flipped Classroom model, in which students were introduced to content prior to/outside of class (at home, at their own pace) and then practised what they had learned in a guided setting in class (see Figure 3.1). To encourage collaboration and active learning, the Team-Based-Learning (TBL) format was used (Michaelsen, Sweet, & Parmalee, 2009), in which most of in-class time was spent working on team activities requiring students to directly apply key course concepts to completing various real-world tasks and to practise their academic language skills in nonthreatening contexts. Students were assigned to teams by the instructor after the first week of classes based on their disciplinary background. There were three teams, with 3 students in each, in the EAP OC course and 12 teams, with 3-4 students each, in the EAP WR course. Team work included listening to extracts from real lectures, taking notes and summarising the main points, preparing for and conducting interviews, participating in small-group discussions and class debates in the OC course; and writing outlines, summaries, and critiques, and first drafts of a full-scale research paper in the WR course. Each task was preceded by individual and team pedagogical activities that prepared students to perform the task. Individual work included semester-long self-directed projects: (1) the Research Article Analysis (RAA) Project in the WR course that required students to analyse rhetorical patterns in research writing in their disciplines to develop their understanding of discipline-specific conventions in their fields of study, and (2) the Language Development Portfolio in the OC course that required students to collect and analyse instances of unfamiliar academic language they encountered within and outside of the classroom.

Evaluation Instruments 1) To evaluate linguistic development, a cloze test (Brown, 1980), was conducted in the WR groups at the beginning and end of the semester. The test was developed by deleting every seventh word from each of four reading passages of intermediate difficulty and replacing it with a blank of standard length. To provide context, two unaltered sentences were supplied: one lead-in sentence at

42

Natalia Romanova the beginning, and one lead-out sentence at the end of the passage. There were 50 blanks in total. The tests were completed under time pressure (participants were allowed 15 minutes to complete the tests). Participants received 1 point for each semantically acceptable and grammatically correct response and 0 points for either semantically unacceptable responses or incorrect grammatical forms. 2) To assess attainment of the course learning goals, two measures were employed. First, the quality of students’ final products submitted at the end of the semester was evaluated according to detailed rubrics reflecting the learning objectives of the course. These products included: (1) a research paper in the WR course (150 points) that followed the standard format, with the Abstract, the IMRD (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion) sections, and References, formatted in American Psychological Association (APA) style, and (2) an oral presentation (100 points) that reported on a mini research study in the OC class following research report presentation conventions. Second, students selfassessed their skills and abilities in an online survey and shared their reflections on learning outcomes. Students in the EAP WC course completed pre- and postcourse self-assessments of their academic writing and research skills on a 1-5 Likert scale in five areas: sentence-level writing, paragraph organisation, use of various academic genres, research paper structure, and research strategies. Students in the OC course self-assessed their overall improvement in oral language skills and confidence levels as a result of the course using 1-10 Likert scale at the end of the course. 3) To evaluate the effectiveness of the flipped approach and team collaboration, students responded to survey questions on a 1-7 Likert scale. Besides, students in the WR course evaluated the effectiveness of the class in attaining their learning goals in online open-ended reflective paragraphs posted in their individual blogs on Blackboard, and students in the OC course shared their reflections in a structured interview during a focus group conducted by an independent reviewer at the end of the course.

Figure 3.1. Phases in a Flipped Classroom.

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

43

RESULTS In order to evaluate linguistic development as a result of the course, an independentsamples t-test was conducted to compare cloze test scores taken by the participants before and after the course. Results for the WR group showed a significant improvement in overall proficiency over the course of the semester from 71.9% (SD = 7.9) at the beginning of the semester to 76.1% (SD = 7.4) at the end of the semester [t (40) = 2.44, p = .017]. The OC group also showed improvement from 70.6% (SD = 8.8) to 74.03% (SD = 8.9) but it was not significant [t (8) =1.02, p =.32]. Students’ performance on final products in order to determine their attainment of course learning goals is shown in Table 3.2. As seen from the table, most students produced work that was exceptional or above average meeting the requirements of the assignment in terms of the clarity, organisation, and presentation. Table 3.2. Students’ Performance on Final Products

Minimum Score Maximum Score Average Score (SD) Percentage (Grade)

Students’ performance on final products EAP WR EAP OC 110 75 146 95 134.24 (7.62) 91.67 (6.67) 89 (B+) 92 (A)

Table 3.3. EAP WR Students’ Self-reported Pre- and Post-course Abilities to Perform Academic Writing and Research Skills (on a 1-5 Likert Scale) Category Sentence writing Paragraph writing Genre writing Research-based writing Research skills

Mean (pre) 2.68 2.93 2.75 2.2

SD

SD

t-test

df

.92 .86 1.01 .91

Mean (post) 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.7

.84 .85 .80 .88

6.81 7.0 8.17 10.47

40 40 40 40

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001

2.55

.85

3.9

.82

8.2

40

.001

Table 3.3 shows that EAP WR students reported statistically significant improvement in all the five areas of academic writing and research skills (t (40) = 9.62, p < .001), with particularly large gains in research-based writing skills needed to produce a research paper (1.5), followed by the ability to use research strategies (1.35), and write in various academic genres (e.g. outlines, summaries, critiques, literature reviews) (1.25). The

44

Natalia Romanova

ability to write effective paragraphs and sentences showed significant but smaller gains (.92 and .87, respectively). EAP OC students reported an overall improvement of their oral English skills on a 110 Likert scale (M = 7.25) and a higher level of confidence in using English to complete academic communicative tasks (M = 8) as a result of the course. Both groups of students evaluated the effectiveness of the flipped classroom approach and team-learning format on a 1-7 Likert scale. As seen in Table 3.4, the majority of the students in both groups agreed that flipped learning was effective in helping them attain their learning goals and that team collaboration was an effective learning format. Table 3.4. Students’ Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Instructional Approach (on a 1-7 Likert Scale)

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Flipped Learning EAP WR EAP OC (%) (%) 15 11 54 56 27 22 5 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

Team-Based Learning EAP WR EAP OC (%) (%) 22 33 51 56 24 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

In their reflections on the effectiveness of flipped, team-based instruction, the majority of students in both OC and WR courses expressed their positive views on the approach and named the following benefits: (1) the opportunity to do their graded assignments in class, (2) in-class guidance and ability to ask questions and receive immediate feedback, (3) team collaboration on assignments, (4) self-pacing, and (5) engaging class discussions that developed critical thinking. They also identified what they perceived as challenges of this instructional method: (1) a heavy homework load which made it difficult to keep up with the course pace, (2) lack of engagement with materials, (3) concerns over taking responsibility for learning, (4) technological problems (lack of familiarity with Blackboard, internet problems) that interfered with accessing course materials, and (5) team work issues. Interestingly, even though most students said they enjoyed team collaboration and learned from each other, some of them shared that not only did they experience initial resistance to team work, they had to work through multiple organisational issues and cross-cultural communication problems (e.g. etiquette differences, cultural insensitivities, etc.), and even intra-team conflicts (in which they relied on the instructor for resolution).

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

45

DISCUSSION The pilot study explored the effectiveness of a flipped classroom model in teaching EAP to international graduate students. The first research question pertained to students’ linguistic development during the semester. It was found that all the students showed improvement in cloze scores, although in OC students the improvement was not statistically significant, possibly due to a small sample size. The finding is not straightforward. On the one hand, the students’ skills developed but it is not clear whether this growth occurred as a result of the course or as a result of being immersed in the language and culture. The benefits of study-abroad experience in terms of improving language skills have been widely noted (Allen, 2010; Kang, 2012; Lee, 2009; Sasaki, 2011), and since the study did not control for other influences, the linguistic development cannot be attributed to the effectiveness of the course only. The second question concerned the effectiveness of the approach for attaining course learning objectives. Both the final products and students’ self-assessments of their skills and abilities clearly demonstrate that the course objectives were attained. All the students succeeded in creating research papers and presenting research reports that demonstrated the competencies targeted in both courses. Due to extensive scaffolding and feedback received during in-class pedagogical activities, students experienced few problems with performing the tasks, could clearly see their progress and growing confidence. It could be claimed that a flipped classroom, with its focus on student engagement and focused practice of complex linguistic and higher-order cognitive skills in non-threatening contexts, may be more beneficial than a traditional classroom (Lankford, 2013; Nederveld & Berge, 2015) that offers less practice and relies more on lower-level cognitive skills, but since the study made no comparison of learning outcomes in a flipped classroom with learning outcomes in a traditional classroom, attributing the positive results to the instructional approach is not possible. The third and the last question pertained to students' perceptions of the effectiveness of the flipped format and team collaboration and examined the benefits and challenges of the approach. Students’ positive reactions in both surveys and reflections show that the majority of students appreciated the flipped classroom experience. The effectiveness of the flipped approach may be linked to exposure to content prior to class, which created the ‘priming’ effect: students who are initially exposed to (‘primed’ for) particular stimuli prior to class (e.g. a set of facts or language forms) may recall these stimuli faster, thus proceduralising their newly acquired knowledge and skills more readily (Bodie et al., 2006; DeKeyser, 2007; Trofimovich & McDonough, 2013). In addition, cooperative learning provides a natural environment in which to enhance interpersonal skills, and when coupled with explicit instructions in these skills, is more effective than traditional instruction that emphasises individual learning and generally has no explicit instruction in

46

Natalia Romanova

teamwork (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). Improved outcomes in the flipped classroom can also be explained, in part, by self-determination theory, which identifies autonomy, relatedness, and competence as the innate needs for intrinsic motivation (Ryan, 2002). The benefits of the approach in an EAP classroom seem to outweigh the challenges that are more organisational in nature. It could be suggested that instructors address these challenges explicitly. The volume of the materials for reading/watching at home in preparation for class should be carefully planned to prevent students from falling behind and should take into account the fact that international students tend to go through material at a slower rate than native English-speaking students. The materials should aim at engaging the students’ curiosity and should provide activities to guide their learning at home. Since many of international students are culturally conditioned to rely on the instructor as the source of knowledge, they need to be taught explicitly about active learning and learner autonomy. They also need to be reminded about taking responsibility for planning their learning to avoid facing technological issues the night before class. Importantly, international students are often unfamiliar with team work and may need guidance about how to work in teams and resolve various issues without involving the instructor. This study has found support for team-based learning within a flipped EAP classroom. The findings, such as the benefits of student engagement, collaboration, and active learning, are unlikely to be controversial, and are in line with recent research on the flipped classroom in general (Bennett, 2013; Gleason, 2013) and on the flipped classroom in language learning in particular (Ducate, Lomicka, & Lord, 2012; Rubio & Thoms, 2012; Scullen, 2014; Shrager, 2014; Stigter, 2014; Witten, 2013). Importantly, the study demonstrated that a flipped classroom can provide optimal conditions for international students to develop linguistic sophistication, improve real-time production and comprehension skills, and develop a wide repertoire of cognitive skills and functional abilities that are crucial for a professional level of language proficiency they need to attain to be successful. However, since the study was exploratory in nature, it did not aim to make definitive conclusions about the findings but rather focused on gaining preliminary insights into using the approach for later, more systematic investigation. Future research should refine the methods of data gathering and analysis and compare learning outcomes in a flipped learning classroom with a traditional classroom. To conclude, flipping the traditional classroom and using a team-based learning format seems both a feasible and necessary move to foster professional-level academic language and higher-order cognitive skills development in heterogeneous cohorts of international students and to better prepare them for academic and professional challenges in a global society.

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

47

REFERENCES Aguado, N. A. (2009). Teaching research methods: Learning by doing. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(2), 251-260. Allen, L. Q. (2010). The Impact of study abroad on the professional lives of world language teachers. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 93-104. Atherton J. S. (2013). Learning and teaching: Bloom's taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm. Bennett, B. (2011). The flipped class: Shedding light on the confusion, critique, and hype. Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-flipped-class-shedding-lighton-the-confusion-critique-and-hype-801.php. Bennett, B. (2013). Mastery. In J. Bretzman (Ed.), Flipping 2.0: Practical strategies for flipping your class (pp. 7-22). New Berlin, WI: The Bretzman Group. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. New York, NY: International Society for Technology in Education. Bodie, G. D., Powers, W. G., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2006). Chunking, priming and active learning: Toward an innovative and blended approach to teaching communicationrelated skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(20), 119-135. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-36. Brown, J .D. (1980). Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests. Modern Language Journal, 64, 311-17. Byrnes, H. (2002). Toward academic-level foreign language abilities: Reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding pedagogical options. In B. L. Leaver & B. Shekhtman (Eds.), Developing professional-level language proficiency (pp. 34–60). London, England: Cambridge University Press. Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cockrum, T. (2014). Flipping your English class to reach all learners. New York, NY: Routledge. Davis, L. E., Neary, M. A., & Vaughn, S. E. (2013). Teaching advanced legal research in a flipped classroom. Perspectives: Teaching Legal Research and Writing, 22(1), 1319. DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R., & Criado-Sanchez, R. (2012). Automatization, skill acquisition, and practice in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Ducate, L., Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). Hybrid learning spaces: Re-envisioning language learning. In F. Rubio, J. Thoms, & S. K. Bourns (Eds.), Hybrid language

48

Natalia Romanova

teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 1-49). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Egbert, J., Herman, D., & Lee, H. (2015). Flipped instruction in English language teacher education: A designed-based study in a complex, open-ended learning environment. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language: The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 9(2), 1-23. Ellis, R. (2008). Principles of instructed second language acquisition. CAL Digest. Fass-Holmes, B., & Vaughn, A. (2014). Are international undergraduates struggling academically? Journal of International Students, 4(1), 60-73. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods and Challenges. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 177-194). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K, Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H, & Wenderoth, M .P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 111, 8410-8415. Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Gleason, J. (2013). An interpretive argument for blended course design. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 588-609. Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Retrieved from http://www.flippedlearning.org/review. Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(1), 1-12. Institute of International Education. (2016). International students by field of study, 2014/2015 - 2015/16. Open doors report on international educational exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35. Kang, X. (2012). Research on the definition, identity and role of teacher educators. Teacher Education Research, 24, 13-17. Kilburn, D., Nind, M., & Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191-207. Lankford, L. (2017, January 24). Isn't the flipped classroom just blended learning? [Blog post] Retrieved from https://ileighanne.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/isnt-the-flippedclassroom-just-blended-learning/. Leaver, B. L., & Campbell, C. (2014). Experience with higher levels of proficiency. In T. Brown & J. Bown (Eds.), To advanced proficiency and beyond: Theory and methods

Team-Based Learning within a Flipped Classroom

49

for developing superior second language ability (pp. 3-21). Washington, WA.: Georgetown University Press. Lee, J. F. K. (2009). ESL student teachers‟ perceptions of short-term overseas immersion programme. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1095-1104. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Michaelsen, L., Sweet, M., & Parmalee, D. (2009). Team-based learning: Small group learning’s next big step. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 7-27. Musallam, R. (2011). Cycles of learning. Retrieved from http://www.cycles oflearning.com/. Nederveld, A., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Flipped learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(2), 162–172. Park, S. E., & Howell, T. H. (2015). Implementation of a flipped classroom educational model in a predoctoral dental course. Journal of Dental Education, 79, 563–570. Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural seterminants of second languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Paton, M. J. (2007). Why international students are at greater risk of failure? An inconvenient truth. International Journal of the Diversity, 6(6), 101-111. Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 417-47. Roach, T. (2013). The Friday flip: New methods to increase interaction and active learning in Economics. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2302898. Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89–101. Rostan, M. (2011). English as ‘lingua franca’ and the internationalization of academe. International Higher Education, 63, 1-6. Rubio, F., & Thoms, J. (2012). Hybrid language teaching and learning: Looking forward. In F. Rubio, J. Thoms, & S. K. Bourns (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 1-49). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R.M. Ryan, (Eds.) Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Scullen, M. E. (2014, November 14). Flipping and blending the language classroom: Experiment or new standard? Pearson online webinar. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

50

Natalia Romanova

Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339341. Shrager, E. (2014). The world language daily tech guide. Villanova, PA: Teacher Voice Publishing. Stigter, M. (2014). The flipped language classroom: A teacher’s perspective (Unpublished master’s thesis). Butler University, Indianapolis, IN. Staker, H., & Horn, M. (2012). Classifying K–12 blended learning. The Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/04/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning.pdf. Strayer, J. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. Tilak, J. B. G. (2011). Trade in higher education: The role of the general agreement on trade in services (GATS). In Fundamentals of educational planning (p. 95). Paris, France: UNESCO. Witten, H. (2013). World languages. In J. Bretzman (Ed.), Flipping 2.0: Practical strategies for flipping your class (pp. 265-280). New Berlin, WI: The Bretzman Group. Trofimovich, P., & McDonough, K. (2013). Priming. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 505-508). New York, NY: Routledge.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 4

FACTORS AFFECTING PARTICIPATION IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATIONAL INTERACTION IN ENGLISH: IMPLICATIONS FOR EAP Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

ABSTRACT This chapter reports on a study of factors affecting interaction in postgraduate studies from the point of view of international and local students and lecturers in three academic disciplines: Applied Linguistics, Business Studies, and Engineering in a university in Aotearoa / New Zealand. The data reported here were taken from interviews and were triangulated with data from class observations and transcriptions of classroom interactions. A four-part model of factors affecting postgraduate spoken interaction is presented based on this study. These four parts are: language, domain knowledge, social relations, and prior learning experience. Each of these factors is explored in this chapter, with evidence from interviews. The chapter ends with implications for English for Academic Purposes teachers, students, materials designers, and language curriculum designers for each of these factors.

Keywords: postgraduate studies, New Zealand, spoken interaction, EAP

INTRODUCTION In universities in English speaking countries, educational methodology is more and more oriented towards setting up students’ active involvement in and ownership of

52

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

learning (Perrenet, Bouhuijs, & Smits, 2000; Wright, Bitner, & Zeithaml, 1994). Interaction with lecturers and between students is captured as an essential medium of knowledge/skill development. Especially in the case of postgraduate education, interaction is a common and important educational channel and students are expected to participate in a range of interactive communicative events, including interactive lectures, a whole class discussions, seminar question and answer sessions, group work, and group assignments. These interactive aspects of modern style educational practices can quite often challenge non-native-English-speaking (NNES) international students. These students frequently encounter difficulties in participating in educational interaction, such as discussions and collaborative work (see for example, Ferris & Tagg, 1996a; 1996b; Jacobson, 1986; Kim, 2006; Lee, 2009; Leki, 2001; Morita, 2004). More knowledge needs to be generated about NNES international students’ participation in interactive oral communication, given that the trend of an increasing number of international students coming to English-medium universities in countries such as New Zealand (NZ) (Healey, 2008; Ministry of Education, 2013). Furthermore, this research needs to look across disciplines, so that the findings might support English for Academic Purposes (EAP) learners and their teachers who are focused on preparation for postgraduate studies in different fields. Much EAP research has focused on preparation for or difficulties in undergraduatelevel studies, for example in vocabulary studies (Coxhead, 2000; 2016; Gardner & Davies, 2014), requirements and skills for academic listening (see Charles & Pecorari, 2016), giving presentations (Morita, 2004), or general academic studies (Evans & Morrison, 2011). In this chapter, oral communicative events in postgraduate programmes in NZ are investigated in terms of international students’ experiences of socialisation into new educational practices and these events are conceptualised as active and collaborative learning settings, where a range of factors can influence the way students manage their learning development. A four-component model of influential factors for international students’ participation in educational interaction is proposed, and implications for EAP are made.

Research into Speaking for Academic Purposes Research into speaking in EAP tradition has been traditionally more oriented towards language use in written communication than towards oral communication (Ferris, 1998; Swales, 1990). This bias can be seen in the greater efforts made to analyse written communication in terms of different communicative events, or genres (Brooks & Swain, 2014; Ferris, 1998; Swales, 1990; Zareva, 2013). In recent times, more and more researchers have been interested in oral communication in academic and educational

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

53

contexts (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005; Simpson & Swales, 2001). In this research field, knowledge has been generated around the challenges that NNES international students can face. For instance, EAP investigators have identified difficulties for NNES international students in active and interactive learning environments (Aguilar, 2016; Jacobson, 1986; Lee, 2009; Leki, 2001; Micheau & Billmyer, 1987; Tin, 2003). According to Aguilar (2016), international students from East Asian countries show a tendency to have difficulties in participating in the type of learning where active interaction is expected or required of students. This line of investigation seems to assume that learner difficulties might vary in terms of different educational activities (Basturkmen, 2016) and thus that each communicative event deserves distinctive attention. A range of spoken interactive events have received a research focus, such as whole class discussion (Lee, 2009; Morita, 2004), seminar discussion (Basturkmen, 1998), group discussion (Leki, 2001), laboratory work (Jacobson, 1986), and out-of-class group work (Vickers, 2007). While understandings have been gradually developing in the EAP research field as to each oral communicative event in academic/educational situations, these events are not clearly conceptualised as part of educational practices which might vary depending on contextual factors, including culture and study level. NNES international students’ classroom experiences have been mentioned in research by Morita (2004) and Lee (2009), though educational practices in the target situation has not been explicitly captured in terms of educational methodology and concepts, such as active learning and collaborative learning. One aim of this research is to address this imbalance. In the current study, abundant interaction opportunities in postgraduate course studies in NZ are captured as a result of collective efforts to generate and maintain active and collaborative learning. NNES international students’ participation in communicative events then is critically explored in terms of socialisation into potentially different educational practices.

Factors Affecting Spoken Communication in EAP Various research approaches have been taken to investigate oral communicative events in academic/educational situations. Morita (2004) states that these investigations can be categorised into two distinctive approaches. One approach has a focus on what NNES international students are expected to know or do, termed ‘product-oriented research’ (Morita, 2004). According to Morita, the major pillars of this approach are Needs Analysis research (e.g. Ferris & Tagg, 1996a; 1996b) and Genre research (see Swales, 1990). In EAP oral communication research, the former has mainly been employed to identify speech events and communicative competence required for the events, such as Basturkmen (1995, 1998) and Jacobson (1986). Genre research in EAP oral communication research, on the other hand, has been oriented towards the

54

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

monologue type of speech (Zareva, 2013), and not usually used to analyse interactive communication. The other approach to EAP research is ‘process oriented’ (Morita, 2004), focusing on the way NNES students are socialised into academic and educational practices and what factors could be major hindrances in the socialisation process (Lee, 2009; Leki, 2001; Morita, 2004; Vickers, 2007). In the tradition of EAP process-oriented approach, a range of factors have been identified that could influence the way NNES international students behave in educational oral communication. Morita (2004) found linguistic, sociocultural, and psychological difficulties with oral academic presentations from Japanese international students’ perspectives. Lee (2009) found that multiple factors, including cultural, individual, and situational, intertwine and impact on NNES Korean students’ participation in class discussion in the U.S., and that their culture particularly constrains participation in the educational practice. Leki (2001) identifies how social relationships formed among students can influence NNES students’ ability to participate in collaborative learning. While these investigations collectively contribute largely to the understandings of international students’ difficulties in socialising themselves into a new educational practice, a holistic model so far has not been proposed that could help explain NNES international students’ learning behaviours and strategies in educational environments in English speaking countries. This research aims to fill this gap and establish a holistic understanding of what can impact on international students’ learning behaviours in active and collaborative learning environments. `

Postgraduate Educational Environments Basturkmen (2016) writes that communicative events involving dialogic interaction tend to happen more frequently at higher levels of university learning than at lower levels of higher education. This tendency suggests that the postgraduate study is likely to have more orientation towards active and collaborative learning than undergraduate study. So far, many EAP oral communication investigations have been conducted in the contexts of postgraduate learning (for example, Basturkmen, 1998; Coward, 2002; Farr, 2003; Morita, 2000, 2004; Northcott, 2001; Lee, 2009). The current research puts itself along this line of investigation so that more understanding can be developed as to NNES international students’ experiences of and factors affecting postgraduate educational practices in an English-speaking country.

RESEARCH QUESTION The research question for this study is ‘What factors influence the way NNES international students participate in educational interaction at postgraduate level in a NZ university?’

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

55

METHODOLOGY Three disciplines are the sites of research in this study: Applied Linguistics, Engineering and Computer Science, and Commerce. These disciplines were explored using an ethnographic approach, which has been adopted in the EAP/ESP research fields in general to investigate communication in the target situations (e.g. Flowerdew & Miller, 1992; Prior, 1998; Swales, 1998) as well as in the EAP oral communication research (for example, Ho, 2011; Jackson, 2003; Morita, 2000, 2004; Northcott, 2001; Vickers, 2007). We situate our research in this tradition. In the course of investigation, we gradually developed our understandings of the educational practices through observations in the three target situations. These understandings included disciplinary differences and cross-disciplinary commonalities. The research venues were mainly selected in consideration of the available number of international students. The researchers, as members of the educational community of the Applied Linguistics and Victoria University of Wellington, made the most of their established close connection with the target situation (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983) to understand deeply the ‘emic’ (Agar, 1986), or insider, views of the target community as well as the educational practices of the three disciplines. Also, one of the researchers (Mukai) was himself an international PhD student with an educational background in Japan, so that his outsider status generated critical eyes for the existing educational practices in Victoria University of Wellington through ‘a constant urge to problematise, to turn what seems familiar and understandable upside down and inside out’ (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992, p. 73), which ethnographers are required to be equipped with. The main source of information for the current study is interview data gained from 15 NNES postgraduate international students (see Table 4.1). The data were triangulated with other information sources, including interview data from one NNES local student, six native-English-speaker (NES) local students, one NES international student, 15 lecturers, and one tutor. Data were also collected from five observation opportunities from each discipline, totalling 15 observation opportunities, including a recording of a Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics class. All participants were given information sheets to know the nature of the research and asked to sign on consent sheets. All the data were collected in the time period of April 2014 to January 2015 at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. The multiple data sets were analysed using Grounded Theory approach (Belgrave, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; O’Reilly, 2008). The data were coded through the staged system including Open Coding, Focused Coding, and Axial Coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Categories and themes emerging from the interview data of international students were critically triangulated with findings from other data sets, such as field notes from

56

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

observations, transcriptions of recorded classroom interaction, and interview data from lecturers and local students. Table 4.1. NNES International Student Interviewee Participants Applied Linguistics 2 Taiwanese 1 Chinese 1 Hong Kongese 1 Indonesian 5

Engineering 2 Indian 1 Papua New Guinean 1 Spanish 1 Vietnamese 5

Business School 2 Chinese 2 Indonesians 1 Thai 5

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Our research question was: What factors influence the way NNES international students participate in educational interaction at postgraduate level in a NZ university? The coding of interview data from all participants led us to develop a four-factor model of factors affecting spoken interaction in postgraduate studies. This model is based on this active and collaborative learning environment, where international students made situational decisions on how they could be involved in educational interaction under a range of influences. The factors in the model are: language, domain knowledge, social relations, and prior learning experiences.

Language The first factor, language, has two elements: listening and speaking. The NNES international students generally experienced language issues when they were involved in educational interaction. Only one NNES international student who said she had no linguistic issue with educational interaction had long-term experiences of her second language interaction all through her English-medium secondary education in Malaysia and tertiary education in NZ as well as a few years of job opportunities in NZ. All the 15 international students, including an NNES international student who graduated from an English-medium secondary school in Hong Kong, identified either listening or speaking in interactive learning as potential sources of difficulty in participating in ongoing conversations in their postgraduate programmes. As has been shown in previous literature (Andrew, 2011; Kukatlapalli, 2016; McGrath, Butcher & Butcher, 2004), NZ local students’ delivery of speech in educational interaction was perceived by international student interviewees to be tricky because it

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

57

does not match the type of delivery of English speech which international students are accustomed to. This unfamiliarity caused international students issues around listening to local NES students. Among the perceived major sources of listening problems are local NES students’ speaking rate and accent. One Indian student mentioned a difficulty in catching up with NNES students’ speaking speed: Sometimes, to understand some people, basically they speak fast. Their faster English is hard. (Nathan, NNES international student, Indian, Engineering)

Another international student implied the fast speech rate could cause problems with the identification of the spoken form of words and phrases: They [Kiwis] will connect sounds when they speak fast. They connect words, really squeeze words together. (Jasmine, NNES international student, Taiwanese, Applied Linguistics) (Coxhead, Dang, & Mukai, 2017, p. 71).

Besides this difficulty in dealing with speed, authentic interaction in NZ postgraduate learning challenges international students in terms of the local, or Kiwi, accent. The problematic combination of NES / local students’ fast speech rate and their distinctive way of pronouncing words was recognised by native-English-speaker international students as well. An NES student from the US shared his perspective as follows: I personally have issues understanding accents. Especially Kiwi accents. Kiwi tend to speak softly and mumble and kind of get through sentences really fast. That was hard for me, just too fast. (George, NES international student, American, Engineering)

Given this difficulty, it can be argued that NNES international students might be more familiar with some English varieties and speaking speed than others through their past English use or learning experiences. As L1 learning is socio-culturally based (Vygotsky, 1978), so is L2 learning. International students in general may thus experience a mismatch between their familiar English variety and the one in the target educational situation. The degree of familiarity with the target speech variety can thus impact on how international students participate in oral educational interaction. The second difficulty in language was the students’ own proficiency in speaking in English. The international students generally recognised their English proficiency in speech would constrain their way of participation in educational interaction. Isaac from China shared the speaking difficulty he felt when he wanted to participate in educational interaction: Sometimes I already know the answer. I know the answer the lecture desire, but I don’t know how to say that all, explain it clearly. If I can use Mandarin, my mother

58

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead language, I can explain as language as possible as I can. (Isaac, NNES international student, Chinese, Finance, Business School)

Grace, an international student from Hong Kong, explained how her Chinese and English use impacted on her classroom communication: In terms of participating in class, I think, using L1 (= Chinese) in the classroom in Kiwi classroom, definitely I will be even more active. In terms of peer discussion, I think no matter if that person is Kiwi or Chinese, if I’m using L1 as my medium of communicating, I can definitely be able to deliver my ideas more fluently. (Grace, NNES international student, Hong Kongese, Applied Linguistics)

Grace had had her secondary education in English-medium school in Hong Kong. Even though she was generally confident in her own English proficiency, she felt some limitations in her getting her ideas across in English in the postgraduate educational environment in NZ, compared with the use of Chinese, her first language. Thus, the personal speaking proficiency can, to a varying degree, influence the way international students participate in educational interaction. It should be noted, however, that speaking and listening are integrated and cannot always be separately discussed (Mendelsohn, 2006). For example, international students’ reticence in educational interaction may not necessarily be attributed to their lack of required speaking proficiency but to their unfamiliarity with a local variety of English.

Domain Knowledge The second factor in the model is knowledge of the domain. This factor includes academic subject knowledge and work experience. Firstly, academic knowledge which students had acquired through their previous and current academic studies influenced the students’ participation in educational interaction. International students’ academic knowledge both affords and constrains their understanding of, and accordingly participation in, the ongoing academic conversation. One NNES international student in Engineering, Josh, mentioned that enough academic subject knowledge could motivate him to participate in classroom discussions. He recounted how their academic knowledge once made him and his friend, Bin, who was also an NNES international student, decide to take initiatives to contribute to the on-going conversation: Yes, sometimes that’s right, I also …. sometimes I observed that doing in the classes. So like one, one student would ask question to the lecturer, and then maybe the other student has knowledge about that particular topic, so that person pops in and try to explain to the student. Yeah, yeah, that has happened. And also we had, I can remember,

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

59

we also had, we also had that experience. You know, you know, first trimester, you know, that was actually Network course. You know, Dr. Lee, he was explaining on the topic, what he called it, uhm, what was the topic, that was event consistency or something like that, that’s the topic you also experience. He himself admitted that he cou-, he sometimes, you know, he couldn’t quite understand that topic. So there was the other student who asked a question, and then Bin popped in. Yes. Yes, he, and then, and asked me whether I had also understanding on that particular topic and then I also popped in so we had a discussion between ourselves. (Josh, NNES international student, Papua New Guinean, Engineering)

In Josh’s recount, he and Bin noticed that the lecturer and other students did not have enough domain knowledge to keep the discussion going on, so they moved to share their academic knowledge. The two international students’ confidence in their own academic knowledge prompted them to contribute to the ongoing educational discussion. Lack of academic knowledge is likely to impact negatively on participative patterns of NNES international students in educational interaction. The following quote implies how an Indonesian student was not motivated to participate in educational interaction due to his relative shortage of academic knowledge. Some of the comments made by my classmate, things that I didn't find before, and then like ‘wow, they are so smart so I need to adjust myself first’. And sometimes I become too careful and I prefer not to say anything. So that’s the thing. I have to improve myself. So that’s the thing. (Sem, NNES international student, Indonesian, Applied Linguistics)

The second part of domain knowledge is previous work experience and its impact on participation in postgraduate studies. In disciplines as Commerce and Applied Linguistics, postgraduate students’ personal knowledge resources from their previous work experience were of educational value. A lecturer from Applied Linguistics emphasises classroom interaction as a venue where postgraduate students can make meaningful connections between their personal language teaching experiences and academic knowledge. As she said: Because the students come not only with theoretical [unrecognisable] they got from the readings but practical knowledge. You want a classroom to be an opportunity for them to, uhm, make links …., any links that they haven’t already made while they’re actually reading, but actually talk about, uhm, theory and their own practice and to see what links they are. (Brenda, Lecturer, Applied Linguistics)

Local students, NNES or NES, also share this view of learning with lecturers. Tia, from Business School, appreciated classroom interaction opportunities where students

60

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

can connect academic knowledge and their own real world situations in a meaningful way. For example a lecturer will teach concepts, teach the framework, and then, uhm, the class will give insights on that, and then, that then is also a way of validating the framework. What does the framework, where its weakness is, where its strength is, and that comes from the experience where it’s been used before. Or somebody wants to share an experience where that’s been in such a situation, where that, that particular topic is, uhm, applies, does that two way kind of direction. That, that does benefit our learning, my learning anyway. So it’s not all just sitting back and listening from the lecturer who’s just delivering. That way, to us, that is more two way, uhm, that, that, that’s, uhm, yeah, I learn a lot from that environment. (Tia, NES local student, Business School)

Interestingly, this view of classroom talks as a venue for educationally beneficial connections between academic knowledge and work experiences did not come from Asian international students interviewed in this research. There is a possibility that Asian international students might have a different perspective from NZ local students about what they talk about in the classroom learning context.

Social Relations The third factor focuses on social relations with other people in postgraduate studies, including connections with lecturers and other peer students. These connections influence the way NNES international students participate in educational interaction at postgraduate level. Generally the stronger sense of social bonds can facilitate participation in educational interaction and lack of sense of social bonds motivates international students all the less to participate in educational interaction. Jerri, an international Business School student, recounted his previous experience of another postgraduate programme in NZ. He pointed out that strong bond had already been established among students in the learning community, as the local students in the programme had shared the study continuum from undergraduate levels to postgraduate level. Jerri then sensed this community bond was exclusive to the local students: I’m just like an outsider in the class. That also give me, like, uhm, like, what do you call, make me feel bad or less confident. (Jerri, NNES international student, Indonesian, MAF, Business School)

It is understandable that Jerri did not feel so much motivated to actively participate in classroom interaction in this feeling of isolation. Another international engineering student, Josh, also shared the awareness that social relation could impact on participative

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

61

behaviours in classroom interaction. He observed that there was a behavioural difference between international students and local NS students in interaction and that it stemmed from belonging to the established social bond: They do not very often, but, you know, they talk like, maybe because they know each other for a while or something like that…. Most of the time, (unrecognisable), we just sitting listen because I think maybe they have known each other. (Josh, NNES international student, Papua New Guinean, Engineering)

This perceived dissociation from the pre-established social bond was partly to do with the institutional structure of this particular school. As Jerri and Josh mentioned, local students might know each other from their previous undergraduate programmes or courses, while international students, as newly enrolled students, did not have such acquaintances. The development of social relation in the target learning community, on the other hand, brings a shift in international students’ interactive behaviour. Jerri noticed his own change in behaviour in the classroom over the course of time as his new social bond formed. He said that he finally was able to join into the classroom interaction after he established this acquaintance with other students: I did it like one time in Trimester Two, I think, like, after six month or (unintelligible) but for the first six month, I never did that because, first, I didn't really know them. (Jerri, NNES international student, Indonesian, MAF, Business School)

Affective conditions founded on social relation with other students thus impact on the way Jerri participated in educational interaction.

Prior Learning Experiences The final factor in the model is the students’ prior experiences of learning. International students noticed that the educational practices they experienced in NZ postgraduate programmes, specifically, learning activities given by lecturers and learning behaviours of NZ local postgraduate students, were significantly different from what they had experienced in their home countries. They suggested that their previous learning experience impacts on their way of behaviour in this new educational environment, causing a stark contrast between their own and their peers’ learning actions. Nadia, an NNES international student from Thailand, observed a general difference between NNES international students and local students in the following way:

62

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead The (NNES students’) participation would be quite low. I don’t remember them saying anything. Like, even I, like, you know, if I classify as an international student, I normally don’t really say much as well, you know. I just kind of listen more. (Nadia, NNES international student, Thai, MBA, Business School)

Nadia attributed her learning experience in her own culture as a major influence on her way of participating in educational interaction. In Thai school, we don’t usually speak up. Everyone just silent. We only answer when we are asked to answer. (Nadia, NNES international student, Thai, MBA, Business School)

This less active participation in classroom interaction does not represent their lack of engagement but different learning styles. A Chinese international student described the strategy his Chinese friends could use when they came up with questions in class: Of course, Chinese students are usually quiet and seldom ask questions in lecture….But, some of Chinese students would ask questions in the class break. Or rather, they prefer to communicate privately. (Xuekun, NNES international student, MPE, Business School)

Rather than sharing questions in a whole classroom setting, according to Xuekun, Chinese students were accustomed to asking questions in a private communication mode with lectures or among themselves. Besides this whole classroom setting, the behavioural contrast between NZ local postgraduate students and NNES international students was also mentioned in the context of group discussions or collaborative work. A Hong Kongese Applied Linguistics student described how actively local students tended to play a leading role in group or pair work: In NZ context, which is multi-cultural context, it’s either the Kiwi student pick up the leading role, or role to start talking, or it is me or some students from Asia just wait for the Kiwi student to start……. Asian students tend to be more (reserved). (Grace, NNES international student, Hong Kongese, Applied Linguistics)

As in a whole classroom interaction, NNES international students would follow rather than take initiatives to lead, Grace said. An Indonesian international student analysed these learning behaviours and attributed them to deep-seated Asian cultural mind-sets, namely, Confucian moral codes: I think because we are Asian people, Confucian... it’s like, give some respect to your lecturer, I don't know, keep respect or honours or something, but there is some distance

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

63

between the lecturer. (Anik, NNES international student, Indonesian, MPE, Business School)

From this cultural perspective, raising any question on lecturers’ perspectives or information, for example, will mean breaching the moral code. Classroom interaction opportunities are naturally less frequent in Confucian-driven classrooms than they are in NZ classrooms. International students who previously experienced the Confucian type of educational practice back in their home countries are likely to take some time and effort to get socialised into the new practice where active and collaborative learning is collaboratively promoted and sustained by the lecturers and postgraduate students. The above-mentioned four factors: language, domain knowledge, social relations, and learning experiences, are interdependent. Their dynamics could impact negatively on the way international students’ engagement in education interaction, and therefore cause problems with participation. Conversely, the students might be able to cope with potentially negative influences of one factor by calling on resources from the other three factors. The social relation factor and language factor, for example, could be combined to influence international students’ participation in educational interaction. An Engineering student explained how participant configurations in interaction can influence his use of strategic competence for language issues: In term of face-to-face talking thing, one person to one person with Kiwi, I’m confident because we have chance to re-ask the question. But in the group, we are alone and there are four students, four Kiwis, and they’re talking, we cannot ask them repeat that every time. So it’s still hard to involve in the group with only Kiwis. (Bin, NNES international student, Vietnamese, Engineering)

Thus, Bin’s discourse strategy for dealing with the language factor was afforded and constrained by the social relation factor. Sem, an Indonesian student, was also sensitive to what the interlocutor’s language status is. Depending whether his interlocutor is a NNES or NES, his confidence in the use of English might vary: With international students, I don’t see issues. Sometimes it’s easy to manage when we got like communication break-down between international students. But with native speakers, to me, it matters a lot. I wanna say ‘judgement’ like the way they react to your English….. Sometimes, you know, you want to say many things but ah the way you participate, you have to be careful. Sometimes when you are trying to produce and you see some kind of gesture, like your lecturer probably doesn’t understand or what? It matters a lot. (Sem, NNES international student, Indonesian, Applied Linguistics)

64

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

These pieces of evidence show that different factors, such as social relation and language, often cannot be separated but need to be discussed together, so that better understanding will be gained about international students’ behaviours and strategies in educational interaction.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EAP PRACTICE There are limitations to this study, such as the relatively small number of participants, and the narrowing of the data to three academic disciplines. We found more similarities than differences among the disciplines, which means that the implications we outline below are perhaps applicable to many EAP classes, learners, and teachers, rather than specific to disciplines. There are several key implications from this study for EAP students, learners, and materials and curriculum designers. Firstly, in relation to learning factors, it is clear that EAP postgraduate learners need exposure to a range of speakers in English to prepare for their English-medium studies. That is, they need to concentrate on not just listening to a variety of speakers, but they also need to practise interacting with these speakers and discussing academic content. For example, if an EAP course has a guest lecture series, then it is important that learners prepare and practise asking questions of the speaker, as well as practise listening while other students interact with the speaker. In terms of the domain knowledge factor, it is clear that postgraduate students need to be as knowledgeable as possible in the field they are planning to study. This means that preparatory reading needs to be done in EAP courses, preferably involving the actual texts of the upcoming postgraduate courses. This reading then needs to be discussed in classes, concentrating on the main ideas, the contribution to knowledge from the readings, and evaluating the evidence presented in the texts. The social relations factor also requires some thought around preparation for postgraduate students. It is clear that social bonding is an important part of education, and opportunities to form such bonds with classmates are key to successful interaction in speaking. EAP students need to understand how this factor can actually influence their participation in educational interaction. Narratives by NNES students who have experienced the significance of the social relations factor in active and collaborative learning environments will become useful resources for EAP learners. Finally, the work experiences of postgraduate students, in many cases a prerequisite of entry into a postgraduate degree, is an important factor. An implication of this factor is that EAP postgraduate students need opportunities to talk about their work experiences and to practise relating their experience to the academic materials in their courses. This preparation will facilitate EAP students in their socialisation into the target disciplinary learning environment.

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

65

CONCLUSION The current study captured oral communicative events in NZ postgraduate courses as realisations of efforts to make and sustain active and collaborative learning environments. It explored how international students can socialise themselves into these new educational practices, which might be different from what they experienced in their home countries. The factors that can influence their participation in interaction in new educational practices have been developed into a holistic model which is composed of four components; language, domain knowledge, social relations, and prior learning experiences. The components were detailed with evidence from students’ and lecturers’ interviews and mutually influential potentials among the factors were discussed. This model is expected to help explain international students’ learning behaviours and strategies in educational interaction in active and collaborative learning environments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the students and staff members who took part in this study.

REFERENCES Agar, M. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. London, England: Sage. Aguilar, M. (2016). Seminars. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 335–347). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Andrew, M. B. (2011). Reshaping educational experience by volunteering in ‘community’: Language learners in the real world. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 25. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/. Basturkmen, H. (1998). Aspects of impoverished discourse in academic speaking: Implications for pedagogy from a mini-corpus. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 81–91. Basturkmen, H. (1999). Discourse in MBA seminars: Towards a description for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 63–80. Basturkmen, H. L. (2016). Dialogic interaction. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 152–164). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Belgrave, L. L. (2014). Grounded theory. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of action research (pp. 388–390). London, England: Sage.

66

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2014). Contextualizing performances: Comparing performances during TOEFL iBTTM and real-life academic speaking activities. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 353–373. Charles, M., & Pecorari, D. (2016). Introducing English for academic purposes. New York, NY: Routledge. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage. Coward, F. L. (2002). The challenge of ‘doing discussions’ in graduate seminars: A qualitative study of international students from China, Korea, and Taiwan. University of Texas, Austin, TX. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. Coxhead, A. (2016). Acquiring academic and discipline specific vocabulary. Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. New York, NY: Routledge. Coxhead, A., Dang, Y., & Mukai, S. (2017). University tutorials and laboratories: Corpora, textbooks and vocabulary. English for Academic Purposes, 30, 66–78. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1992). Exploring complex organizations: A cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EAP. ELT Journal, 65(4), 387–397. Farr, F. (2003). Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: The case of student– tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 67–85. Ferris, D. (1998). Students’ views of academic aural/oral skills: A comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 289–316. Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996a). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297–320. Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996b). Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: what subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 31–58. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1992). Student perceptions, problems and strategies in second language lecture comprehension. RELC Journal, 23(2), 60–80. Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305-327. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography, principles in practice. London, England; New York, NY: Tavistock. Healey, N. M. (2008). Is higher education in really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education, 55(3), 333–355. Ho, M. (2011). Academic discourse socialization through small-group discussions. System, 39(4), 437–450.

Factors Affecting Participation in Postgraduate Educational Interaction …

67

Jackson, J. (2003). Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context: Perceptions of business students in Hong Kong. System, 31(4), 457–469. Jacobson, W. H. (1986). An assessment of the communication needs of non-native speakers of English in an undergraduate physics lab. English for Specific Purposes, 5(2), 173–187. Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 479–489. Kukatlapalli, J. (2015). A study of the adjustment experiences of Indian international students in New Zealand universities (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Lee, G. (2009). Speaking up: Six Korean students’ oral participation in class discussions in US graduate seminars. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 142–156. Leki, I. (2001). ‘A narrow thinking system’: Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 39–67. McGrath, T.M. & Butcher, A. (2004). Campus-community linkages in the pastoral care of international students with specific reference to Palmerston North, Wellington and Christchurch. For the Ministry of Education and Education New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.isana.org.au/files/2005101717912_Campus andCommunityLinksfor PastoralCare.pdf. Mendelsohn, D. J. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In E. U. Juan & A. M. Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp.75-89). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Ministry of Education. (2013). International student enrolments in New Zealand. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/ statistics/international/international-students-in-new-zealand. Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 279–310. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573–603. Northcott, J. (2001). Towards an ethnography of the MBA classroom: A consideration of the role of interactive lecturing styles within the context of one MBA programme. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 15–37. O’Reilly, K. (2008). Key concepts in ethnography. London, Los Angeles: Sage. Perrenet, J. C., Bouhuijs, P. A. J., & Smits, J. G. M. M. (2000). The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 345–358. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 713699144. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

68

Shota Mukai and Averil Coxhead

Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45–70. Simpson, R. C., & Swales, J. (2001). Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press/ESL. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. New York, NY; London, England: Routledge. Tin, B. T. (2003). Does talking with peers help learning? The role of expertise and talk in convergent group discussion tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 53–66. Vickers, C. H. (2007). Second language socialization through team interaction among electrical and computer engineering students. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 621–640. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA; London, England: Harvard University Press. Wright, L. K., Bitner, M. J., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1994). Paradigm shifts in business education: Using active learning to deliver services marketing content. Journal of Marketing Education, 16(3), 5–19. Zareva, A. (2013). Self-mention and the projection of multiple identity roles in TESOL graduate student presentations: The influence of the written academic genres. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 72–83.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 5

BUILDING STUDENTS’ CAPACITY TO WRITE ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES: PEDAGOGY AND THE DEMANDS OF WRITING PERSUASIVELY Shirley O’Neill University of Southern Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT This chapter examines the current status of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in terms of public information on courses and typical resources applied across the field. It provides a review of the issues identified through research as impacting on contemporary pedagogy and learning and advocates a shift towards a new teacher-student capacity building model that gives voice to learners and recognises the expertise of the ESL/EFL teacher in being able to facilitate the motivation and engagement of students in deeper and more independent learning, within a critical pedagogical framework. In recognising that students of EAP typically take such a course for the specific purpose of entry into higher education programmes that require them to study and learn in the English language, and that ultimately they need to demonstrate their success by passing an international high-stakes test. The chapter explains why change is needed and how pedagogy and practices can provide a more effective language learning experience. To do this it takes the key skill of writing persuasively and raises the importance of critical pedagogy and the dialogic in the effective scaffolding of students’ thinking and learning, and the deep approach to language learning (Tochon, 2014) to show how teachers and students may build their capacity. It reflects the key principles of O’Neill’s (2015a, p. 121) GAMMA (Generative practice, Active design, Mutuality, Metaphor and Authority) pedagogy that views ‘students and teachers in a new third space… where pedagogical practices and cognitive resources operate in concert, in use in a mutually agreed and understood way.’

70

Shirley O’Neill

Keywords: EAP, EFL, ESL, student capacity building, GAMMA pedagogy, persuasive writing, academic literacies, critical pedagogy, generative learning

INTRODUCTION The fastest-spreading language in human history, English is spoken at a useful level by some 1.75 billion people worldwide – that’s one in every four of us. There are close to 385 million native speakers in countries like the U.S. and Australia, about a billion fluent speakers in formerly colonised nations such as India and Nigeria, and millions of people around the world who’ve studied it as a second language. An estimated 565 million people use it on the internet (Neeley, 2012).

These demographics highlight the ubiquity and power of the English language today. A cursory search on the Internet reveals endless sites that promote opportunities to learn English, use online applications and purchase a myriad of resources to support English language learning and its assessment. From an educational perspective the need to learn English for academic purposes to demonstrate proficiency to access Western funds of knowledge and engage in learning, where English is the language of instruction, continues to spawn ‘an industry’ that is worldwide. Those involved in learning English as an added language also become familiar with the many diverse learning spaces that purport to prepare them to write English for academic purposes (EAP) to pass high stakes international tests at specific levels, such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), which is claimed to be ‘the test that opens doors around the world’ (IELTS, 2016, p. 2), the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL, 2011) and International Second Language Proficiency Scales (ISLPR) (Ingram & Wylie, 1979, 1999). Although Gillett (2000) rightly recognises EAP as a part of English for specific purposes (ESP), most recently Campion’s (2016) attempt to define it shows that it is not easy because of the need to differentiate it from ESP and the teaching of general English, which she argues is exacerbated by teachers typically being more prepared to teach general English than EAP. Nevertheless, she concludes EAP is a ‘high stakes’ situation that is driven by students’ needs, and has a major focus on reading and writing (as opposed to the concentration on speaking and listening in general English). Hamp-Lyons and Heasley (2006), in their book ‘Study writing: A course in Written English for academic purposes’, add to this stating that EAP students ‘will already be capable of writing in English and so this course is intended to extend that skill to include different types of written English essential for studying’ (p. 15). Harwood and Petrić (2013, p. 243) elaborate on this intent, stating: ‘English for Academic Purposes (EAP) is usually defined as teaching English with the aim of assisting learners’ study or research in that language’, [pointing out it is] . . . also a ‘theoretically grounded and research informed

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

71

enterprise’ (Hyland, 2006, p. 1). More specifically, further insights into what is meant by academic writing, with which this chapter is most concerned, is also evident in IELTS’ (2016) description of their academic writing assessment tasks: In Task 1, depending on the task type, you are assessed on your ability to organise, present and possibly compare data; to describe the stages of a process or procedure; to describe an object or event or sequence of events; to explain how something works. In Task 2, depending on the task type, you are assessed on your ability to present a solution to a problem; to present and justify an opinion; to compare and contrast evidence, opinions and implications; to evaluate and challenge ideas, evidence or an argument (p. 5).

While task one suggests a focus on narrative and sequencing ideas but with some possibility of needing to compare, task two is more cognitively demanding (Crowhurst, 1990; O’Neill, 2012a; Wollman-Bonilla, 2004) in requiring writers to take a stance on an issue and organise ideas to formulate an argument, and persuade the reader to their point of view (Toulmin, 1969). Being able to write a discussion genre or persuasive/argumentative text is also most pertinent to education purposes (The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN], 2010), and applicable to democratic societies as part of decision-making and conflict resolution (Queensland Department of Environment, 1994, p. 71). When the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2011) moved the Australian national writing test, which was administered to the full population of students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 annually, from a narrative to a persuasive text they added the criteria of the ability to use persuasive devices and develop an appropriate ‘text structure’ to the existing scoring of audience, ideas, vocabulary, cohesion, paragraphing, sentence structure, punctuation and spelling. Scoring relates to multiple levels and students’ minimum achievement for their year is linked to a ten-band descriptive scale, where the minimum achievement for year 3 students is band 2. An overview of persuasive devices covers a range of techniques. These include: the refuting of opposing views on a topic, making statements of fact and asking rhetorical questions, use of repetition, modality and the ability to use persuasive and or evaluate adjectives and nouns, and adverbs and verbs, and use of metaphor (NAPLAN, 2011). Being able to strengthen one’s argument through elaboration also requires the ability to support and justify through reasoning, providing statistics, use of example, referencing to research evidence or expert views and the ability to make general statements more specific and reiterate one’s point. As Oatley and Djikic (2008) argue to write effectively in this way involves the vital role of thinking, which is reflected in the various marking schemas that illustrate the increasing levels of sophistication required, for example, grammar, cohesion and persuasive devices across descriptive scales particularly pertinent to writing persuasively (Ingram & Wylie, 1976, 1999; NAPLAN, 2011; O’Neill, 2012b). However, Campion (2016) argues there is a lack of teacher

72

Shirley O’Neill

preparedness to teach EAP particularly compared with general English, thus in the light of these demands the pedagogical approach to students learning how to writing persuasively would seem to be high on the agenda for teachers’ professional learning. In addition, EAP students are likely to be under substantial pressure because of financial constraints, the stress of needing to pass a high stakes test within a specific time frame, and needing to fulfil any associated personal/cultural expectations. In addition, besides the potential impact of differences between their home language (L1) and English (L2) creating challenges (Flowerdew, 2002), and despite their initial capabilities in English, their prior pedagogical and cultural experiences may also impact on their ability to master writing in Western argumentative style (Leki & Carson, 1997; Tran, 2013; Wu & Rubin, 2000). Nevertheless, it would seem that given contemporary changing opportunities for languages learning, the traditional business of and approach in EAP courses might be enhanced through the combination of the use of digital communication/mobile technologies (O’Neill, 2015b; Tochon, 2011) and advances in languages learning pedagogy such as the Deep Approach (Tochon, 2014), a whole of university approach on a parallel with Mcmillin and Dyball (2009) and Department of Education and Training (DET) (2012), as well as suggestions made by Cheng (2006) and Wingate and Tribble (2012). On this basis a reconceptualisation of how learning in EAP might be improved is well overdue, although the need for change in EAP might be somewhat eclipsed by the ‘industry’ that surrounds it. It would seem that benefits would be forthcoming for both students and teachers if a more contemporary view of pedagogy and learning was taken (Cheng, 2006, 2015; O’Neill, 2015a; 2016; Tochon, 2014). It is with this in mind that this chapter explores the current status of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and the issues that impact on contemporary pedagogy and learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW Research into public information shows a proliferation of websites that relate to information about and advertising for EAP, for example Book Depository (2016) and, as shown in Figure 5.1, a sample breadth of topics that result from a simple ‘Google’ search of the term. In addition, the topic is broached in at least two key journals, one of the same name, of 34 journals that include English in their titles and are relevant to the study of English, included in Journal Metric (2016): Journal of English for Academic Purposes (SNIP 2014 – 1.629) and Research in the Teaching of English (SNIP 2014 – 1.238), besides eight other relevant journals identified through the search term ‘applied linguistics’. Similarly, there is evidence of ongoing research into the international student experience (Moores & Popadiuk, 2011; Quaye & Harper, 2015) and changed practices in

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

73

the field afforded by the Internet and DCTs (Atai & Dashtestani, 2013; Jarvis, 2001; Sánchez, Cortijo, & Javed, 2014).

Figure 5.1. Results of Single ‘Google’ Search of English for Academic Purposes.

Research into EAP and related areas, such as ESP, reinforces the need to reconsider what has been the traditional pedagogical approach (Benesch, 2012; Cheng, 2015; Thompson & Diani, 2015) and the issue of EAP teacher professional learning (Campion, 2016). As well, it is clear that any new approach needs to take account of other issues such as the demands on students’ cultural knowledge (Alhazami & Nyland, 2013; Lee, 2014), the building of their capacity for language and literacy learning in Western learning environments (O’Neill, 2015a; Tran, 2013), the implications of democratic/dialogic pedagogies (Mayer, 2012; O’Neill, 2017; Rhymes, 2016; Walsh, 2006), and development of their academic identities (Carbone & Orellana, 2010) and identity capital (Côté, 2006; Côté & Levine, 1997). With respect to writing the key academic persuasive genre there is a need for students to understand the language features and associated metalanguage, and acquire the metacognitive processes that underpin the construction of the text (Geoghegan, O’Neill & Petersen, 2013; O’Neill, 2013), which as Tran (2013) highlights, may differ substantially from their prior experience in their own language and culture.

Issues in EAP Pedagogy and Learning There are a range of issues that impact on EAP students as they endeavour to move through the education pathway in EAP to enter their chosen university field of study, with the nature of the change in pedagogical approach often being at the centre. This involves cultural considerations, teachers’ and students’ roles, differences in use of technology, and writing style. It is well documented that traditional approaches to learning have been underpinned by the belief that learning constitutes the transmission of information from teacher to student (Chandler, 2002; Jonassen & Land, 2012). Students’ progress in this circumstance has involved testing their ability to recall that information, a practice that lends itself to the use of multiple choice tests and other strategies that are easy to mark. Not surprisingly, this practice continues where there are very large classes

74

Shirley O’Neill

of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students, and in-country education pathways that require the passing of such written examinations to compete to enter university (Chen, Chang & Chuang, 2007; Choi, 2008; McLean, Hogg, & Kramer, 2014; Ren, 2011). This is often in spite of language education policy shifts that expect a greater focus on speaking proficiency (Humphries & Burns, 2015). Similarly, when these students move into EAP courses in English speaking countries they may face both pedagogical and assessment dilemmas, since being proficient in all four macro skills is essential, and testing includes speaking and listening as well as reading and writing. While EAP courses are intensive it must be remembered that the students are also in transition to university where their academic literacies in English will be severely tested along with their cultural knowledge/intercultural literacy (Liddicoat, 1997).

Cultural Change and the Question of Accommodating Western Funds of Knowledge While it is vital to acknowledge that students may bring different prior pedagogical experiences and beliefs about learning to the EAP situation (Sawir, 2005), it is also important for teachers to be able to recognise the influence of the different knowledge systems in play. With respect to writing for example, Tran (2013, p. 19) points out: When international students learn to write in a specific discipline in the host institution, they may encounter challenges which go far beyond the level of study skills and language forms in writing. The challenges may lie in the mismatches between their own culture-situated interpretations of approaches to knowledge and academic writing and the specific requirements of a distinct discipline in the English medium host institution. This proposes that Chinese and Vietnamese international students’ negotiation of disciplinary writing appears to be related to the mediation of the ways of writing into which they have been socialised and the disciplinary requirements embedded in the whole system of ideologies in the new institutional context. International students’ academic writing is at the same time the endeavour to mediate between the different sources of identities rooted in their personal experiences and the academic writing requirements.

While Biggs (2001) argues international students are able to successfully integrate into Western learning cultures, Hellstén (2002, p. 8), points out that ‘[T]the process of enculturation into the academic knowledge and implicit disciplinary know-how is often perceived as unavailable to new students (Ahola, 2000; Krause, 2001). It is a process which is acquired by trial and error rather than explicit learning.’ She also argues that it is important for international students to have a voice in ‘discourses that regulate the international programme offerings’. Welikala (2015) also advocates for better strategies

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

75

to improve their English proficiency but also points out the need to value the experiences, skills and perceptions that they [international students] bring to the learning situation. This latter point is equally important since if little attention is paid to enculturation into academic knowledge, and there are no avenues for student voice and input into their learning, views of the EAP as being only about ‘delivering’ English lessons runs the risk of perpetuating a treadmill-like practice that treats knowledge at the surface level (Gorska, 2012). However, EAP students and English L1 speakers alike need to be aware of the Western philosophical traditions (Cottingham, 2007) in order to grasp at depth, particularly those epistemological and ontological underpinnings upon, which their understanding depends. But as Mirdamadi’s (2016) review of Paya (2013) highlights, when faced with comparing world philosophies, it is not a simple task. Yet this problem must loom high at the practice level for many international students embarking on their learning journey in Western settings. By the same token it is equally important that local students have opportunities to expand their knowledge and experience, as McNiff (2013, p. 502) outlines in her application of the notion of cultural cosmopolitanism which involves: developing a dialogic attitude, that is, an openness to the other and a willingness to listen and learn . . . recognizing the validity of the other’s point of view, and their right to hold that view depends largely on one’s own capacity to acknowledge and respect the cultural and historical situatedness of all participants in the encounter, including oneself.

Together with Pennycook’s (2013) argument for critical pedagogy, moves to broaden and deepen the approach to EAP in these ways and ensure whole student constituencies are included in dialogical communities of inquiry (McNiff, 2013; Wells, 2010), it seems, would enhance the learning experiences and outcomes for all. More specifically, Pennycook (2013) enlarges on benefits for students and the need for professional learning for teachers to be able to change their philosophy and practices. He emphasises: if we can construct pedagogies that take up the discursive domains particularly related to English and to the students, that explore linguistically how students can come to make meanings for themselves, that seek to start with students’ subjectivities, there is a possibility that we can effectively help students to find and negotiate voices in English (p. 297).

He goes on to cite Giroux (1988), in concurring with his vision for teachers as needing to see themselves as transformative intellectuals as opposed to classroom technicians employed to transmit knowledge. This is also borne out in Helmer’s (2013) research that reports on her use of a critical EAP framework with urban Hispanic College students in the US. Drawing on the work of Benesch (2001) and Pennycook, after identifying programme challenges, the aim was to facilitate programme revitalisation,

76

Shirley O’Neill

and align practice with democratic teaching principles. She explains how ‘critical applied linguists propose theoretical frameworks that question, negotiate, and implement more equitable and democratic learning environments for multilingual learners and EAP professionals while also being sensitive to local and broader social, cultural, ideological, and political contexts’ (Helmer, 2013, p. 274). There is much need therefore, to reconceptualise a more effective EAP programme that takes into account critical pedagogy. There is also a great deal for teachers to understand and adapt their role in all of this to be able to build students’ capacity. They need to enable students to acquire the underpinning epistemology and ontology to fully engage in academic literacies, and ultimately with persuasive writing as noted earlier in IELTS requirements.

Considering Pedagogical Styles in the Quality of Teaching and Learning Just as Campion (2016) challenges the traditional university practice of dividing ESL and mainstream students in their common need of academic literacies learning (DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014; Wingate & Tribble, 2012), research is also challenging the traditional teaching of EFL/ESL, particularly where learning environments demand the use of ‘English only’ (Gunderson, Odo, & D’Silva, 2013; Macaro & Lee, 2013; Phakati, Hirsh, & Woodrow, 2013). Similarly, there is an increasing recognition of synergies between the traditional differentiation between the bodies of knowledge and practices in teaching English to L1 learners and ESL/EFL, and the continued illumination of the need for more democratic approaches/critical pedagogy (Arkoudis, 2006; Bunch, 2013; Cross, 2011; De Jong & Harper, 2005; Lockhart & Ng, 1995). Within this is the importance of the dialogues in which teachers and students part-take as being able to facilitate the scaffolding of learning, and stimulate students’ use of the L2 language in meaningful, interactive ways. While by no means now, there is a growing interest and focus on dialogic pedagogy (Shamsipour & Allami, 2012; Skidmore & Murakami, 2016; Walsh, 2006). Relevant to a social constructivist approach to learning, it requires teachers to be aware of the impact of the dialogue they create and govern from moment-tomoment on students’ opportunities to learn (Edwards-Groves, 2012; van Es & Sherin, 2002). It involves teachers being aware of their metacognitive processes in being able to formulate the most useful cognitive moves in the scaffolding of learning in response to the emergent dialogue with students. O’Neill and Geoghegan (2012, p. 99) cite Van Es and Sherin’s (2002, p. 592) in describing ‘how the novice teacher typically gives a literal description of what they observe is happening in a lesson compared with the expert teacher who interprets the events to discuss pedagogy and pedagogical decisions . . . [concluding] that, “reform requires that teachers develop new routines and attend to new aspects of practice in new ways”’.

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

77

Analyses of transcripts of lesson talk have demonstrated ‘traditional pedagogy’ as monologic (as opposed to dialogic) in showing how the teacher’s cognitive moves initiate (I) talk by asking a question, that is followed by a student response (R) to which the teacher typically evaluates (E) in their reply (e.g. conveying whether correct or incorrect). This triad of turn-taking (IRE) has been found to be repetitive and overarchingly monologic, thus limiting in terms of opportunities for students’ input and initiation of talk/dialogue (Heap, 1985). Similarly, the contrast between the monologic and dialogic is illustrated in Anstey and Bull’s (1996) analysis of lesson transcripts where they differentiate between the effectiveness of teachers’ pedagogical styles in their ability to scaffold student’s literacy learning. Using a reading comprehension lesson they exemplify the type of talk that results in keeping students busy rather than learning, which is more monologic compared with a dialogue where students have voice and agency. To examine the dialogic, more recently, the triad of prepare (P), identify (I) and elaborate (E), termed the Scaffolding Interactional Cycle (SIC) (Culican, 2005; Rose, 2005a, 2005b), has been shown to be more appropriate for the analysis of the talk involved in democratic learning experiences (Culican, 2005; Geoghegan, O’Neill, & Petersen, 2013; Rose, 2005a, 2005b). As well, Edwards-Groves, Anstey and Bull (2014) have drawn attention to the need to disrupt the triad IRE through the need for a ‘fourth turn’. In addition, Walsh’s (2006) research analysed teacher-student dialogues from which he derived a list of interactional features associated with turn-taking that either supported the scaffolding of learning or hindered it. Shamispour and Allami (2014) applied these features to the dialogue in Iranian EFL classes. They concluded that such ‘interactional space [for learning] is maximised through increasing wait-time, reducing teacher echo and promoted extended learner turn’ (p. 2267). Wait-time refers to teachers giving more time for a student to respond, whereas teacher echo occurs when the talk episode is stopped as the teacher’s ‘E’ move simply repeats what the student said and therefore acts as a barrier to sustaining the scaffolding conversation or turn-taking possibility of the dialogic/ideas exchange. Of note is that Edwards-Groves, Anstey and Bull (2014) provide new deeper insights, first through a comparison of classroom talk practices (see Table 5.1) and then through the concept of ‘practice architecture’ (see Figure 5.2) in their reconceptualisation of dialogue, pedagogy and practice. In their detailed discussion they illuminate and exemplify the professional practices of teachers. Table 5.1 provides a comparison of the impact of the dialogic and monologic learning environments on students’ experiences. The comparative features clearly show the limitations in the monologic learning context and justify the need for change to a critical pedagogical approach where teachers, as noted earlier, would be transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1988), able to be sensitised to their cognitive and metacognitive processes to be able to guide the scaffolding of students’ learning in the best possible way. This means that such teachers would be aware of their thinking processes during a lesson and would be monitoring the pedagogical dialogue they govern so as to make

78

Shirley O’Neill

adjustments to maximise the scaffolding of students’ learning. As noted earlier, in Van Es and Sherin’s (2002) terms, these teachers take ‘notice’; and as Walsh (2006) found they are able to consciously incorporate interactional features associated with turn-taking that best support the scaffolding of learning (e.g. extended wait time, modelling, extended learner turn, seeking clarification). Clearly, then the dialogic learning experiences are best able to foster students’ thinking and input, as well as teachers’, and prepare the way for them to be generative learners (Lee, Lim, & Grabowski, 2008; O’Neill, 2015a), rather than passive, e.g. the traditional completing of ‘exercises’ (Edelsky, 1986) merely waiting for the teacher to tell them what to do next. It draws attention to the importance of the metalanguage that pertains to the learning (O’Neill, 2013), and the need for students to have acquired it to be able to connect/engage and comprehend the teacher talk and therefore discuss. Table 5.1. Comparison of the Resultant Learning Experiences of Dialogic and Monologic Teaching Practices Dialogic teaching practices are often experienced as: a learning focused partnership open, participatory and collaborative the typical IRE is disrupted with a 4th turn talk is a leverage for deep learning and reasoning more dynamic, active and activist process orientated – making learning and knowledge public more students have a voice active listening to teachers and peers equitable ways of relating shared responsibility for learning more time for students thinking and talking more opportunities for thinking and talking more time for rehearsing and consolidating ideas students develop from what they are thinking students positioned as thinkers, theorises, holders of a position making learning and thinking and knowledge accountable more open-ended questioning enabling reasoning, hypothesising and ‘thinking aloud’ divergent ideas accepted and valued more democratic power and agency being dispersed more equally time for talk being more equitable – the ‘floor is shared’

Monologic teaching practices are often experienced as: directive compliance relationship a one-way transmission of knowledge a typical 3-part IRE structure talk for organising students, behaviour and resources more static and passive knowledge driven – ideas often remain invisible more students being silent teacher centred, directed and mediated hierarchical ways of relating students responsible for complying less time for students thinking and talking less room for negotiation of meaning ‘on the run’ thinking and articulation of ideas students trying to guess what is in teachers’ mind students positioned as followers of instructions and more simply as being correct or incorrect making compliance accountable or prioritised questioning for known answers or more closed questioning having more convergence of ideas more autocratic having power and agency dominated by the teacher the floor being generally the province of the teacher

(From Edwards-Groves, Anstey & Bull, 2014, p. 81-82; developed by Edwards-Groves, 2013)

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

79

In Edwards-Groves, Anstey, and Bull’s (2014) terms the nature of the workings within a learning environment can be conceptualised as ‘practice architecture’, which provides new deeper insights into the critique of practice. Figure 5.2 illustrates this practice architecture of classroom talk. It shows how the ecology of the learning environment consists of sayings, doings and relatings that interact to shape the learning experiences. Edwards-Groves, Anstey, and Bull (2014) explain in detail as follows. Understanding the nature of these places and spaces (or site ontologies) helps us to understand how classroom practices are themselves sites formed through talk that takes place:  



through saying in semantic space where people make meaning (whereby a shared language in which meanings are shared and mutual understanding is possible) through doings in physical space-time where people do things at particular times both as individuals or as a collective (whereby shared locations in space and time in which interactions in shared activities are possible) through relatings in social space where people interact with one another (whereby shared encounters which afford different kinds of roles and relationships are possible) (p. 157, italics are authors).

(From Edwards-Groves, Anstey & Bull, 2014, p. 156) Figure 5.2. The Classroom Architecture of Classroom Talk.

80

Shirley O’Neill

When this research is considered in relation to improving EFL pedagogy and the implications that flow from the notion of democratic/dialogic and critical pedagogy in the context of academic literacies, a reconceptualisation of practice is well justified. With respect to writing the key academic persuasive genres one might argue that EAP learners need to understand the underpinning knowledge system and come to grips with the contrastive rhetoric (Kaplan, 1988). However, from Kubota and Lehner’s (2004) perspective, this needs to be approached in a ‘critical’ way too so as to acknowledge the multiplicity of languages, rhetorical forms, and students’ identities. They argue that traditional ‘contrastive rhetoric represented by Kaplan’s view keeps standard English in its place of authority and positions second language student writers as needing correction’, citing Kowal (1998) as stating: ‘Kaplan puts the native… English teacher, by proxy – in the position of authority, and of power’ (p. 136). Thus, any change needs to address these issues, which through the democratising of the learning environment and a more critical pedagogical approach where there is negotiation of meaning and meaning making, students can engage in EAP learning with greater self-efficacy.

THE DEMANDS OF WRITING PERSUASIVELY Today, with the influence of high stakes testing for EFL/ESL, and government accountability measures in general education (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2011; Carbone & Orellana, 2010; IELTS, 2011; Kubota & Lehner, 2004), a genre-based approach is typically in vogue for the teaching and assessment of writing (Hye, 2012; O’Neill, 2012a; Yang, 2016). While implementing a genre-based approach is reported by these researchers and others to be able to improve EFL students’ writing and reading (Carrell & Connor, 1991; Kim, 2007), Yang (2016, p. 41) notes that apart from the Chinese college students in his study being weak in discourse comprehension and analysis, and the ability to recognise grammatical and rhetorical structures, it was felt that the approach ‘separates genre and its complex and dynamic social-cultural context’. This raises the issue of the nature of the pedagogy and practices as to their dialogic or monologic features. An additional point is the need for conceptual models of writing to recognise that besides depending on students’ thinking and metacognitive processes (Oatley & Djikic, 2008) it also involves the writer in reading. In turn this requires teachers and students to also have an understanding of what constitutes reading that supports a critical pedagogical approach. This is evident in the application of the Four Resources Model (4RM) (Luke & Freebody, 1999), which recognises that the effective reader needs to be able to play four roles of Code Breaker, Text User, Text Participant and Text Analyst. These roles may be played individually but the reader must also be able to integrate them into the making of meaning (see Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST], 2002). In his investigation into

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

81

first year university students’ critical literacy using the 4RM in Hong Kong, Ruan (2015, p. 39) notes the text analyst role is that which involves the critical practices. It involves: disrupting the commonplace; interrogating multiple viewpoints; focusing on sociopolitical issues; and taking actions and promoting social justice (Lewison, Flint, & Van Sluys, 2002). Through this research he identifies three factors necessary to cultivate these students’ critical literacy: ‘1) involving learning materials that could connect the word with the world; 2) building a learning environment that was inclusive, equal, and could encourage dialogues and active engagement; and 3) employing a pedagogy that could engage critical practices and enact the agency of the teacher and students’ (p. 217). This important research highlights the dialogic in the context of the Chinese knowledge system and sociocultural context. In the spirit of the need to develop dialogical communities of inquiry, Yang (2016) cites Bazerman (2009, p. 291) who notes: students learn how to produce the kinds of thoughts appropriate to the assigned genres, using the concepts and discursive tools expected in the genres, and they learn how to locate their findings, analysis, and thought within the communal project of academic learnings. Further, we find in integrative genres a mechanism by which fully socialized professionals develop the leading edge of the field, moving the field onto the next level of work, in influencing both group cognition and the cognition of participating individuals. There is an interaction between learning to write in more advanced, new, or hybrid forms and cognitive growth for both individual and community or ‘thought collective’ (Fleck, 1979).

Moreover, according to Nippold, Ward-Lonergan and Fanning (2005, p. 134) students’ persuasive writing will improve when teachers ‘expand students’ ability to think about controversies from multiple perspectives, to generate plausible arguments for both sides of an issue, and to employ later developing syntactic structures and literate vocabulary in the context of persuasive assignments’. How to create the critical pedagogical learning environment is conducive with Tochon’s (2014) deep approach to language learning. In arguing that in today’s knowledge society ‘learning is socially constructed’ (Reigeluth, 1999) he applies the theory of ‘cognitive apprenticeship’. He notes: While cognitive apprenticeship uses situated modelling, scaffolding, collaboration and coaching to develop proficiency within boundaries of a particular discipline (Collins, Duguid & Brown, 1989), social apprenticeship stimulates various forms of interaction and socialisation through cooperative projects to enhance knowledge, skills and experiences within contexts genuinely and informally created by the learners through peer negotiations and collaborations (Boulima, 1999; Ding, 2008). Deep apprenticeship encompasses both cognitive and social aspects within a content-based, transdisciplinary perspective. The model of deep apprenticeship that I propose here fulfills disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary goals (p. 129).

82

Shirley O’Neill

In keeping with democratic practices and experiential learning Tochon (2014) advocates project-based/problem-based learning as core to the deep approach and in turn the catalyst for engagement and interactions, thereby creating what might be called a dialogical community of inquiry that is capable of building students’ capacity to learn. However, if sufficient depth is to be achieved certain conditions are seen as essential, for example, input from the students to invoke intrinsic motivation, students’ choice of topics and ways of processing them, firm deadlines, different ways of grouping such as pairing and teaming, and clear roles and responsibilities in keeping with achieving a democrat and stimulating learning environment. He also advises that projects need to be taken seriously and have detailed specifications that are geared to taxonomic levels that are also able to integrate the transdisciplinary dimension. In keeping with the divide in concepts of pedagogy, traditional versus social constructivism and critical pedagogy, the monologic versus the dialogic, Tochon (2014, p. 332) notes that ‘the role of the world language teacher is changing from that of “an instructor” to pedagogical scaffolder, cross-cultural resource librarian and methodological counsellor’. He provides a further insight into teacher preparedness (Campion, 2013) in noting Karaman, Sepil and Black’s (2008) finding that ‘many beginning and early intermediate learners prefer having a non-native teacher . . . [because they are] better able to create the necessary cognitive links between L2 and L1, [and] the pedagogy is adapted to the first culture, and bridges towards the target culture can be set to attenuate culture shock’. This adds another dimension to the appreciation of the knowledge and skills, and depth of understanding involved in the language teacher’s role and adds to the issues and trends presented and discussed so far. The next section attempts to draw these together through the adaptation of O’Neill’s (2013) concept map for key aspects of pedagogical change and application of principles of GAMMA pedagogy (O’Neill, 2015a).

KEY ASPECTS TO CONSIDER FOR PEDAGOGICAL CHANGE AND APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF GAMMA PEDAGOGY In terms of getting started in reconceptualising EAP pedagogy O’Neill’s (2013, p. 116) concept map of key aspects of pedagogical change is applied and adapted to encompass the emergent issues and trends for EAP. It casts the pedagogical change within a critical pedagogical framework as a lens and filter to policy and practice. Guided by this map that was developed from research into how pedagogy was reconceptualised in the context of ESL, it can be extrapolated that through the development of a collaborative dialogical community of inquiry, that gives voice and agency to students it would be expected that outcomes of change would show a new sophisticated level of

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

83

practice and potential improvement in learning and the acquisition of academic literacies and EAP programmes. In keeping with Hellstén’s (2002) work there would be an enhanced process of enculturation into the academic knowledge and implicit disciplinary know-how. Teachers would engage in action research (McNiff, 2014) in relation to their practice, building their capacity collaboratively to be informed and prepared to teach within a critical pedagogical framework. Through such a process teachers would have the opportunity to develop a common philosophy of learning and an understanding of dialogic and democratic pedagogies compared with the traditional monologic. Importantly, through the implementation of project-based and problem-based learning (Tochon, 2014) and cognitive apprenticeship to achieve deeper language learning it would be expected that there would be a shift towards a focus on learning rather than on ‘teaching’ or ‘instruction’ that relates to students’ interests and needs rather than on ‘teaching’ or ‘instruction’. Students’ learning experiences would reflect those relevant to Edwards-Groves, Anstey and Bull’s (2014) analysis of the dialogic as shown in column one of Table 5.1, and a mirroring of their ‘practice architecture’ in Figure 5.2, thus effecting a deeper understanding. In keeping with the conceptualisation of their ‘sayings’, ‘doings’ and ‘relatings’, the language of learning (O’Neill, 2013) and the meaningmaking system that would be developed (Abawi, 2013; O’Neill, 2016) would be rich in the metalanguage, and intercultural knowledge, and reflect the teaching of the related metacognitive processes. On this basis, as O’Neill’s research (2013) showed, new routines and tools for thinking and learning would be expected to emerge, and be used consistently across learning programmes from which various artefacts Côté (2006) would be developed in support of the new practices and understandings in order to model and sustain the change. Implementing this critical pedagogical framework is further explored through the application of O’Neill’s (2015b; 2016) five principles of GAMMA pedagogy: Generative practice, Active design, Mutuality, Metaphor and Authority. These are seen as at the core of the framework, as shown in Figure 5.3, and were also derived from her research into effective pedagogical change where the resultant reconceptualised pedagogy, achieved what is described as a ‘hallmark pedagogy’ as that designed to best serve the needs of the learner group. She emphasises: ‘[I]in GAMMA pedagogy students and teachers are in a new third space so to speak, where pedagogical practices and cognitive resources operate in concert, in use in a mutually agreed and understood way’ (O’Neill, 2015b, p. 121). The first principle, Generative Practice, argues that practice should be generative and students need to be generative in their learning (Lee, Lim, & Grabowski, 2008) as this is necessary for both their ongoing intrinsic motivation and proactivity as learners, for learner autonomy and engagement in project- and problem- based learning. It recognises the dialogic nature of learning in critical pedagogy, and the underpinnings of learning in a collaborative dialogical community of inquiry that provides a verdant ground for the process of enculturation. To achieve the ‘hallmark’ pedagogy appropriate for the

84

Shirley O’Neill

particular context it needs to be actively designed. As teachers acquire the knowledge and skills to engage in continuous reflection and critical discussion with colleagues and students their practice also becomes generative in seeking to implement, improve and sustain high quality pedagogy in keeping with the needs of the particular student community and their vision for their programme (O’Neill, 2015b). The principle of Active Design treats teachers as professionals, in Giroux’s terms as transformative intellectuals. Through the lens of the critical pedagogical framework they would engage in a collaborative reflective process through action research to examine their personal pedagogical beliefs in relation to their current practice compared with the authority of critical pedagogy to be able to identify ways of moving forward, e.g. gaps in knowledge and professional learning needs.

(Adapted from O’Neill, 2013, p. 116) Figure 5.3. Concept Map of Key Aspects of Pedagogical Change.

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

85

Through this deep process, which should include EAP students’ voices from across cultures and disciplines, existing pedagogy and practice can be reconceptualised with a design where teachers have understanding and ownership that is ‘visible’ to all at the level of practice (Conway & Abawi, 2013; O’Neill, 2013) and enabling of students’ access to epistemological and ontological needs. As O’Neill (2016) notes: as opposed to learning contexts spawned through traditional pedagogical practices, educators infused with GAMMA pedagogy can be expected to bring in-depth knowledge to their practice. This would be evident in the learning experiences they design and their accompanying pedagogical dialogue and educational conversations, thus reflecting van Lier’s (2003, p. 94) thesis that: ‘our dealings with the world, our meaning making (semiosis) are essentially dialogical and interactional in nature’. Thus, in turn their design of learning experiences would be expected to be valid for their hallmark pedagogy across learning contexts institutionally (p. 58).

Mutuality as the third principle refers to the changed relationship between teachers and students in the dialogic learning environment. It acknowledges the focus on learning and the mutuality of the concepts pertaining to critical pedagogy, and the language and metalanguage in use for learning, as well as both students and teachers being involved in inquiry based learning and critical reflection. As O’Neill (2015a, p. 122) explains, ‘pedagogy is transformed through the building of social capital and the capacity of both students and teachers to engage in pedagogical dialogue, higher order thinking skills and learning. Students are supported in their ability to conceptualise and discuss their own learning, set goals and make choices’. Within this mutual capacity building students have voice and agency in relation to their learning and are party to the hallmark pedagogy in place, being able to discuss it and how it relates to their progress and goals. The adoption of the critical pedagogical framework requires a shift in teacher cognition, which the fourth principle, in promoting the application of metaphor, provides a vehicle for abductive thinking (Ovchinnikova et al., 2014; Shank & Cunningham, 1996; Tochon, 2013). It is equally relevant to students in having the potential to develop learner identity and helps make new meaning, and also reconceptualise pedagogy (Crick & Grushka, 2009; Huang, 2011). As O’Neill (2016) notes in her exploration of the oak tree as a metaphor for deep learning: those aspiring to deploy the metaphor of the oak tree to envision their hallmark pedagogy, in collaboration with their learning community, can stimulate a journey of self-development and learning autonomy. In Tochon’s (2013) terms this facilitates a transformative semiosis that creates a cognitive shift to equip them with the cognitive, executive skills to conceptualise and implement their hallmark pedagogy in practice. As experts in their field they draw upon metaphorical thinking to move between different

86

Shirley O’Neill cognitive domains in making pedagogical connections, thus enriching and deepening their practice to foster students’ learning (p. 59).

Finally, the fifth principle of Authority highlights the importance of the resultant hallmark pedagogy as being authoritative. This means that in the collaborative active design process, through the dialogic community of inquiry teachers/stakeholders would research and gather evidence from the literature to develop their critical pedagogical approach. The resultant hallmark pedagogy should therefore be grounded in authoritative theory and be able to be implemented consistently across learning spaces through teachers’ sense of ownership and their authorship. Similarly, in action, students would be empowered as learners, with this critical pedagogical approach helping to build their capacity, their social, intellectual and identity capital to be generative and autonomous in their learning, and importantly be successfully enculturated into the vital academic knowledge and implicit disciplinary know-how and critical thinking skills. In conclusion, in recognising the continued demand for learning English for academic purposes, this reconceptualisation of EAP pedagogy and learning through the application of the proposed critical pedagogical framework, that places the principles of GAMMA pedagogy at the core, argues that learners that acquire an internalised generative disposition and are supported in this way to making critical meaning in their L2 are better equipped to engage and drive their personal/lifelong learning (O’Neill, 2016). This is what was qualified as critical pedagogy and the deepening of learning in the present demonstration and thus is central to the development of the knowledge and critical thinking skills that underpin the ability to write persuasively. It provides direction for those who wish to transform their pedagogy and takes into account the issue of teachers’ professional learning needs, students’ linguistic and cultural diversity and most importantly the need for critical pedagogy and the dialogic learning environment and community of inquiry. It also advocates teachers’ action research and draws attention to the need for future research to investigate this process and teachers’ and students’ learning experiences in its implementation in EAP, particularly with respect to reading and writing and the ability to comprehend and write the persuasive genres. ‘Writing is thinking. To write well is to think clearly. That’s why it’s so hard.’ (Cole, 2002)

REFERENCES Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority. (2011). My school fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Reliability_and_validity_of_NAP LAN.pdf

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

87

Ahola, S. (2000). Hidden curriculum in higher education: Something to fear for or comply to? Paper presented at Innovations in Higher Education Conference, Helsinki, Finland. Alhazmi, A., & Nyland, B. (2013). The Saudi Arabian international student experience: From a gender-segregated society to studying in a mixed-gender environment. Compare: A Journal Of Comparative & International Education, 43(3), 346-365. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (1996). Re-examining pedagogical knowledge and classroom practice. In G. Bull & M. Anstey, (Eds.), The literacy labyrinth, (pp. 89- 106). Sydney, Australia: Prentice-Hall. Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415433. Atai, M. R., & Dashtestani, R. (2013). Iranian English for academic purposes (EAP) stakeholders’ attitudes toward using the Internet in EAP courses for civil engineering students: promises and challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 2138. Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 279294). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Benesch, S. (2012). Critical English for academic purposes. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Biggs, J. (2001). Teaching international students. In J. Biggs, Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student does (pp. 121-140). Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Book Depository. (2016). Retrieved from https:// www.bookdepository.com/ EAP-NowEnglish-for-Academic-Purposes-Teachers-Book-Kathy-Cox/9781442528024? redirected=true&gclid=CK_Ox6S6u84CFdcRvQodAqcNuA. Boulima, J. (1999). Negotiated interaction in target language classroom discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(l), 32-42. Bunch, G. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298341. Campion, G. C. (2016). The learning never ends’: Exploring teachers’ views on the transition from general English to EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 59-70.

88

Shirley O’Neill

Carbone, P. M., & Orellana, M. F. (2010). Developing academic identities: Persuasive writing as a tool to strengthen emergent academic identities. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(3), 292-316. Carrell, P. L., & Connor, U. (1991). Reading and writing descriptive and persuasive texts. The Modern Language Journal, 75, iii, 314- 324. Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. London, England: Routledge. Chen, F., Chang, T., & Chuang, Y. (2007). Using NETPAW to advance senior high school students’ English acquisition in the context of the Common European Framework. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, UICEE, 6(2), 1-11. Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Academic Purposes, 25, 76-89. Cheng, A. (2015). Genre analysis as a pre-instructional, instructional, and teacher development framework. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19(25), 125136. Choi, I. C. (2008). The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing, 25(1), 39-62. Cole, B. (2002). Interview with NEH chairman Bruce Cole by David McCullough. Humanities, 23(4), July/Aug. Retrieved from http:// www.goodreads.com/ quotes/ 320581-writing-is-thinking-to-write-well-is-to-think-clearly. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conway, J. M., & Abawi, L. (2013). Creating enduring strength through commitment to schoolwide pedagogy. Improving Schools, 16(2). 175-185. Côté, J. E. (2006). Acculturation and identity: The role of individualisation theory. Human Development, 49, 31-35. Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1997). Student motivations, learning environments, and human capital acquisition: Towards an integrated paradigm of student development. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 229-243. Cottingham, J. G. (2008). Western philosophy: An anthology (2nd. ed.). London, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Cross, R. (2011). Monolingual curriculum frameworks, multilingual literacy development: ESL teacher beliefs. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34(2), 166-180. Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4) 348-359. Culican, S. J. (2005). Troubling teacher talk: The challenge of changing classroom discourse patterns. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

89

Association for Research in Education, University of Western Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/cul05592.pdf. Crick, R. D., & Grushka, K. (2009). Signs, symbols and metaphor: Linking self with text in inquiry-based learning. The Curriculum Journal, 20(7), 447-464. De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for Englishlanguage learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124. Department of Education, Science and Training. (2002). MY Read: Strategies for teaching reading in the middle years. Retrieved from http:// hub.hku.hk/ bitstream/ 10722/222361/1/FullText.pdf. Department of Education and Training. (2012). Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Australian Government, Canberra: Author. DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 446-482. Edwards-Groves, C. (2012). Interactive creative technologies: Changing learning practices and pedagogies in the writing classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 99-113. Edwards-Groves, C. (2013). Talking to learn through dialogic pedagogies. Unpublished paper, Ripple Institute of Professional Practice Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University, Australia. Edwards-Groves, C., Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2014). Classroom talk: Understanding dialogue, pedagogy and practice. Newtown, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association Australia (PETAA). Flowerdew, J. (2002). Ethnographically inspired approaches in the study of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 235-253). Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Flowerdew, L. (2002). Corpus-based analysis in EAP. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 95-114). Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Geoghegan, D., O’Neill, S., & Petersen, S. (2013). Metalanguage: The ‘teacher talk’ of explicit literacy teaching in practice. Improving Schools, 12(2), 119-129. Gillett, A. (2011). What is EAP? Retrieved from http://www.uefap.com/bgnd/. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Gorska, W. (2012). Ways with writing: International students’ perspectives on responding to academic writing requirements in the UK higher education. In S. Sovic, & M. Blythman (Eds.), International students negotiating higher education: Critical perspectives (pp. 190-208). New York, NY: Routledge.

90

Shirley O’Neill

Gunderson, L., Odo, D. M., & D’Silva, R. (2013). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Heasley, B. (2006). Study writing: A course in writing skills for academic purposes (2nd. ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2013). English for academic purposes. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 243-258). New York, NY: Routledge. Heap, J. L. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 245-79. Hellstén, M. (2002). Students in transition: Needs and experiences of international students in Australia. Paper presented at the 16th. Australian International Education Conference, Hobart, Tasmania. Retrieved from http://aiec.idp.com/ uploads/pdf/ Hellsten_p.pdf. Helmer, K. A. (2013). Critical English for academic purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 273-287. Hye, J. B. (2012). The effectiveness of genre-based L2 writing instruction on Korean middle school students’ writing ability. English Teaching, 67(3), 147-180. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29. Huang, W. C. (2011). The EFL learner identity development: A perspective of metaphor. International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, 1, 1-13. Humphries, S., & Burns, A. (2015). ‘In reality it’s almost impossible’: CLT-oriented curriculum change. ELT Journal, 69, 239-248. International English Language Testing System. (2016). Information for candidates: Introducing IELTS to test takers. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/~/ media/ publications/information-for-candidates/ielts-information-for-candidates-2015english-uk.ashx. Ingram, D. E., & Wylie, E. (1979/1999). The International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR). Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages, Griffith University. Jarvis, H. (2001). Internet usage of English for academic purposes courses. ReCALL, 13(2), 206-212. Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Kaplan, R. B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes towards a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 275–304). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kim, M. (2007). Genre-based approach to teaching writing. Language Sciences, 29(5). 621-632.

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

91

Krause, K. L. (2001). The university essay writing experience: A pathway for academic integration during transition. Higher Education, Research and Development, 20(2), 147-168. Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Towards critical contrastive rhetoric, Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7-27. Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2008). Generative learning: Principles and implications for making meaning. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 111-124). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lee, L. (2014). Digital news stories: Building language learners’ content knowledge and speaking skills. Foreign Language Annals, 47(2), 338-356. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university classes. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39-69. Liddicoat, A. (1997). Communicating within cultures, communicating across cultures, communicating between cultures. In Z. Golebiowski & H. Borland (Eds.), Academic communication across disciplines and cultures (vol. 2, pp. 12-23). Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University of Technology. Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382-392. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analysing talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655. Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999a). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8. Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999b). Further notes on the four resources model. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html. Macaro, E., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Teacher language background, codeswitching, and English-only instruction: Does age make a difference to learners? TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 717-742. Mayer, S. J. (2012). Classroom discourse and democracy: Making meanings together. New York, NY: Peter Lang. McLean, S., Hogg, N., & Kramer, B. (2014). Estimations of Japanese university learners’ English vocabulary sizes using the vocabulary size test. Vocabulary Learning & Instruction, 3(2), 47-55. Mcmillin, J., & Dyball, R. (2009). Developing a whole-of-university approach to educating for sustainability: Linking curriculum, research and sustainable campus operations. Journal of Education for Sustainability Development, 3(1), 55-64. McNiff, J. (2013). Becoming cosmopolitan and other dilemmas of internationalization: Reflections from the Gulf States, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 501-515. McNiff, J. (2014). Writing and doing action research. London, England: Sage. Menary, R. (2007). Writing is thinking, Language Sciences, 29(5), 621-632.

92

Shirley O’Neill

Mirdamadi, Y. (2016). [Review of the book The misty land of ideas and the light of dialogue: An anthology of comparative philosophy: Western and Islamic, ed. by Ali Paya.] Philosophy East and West, 66(3), 1038-1040. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu. Moores, L., & Popadiuk, N. (2011). Positive aspects of international student transitions: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 291-306. NAPLAN. (2010). The national assessment program literacy and numeracy, achievement in reading, writing, language conventions and numeracy report. Canberra, Australia: MCEETYA. NAPLAN. (2011). Persuasive writing marking guide, Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority. Retrieved from www.naplan.edu.au/ verve/_resources/ Marking_Guide_2011.pdf. Neeley, T. (2012). Global business speaks English, cross-cultural management. Harvard Business Review, May. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/05/global-businessspeaks-english. Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138. Oatley, K., & Djikic, M. (2008). Writing is thinking. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 9-27. O’Neill, S. (2009). EFL proficiency level and differences in Japanese secondary school students’ views on the need for pedagogical change. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(1), 49-71. O’Neill, S. (2012a). Teaching and assessment of persuasive writing: Juggling the language features and grasping the metalanguage. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(1), 84-98. O’Neill, S. (2012b). Implementing NETPAW’s test of English proficiency in Australia: A case study. Language Learning Technologies: An International Online Journal, 2(1), 121-144. O’Neill, S. (2013). Activating the ‘language for learning’ through Schoolwide pedagogy: The case of MacKillop school. Improving Schools, 12(2), 107-118. O’Neill, S. (2015a). School leadership and pedagogical reform: Building student capacity. In K. Beycioglu & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), Multidimensional perspectives on principal leadership effectiveness (pp. 103-131). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. O’Neill, S. (2015b). EFL teachers’ professional learning needs: Working with multimedia and the CLOUD. In L. T. Wong, & A. Dubey-Jhaveri (Eds.), English language education in a global world: Practices, issues and challenges (pp. 47-60). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

93

O’Neill, S. (2016). Educational growth and the semiotics of the tree: Exploring the OAK as a framework for deep learning. In F. V. Tochon (Ed.), Deep education in the disciplines and beyond (pp. 43-69). Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press. O’Neill, S., & Geoghegan, D. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ comparative analyses of teacher-/parent-child talk: Making literacy teaching explicit and children’s literacy learning visible. International Journal of Studies in English, 12(1), 97-128. Ovchinnikova, E., Israel, R., Wertheim, S., Zaytsev, V., Montazeri, N., & Hobbs, J. (2014). Abductive inference for interpretation of metaphors. Proceedings of the Second Workshop in NLP (pp. 33-41). Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics. Pennycook, A. (2013). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London, England: Routledge. Phakati, A., Hirsh, D., & Woodrow, L. (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL international students in Australia. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 239-258. Queensland Department of Education. (1994). A guide to genres in English. English in Years 1 to 10: Queensland syllabus materials. Brisbane, Australia: Author. Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2015). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge. Ren, Y. (2011). A study of washback of college English test (Band 4) on teaching and learning English at tertiary level in China. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(3), 243-259. Rhymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Rose, D. (2005a). Democratising the classroom: A literacy pedagogy for the new generation. Journal of Education, 37, 131-167. Retrieved from http:// dbnweb2. ukzn.ac.za/joe/JoEPDFs/joe%2037%20rose.pdf. Rose, D. (2005b). Learning to read: Reading to learn: Submission to the national inquiry into the teaching of literacy 2005. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/ sectors/ school_ education/policy_initiatives_reviews/key_issues/literacy_numeracy/national_inquiry/ documents/pdf2/sub_315_pdf.htm. Ruan, Q. (2015). Cultivating English learners critical literacy in mainland China through the four resourses model in blended learning (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10722/222361. Sánchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes, Computers and Education, 70, 138-149.

94

Shirley O’Neill

Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-580. Shamsipour, A., & Allami, H. (2012). Teacher talk and learner involvement in EFL classrooms: The case of Iranian setting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2262-2268. Shank, G., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Modeling the six modes of Peircean abduction for educational purposes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest A1 and Cognitive Science Conference, Bloomington, IN. Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Thompson, P., & Diani, G. (2015). English for academic purposes: Approaches and implication., Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Tochon, F. V. (2011). Research on the possible implications of multimedia language education with iPad or Tablet PC. Keynote Speech. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference of APAMALL and ROCMELIA (pp. 15–27). Kaohsiung, Taiwan: National Kaohsiung Normal University. Tochon, F. V. (2013). Signs and symbols in education: Educational semiotics. Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press. Tochon, F. V. (2014). Help them learn a language deeply - Francois Victor Tochon’s Deep Approach to world languages and cultures. Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press. TOEFL. (2011). Test of English as a foreign language. Retrieved from www.ets.org/toefl. Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tran, L. T. (2013). International student adaptation to academic writing in higher education. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596. Van Lier, L. (2003). The semiotics and ecology of language learning: Perception, voice, identity and democracy. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 79-103. Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal, 60(2), 133141. Welikala, T. (2015, July 4). Universities don’t understand how international students learn. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educationnetwork/2015/jul/03/universities-dont-understand-how-international-students-learn. Wells, G. (2010). Dialogue, inquiry and the construction of learning communities. In B. Lingard, J. Nixon & S. Ranson (Eds.), Transforming learning in schools and communities (pp. 236-256). London, England: Continuum.

Building Students’ Capacity to Write English for Academic Purposes

95

Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 751-757. Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481-495. Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2004). Principled teaching to(wards) the test? Persuasive writing in two classrooms. Language Arts, 81(6), 502-512. Wu, S. Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(3), 148-178.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 6

LEXICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN EAP WRITING: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY Yushiang Jou1 and Peter De Costa2 1

2

University of Michigan, USA Michigan State University, USA

ABSTRACT In support of students who learn English for Academic Purposes (EAP), there has been an enormous recent growth of interest in corpus studies (e.g. Granger et al., 2015; Hyland & Milton, 2006) as a means to better understand academic texts and provide pedagogical recommendations for EAP writing instruction. As has been widely noted in the EAP writing literature (e.g. Swales & Feak, 2012), academic writing presents a daunting challenge for L2 graduate students. To address this challenge, corpus linguists have analysed learner corpora data to better understand how learners make meaning in their writing. Given that meaningmaking plays a key role in L2 students’ acquisition of lexical knowledge (Macis & Schmitt, in press), this chapter draws on corpus-based data from the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP) to examine how two central lexicogrammatical forms of meaning – interpersonal and ideational meanings – are realised in lexical construction by L2 writers. Guided by an interest in L2 writers’ use of a common lexical construction in academic writing, this chapter asks: (1) What are the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 writers’ choices of lexical constructions in academic writing?; and (2) What are the functional preferences that can be identified from their use of lexical constructions? To address these two questions, we analysed 63 argumentative essays from MICUSP and drew on systemic functional linguistics as an analytic tool to examine meanings construed in the target lexical construction. The results showed that there was a significant difference in L1 and L2 writers’ use of lexical constructions. The chapter closes with a discussion of some important implications for EAP writing instructors as

98

Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa they help their students gain more control of lexis to make meaningful choices in academic writing.

Keywords: English for Academic Purposes, L2 writers, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers

INTRODUCTION As the world’s preeminent academic and research language, it is not surprising that approximately 1.2 million students study in English outside their home countries (Hyland, 2013). In particular, the number of L2 students attending colleges and universities in the U.S. markedly increased from 0.45 million in the 1990s to a record high of 0.82 million in 2015 (Institute of International Education, 2015). In support of students who learn English for Academic Purposes (EAP), the field has witnesses an enormous growth of interest in corpus studies (e.g. Granger et al., 2015; Hyland & Milton 2006; Nesi, 2016) in recent years. This interest spurt is governed by a desire to better understand academic texts and make pedagogical suggestions for EAP writing instruction. Historically, as the field of EAP writing matured, more attention began to be paid to the graduate and research student levels (e.g. Cheng, 2008; Flowerdew, 2015; Kaufhold, 2015; Tardy, 2004, 2005). As has been widely noted in the EAP literature (e.g. Chang & Schleppegrell, 2011; Coles, 2008; Swales & Feak, 2012), academic writing presents a daunting challenge for L2 graduate students. To address this challenge, learner corpora data have been harnessed to better understand students’ meaning-making processes in EAP writing. Given that meaningmaking plays a key role in L2 students’ acquisition of lexical knowledge (Macis & Schmitt, in press), this chapter draws on corpus-based data from the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP) to examine how two central forms of lexicogrammatical meanings – interpersonal and ideational meanings – are realised in a lexical construction in academic texts. According to Ellis (2003), any English constructions are based on particular lexical items. Building on this observation, our chapter zeros in on a construction commonly encountered by L2 graduate students in academic writing – adverb-adjective constructions (e.g. slightly different). In such constructions, adjectives are seen as the base and adverbs as extended lexical units serving as a vehicle for fulfilling a particular interpersonal or ideational function. This chapter frames the writing problems encountered by L2 graduate students in their production of this common construction and provides insights into how some EAP writing instructors can help their students gain more control of the meaning-making enterprise in academic writing.

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing

99

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEXICAL CONSTRUCTIONS As Halliday (1994) noted, ‘written language tends to be lexical dense, but grammatically simple; spoken language tends to be grammatically intricate, but lexically sparse’ (p. 61). In view of Halliday’s observation, knowledge of lexis is particularly important to learning how language works in academic texts. Since language can be patterned by lexical usages and grammatical systems (Hunston & Francis, 2000), many studies have drawn on corpus data to shed light on preferences for certain lexical items identified from corpus evidence (Sinclair, 1991). For example, Tao (2007) compared a native speaker (NS) corpus with an EFL learner corpus to investigate differences in collocational use. To examine L2 learners’ use of common adverbs in collocations, Lorenz (1999) also studied the use of amplifiers (e.g. absolutely, completely) by NS and German learners of English and found that German learners use much more amplifiers than NS learners. Similar research was conducted on NS and French learners of English by Granger (1998), who compared the use of amplifier collocations and identified a pattern of underuse of amplifiers in French learners of English. In her analysis of L1 and L2 academic texts, Hinkel (2003) noted that that advanced non-native English-speaking students in U.S. universities employ excessively simple lexical constructions. As illustrated, the corpus research literature has thus far investigated different lexical items or collocations. However, little attention has been paid to examining how meanings and functions are construed lexically. Since knowledge of lexical constructions is an essential aspect of vocabulary acquisition, it is imperative that EAP writing researchers and instructors understand the role of lexical constructions in L2 writing development in EAP classrooms.

CONSTRUAL OF MEANING IN LEXICAL CONSTRUCTIONS A construction specifies its associated semantic function (Langacker, 1987). To examine how the meaning of lexical constructions is construed in L2 writers’ texts, this chapter draws on systemic functional linguistics (SFL) as a way to identify linguistic resources L2 writers use to realise different meanings. SFL is a linguistic theory developed by Michael Halliday (e.g. Halliday, 1978) that describes language as a social semiotic and a meaning-making system (Halliday, 1978, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). SFL, as Schleppegrell (2012) notes: describes linguistic systems and the functions they enable … [According to this perspective] language is seen as a network of dynamic and open systems from which speakers and writers are constantly selecting as they use language, thereby maintaining or changing the systems over time through their choices (p. 22).

100

Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa

SFL identifies three grammatical metafunctions (or linguistic resources) that bridge form, meaning, and context. These metafunctions (interpersonal, ideational, and textual) are realised through enacting interpersonal, ideational, and textual meanings. The interpersonal metafunction construes the relationship between the writer and the reader, ideational metafunction communicates content, and textual metafunction enacts text cohesion (Halliday, 1994). Since the meanings of lexical constructions are locally realised and are most directly concerned with interpersonal and ideational metafunctions, we have elected to focus on how these two metafunctions are realised in L2 writers’ texts. In this study, we analyse the production of a commonly used construction – adverbadjective constructions – by L1 and L2 graduate students in academic writing. This particular lexical construction bears important grammatical implications. Because the use of an adjective does not entail an adverb to be grammatical, the use of adverb-adjective collocations, to a certain extent, reflects L1 and L2 students’ discursive choices. However, the term choice does not refer to a conscious intent as ‘most of the linguistic choices actually made are made quite unconsciously’ (Poynton, 1989, p. 78). What ‘choice’ should be construed here is a technical term which refers to the available options that language has for making meaning (Halliday, 2007). To identify the patterns of lexical constructions in a large learner corpus, we investigate frequency-based accounts for L1 and L2 academic texts in order to further our understanding of lexical constructions used by L2 writers in comparison with their L1 counterparts at the graduate level. Specifically, we address the following two questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 graduate students’ choices of lexical constructions in academic writing?; and (2) What are the functional preferences that can be observed from their use of lexical constructions?

METHODOLOGY As mentioned, this study focuses on L1 and L2 writers’ use of lexical (adverbadjective) constructions. Our analytic approach is embedded within the ‘frequency-based’ tradition (Hoey, 2005; Sinclair, 2004; Stubbs, 1995). While collocations1 only pick out word pairs whose high frequency indicates a genuine collocational relationship (Jones & Sinclair, 1974), lexical constructions do not necessarily share this collocational relationship. Since comparing the writing of L1 and L2 students provides necessary information for pedagogical interventions that address specific learning needs of L2

1

Collocations typically refer to ‘the relationship a lexical item has with items that appear with greater than random probability in its (textual) context’ (Hoey, 1991, p. 7). For example, the lexical item important collocates with particularly much more frequent than the adverb necessarily, thereby indicating a real collocational relationship.

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing

101

writers (Keck, 2006), this study examines how a specific lexical (i.e. adverb-adjective) construction conveys the intended interpersonal and ideational meanings in L1 and L2 graduate student texts.

The Corpus A major challenge confronting learner corpus researchers is that most corpora rely exclusively on native speaker models. Yet, the use of these models has been called into question in light of the linguistically diverse student body today (Hunston, 2002). Currently, very few corpora include Non-Native Speaker (NNS) data. In addition, smallscale experiments or studies usually fail to adequately reflect their actual production patterns. In response to this constraint, the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP) corpus provides not only Native Speaker (NS) data but also NNS data, opening up possibilities for comparison studies that enable applied linguists to examine student writing with a view to enhance writing instruction. We draw on the MICUSP corpus, which is composed of a repository of student academic writing. MICUSP was built by the English Language Institute (ELI) of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Comprised of 829 student papers written by L1 and L2 students at undergraduate and graduate levels, MICUSP is an online corpus in English (https://lsa.umich.edu/eli/language-resources/micase-micusp.html) that was released publicly in 2009. Specifically, MICUSP is a collection of ‘A’ grade student papers across a wide range of disciplines written by senior undergraduate students as well as first, second, and third year graduate students. These students include native speakers of English and non-native speakers of English (L2 learners of English). Approximately 2.6 million words, MICUSP collects student papers belonging to a wide range of text types (660 papers were written by L1 students and 170 papers by L2 students). These text types include argumentative essay, creative writing, critique and evaluation, proposal, report, research paper, and response paper. Student papers were collected from 16 disciplines at the University of Michigan, including Biology, Economics, Education, English, Linguistics, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, History and Classical Studies, Political Science, Physics, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Natural Resources and Environment, Industrial and Operations Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Nursing.

Data Analysis This chapter uses corpus-driven data to illuminate the propensity of L2 graduate students’ use of lexical constructions and thus identify the type of constructions of which

102

Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa

L2 students fall short. This chapter reports on a study of adverb-adjective constructions (e.g. readily available) in 63 argumentative essays written by first, second, and third year graduate students. The data, primarily students’ argumentative essays, were collected from graduate student papers in the Humanities and Arts and Social Sciences. The 63 argumentative essays that were sampled included 47 L1 and 16 L2 graduate student papers, totalling 253979 words (L1: 212750 words; L2: 41229 words). The first languages of L2 students analysed in this chapter were German and Spanish, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Tamil, and Urdu. As stated, this chapter examines adverb-adjective (AA) constructions, where adjectives are seen as the base of the collocation and adverbs subsumed under distinct functional categories. Adverbs are viewed as extended lexical units serving as a vehicle for a particular function in this lexical construction. (Examples of each functional category and borderline cases will be discussed at greater length later.) We adapted Johansson’s (1993) list of ten adverbial roles in adverb-adjective collocations: certainty, emphasis, manner, time, space, viewpoint and respect, evaluation of truth, basic and typical qualities, value judgment, and quality and state. Building on Johansson (1993), a modified set of six adverbial functions was employed. To guide our study, we invoked SFL metafunctions to describe lexical realisations of interpersonal and ideational meanings in adverb selection in adverb-adjective constructions. To collect adverb-adjective collocations from sampled L1 and L2 students’ papers, we manually searched for these target constructions. Based on SFL metafunctions, adverbs in these target collocations were flagged for two adverbial functional classifications: interpersonal and ideational metafunctions (see Figure 6.1). Adverbial functional categories associated with interpersonal metafunction are intensification, hedge, certainty, and viewpoint. Classification and manner were placed under the ideational metafunction. Further, these adverbs were tagged and subsumed under six functional categories according to their adverbial function (Figure 6.1). For example, the adverb in highly emotional was classified as an intensifier, while the adverb in partially capable was classified as a hedge. On the other hand, the adverb in historically specific was treated under classification, and mutually dependent under manner.

RESULTS The total number of tokens of adverb-adjective constructions was 640 (n = 546 for L1 students, and n = 94 for L2 students).

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing

103

Figure 6.1. Categories of Adverbial Functions in Adverb-adjective (AA) Constructions.

Table 6.1 lists the number of construction tokens corresponding to each of the six functional categories. Figure 6.2 shows the frequency distribution of adverbial functions (intensification, hedge, certainty, viewpoint, classification, manner, other) in adverb-adjective constructions. For functional categories containing interpersonal meaning (Table 6.1):    

118 instances of intensification constituted 22% of the total tokens used by L1 students and the 26 instances constituted 28% by L2 students 76 instances of hedge constituted 14% of the total tokens used by L1 students and the 18 instances constituted 19% by L2 students 115 instances of certainty constituted 21% of the total tokens used by L1 students and the 15 instances constituted 16% by L2 students 68 instances of viewpoint constituted 12% of the total tokens used by L1 students and the 8 instances constituted 8% by L2 students.

In terms of functional categories containing ideational meaning (Table 6.1):   

119 instances of classification constituted 22% of the total tokens used by L1 students and the 24 instances constituted 26% by L2 students 50 instances of manner constituted 9% of the total tokens used by L1 students and the 2 instances constituted 2% by L2 students. 1 instance of other (transparently political) used by L2 students constituted 1%.

104

Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa Table 6.1. Adverbial Functions and Construction Tokens

Metafunction Interpersonal

Ideational

Functional Categories Intensification Hedge Certainty Viewpoint Classification Manner Other

L1 students (n=546)

L2 students (n=94)

Construction Tokens

Construction Tokens

118 76 115 68 119 50 0

26 18 15 8 24 2 1

Figure 6.2. Frequency Distribution of Adverbial Functions in AA Constructions.

To test whether L1 students’ frequency of using these six functional categories is significantly different from that of L2 students’, a chi-square test was administered to verify if there was a difference in the use of these adverbial functional categories between L1 and L2 students 2 . The results show that there is a significant difference in the distributions of adverbial functions between L1 and L2 students (chi-square

16.06, p

0.01). In light of a significant difference between L1 and L2 students in the use of adverbadjective constructions, different patterns of use with regard to their functional categories were identified (Figure 6.2). First, the frequencies in the functional categories of 2

As there were seven categories originally (six functional categories plus the category of other), 6 was the degrees of freedom.

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing

105

intensification, hedge and classification used by L1 students (22%, 14% and 22%, respectively) were lower than those used by L2 students (28%, 19% and 26%, respectively). Second, the frequencies in the functional categories of certainty and viewpoint used by L1 students (21% and 12%, respectively) were higher than those used by L2 students (16% and 8%, respectively).

Difference in Interpersonal and Ideational Meanings As discussed, interpersonal engagement and meaning can be realised through the use of adverbial functions of intensification, hedge, certainty, and viewpoint, with viewpoint being the least used functional category by both groups of students. Through using these adverbial functions, writers engage readers by selling their own stances, perspectives, and values. Both L1 and L2 students used these four functions (see Table 6.2). For example, L1 students used intensifiers such as especially salient and L2 students used particularly striking. L1 students used hedging adverbs like potentially dangerous and L2 students used possibly harmful. While both L1 and L2 students used classification and manner (see Table 6.3), classification appeared to be more frequently used category by both groups and manner was much less used than classification. Admittedly, there are borderline cases where it would be plausible to argue that an adverb can belong to different categories depending on the context. For instance, inherently valuable is categorised as classification in this chapter, which could arguably be subsumed under viewpoint. Table 6.2. Enactment of Interpersonal Meaning by L1 and L2 Students Interpersonal meaning

L1 students

L2 students

Intensification Hedge Certainty Viewpoint

especially salient potentially dangerous entirely different surprisingly flat

particularly striking possibly harmful totally dependent woefully short

Table 6.3. Enactment of Ideational Meaning by L1 and L2 Students Ideational meaning

L1 students

L2 students

Classification Manner

historically specific persistently ironical

biologically viable mutually exclusive

106

Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa

The results show that L1 students used certainty and viewpoint more frequently than L2 students. However, it appears that L2 students tend to use more intensification and hedge than L1 students (Table 6.1). This overuse of intensification and hedge could result from a limited lexical and grammatical repertoire to convince their readers. An alternative hypothesis would attribute the higher frequency of adverb use to the nature of argumentative essays. As argumentation usually entails development of reasoning and representation of evidence, intensifiers and hedging could be employed by L2 students as a means to develop their reasoning. In other words, intensifiers and hedging serve as effective scaffolds that facilitate the students’ ability to create a rational argument supported by evidence. Further research could investigate associations in the overuse of their adverbial use of intensification and hedge. The overuse of adverbs containing ideational meanings was also noted among L2 students’ use of classification, suggesting a preference to provide the reader with categorical details.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Although this chapter compares L2 with L1 graduate students, it is not our intention to take L1 writers as the canon for L2 writers to follow. Instead, we intend to identify those language meanings and functions that L2 writers fail to take advantage with in academic writing. It is recognised that L2 learning hinges on L2 learners’ awareness of linguistic resources and their experiences of them. SLA researchers (e.g. Collins & Ellis, 2009; Ellis, 2012) have delved into the realm of frequency-based learning particularly in relation to L2 performance. Furthermore, previous research (e.g. O’Donnell et al., 2013, 2015) suggests that both L1 and L2 students are sensitive, albeit to different degrees, to frequencies of linguistic input. This chapter has identified patterns of constructional use by L1 and L2 students in terms of functional categories of adverbs in adverb-adjective constructions, providing an empirical basis for recommendations for instruction and learning of L2 academic writing. It should also be noted that many of the student papers that were collected in MICUSP had likely gone through a number of revisions and may have had instructional guidance. Therefore, it could be reasonably expected to see a more pronounced difference between L1 and L2 students’ constructional use at their first draft than has been observed in this chapter, given that final drafts of their writing were analysed. According to Granger (1998), L2 learners have an inclination to overuse a generic adverb (e.g. very as a commonly used intensifier) but need to expand their adverb repertoire in light of their constructional preferences. This chapter has further pointed to particular functional categories that were less used by L2 students, which suggests that they lack opportunities to gain mastery of using them and expand their constructional repertoires in academic writing.

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing

107

To narrow the writing gap, instructors can raise L2 students’ awareness about how various constructions and their differential functions can be realised. To support L2 students in developing communicative competence in L2 academic writing, EAP writing instructors can direct L2 students’ explicit attention toward constructions via classroom interactions and designed activities in which they are offered opportunities to learn and use a range of constructions in their writing. It is imperative that L2 students recognise different meanings enacted through their lexicogrammatical choices in academic writing. To shed light on this important pedagogical principle, SFL metafunctions of language reveal the lexico-grammatical choices that L2 students make to fulfil particular functions in academic texts. Drawing L2 students’ explicit attention to language functions thus helps them make sense of and observe appropriate norms of conduct in academic writing and develop their academic language proficiency. In closing, future research can explore the types of intervention and scaffolding that EAP writing instructors can use to help L2 students acquire knowledge of using lexical constructions in academic writing.

REFERENCES Chang, P., & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 140-151. Coles, L. (2008). Review of academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 136-138. Collins, L., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds). (2009). Input and second language construction learning: Frequency, form, and function. Special issue. Modern Language Journal, 93(3). Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Ellis, N. C. (2012). Frequency effects. In P. Robinson (Ed.) The Routledge encyclopedia of SLA (pp. 260-265). New York, NY: Routledge. Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145-159). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.) (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, England: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, England: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2007/1978). Is learning a second language like learning a first

108

Yushiang Jou and Peter De Costa

language all over again? In J. Webster (Ed.), Language and education (Vol. 9, pp. 173-193). London, England: Continuum. Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London, England: Routledge. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-296. Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21. Johansson, S. (1993). ‘Sweetly oblivious’: Some aspects of adverb-adjective combinations in present-day English. In M. Hoey (Ed.), Data, description, discourse (pp. 39-49). London, England: Harper Collins. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261-278. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lorenz, G. R. (1999). Adjective intensification: Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam, Netherland: Rodopi. Macis, M., & Schmitt, N. (in press). Meaning matters: The idiomatic and polysemous nature of collocations and their place in ELT. ELTJ. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & M. A. K. Halliday. (2009). Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press. Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. (2009). Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). The development of formulaic language in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83108. O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). The development of formulaic language in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. In S. Hoffmann, B. Fischer-Starcke, & A. Sand (Eds.), Current issues in phraseology (pp. 83-108). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins. Poynton, C. (1989). Language and gender: Making the difference. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2012). Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring meaning in

Lexical Constructions in EAP Writing

109

language. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourseanalysis (pp. 21-34). New York, NY: Routledge. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London, England: Routledge. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Functions of Language, 2(1), 1–33. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd edition). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Tao, H. (2007). A corpus-based investigation of absolutely and related phenomena in spoken American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 35, 5-29.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 7

A LEXICAL APPROACH TO TEACHING FORMALITY IN FRESHMAN L2 ACADEMIC WRITING Gavin Bui Hang Seng Management College, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT The ability to write academic papers is required of university students for their undergraduate studies in Hong Kong and beyond. The key features of academic writing include (but are not limited to) the formal style and objective tone that distinguish such kind of writing from colloquial expressions or even many other types of writing that students do in secondary school. This chapter investigates a lexical approach to teaching formality, which has been informed by prior research (Bei, 2013; Heylighen & Dewaele, 2002), in L2 academic writing classes of Hong Kong undergraduate students. Two classes of first-year students, randomly assigned to a control and an experimental group, participated in this three-week research. They received four sessions of intervention, one on conventional formality topics such as APA style and mechanics (the control) and the other on lexical formality, over a period of two weeks and subsequently wrote their midterm papers at the end of the third week. All essays were analysed with Coh-Metrix in terms of their structural complexity and lexical aspects. Teacher rating of the overall writing quality was also conducted. The results showed that the experimental group were able to use more noun phrases and fewer personal pronouns, indicating an awareness of the typical formal style of academic writing. This teaching approach also appeared to help student with a wider range of word choices, as shown in the higher type token ratio of the papers. However, the difference between the two groups in global writing scores rated by the teacher was barely significant. Neither the structural complexity nor lexical sophistication of their writing was in any way affected by formal vocabulary training.

Keywords: English for Academic Purposes, formal writing, lexical formality, second language writing, L2 teaching

112

Gavin Bui

INTRODUCTION Academic writing is widely seen as particular styles of writing where researchers may define the intellectual boundaries of their disciplines and their areas of expertise (Hartley, 2008). It is typically characterised by a higher frequency of discipline-specific terminology, a dispassionate and objective stance, complexity of ideas, and a conventional or formal structure. Research articles are exemplars of this type of written expression and academic style differs from one area of study to another (Swales & Feak, 2011). Swales and Chang (1999), for example, point out that the first person pronoun ‘I’ appears much more frequently in the academic papers in philosophy than those in the computer science. The ability to produce appropriate academic writing as a requirement for course assignments and examinations has become increasingly important in higher education around the world (Alderson & Bachman, 2002; Hyland, 2016). However, the transition from composition writing in secondary school to the production of academic texts at university level often poses a serious challenge to freshmen who are relatively new to the genre or, indeed, even the concept. This chapter reports on an attempt to experiment with a lexical approach to teaching formality in an academic writing course for first-year undergraduates and on how it can enhance lexical formality and even the overall quality of student scripts.

LITERATURE REVIEW Formality is a way of presenting ideas in a ‘special’ conventional way that assumes distance between writers and readers (Heylighen & Dewaele, 2002). It is a strangers’ talk, not chitchat between buddies. Joos’ (1962) early but influential work provided discussions on style, register, and style-shifting in language. He took ‘clocks’ as a metaphor to reflect different levels of formality in speech and writing and labelled them as ‘frozen’, ‘formal’, ‘consultative’, ‘casual’, and ‘intimate’, along a linear scale of formality or communicative ‘carefulness’. Such differentiation between styles is based on intuitions about the extent to which the interlocutors are familiar or intimate with one another, and how this would impact on their communicative styles (Coupland, 2007, p. 10). Labov’s (1966) classic departmental stores research marked the beginning of empirical work on style. He elicited spoken data under spontaneous and ‘careful’ situations. Unwitting informants were approached with questions designed to elicit the answer ‘fourth floor’, which may or may not contain the variable final or preconsonantal ‘r’. A pretence not to have heard it lead to a repeated response from the same informants in a careful style. Results showed a consistently higher ratio of rhotic sound ‘r’ in careful

A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality …

113

speech. The main theme of the department store study is that the frequency of use of the prestige variable final or preconsonantal (r) varied with level of formality and social class. Labov believes that everyone has different styles in speaking, and style-shifting happens in all speakers to a greater or lesser degree; the change in their choice of linguistic forms occurs regularly and consistently according to context (Labov, 1984). Although Labov was able to determine the degree of ‘carefulness’ with the number of ‘r’ pronunciation, the measurement of formality in general, such as the extent of formality in writing, could not be easily resolved with a single sound or word; the difficulty of quantifying formality as a dimension of style in language lingered. As Rickford and McNair-Knox (1994) put it, ‘investigators found it difficult to separate “careful” from “casual” speech in reliable and objective ways’ (p. 265). One of the relatively recent developments of this issue is Heylighen and Dewaele (2002) which differentiates ‘surface formality’ from ‘deep formality’. Surface formality is described as ‘attention to form for the sake of convention or form itself’, which, according to Heylighen and Dewaele, is in line with the definition of the word ‘formal’ as ‘rigorously observant of forms, precise, prim in attire, ceremonious’ (Oxford Dictionary, 1989). It seems that in academic writing classes, attention to formatting and citation conventions such as the American Psychological Association (APA) or Modern Language Association (MLA) style will fall into this category of formality. Then there is ‘deep formality’, which focuses on form for the sake of ‘unequivocal understanding of the precise meaning of the expression’. Heylighen and Dewaele have argued that deep formality is more fundamental in theory and more practical in application. In essence, deep formality is characterised by the degree of context-dependence and fuzziness in spoken or written discourse. An expression is fuzzy if it has a characteristic of referential opacity and such fuzziness, unlike ambiguity, cannot be eliminated from the context (Zhang, 1998). Formal language depends less on context where the clarity of meaning is concerned. Bei (2011) provides the following two examples to illustrate the difference (p. 33): a. She went there yesterday. b. Mrs. Clinton went to the White House on March 1, 2010. As pointed out by Bei, a precise understanding of the first sentence needs contextual support to specify all the deictic expressions, i.e. there, she and yesterday and understand their referents. Sentence b, in contrast, is less context-dependent and thus demonstrates a higher degree of clarity. Heylighen and Dewaele’s (2002) second characteristic of deep formality is fuzziness. Bei (2011) exemplifies this concept by comparing ‘It is cold’ and ‘It is 15 degree Fahrenheit’, with the latter sentence being much more objective while the former is subject to interpretation. In short, linguistic formality can be defined as the avoidance of ambiguity by minimising context-dependence and fuzziness of expressions (Heylighen & Dewaele, 2002).

114

Gavin Bui

Based on their linguistic formality theory, Heylighen and Dewaele (2002) have proposed a formality measure, the F-score, which calculates the frequency of different word classes: F-score = (noun frequency + adj. freq. + art. freq. – pron. freq. – verb freq. – adv. freq. – interjection freq. + 100) / 2. Nouns and noun-associated word classes (adjectives, articles and prepositions) appear more in formal styles while verbs and verbrelated words (adverbs, pronouns and interjections) are common features in informal styles. They have reported similar results across seven corpora to confirm the validity of the F-score. Bei (2011) is probably the first study to employ this measure in second language (L2) learners’ speech production. He reported that if L2 speakers had prior content knowledge of a certain subject, their speech would have a higher F-score because these learners would rely on more common and less specific words to describe unfamiliar topics, which, in turn, leads to higher fuzziness and ambiguity. Biber, Conrad, and Rappen’s (1998) corpus study distinguished between an ‘involved’ style and an ‘informational production’ style, which are roughly equivalent to the personal and formal dimensions of language use. They found that the ‘involved’ style is marked by a higher proportion of the so-called private verbs (e.g. feel, think), thatdeletion, and contraction (e.g. I’m, it’ll), present tense verbs, second person pronouns (see Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998, p. 148, for the complete list). In contrast, the ‘informational production’ style has a much lower frequency of these features. It would appear that the ‘involved’ dimension is associated with an informal style while the ‘informational production’ one with the formal style. Bei (2011) has developed a DBscore (Douglas Biber score) based on the above study by Biber and his colleagues as a second method for measuring formality in addition to the F-score. Bei’s DB-score is calculated as: The proportion of private verbs, that-deletion, contractions, present tense verbs, second person pronouns, do as pro-verb, analytic negation, demonstrative pronouns, general emphatics, first person pronouns, pronoun it, be as main verb, causative subordination, discourse particles, indefinite pronouns, etc. (Bei, 2011, p. 36).

The F-score and DB-score had correlations at r = -.42 in the familiar spoken tasks and r = -.48 in the unfamiliar tasks in Bei (2011), further demonstrating that formality is quantifiable and that the two indices share common ground in measuring the construct of formality. The prior discussion on the definition and operationalisation of formality is not only pertinent to sociolinguistics but also to the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). One of the key components of EAP concerns the training in academic writing skills necessary for students to be able to study competently at the tertiary level. The

A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality …

115

topic on formality in academic writing classes quite often involves introducing students to such formatting conventions as the APA style, commonly used in the social science disciplines. Such a topic is in itself necessary for EAP, but this chapter will argue that it is insufficient when examined in light of the dichotomy that exists between surface formality and deep formality. Avoidance of ambiguity and fuzziness is also required of L2 university students, which lies at the very heart of the ‘deep formality’ issue discussed above. From this perspective, there emerges a connection between the sociolinguistic concept of formality and the EAP classroom that requires not only surface formality but also deep formality for adequate and sufficient academic expression. Harwood (2006) describes five political scientists’ interview-based accounts of appropriate and inappropriate use of the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘we’ in academic writing and found that even expert writers varied greatly in the amount and contexts where first person pronouns were used. In the main, many textbooks (e.g. Jordon, 1992) suggest avoiding first and second person pronouns, especially for novice writers. Students are advised to use alternatives, for instance the passive voice, or expressions such as ‘this article argues’ in place of ‘I think’. Other research is concerned with nominalisation, another common feature of academic writing. Consistent with Heylighen and Dewaele’s (2002) proposed F-score, nominalisation in academic writing can, with the omission of the human agent, help in maintaining an impersonal tone, and creating textual cohesion. These elements are all relevant for the production of quality academic texts (Baratta, 2010). Though higher density of nominalisation seems prevalent in academic writing, Baratta (2010) has found that nominalisations per se do not necessarily play a prominent role in the academic writing of undergraduate students. This finding is counter-intuitive to many as it is assumed that a certain extent of nominalisation is a feature of accomplished academic writing. However, this research was based on the work of six students and the results should perhaps be interpreted as indicative rather than in any sense conclusive. The present chapter aims to explore how the constructs of surface and deep formality can contribute to the teaching of formal style in academic writing classes. From a wider perspective, this study also seeks to offer a research-informed approach to teaching L2 writing.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Will the research-informed formal lexical approach lead to improvements in other areas of students’ academic writing such as structural or lexical complexity? 2. Will this approach enhance the overall quality of their writing?

116

Gavin Bui

METHODOLOGY Participants 48 first-year Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) students at a private college in Hong Kong participated in this study. They came from two classes taking the first-year compulsory course ‘English for Academic Purposes’, which aims to prepare undergraduates for writing academic essays and reports during their university education. The two cohorts of learners, randomly assigned into a control and an experimental group, consisted of 28 female and 20 male students aged between 17 – 20 (18.4 in average), all of whom were local Hong Kongers with Cantonese as their first language. They had been learning L2 English mainly as a school subject for 12 – 16 years at the time of the study. Independent T-test results of their ‘English Language’ test and its ‘Writing’ component in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSE) (Table 7.1) showed that there were no significant differences in performance between the two classes. Table 7.1. HKDSE Results of ‘English Language’ and its ‘Writing’ Component HKDSE Control Group Experimental Group Significance English Language 3.08 (.78) 3.17 (.70) p = .70 Writing Component 3.25 (1.11) 2.92 (.78) p = .24 Note: 1. The HKDSE scores range from Levels 1 (lowest) to 5** (highest), with 5* and 5** calculated as 6 and 7. 2. Standard deviation is given in brackets.

Study Design The study lasted for three weeks during a 14-week teaching semester. Students attended two 1.5-hour sessions per week in this three-credit course. The two groups received exactly the same instruction and materials from the same instructor except during weeks 5 to 6 when formality in academic writing was taught. The control group followed the rest of the year 1 students (14 other classes, except the experimental group) in this course to learn APA styles in class for four sessions during these two weeks while the experimental group was very briefly introduced to the APA style in class in the first session and asked to conduct self-study on APA format after class. The rest of the three sessions focused on lexical formality in academic writing as informed by the F-score and the DB-score in Bei (2011). In week 7, both groups took a test on APA style for 15% of their final grade, which was intended as a motivator. At the second weekly session they submitted their 1,000-word mid-term paper on a self-selected topic, related to business (a requirement for all classes in year 1) and approved by the teacher. The detailed intervention schedules are provided in Table 7.2.

A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality …

117

Table 7.2. Intervention Schedule Sessions Week 5, Session 1 Week 5, Session 2

Week 6, Session 1

Week 6, Session 2 Week 7, Session 1 Week 7, Session 2

Control Group Summary skills + APA intext citation 1 Direct quotation + APA intext citation 2

Experimental Group Brief introduction to APA in-text and end-of-text citation styles Nouns / noun phrases in academic writing (including summary, quotation, and paraphrasing) as informed by the F-score Paraphrasing skills + APA Pronouns, verbs, and tentative language in end-of-text citation academic writing (including summary, quotation, (references) 1 and paraphrasing) by the F-score APA mechanics + APA end- Formal expressions and style (as informed by DBof-text citation (references) 2 score) + text analyses APA test Deadline for mid-term paper

Assessment As the experimental group received instruction predicated on research into lexical formality while the control one did not, it would not be appropriate to use the F-score and the DB-score as the measures for assessing the mid-term paper. Instead, this research aims to see if such an approach to formality could enhance a range of textual and lexical indices obtained from the Coh-Metrix programme (Graesser et al., 2004). A second area of assessment is the overall writing quality as measured by the course instructor following the general rubrics that include idea, organisation, style, and language. The same rubrics were used by all instructors in the same course. Table 7.3 details the measures. Table 7.3. Assessment Measures General Areas Structural complexity

Lexical complexity

Overall writing quality

Measure Names NoofWds WdsPerSent NPPer1000wds PersonPronPer1000wds TTR SyllablesPerWd Frequency of content words Writing score

Description The total number of words including the title, abstract, headings and main text. The References are excluded. The average words per sentence. The average number of noun phrases per 1,000 words. The average number of personal pronouns per 1,000 words. Type token ratio: the extent to which learners avoid using the same set of words. The average syllables per word. The average frequency of content words based on the CELEX lexical databases of English Corpus. The writing score rated by the course instructor with all texts typed and names/classes anonymised.

118

Gavin Bui

RESULTS Table 7.4 shows results of the independent T-tests in general writing statistics, lexical aspects, and overall writing quality respectively. As constrained by the instruction that only 900 – 1,100 words were allowed, the length of the mid-term papers from both groups exhibited no significant difference. This is important for some of the following indices (such as the TTR which is sensitive to text length) to be measured accurately. The second measure, words per sentence, is an index for structural complexity of writing. A longer sentence is more likely to involve a higher number of dependent clauses such as gerunds, infinitives or relative clauses; it could also contain a higher density of information than would otherwise be expressed by two or more independent sentences. However, there was no significant difference found between the two groups of students, indicating that the lexical approach to teaching formality does not have an impact on the structural complexity of sentences. The second general area concerns five lexical aspects of academic writing. The first lexical measure, Noun Phrases Per 1,000 words, examines a formality feature of written language. The experimental group were able to use a significantly higher ratio of noun phrases in their essays than the control group, suggesting that the two-week intervention in lexical formality had a positive influence on their lexical style. In comparison, the Personal Pronouns Per 1,000 words measure also saw a sharp contrast between the two groups as the experiment group employed much fewer personal pronouns (p = .00) in their writing. This suggests that the lexical approach helps orient the novice writers towards a more objective and less personal tone in their academic writing. Although a certain number of third person pronouns like ‘it’ and ‘they’ inevitably appeared, students in the experimental group reduced their use of first person (e.g. ‘I think’ and ‘we believe’ and second person, e.g. ‘you may’ and ‘you should’) pronouns. Table 7.4. Findings (standard deviation is given in brackets) Areas Structural complexity

Lexical aspects

Overall writing quality

Measure names NoofWds WdsPerSent NPPer1000wds PersonPronper1000wds TTR SyllablesPerWd Frequency of content words Writing score

Control Group 1,094.17 (106.58) 16.89 (4.67) 276.62 (15.83) 31.50 (11.30) .50 (.05) 1.66 (.10) 2,168.52 (787.36)

Experimental Group 1,075.21 (88.20) 17.32 (2.58) 287.69 (13.77) 14.65 (9.94) .57 (.11) 1.64 (.05) 2,125.30 (659.33)

Significance p = .51 p = .70 p = .01 p = .00 p = .015 p = .36 p = .84

72.25 (6.53)

75.46 (5.50)

p = .07

A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality …

119

If the above two lexical indices could be described as direct outcomes of the research-informed experimental instruction on lexical formality, the third lexical variable, i.e. the Type Token Ratio, seems to bear no transparent relation to this teaching method but a significantly higher TTR was found among the experimental essays. It would appear that the lexical formality approach did encourage learners to search for a great variety of words to express the similar meanings. The last two measures in this lexical category are associated with lexical sophistication, a concept of the extent to which advanced or rare words are used. It has been long observed that there is a negative correlation between the mean syllabic length of word forms in texts and their frequency of occurrence (Zipf, 1932, 1935 and more recently, Leopold, 2000). In addition, the lower the frequency of a word, the more advanced one can assume it to become, and the later people would acquire it during the language learning process. The results showed no influence of the lexical approach on either of the lexical sophistication measures. It seems that teaching lexical formality in academic writing does not necessarily lead to an obvious increase in the capacity to employ more sophisticated words. The result as regards overall writing quality remains speculative rather than conclusive. In the main, the difference between the control and the experimental group did not reveal any significant deviations. However, the findings did appear to support the prediction that the experimental group would obtain higher scores than the control group, and such a contrast between the two classes was approaching significance (p = .07). It would seem less desirable if this trend is left totally ignored when discussing the effect of the lexical approach to teaching formality.

DISCUSSION The previous section reported the effects of lexical formality instruction on different dimensions of first-year undergraduates’ academic writing. This section seeks to interpret the results from a conceptual perspective.

Structural Complexity Structural complexity of writing is normally realised through either phrasal features or clausal features of academic writing (Gray, 2015). The length of the essay and the length of sentences were adopted as the index in this study as the phrasal features (noun phrases and verb phrases) are more relevant to lexical formality (Bei, 2011). To ensure fair assessment among students and across different classes, there was a word limit to the assignment (which is also crucial to the use of the TTR measure). Therefore, it is only natural that there is no significant difference between the two groups in the length of the

120

Gavin Bui

essays. The complexity of the sentences does not show any clear variation between the control and the experimental group either. Clausal complexity could be realised through, firstly, using more complex phrases. For example, the noun phrase ‘the investment’ could be expanded with pre- and post-modifiers like ‘all the foreign investment from western countries after Brexit’. Clausal complexity can also be achieved through higher ratio of subordination, such as non-finite clauses (e.g. ‘foreign investment swarming into Hong Kong’ or ‘the investment to be approved by the committee’) and finite clauses (e.g. ‘the foreign investment that would help create five thousand job places’). Although the importance of nominalisation was stressed during the intervention, and that this was assumed to at least impact on the phrase structure of sentences if not also their clausal complexity, the results did not support this hypothesis. It is likely that the lexical dimension has little influence on the structural aspects of writing and the two areas should be treated separately. It has become almost standard practice in L2 speech research to differentiate between complexity, accuracy and fluency (see Bui & Skehan, 2017 for an updated review) but in recent years there has been a call for finer separation between structural complexity and lexical complexity (Skehan, 2009). This study further echoes the findings in L2 speaking research that a focus on the lexical dimension may not have sufficient influence on the structural aspects of a sentence. If this issue is to be examined from a wider perspective, it appears that the lexical aspects of writing are concerned more with meaning, while the structural complexity has more to do with form. The two aspects of language use are of course interconnected but, from a learner perspective, a focus on meaning may not necessary lead to a change in form.

Perspectives and Tone Although the experimental group received four sessions of interventions in two weeks in contrast to the control group who received none, they were taught the same way during the rest of the term as they studied in a regular academic writing course and had to meet basic requirements. All students learned the topic of ‘FOF: general characteristics of academic writing’, with FOF standing for ‘factual, objective, and formal’, in the first week. The notion of FOF was exemplified with written samples. However, it seems that the two weeks of lexical approach in teaching can better achieve the purpose of FOF than the conventional teaching of format in writing. Firstly, the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of the impersonal tone in academic writing as suggested by the much lower frequency of personal pronouns (p = .00). The control group on average used about 32 instances per essay while the experimental group used only 15. The experimental group was able to reduce the number of personal pronouns and increase the noun phrases (see below),

A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality …

121

which was clear indication that they were aware of the impersonal and objective tone that is typically required of academic writing. Secondly, the higher ratio of noun phrases in the writing of the experimental students (p = .01) appears to support the claim that the lexical approach can significantly increase the amount of nominalisation in writing, which is clue to a higher degree of formality. The F-score informed instruction stressed the distinction between ‘nouny’ and ‘verby’ language, which distinguishes degrees of formality in discourse. The instruction for the APA style in the control group did touch upon nominalisation as one of the formal features of writing. However, the specific teaching on nouns and noun-related word classes such as determiners and adjectives as contrasted with verbs and verb-related word classes like adverbs (though adverbs do not necessarily qualify verbs) did draw students’ attention to how they could achieve formality through making more careful lexical choices and noun phrase constructions. It appears that the objective of teaching FOF and relevant characteristics about tone and perspectives in academic writing can be more effectively achieved if the concept is taught in conjunction with the research-informed lexical approach to formality.

Lexical Diversity and Sophistication The Type Token Ratio (TTR) concerns lexical diversity while syllables per word and the mean frequency index lexical sophistication. Results in these three measures generally support that the view that lexical approach encourages the experimental group to make use of a greater variety of words but not necessarily more sophisticated words. The significantly higher TTR indicates that a more varied vocabulary is necessary in pursuit of lexical formality since their use would tend to avoid recycling the same sets of words and thereby avoid repetition. In the meantime, nominal phrases or clauses impose much higher demands on nouns derived from other word classes (mainly verbs and adjectives) and synonyms. All this has contributed to a higher Type Token Ratio. It would then appear that the lexical approach to formality encourages learners to mobilise a wider pool of lexical items in their L2 lexicon in search of a greater variety of words in their use of noun phrases. This approach seems to generate a more favourable context for producing lexical diversity. Formal writing is often associated with lexis of low frequency, the so-called ‘big words’. Findings in ‘syllables per word’ as well as the ‘frequency of content words’ did not suggest that the lexical approach was a better instructional method for the deployment of rare words in L2 academic writing. In contrast to the higher percentage of different words as seen in TTR, the extent to which rare lexis is used seems to be confined by the students’ personal vocabulary at least at the lower-intermediate to intermediate proficiency levels that characterise performance of the current two cohorts of students.

122

Gavin Bui

What appears to be reasonable is that it is very unlikely for L2 learners to locate a low frequency word that is not in their mental lexicon. This area of performance is less sensitive to influence from instructional methods like the current one.

Overall Writing Quality The ultimate goal of the lexical approach to teaching formality is certainly to contribute to the overall writing quality of students’ academic papers. At first sight the result of the last measure, the overall teacher rating on essay quality, was disappointing as there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The slightly more encouraging side of the scenario is that the mean score of the experimental group (mean = 75.46) was higher than the control group (mean = 72.25) and the p value was approaching significance (p = .07). As described in the Assessment section above, the writing score consisted of four areas of writing performance, namely idea, organisation, style, and language, but the lexical approach to formality could at its utmost have an impact on style and language. It appears that such a difference in the mean scores actually showed a good trend in which the experimental group did produce articles that gave better impression for readers. Certainly the insignificant result here may also be attributed to the brevity of the intervention. This might well inform further research.

CONCLUSION The issue of formal style in writing is key to the English for Academic Purpose course for freshmen. The transition from composition writing in secondary school to academic papers at college involves more than the length of essays or the complexity of ideas. Equally important is a strong awareness of style, stance and tone in the choice of expressions used in the service of argumentation. This research is an attempt to investigate whether a focus on lexical formality, based on prior research, could bring about improvements in the formality and overall quality of first-year undergraduate academic writing. It was found that the lexical approach encouraged students to use more noun phrases and fewer personal pronouns, which could be taken to indicate a more formal style in writing. Also, students in the experimental class were able to use a larger set of different words than the control group. Although the result in overall writing quality was barely significant, the approach did not have any impact on either the structural complexity or lexical sophistication of their writing. On the whole, this study has given some encouraging signs for ways in improving the lexical formality in L2 writing. Future studies should further explore the possibilities of longer interventions at different proficiency levels.

A Lexical Approach to Teaching Formality …

123

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this chapter was supported by an RGC grant that the author received from the Research Grant Council (RGC) of the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (Ref. No: UGC/FDS14/H01/14).

REFERENCES Alderson, J. C., & Bachman, L. (2002). Series editors’ preface. In S. C. Weigle, Assessing writing (pp. x-xi). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Baratta, A. M. (2010). Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 1017-1036. Bei, X. G. (2011). Formality in second language discourse: Measurement and performance. Interdisciplinary Humanities, 28(1), 22–31. Bui, G., & Skehan, P. (2017). Complexity, fluency and accuracy. In J. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Chang, Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices. London, England: Longman. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193-202. Gray, B. (2015). On the complexity of academic writing: Disciplinary variation and structural complexity. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 66, 49-78. Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical guide. New York, NY: Routledge. Harwood, N. (2006). (In)appropriate personal pronoun use in political science: A qualitative study and a proposed heuristic for future research. Written Communication, 23, 242-250. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. M. (2002). Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science, 7, 293–340. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

124

Gavin Bui

Joos, M. (1962). The five clocks. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. Jordon, R. R. (1992). Academic writing course. Edinburgh, Scotland: Thomas Nelson and Sons. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, WA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project in linguistic change and variation. In J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Language in use (pp. 28-53). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Leopold, E. (2000). Length-distribution of words with coinciding frequency. In Proceedings of the fourth conference of the International Quantitative Linguistic Association (pp. 76-77), Prague, Czech Republic. Mendis, D. (2010). Formality in academic writing: The use/non-use of phrasal verbs in two varieties of English. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. FortanetGómez (Eds), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 11-24). Amsterdam, Netherland: Rodopi. Rickford, J. R., & McNair-Knox, F. (1994). Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Perspectives on register: Situating register variation within sociolinguistics (pp. 235-276). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2011). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Zhang, Q. (1998). Fuzziness–vagueness–generality–ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 13–31. Zipf, G. K. (1932). Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 8

READING AND WRITING OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE: LINGUISTIC AND METALINGUISTIC SKILLS Amir Sadeghi1,2, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi1, Abdul Saeed2,3 and John Everatt2 1

Islamic Azad University, Iran University of Canterbury, New Zealand 3 Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Pakistan 2

ABSTRACT International students commonly encounter challenges that can impact on the process of achieving academic success. Reading and writing are two fundamental and integral skills required of English-as-a-Second language learners using English for Academic Purposes (EAP). However, the skills of reading and writing can themselves be divided into various cognitive-linguistic processes that influence acquisition and achievement, and such skills can interact across languages. The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) proposes that decoding and linguistic comprehension are the two key constituents involved in reading comprehension. The Simple View of Writing (e.g. Berninger et al., 2002; Jones & Berninger, 2016) considers that writing is the result of two main processes: composing and translating. Among these predictors of reading and writing, processes related to vocabulary acquisition and use are probably one of the major underlying skill-sets.

126

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al. However, in addition, the way in which a language is learnt, rehearsal strategies, self-talk about efficiency and elaboration have also been considered as predictors of reading comprehension that may be particularly important for EAP students. Students’ self-confidence, self-efficacy, and positive attitudes should also be considered when studying EAP writing. This review, therefore, focuses on research that has considered the relationships between these skills and reading and writing with the aim to provide theoretical foundations necessary to examine interactions between first language (L1) and second language (L2) skills and provide a framework for L2 acquisition of reading and writing among university students.

Keywords: reading comprehension, writing composition, English for Academic purposes

INTRODUCTION Many researchers have focused on what may lead to academic success in university students. As an example, Walberg (1981) identified success-related factors by considering the quality of the learning environment (such as the psychological environment, as reflected by peer relationships, the home environment, the classroom climate, and the individual’s exposure to media), characteristics of the learner (including the student’s aptitude as reflected by their ability to learn, as well as motivation and age), and quantity and quality of classroom instruction (see Deteso, 2011). Furthermore, recent research on students’ academic success has highlighted specific variables such as peer acceptance, classroom engagement and participation, and familial factors (e.g. maternal education and ethnicity) that may play key roles in academic outcomes (e.g. Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2005, 2006). Other researchers have considered the quality of the relationship between student and teacher as a mediating factor for educational attainment. Such student-teacher relationships significantly influence (positively and negatively) academic and social outcomes (e.g. Birch & Ladd, 1996; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Hamre & Pianta, 2005). Given the importance of reading and writing within education, additional factors that might be predictive of academic success are those that influence levels of reading and writing. When it comes to English language learners, in particular those who learn and utilise English for specific or academic purposes (ESP or EAP), it may be even more important to know the underlying skills involved in reading and writing ability, since these may be the basis of both acquiring discipline knowledge, but also the English language itself, both of which will determine academic attainment. Hence, an understanding of those factors that lead to improved second language reading and writing ability should be beneficial for language learners, as well as material developers and English language teachers who aim to support such learners. This chapter, therefore, presents a foundation on which to conceptualise the processes that lead to skilled levels of reading comprehension and writing output based on the research literature.

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 127

PROCESSES IN READING AND WRITING Reading has been argued to be an interactive process between the reader and the written text which leads to comprehension given that the process is fluent or automatic (Alyousef, 2005). Comprehension is the construction of the meaning from a written text or spoken communication through a reciprocal interchange of ideas between the interpreter and the message. The presumption is that meaning resides in the intentional problem-solving and thinking processes of the interpreter, which will be influenced by the interpreter’s prior knowledge and experience (Harris & Hodges, 1995); though the clarity of what is written, within the context (or genre) that the message is situated, is also vital for comprehension to be possible. Gough and Tunmer (1986), in an attempt to provide a simplified perspective on comprehension for reading research, proposed the Simple View of Reading. In this model, reading comprehension was proposed as a result of the interaction between two components: decoding skills and linguistic comprehension. According to Bloom and Lahey (1978), decoding and linguistic comprehension are two integral, separate, but subsidiary processes that directly affect reading development. Decoding is defined as ‘the ability to rapidly derive a representation from printed input that allows access to the appropriate entry in the mental lexicon, and thus, the retrieval of semantic information on the word level’ (Hoover & Gough, 1990, p. 130). Hoover and Gough (1990) describe linguistic comprehension as ‘the ability to take lexical information (i.e. semantic information at the word level) and derive sentence and discourse interpretations’ (p. 131). However, comprehending written text is not a simple process, and each of the two general processes of the simple model involves a range of underlying cognitive-linguistic skills (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 2000; Sadeghi, Everatt, & McNeill, 2016). This simple model of reading has influenced a similar view about writing. The simple view of writing (e.g. Berninger et al., 2002; Jones & Berninger, 2016) considers that writing involves two general sets of processes, one which might be referred to as composing (or composition) in which language skills supports the generation of ideas that are then translated into text through a second set of processes that can be referred to as transcription skills and involves knowledge of orthographic symbols, spelling and handwriting (or typing) procedures. Therefore, writing can be determined by the writer’s ability to compose (i.e. generate ideas through language) and translate (i.e. transcription skills that allow language to be encoded in written text) in a similar way that a reader’s ability to comprehend may be determined by their decoding and language understanding skills. Harrison and Dolan (1979) remarked that reading consists of a set of merged skills and cannot be considered as a single skill. These skills are the ability to: (i) identify words and mastery of vocabulary; (ii) identify the structures of the sentences, paragraphs, and longer passages that organise the whole text; (iii) evaluate what is read in order to

128

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

make relevant deductions, inferences, or critical assessments; and (iv) focus on the given task presented in the text. In other words, the ultimate goal of reading is comprehending and obtaining information from the written text; the skill that is crucial for university students who are required to read texts to get information related to their discipline. To comprehend a text, the reader will be required to utilise their background knowledge, make decisions, solve problems, and finally perceive the passage rather than obtaining meaning from isolated words or sentences. Similarly, writing allows people to represent their thoughts. Written texts also represent meaning and teach students the most profound lesson about how to learn from what they read (Zamel, 1992). Writing is a fundamental skill and is crucial to academic success. At a general level, writing requires the translation of the writer’s internal ideas into language through words, sentences, and discourse (Berninger, 2009; Harrison, Goegan, Jalbert, McManus, & Spurling, 2013). József (2001) describes writing as one of the most complex human activities which includes developing ideas, capturing mental representations of knowledge and experience; the skill that seems crucial for educational attainment, in particular among university students. Considering the importance of reading and writing skills for university students for obtaining and reproducing technical information about their discipline, it is surprising that only a limited number of studies have been conducted that focus on predictor skills among those who utilise English for Academic Purposes (EAP). This group of English language learners are typically adult learners who study their favourite discipline using English as the means of education, or access sources widely published in English in order to obtain the most up-to-date information related to their discipline. Some of these studies are briefly discussed below as a way of informing future research into this area of EAP research. However, given the focus on adult learners, and the limited space of one chapter, the discussion will mainly consider aspects related to accessing meaning, in contrast to word decoding or encoding skills. The need to determine meaning within text is the main role for reading and writing in adult education settings, and this fits with our current understanding of how literacy develops. For example, in comprehending text, simply decoding words do not lead to understanding, and as readers become more skilled and move to reading more complex texts, their ability to decode become less predictive of their ability to comprehend. Indeed, research on high school students suggests that reading comprehension is highly correlated with listening comprehension in older students (Adlof, Catts, & Little, 2006): i.e. reading comprehension in older readers seems to be more a function of language understanding as it does word decoding. Hence, skills beyond the level of simply decoding (or encoding) words will form the focus of the present discussion. Based on the review by Hogan, Bridges, Justice and Cain (2011), language skills might be categorised as lower level or higher level language skills. By lower level

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 129 language skills, Hogan et al. refer to vocabulary and grammar, which serve as foundations for the higher level skills. Inferencing, comprehension monitoring, and text structure knowledge are considered as higher level skills. Therefore, the two sets of language skills integrate with each other to result in better understanding. The current review will use this framework as a basis for the following discussion, by first focusing on the lower level skill of vocabulary, before considering other areas of language skill and more metacognitive aspects of learning. The latter refers to the individuals’ awareness about their own learning, and the potential to use differing strategies to support learning. Metacognition is broadly defined as the conscious awareness over one’s own cognition: one’s own thinking, and in the present context learning processes (FernandezDuque, Baird, & Posner, 2000; Flavell, 1979; Kuhn, 2000; Nelson, Stuart, Howard, & Crowley, 1999). The term is used when considering an individual’s knowledge of their processing skills when performing a task, and the strategies that he/she can employ to support task completion. The term also assumes the ability to regulate cognition, which includes monitoring task performance, and control processes in order to modify task performance or change behaviours/outputs. Hence, the term metacognition covers many of the higher level skills mentioned above.

STUDIES OF L2 READING AND WRITING Vocabulary Given that text meaning can be considered as initially derived from understanding the meaning of individual words within the text, then the first place to look for influences on L2 literacy is vocabulary. However, this role has not yet been clearly established in the context of learning EAP. Roche and Harrington (2013) explored the relationship between vocabulary knowledge, written academic English proficiency and academic performance of 70 students in an EFL context. The participants were enrolled in an English language medium higher education institution in Oman. To assess the participants’ academic English written proficiency, the participants were asked to write a 250-word essay taken from practice IELTS materials (Cambridge University Press, 2005). Vocabulary knowledge was also assessed through a computerised yes/no response test. Finally, the participants’ Grade Point Average (GPA) was used as measure of their academic performance (though see Christopher, 1993, for a discussion of the use of GPA). The findings revealed that both academic writing skills and vocabulary knowledge predict overall academic performance, and the vocabulary recognition test scores predicted written academic English language proficiency.

130

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

Such results can be contrasted with Nergis (2013), who investigated the role of metacognitive awareness, syntactic awareness and depth of vocabulary knowledge in academic reading comprehension in an ESL context. The participants recruited for the study were 45 English language adult students in Turkey. Analyses indicated that metacognitive and syntactic awareness were related to reading performance, whereas depth of vocabulary knowledge was only moderately associated with L2 academic reading comprehension (based on TOEFL) within this relatively homogenous L1 background sample. Similarly, the role of vocabulary may be influenced by how it is assessed. Kameli, Mustapha, and Alyami (2013) explored the relationship among vocabulary breadth/size, depth/quality of vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension in an EFL context. The main focus of the study was to investigate which aspect of vocabulary knowledge (i.e. breadth/size or depth/quality) was more related with the learners’ reading performance. Participants were 220 adult male and female students who were learning English to advanced levels in Iran. The data were gathered via the Reading Comprehension Test of the academic reading section of IELTS, in addition to measures of vocabulary level and word association. Analyses indicated that vocabulary breadth/size, vocabulary depth/quality, and reading comprehension were significantly correlated, but that vocabulary breath/size appeared to be a more effective predictor of reading comprehension performance than depth/quality of vocabulary knowledge. However, this differs from the conclusions derived from a study by Mehrpour, Razmjoo and Kian (2011) involving similar language background students and measures. Mehrpour et al. (2011) found that depth of vocabulary knowledge was the stronger predictor of reading comprehension rather than depth of vocabulary. Hence, research varies in terms of the role of vocabulary and the specific aspect of vocabulary that might influence EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance. Indeed, in research on English learners within an English-language college, learning English to take courses in that college, by Shamsuzzaman, Everatt and McNeill (2015) argue for variations in the influence of vocabulary potentially based on the strategies used by students. In this study, students came from a range of countries (China, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, and Colombia) and they were studying together based on their proficiency in English assessed by the results of a placement test. Findings indicated that for students from a non-Chinese background, vocabulary scores correlated with scores on a writing test. However, for the Chinese learners, scores on the test vocabulary test did not correlate with writing performance. The differences in performance between these two groups suggest that L2 literacy levels (in this case scores on a writing task) are to some extent determined by native/cultural and/or educational influences in the student’s background. The teaching of certain learning strategies may determine the level at which vocabulary plays its role in literacy.

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 131

Learning Strategies and Perceptions Given that university students are expected to be independent, research has also considered the learners’ independent self-directed learning (akin to the term metacognition referred to above). Zarei and Gahremani (2010) investigated the relationship between students’ autonomy and their reading comprehension ability. The participants were 68 Iranian adult students who were given an autonomy questionnaire and five TOEFL reading comprehension passages. The findings indicated a moderate positive relationship between autonomy and reading comprehension ability but suggested that among five factors considered in the autonomy questionnaire (i.e. teacher’s role, selfefficacy, nature of language learning, strategies of learning & reading and autonomy), only ‘nature of language learning’ (a concept that refers to the overall way in which a second language has been learnt by the individual) was a reliable predictor of reading comprehension. To clarify the finding, it can be concluded that as learners become more familiar with autonomy conceptions especially on nature of language learning, they will act more successful in reading comprehension. Al Asmari and Ismail (2012) focused on self-regulated learning strategies as predictors of reading comprehension. A sample of 248 university students majoring in English language was recruited in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected through the selfregulated learning questionnaire and a reading comprehension test. The results confirmed that academic levels were related to differences between students in their use of strategies as well as their reading comprehension ability. The researchers concluded that some selfregulated learning strategies (such as rehearsal strategy, self-talk about efficiency, and elaboration) significantly predict reading comprehension in English language learners. Berman and Cheng (2001) examined university students’ perceptions of using EAP and concluded that writing for different types of assessments, such as timed examinations, essay assignments and written reports, is one of the most difficult language skills for second language (L2) learners (see also Cheng, Myles, & Curtis, 2004). Consistent with this perspective, a number of studies have indicated that students’ capability to write what they think is related to their perception of their confidence in their writing ability (Erkan & Saban, 2011; Shah, Mahmud, Din, Yusof, & Pardi, 2011; Woodrow, 2011). Hetthong and Teo (2013) investigated the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing performance among 51 third-year English major students. The study focused on self-efficacy as a predictor of EFL writing performance, and aimed to explore whether the students’ overall writing self-efficacy predicts their overall writing performance. Participants completed a paragraph writing test and a questionnaire on writing selfefficacy. The results revealed a significant positive relationship between writing selfefficacy and writing performance at the paragraph level, as well as at sub-skill level (i.e. measures of Content, Organisation, Cohesion, Vocabulary, Grammar, Punctuation, and

132

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

Spelling that are used as scoring criteria for grading the paragraph). Similar relationships between writing self-efficacy and writing performance have been found across a range of studies (Chen & Lin, 2009; Shah et al., 2011; Woodrow, 2011). Latif (2007) proposed that proficient writers have positive attitudes towards their writing ability, but also are more likely to know the linguistic form of the language, including an appreciation of the sounds within the language, good vocabulary levels and an understanding of grammar. Poor writers are probably not able to produce clear (coherent) and comprehensive writings due to their concerns about missing basic language-related writing forms, and the negative evaluations from teachers (and peers) that such poor written form may produce (see also Shamsuzzaman, Everatt, & McNeill, 2014). Hence, skills and perceptions can interact to produce variations in performance.

Planning and Monitoring Literacy In terms of reading comprehension, inferencing, comprehension monitoring, and text structure knowledge have been proposed as higher level skills (Hogan et al., 2011). Similarly, Jun (2008) has listed some of the strategies that have been proposed as used in second language writing, such as planning, translation, restructuring and backtracking. These writing skills/strategies are consistent with some of the higher level skills proposed by Hogan et al. and suggest that strategic processes and higher thinking skills may overlap to some extent (consistent with some of the points about metacognition mentioned above). Planning refers to the blueprint of what a writer is willing to write, and is often associated with quality of writing at proficiency levels. In contrast, the strategy of translation is more likely to be used by less skilled L2 writers. For example, Gosden (1996) indicated that some L2 writers write the entire text in their first language and then translate it into English using a phrase by phrase translation strategy. The strategies associated with restructuring are believed to be applicable for different purposes in second language writing process. Roca, Murphy, and Manchon (1999) found three types of restructuring strategies: ideational, which is associated with changes in meaning of the text, versus textual and linguistic restructuring, may be more compensating for lack of L2 linguistic resources or the instability of inter-language knowledge. The final strategy of backtracking includes ‘a reconsideration of what one has already been written with the aim of getting a mental picture, evaluating or changing it, to familiarising oneself with the text written thus far as a way of moving forward in the composing process’ (Manchon, Roca, & Murphy, 2000, p. 14). Each of these strategies could be considered relevant to L1 writing as much as L2 – except the strategy of translation. However, writing in a second language is not necessarily the same as writing in a first language. Indeed, Maasum, Stapa, Omar, Ab

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 133 Aziz and Darus (2012) argued that the way ESL learners write is completely different from those whose native language is English. An L2 writer is not only a writer, but someone who is in the process of attempting to achieve language proficiency (the ultimate goal of L2 learning); and this goal needs to be considered in addition to effective writing strategies, techniques and skills. Chand (2014) examined the association between strategy use and academic language proficiency among 88 undergraduates in Fiji studying EAP. In order to assess the participants’ language proficiency, data were collected via a diagnostic test, given at the beginning of the semester before teaching writing strategies, and the students’ final exam results and scores on assignments. Information about strategy use was also collected and indicated that metacognitive strategies were reported as most frequently used, followed by cognitive, social, compensation and memory, with affective strategies least frequently used. All strategies showed a weak but positive relationship with students’ academic language levels. Chand along with many other researchers (e.g. Al-Hebaishi, 2012; Bremner, 1999; Green & Oxford, 1995) concluded that cognitive and metacognitive strategies have a positive effect on academic language proficiency. Magno (2008) investigated whether reading strategy, amount of writing, metacognition, meta-memory, and apprehension can significantly predict writing proficiency in English. The participants were 159 college students taking an English course. The participants were directed to answer five instruments including Informed Strategies for Learning (ISL), Metacognitive Assessment Inventory (MAI), Multi factorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ), Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Scale (WAS), and the Test of Written English rating scale (TWE) and also to write an essay repressing their written proficiency. Relationships were found between writing proficiency and each of the variables: i.e. reading strategy, amount of writing, metacognition, meta-memory, and apprehension all showed significant correlations with writing proficiency. However, reading strategy, meta-memory strategy, and regulation of cognition were considered to be the more influential predictors of writing ability. Additionally, the role of writers’ first language cannot be ignored when it comes to writing proficiency in a second language. A number of studies focusing on the role of first language on the second language writing have reported the transfer of first language writing skills and strategies to second language writing (Brooks, 1985; Cumming, 1989, 1990; Krapels, 1991; Lay, 1982, 1988; Uzawa & Cumming, 1989). During a case study, Lay (1982) examined four native Chinese-speaking ESL writers and concluded that they apply their first language in order to connect and finalise their ideas in essay writing. In Brooks’ (1985) study, students with higher amounts of reading and writing in their first language were able to transfer skills to their English writing. Lay (1988) proposed that first language can play a role of facilitator in L2 writing, arguing that learners need to use their L1 strategies to support writing in L2, as (at least initially) L2 skills will be limited. In Uzawa and Cumming’s (1989) survey, ten Anglo-Canadian students participated in an

134

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

intermediate Japanese course indicated the use of L1 in generating ideas, looking for topics, and expanding concepts. Hence, L2 writing is not the same as L1 writing – not only are the goals different, but the writing has a different set of translation strategies not available to the L1 writer. How useful these simple translation strategies are in the long run has yet to be determined, but again these findings show how research in the specific context of L2 literacy is vital as L1 models cannot simply be applied to L2 contexts. The transfer of skills from L1 to L2 has formed a relatively unique aspect of L2 reading (and to some extent writing) research (see also Sadeghi & Everatt, 2015). However, much of this work has focused on skills related to decoding. Little has considered higher language processes as defined by Hogan et al. (2011). In a study involving measures of inferential skills, vocabulary and listening comprehension in Thai (L1) and English (L2), as well as assessment of reading comprehension in the two languages, Srisang (2017) found significant relationships between inferential skills and comprehension in both Thai and English, and also evidence of English inferential skills predicting extra variability in Thai reading comprehension after controlling for Thai language skills (vocabulary and listening comprehension) and non-verbal reasoning. Srisang argues that such influences from English to Thai may be explained because of the lack of a strong reading culture in Thailand, which may lead to some reading comprehension skills been under-developed within an L1 learning context, but may be supported when the reading of complex L2 material is necessary – as in the EAP context of the student participants tested. Such findings are consistent with the higher level ability to make inferences been an important component of successful text comprehension in both L1 and English as a second language, consistent with current models of reading comprehension in L1, which can be applied to L2 contexts. However, they also argue for the potential that such higher level skills, learned in one language, can potentially support literacy in another (see also Srisang, Everatt, Fletcher, & Sadeghi, in preparation). Again, the findings argue that L1 models can be useful as a basis to understand the processes involved in reading, but the aspect of background learning of L1 and the potential for interactions between L1 and L2 need to be included in models of L2 literacy. The need to consider the potential inter-independence between language processes is true within languages. For example, the ability to make inferences from text is, to some extent, influenced by vocabulary – and similarly vocabulary may be enhanced (a new word learned) by an appropriate inference (see Cain, Bryant, & Oakhill, 2004; Calvo, 2004; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999; Prior, Goldina, Shany, Geva, & Katzir, 2014). In a study of 109 adult ESL learners in a Malaysian university, Wong (2013) found that L2 writers’ language proficiency influenced the type of writing strategies that they used in an L2 writing task. Analysis indicated that different levels of vocabulary knowledge correlated with essay scores but also self-reported strategies of planning and reviewing – the higher the level of English vocabulary, the more likely the student was to use more complex strategies to support writing performance. These findings argue that L2

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 135 proficiency may limit the types of writing strategies that can be applied by an individual during an L2 literacy task.

CONCLUSION Overall, this chapter argues for more research into the influences of L2 literacy development. Current models of L1 literacy provide a basis on which to investigate the processes that underlie reading and writing, and then assess these same processes within the context of L2 learners. They also provide a basis on which to understand how these processes interact (influence each other) within the language learner. However, the data available show that L1 models cannot be simply applied to L2 learners. The effects of the background of the L2 student (their L1, their learning and cultural experiences and their goals for undertaking a literacy task) and the potential interactions between L1 and L2 processes/skills (both positive and negative) need to be further specified by research and included in models of literacy development that can inform practice; as shown in the studies reviewed in this chapter. Studies of reading and writing also provide a useful means to investigate and develop models of L2 acquisition, since they are important components of language learning and teaching, and manipulation of materials may be easier via the written word than spoken discourse. This is not to diminish the importance of verbal comprehension and production. Rather, it is to point out the potential benefits of such research for understanding L2 acquisition. Additionally, the focus of the current chapter is on the factors of individual differences that may play a role in determined L2 acquisition. Again, this does not mean that aspects external to the individual (such as teaching) are not important. Rather, the current chapter focuses on these within-person processes and skills as the authors consider that such factors will need to be taken into account in future best practice in L2 teaching. Such individual differences influence the way the individual learns as much as learning influences the differences between individuals.

REFERENCES Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19, 933–958. Al Asmari, A. A., & Ismail, N. M. (2012). Self-regulated learning strategies as predictors of reading comprehension among students of English as a foreign language. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(2), 178-201.

136

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

Al-Hebaishi, S. M. (2012). Investigating the relationship between learning styles, strategies and the academic performance of Saudi English majors. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education., 1(8), 510-520. Alyousef, H. S. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension to ESL/EFL learners. The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 143-154. Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2001). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 25-40. Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 69-80. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291-304. Birch, S., & Ladd, G. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the school environment and children’s early school adjustment. In K. Wentzel & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social Motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 199-225). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 490-514. Brooks, E. (1985). Case studies of ‘unskilled’ ESL college writers: A hypothesis about stages of development. ERIC Document, 289-340. Buhs, E., Ladd, G., & Herald, S. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1-13. Cain, K., Bryant, P. E., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. Calvo, M. G. (2004). Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working memory span to elaborative inferences in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(1), 53-65. Cambridge University Press. (2005). Cambridge IELTS 4. Examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Chand, Z. A. (2014). Language learning strategy use and its impact on proficiency in academic writing of tertiary students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 511-521.

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 137 Chen, M. C., & Lin, H. (2009). Self-efficacy, foreign language anxiety as predictors of academic performance among professional program students in a general English proficiency writing test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109, 420-430. Cheng, L., Myles, J., & Curtis, A. (2004). Targeting language support for non-native English speaking graduate students at a Canadian university. TESL Canada Journal, 22, 50-71. Christopher, V. (1993). Direct and indirect placement test scores as measures of language proficiency and predictors of academic success for ESL students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445547). Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511. Deteso, J. A. (2011). Student-Teacher relationships as predictors of reading comprehension gains in 2nd grade (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Columbia University, New York, United States. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(1), 164-192. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288-307. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162. Gosden, H. (1996). Verbal reports of Japanese novices’ research writing practices in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 109–128. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. Green, J., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2005). Can Instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949-967.

138

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G.C. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59-71). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary. The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Harrison, C., & Dolan, T. (1979). Reading comprehension-A psychological viewpoint. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language: hypotheses, organization and practice (pp. 13-23). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Harrison, G. L., Goegan, L. D., Jalbert, R., McManus, K., & Spurling, J. (2013). Predictors of writing ability in 4th grade first- and second- language learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE), Victoria, British Columbia. Hetthong, R., & Teo, A. (2013). Does writing self-efficacy correlate with and predict writing performance? International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(1), 167-257. Hogan, T., Bridges, M. S., Justice, L. M., & Cain, K. (2011). Increasing higher level language skills to improve reading comprehension. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(3), 1-20. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160. Jones, J. N., & Berninger, V. W. (2016). Strategies typically developing writers use for translating thought into the next sentence and evolving text: Implications for assessment and instruction. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(4), 276-292. József, H. (2001). Advanced writing in English as a foreign language: A corpus-based study of processes and products. Pécs, Hungary: Lingua Franca Csoport. Jun, Z. (2008). A comprehensive review of studies on second language writing. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 12. Kameli, S., Mustapha, G., & Alyami, S. (2013). The predictor factor of reading comprehension performance in English as a foreign language: Breadth or depth. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(2), 179-184. Krapels, A. R. (1991). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 3756). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181. Latif, M. A. (2007). The factors accounting for the Egyptian EFL university students’ negative writing affect. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language & Linguistics, 9, 57-82. Lay, N. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 406-411.

Reading and Writing of University Students with English as a Second Language 139 Lay, N. (1988). The comforts of the first language in learning to write. Kaleidoscope, 4, 15–18. Maasum, T., Stapa, S., Omar, N., Ab Aziz, M., & Darus, S. (2012). Development of an automated tool for detecting errors in tenses. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 427-441. Magno, C. (2008). Reading strategy, amount of writing, metacognition, metamemory, and apprehension as predictors of English written proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 29, 15-48. Manchon, R. M., Roca, J., & Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning and Instruction, 10, 13–35. Mehrpour, S., Razmjoo, S. A., & Kian, P. (2011). The relationship between depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 53(222), 97-127. Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 1-9. Nelson, T. O., Stuart, R. B., Howard, C., & Crowley, M. J. (1999). Metacognition and clinical psychology: A preliminary framework for research and practice. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 6(2), 73-79. Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 195-224. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Prior, A., Goldina, A., Shany, M., Geva, E., & Katzir, T. (2014). Lexical inference in L2: Predictive roles of vocabulary knowledge and reading skill beyond reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1467-1484. Roca, J., Murphy, L., & Manchon, R. M. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 13-44. Roche, T., & Harrington, M. (2013). Recognition vocabulary knowledge as a predictor of academic performance in an English as a foreign language setting. Language Testing in Asia, 3(12). Sadeghi, A., & Everatt, J. (2015). Influence of language background on English reading comprehension skills: Cross-language transfer effects. In L.T. Wong & A. DubeyJhaveri (Eds.), English language education in a global world: Practices, issues and challenges (pp. 69-80). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Sadeghi, A., Everatt, J., & McNeill, B. (2016). A simple model of Persian reading. Writing Systems Research, 8(1), 44-20.

140

Amir Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo Cheraghi, Abdul Saeed et al.

Shah, P. M., Mahmud, W. H., Din, R., Yusof, A., & Pardi, K. M. (2011). Self-efficacy in the writing of Malaysian ESL learners. World Applied Sciences Journal (Innovation and Pedagogy for Lifelong Learning), 15, 08-11. Shamsuzzaman, M., Everatt, J., & McNeill, B. (2014). An investigation of the relationship between instructors’ backgrounds and the teaching of second language writing in Bangladesh. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 51-72. Shamsuzzaman, M., Everatt, J., & McNeill, B. (2015). Effects of vocabulary and grammar on English L2 writing by learners from Chinese and non-Chinese backgrounds. Philippine ESL Journal. Retrieved from http://www.philippine-esljournal.com/ journals/2015/329/volume-15-july-2015/. Srisang, P. (2017). Influence of inferential skills on the reading comprehension ability of adult Thai (L1) and English (L2) students (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 46(1), 178-194. Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F.H. Farley & N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and Education (pp. 81-110). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Wong, S. C. A. (2013). An investigation of the predictors of L2 writing among adult ESL students (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39, 510-522. Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 463-485. Zarei, A. A., & Gahremani, K. (2010). On the relationship between learner autonomy and reading comprehension. TELL, 3(10), 81-99.

PART II PRACTICES OF TEACHING AND LEARNING ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 9

INNOVATION IN EAP PROGRAMMES: SHIFTING FROM TEACHING TO LEARNING IN CURRICULUM DESIGN Martin Guardado and Justine Light University of Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT This chapter provides an overview of a comprehensive and innovative two-year curriculum review and development project undertaken in the English Language School at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. The main goal of the project was to review and redevelop all courses in the School’s English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programme. Early in the project we worked on re-envisioning its philosophical underpinnings and recasting the entire set of curriculum documents from the perspective of outcomes-based education. This chapter outlines the steps undertaken in the review process, shares exemplars of the resulting curricular documents, and discusses some of our initial implementation insights. It concludes with reflective thoughts on the curriculum review experience. The chapter will be of interest to EAP scholars and students, but most of all, we hope that it will be of practical use to programme developers and administrators interested in advancing innovation in their EAP contexts.

Keywords: EAP, task-based language teaching, outcomes-based education, learning outcomes, curriculum renewal

144

Martin Guardado and Justine Light

INTRODUCTION Recognising its responsibility to support international EAP students on an academic track as fully as possible, the University of Alberta’s English Language School undertook an ambitious initiative to infuse its programming and curricula with the most up-to-date thinking in the field. This included a process of envisioning that responded to an important paradigm shift in education, arguably, one that has not received significant uptake in EAP – outcomes-based education (Nusche, 2008; Suskie, 2009). Specifically, this project was informed by the learning paradigm (Barr & Tagg, 1995), which represents a move away from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning outcomes. In this chapter, curriculum is defined as ‘all aspects of the planning, implementation and evaluation of an educational program’ (Finney, 2002, p. 70), one that encompasses a careful consideration of the what, why, how and how well of the student learning experience. Nation and Macalister (2010) posit that a curriculum document serves as a bridge between the body of knowledge on language learning and pedagogical practice. Therefore, language learning theory and research inform what goes into the curriculum document, but classroom teachers interpret this content and create a learning environment for their students. Thus, a curriculum is much more than a document. According to Aoki (1993) there are two curricula: the planned curriculum and the lived curriculum. Clearly, it is the lived curriculum where learning takes place, and for this reason, we set out to develop a plan for our programme for learning and instruction that was grounded in theory and research. We strived to develop a planned curriculum that was also dynamic and adaptable so that our instructors could create meaningful and effective languagelearning environments that fully met the needs of their students. Considering that needs analysis is a foundational phase of any curriculum development undertaking (Benesch, 1996; Brown, 1995; Derwing, 2008; Flowerdew, 2013), we set out to examine the learning context in order to inform the curriculum development process and ensure success for all stakeholders for the benefit of learners. A curriculum design model (see Figure 9.1) inspired by Nation and Macalister’s (2010) was used for this purpose. This model guided the entire renewal process, starting with the concurrent evaluation of our curriculum with a review of the environment within the School, the needs of the students as well as a reflective consideration of the pedagogical principles driving classroom instruction. A central commitment espoused from the onset by the academic leadership and curriculum team was to involve the entire instructional staff at every phase of the curriculum review, development, and implementation process. Thus, a variety of opportunities for individual and group discussion, reflection, and input were built into the project, which not only greatly enhanced the curricular documents, but also gave the

Innovation in EAP Programmes

145

teaching staff a sense of ownership of the curriculum and responsibility for its successful implementation. The present chapter outlines the steps undertaken in the curriculum review process, discusses key components of the resulting curriculum, exemplifies these with excerpts from the actual documents, and discusses our initial implementation experiences. It concludes with some reflective thoughts on the curriculum review experience. We expect this chapter to be of interest to EAP scholars and students, but most of all, we hope that it will be of practical use to programme developers, classroom practitioners and administrators interested in advancing innovation in their own EAP contexts.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SCHOOL The English Language School (ELS) was founded in 1973 under the name of English Language Services and has since supported primarily international students but also learners with a variety of needs and goals. Its programming has evolved significantly in the last decade and a half in response to shifting conditions internationally, and changing student populations and needs locally. Currently, the ELS offers several programmes to short-term and long-term international students, international professors, and other cohorts of professionals from around the world. EAP, the flagship ELS programme, was launched in 2000 due to a growing need to assist international students improve their English language proficiency and academic skills. This programme consists of three credit-bearing courses (EAP 135, EAP 140 and EAP 145) that prepare students for undergraduate studies (a six-credit course, EAP 550, meets the language requirement for prospective graduate students). While courses in degree programmes at the University of Alberta are 13-weeks long, EAP courses are on a seven-week term. Each course consists of 19 hours of classroom instruction per week over five days and additional out-of-class academic support. The ELS is also home to the University of Alberta’s Bridging Program, which was launched in 2001 to conditionally admit undergraduate applicants with strong academic standing who did not meet the minimum language proficiency requirements for direct admission. These academically promising students engage in studies in the EAP programme, which forms the core of the Bridging Program, and are also eligible to enrol in one junior-level degree course per academic term from a selected list provided by the six participating faculties. Given that students in the Bridging Program are conditionally admitted to the University of Alberta, upon successful completion of the highest EAP level, EAP 145, they will demonstrate that they have met the language proficiency requirements and enter regular undergraduate programmes at the University of Alberta.

146

Martin Guardado and Justine Light

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY At the outset of renewing the EAP curricula, we began by examining the philosophical underpinnings of our existing educational paradigm. After scrutinising the decisions, documents, and pathways which had evolved over the twenty years previous with varying degrees of revision, we concluded that ELS had strayed towards a largely teacher-centred paradigm. This ‘traditional, dominant paradigm’ (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 13) emphasises teaching as the end purpose of the curriculum. For instance, previous curriculum documents described only what teachers were responsible for teaching – a narrow view of curriculum more in line with the term syllabus (Finney, 2002). In turn, this had led to a situation that restricted an understanding of student language proficiency at any given level. In our EAP courses, as in many (e.g. Raymond & Parks, 2002), writing has become the most important aspect of language proficiency. Given that the ELS is housed in a university and almost all students are enrolled in post-secondary study or plan to attend university in an English speaking context, the results that the teachercentred paradigm was yielding at the time of the review were not fully unexpected. Even though teachers were accountable for what they had taught, this was not a reliable predictor of what students had learned and were able to demonstrate. Furthermore, a rigid instructional paradigm unwittingly promoted the importance of maximising the amount of material teachers could cover during the term. Such a teacher-driven agenda may well have led the instructional team to overlook the importance of active learning approaches (Liu & Littlewood, 1997) reflecting contemporary research in instructed language learning, such as task-based language teaching (e.g. Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 2014; Van Den Branden, 2006). We acknowledged from the beginning that having a consistent and well-articulated philosophical approach was important in achieving the academic and operational linearity we desired. Indeed, we were keenly aware that establishing our philosophical approach carefully and sensibly was key to our ability to substantiate changes to our stakeholders, as well as to resolve unexpected inconsistencies that might arise in our future decisionmaking. Our primary goal was to put learners and learning at the heart of our thinking and ensure that this vision drove all the decisions about curricula, assessments, and pathways. In other words, we needed to develop a shared understanding of how each curricular component and pedagogical decision could support students in meeting their goals and what it meant exactly to pass one course in terms of academic language skills. Our starting point was a conscientious perusal of the model for undergraduate teaching and learning proposed by Barr and Tagg (1995). In this model, the authors systematically contrast the instructional paradigm with a learning paradigm. They describe how university programmes, courses, and instructors concern themselves with those issues related to instruction but overlook the critical issues related to learning. The approaches are contrasted across a variety of spectra and in each case how both might

Innovation in EAP Programmes

147

manifest operationally. As the ELS operates in a university, but in a context of language skill development, some adaptation of the model was required. What we found, though, was a meaningful set of criteria against which we could organise our thinking and curricular planning. We zeroed in on four of the areas against which Barr and Tagg proposed that the continuum from a teaching to a learning paradigm could be effectively plotted namely: the School’s vision and mission, criteria for success in the School, learning structures, and learning principles. Firstly, we considered how shifting from an instructional paradigm to a learning paradigm might inform our mission and purpose as a language school. We understood that under the instructional paradigm, we had emphasised the provision and delivery of instruction, debated and determined how to sequence that instruction, and invested our resources and time in developing ways to improve the quality of that instruction. Following the approach of Barr and Tagg, we endeavoured to shift our thinking and planning to considering how best to produce learning, to creating optimal language learning environments, and improving the quality of student language learning experiences. Secondly, we considered how we would establish the criteria for success in the School. In the past, we realised that we had spent a great deal of time discussing the quality of instruction and the assessment of the language skills of students entering the programme for placement purposes. Under a learning paradigm, our focus would put a greater emphasis on the quality of our exiting students, as well as the quality of the language learning experience they had encountered. We also considered how a paradigm shift might evolve our thinking around what Barr and Tagg called learning structures. Under the existing model, as previously noted, the curricula described what material was covered at each level. It focused on how the School could create an optimal environment for teaching. As an organisation, we had been asking ourselves: What technology did we need to provide for teachers? How quickly could grades be posted? How could we ensure that class attendance played a pivotal role in course completion? How could we ensure that the teacher was central in determining whether a student had passed a course, rather than a final, standard exit assessment? Evolving our thinking on these questions enabled us to ask a different set of questions about our learning structures. Instead we could reflect on: What learning could be demonstrated by individual learners? What role could objective (possibly external) evaluation play in measuring language proficiency? How could we ensure that course completion was determined by language proficiency rather than by other factors? How could technology support language learning? Finally, we adopted an understanding that a new learning paradigm meant that we would be fundamentally altering our learning theory principles. It may appear that a shift in learning principles should have been our first consideration; however, our understanding of a shift in learning theory directly related to how our decisions would be operationalised. From our learning theory comes our view of how knowledge is

148

Martin Guardado and Justine Light

constructed and created by students, rather than delivered piecemeal by instructors. From learning theory comes a consideration that learning will be student-centred and to some degree student-controlled. And perhaps most significantly, this change to our learning theory asks us to consider, as Barr and Tagg (1995, p. 17) frame it, that ‘talent and ability are abundant’ in our students. These theoretical considerations directly impact our learning context and are in no way viewed as aspirational vision-type statements. These shifts have been subtle, and, as some of our more change-resistant practitioners have argued, at times appeared semantic. Teachers challenged us to define, for instance: in what way is an optimal learning environment really a significant change from an optimal teaching environment? We see these changes as significant, over-arching, and deeply meaningful. These shifts have guided us in designing documents, framing research questions, developing professional development around the implementation of the curriculum, and creating valid and reliable summative assessment instruments. We are now able to explain in a systematic way to our instructional team, as well as the broader stakeholder community why we have made these important choices for change and this clarity has reassured, as we try new approaches, we know why we are undertaking the work.

THE PROGRAMME EVALUATION PROCESS Having established a shift in our paradigmatic thinking, it was still urgent to evaluate the context into which the newly revised curricular documents would be launched in order to best ensure success for learners, teachers, and the School. Nation and Macalister (2010) view curriculum design at a broad level. They recommend carefully considering a variety of factors that will impact the success of the course or programme being developed. To this end, they suggest reviewing the students’ current language skills and needs, resources such as time and level of professionalism of teachers, as well as principles of language learning, and the overall environment where the programme is being developed and implemented. With this set of goals in mind, the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to programme review was kept front and centre. Therefore, we looked to the language curriculum design model proposed by Nation and Macalister (2010), and adapted it for our own context (see Figure 9.1). This adapted model meant that we began the curriculum evaluation with a concurrent review of the environment within the School, the needs of our students, and a reflective and candid consideration of the pedagogical principles driving our classroom instruction practices. In looking at our environment, we reviewed the context for instructors, the pathways offered between courses and programmes, and the resources and constraints that greatly influence the programmes that can be offered. Evaluation is represented as a continuous and ongoing consideration, encircling all parts of the process.

Innovation in EAP Programmes

149

Figure 9.1. Curriculum Design Model.

Understanding the Environment We understood the extant curriculum using a curriculum-as-lived model. We knew that those most intimately knowledgeable about how the curriculum was being experienced – as it was currently lived – was our instructional team. Thus, we started our analysis by talking to teachers. The curriculum coordinator met with each teacher individually and spent over an hour with each discussing how the curriculum was being lived – its strengths and weaknesses. These insights were collated and the results were incorporated into a narrative report. There were many aspects of the programme the teachers felt worked well, such as the lack of a restrictive, prescribed syllabus, the consistency of the final exams, and the clear focus on the next steps for the students, who were largely heading to mainstream undergraduate programming. What the teachers wanted from the curriculum overhaul can be broadly described as follows:

150

Martin Guardado and Justine Light     

A clear, descriptive grammar curriculum for every level A greater emphasis on productive skills in the curriculum, as well as rubrics to support the formative and summative assessment of those skills A greater authentic task focus for writing and speaking Exemplars of writing mastery at each level The development of better study habits among students

This input was to become an important source of reference for how to structure the new curricular documents, as well as how to respond to teachers who later on would be key to the implementation of significant changes and who may have lost sight of the reasons why this process had begun.

Resources and Constraints The language school operates within one of the largest universities in Canada, which provides great benefits but also defines considerable restraints, particularly to our EAP courses, which are credit-bearing. This meant that any revision to our programmes needed to take into account financial implications of modified learner pathways, governance-related issues, and development costs. The curriculum content of the EAP courses as for all such programmes, has been driven to a large degree by the understanding of the needs of stakeholders from the broader university community, such as faculties, the registrar’s office, and others. Updated consultations with those stakeholders and partners, in addition to meeting the rigorous requirements of university governance, shaped our approach to the process. Finally, this type of curriculum review would not be a quickly- or easily-achieved process. A considerable commitment of resources was needed from our Faculty and Unit budgets, in order to ensure that it could be comprehensively and rigorously implemented.

Understanding Student Needs Understanding the needs and desires of students in large part drove the initial reflection on the curriculum and significant time was spent eliciting information about the student population and their goals for language learning. Through the use of surveys completed during instructional time, student demographic data, information about goals, needs, and preferences was collected. Furthermore, data collected using the backend student management system were analysed to consider students’ academic trajectories when bridging into mainstream undergraduate programming. These data were generated

Innovation in EAP Programmes

151

and aggregated to develop a picture of what language learning and skills, as well as time spent in the School, appeared to be best correlated with student success. These data informed our decisions about how to best assess students summatively to ensure that completion of EAP courses was an effective predictor of undergraduate success.

Principles and Pedagogy In the final stages of the curriculum review process, we analysed the teaching practices of our team and in particular, their approach to assessment. Classroom observations, teaching surveys, and participation in group exam-marking sessions allowed us to build an understanding of the principles and practices of the team. Overall, it was observed that the teachers largely followed a communicative approach, although two gaps in instruction became apparent. In an effort to both motivate students and to prepare them for mainstream undergraduate programming, teachers had become highly focused on fluency building, potentially at the expense of accuracy in language. This issue was compounded by the fact that the final exam, which acts as a gatekeeping tool for programme completion, weighted grammatical accuracy highly, if somewhat unsystematically. The teachers themselves had identified the need for a grammar element in the curriculum to guide their practices and the observations of their classroom teaching reinforced the need for such a component to be included. A second gap was in the communicative teaching practices of the team, which did not appear to fully exploit the potential of task-based language teaching. This could be seen in large part as a reflection of the curriculum document, which was teacher-centred and described what to teach without considering the related impact on student learning. The shift in philosophy to a learning paradigm in these second language classrooms, led us to implement a task-based approach. The learning from this aspect of the curriculum review process was to have farreaching impacts on what went into the curriculum and how this content was presented.

FROM EVALUATION TO DEVELOPMENT Curriculum Documents The evaluation of the previous curriculum document catalysed a broad review of our philosophical approach to second language teaching and learning, as well as a reevaluation of the needs and goals of students, and the needs and practices of teachers. Fundamentally speaking, we faced the challenge of translating the reflections and understandings of this new paradigm into concrete curriculum documents, summative

152

Martin Guardado and Justine Light

assessments, and professional development tools. As we shifted our focus away from a description of our programmes in terms of what content and skills teachers should teach, we systematically began to attempt to describe what learners should be able to do. This philosophical shift found a relatively straightforward transition in terms of curriculum into a document that was outcomes-based. In this way, we set about describing the language outcomes across the four skills, listening, speaking, reading, and writing that we expected students would be able to develop during one course. This presented a challenge both in terms of breaking down the previous more global and holistic understanding of whether a student was ‘ready’ for the next level into so many component parts, and to building assessment tools which could measure such a detailed description.

Organising the Curriculum Documents: Writing The need to focus our planning around the genuine language needs of our learners in pursuing the next steps in their studies drove us to use an outcomes-based approach to our document writing. We wanted to be able to articulate what our learners could do with language, and in order to keep our focus on the world beyond the language classroom, we were careful to use everyday, jargon-free language to describe our general or global outcomes for each skill. For illustrative purposes, in this chapter we provide excerpts from the writing component of EAP 140, a three-credit seven-week course. Key components of the curriculum will be exemplified; namely, general learning outcomes (GLOs), performance conditions for the GLOs, specific learning outcomes (SLOs), performance indicators for the SLOs, and sample tasks. Table 9.1 presents the general learning outcomes to describe the writing portion of this course curriculum. The goal of this set of general outcomes is to ensure that learners and other external partners and stakeholders can understand the general goals of the course. Obviously, it is necessary to be able to delineate the level of performance that is expected for these GLOs more concretely, and for this purpose these are followed by a description of performance conditions. These performance conditions allow for the description of the level of complexity of each item. It is clear that at different levels of English language learning the tasks completed may be described as being very similar. Yet, there are significant descriptors that help build an understanding of a learner’s distinct language proficiency, such as the level of complexity and formality of a text, the amount of language produced or understood, and the degree of support allowed for task completion. Table 9.2 contains the corresponding performance conditions for the GLOs described previously. In order to support instructors in terms of lesson planning and assessment it is necessary to drill down into these two sets of descriptors to determine more specific outcomes and the micro-skills involved in achieving these goals. For this purpose, we use a set of outcomes statements referred to as specific learning outcomes (see Table 9.3).

Innovation in EAP Programmes

153

Table 9.1. General Learning Outcomes for Writing for EAP 140 Writing EAP 140 General Learning Outcomes: Learners will be able to: Write short expository essays, including cause/effect and compare/contrast. Write short personal response texts (e.g. blogs, journals, forums). Integrate research into essays/use research in essays.

Table 9.2. Performance Conditions – GLOs for Writing for EAP 140 Performance Conditions: Topics are concrete, factual and academic, and may be unfamiliar. Language, style and register are formal and academic. Essays require at least 4 paragraphs. A maximum of two pieces of research are provided or assigned for essay writing. A maximum of two pieces of research are used in the essay. If essays are completed under timed conditions, the time allowed is 50 minutes. Short personal response texts are less structured but remain academic. Tasks are completed independently without extensive guidance or external support (e.g. dictionaries, Internet).

Table 9.3. SLOs for Writing for EAP 140 Specific Learning Outcomes: Learners will develop the ability to: Write structured research-based essays to convey cause/effect and compare/contrast relationships. Employ the writing process with some guidance. Express opinions and respectful responses in short personal response texts with sufficient accuracy and fluency. Apply proper APA paper formatting and APA citation and referencing to basic types of sources. Incorporate mainly quotations with occasional use of summaries and paraphrases.

These are more technical, and use language that is not only more specific but has more aspects included that relate to knowledge of teaching and learning a second language. These statements allow teachers to plan specific tasks to build skills, and later on to assess the development and mastery of those skills in order to achieve the broader communication goals of the GLOs. Please see Table 9.3 for the specific learning outcomes for the course.

154

Martin Guardado and Justine Light

Given that one of the goals for the curriculum overhaul was to help instructors build a shared understanding for the purposes of assessment, we further describe how a student might demonstrate that they are able to achieve each specific learning outcome. These measures are named performance indicators in earlier versions of the document and more broadly under the sub-heading, demonstrating the outcome. In later versions this change was made to avoid terminological confusion with performance conditions as described above. Each specific learning outcome was accompanied by a set of indicators; see Table 9.4 for the descriptors. This set of descriptors is key for two reasons. Firstly, it allows teachers to plan the micro-skills which students need to develop to meet the outcomes of the course. This allows for the development of scaffolding activities and practice tasks to build language skills. Secondly, it allows for the quick and efficient development of assessment rubrics and rating scales by teachers to provide formative feedback to students about their progress, language strengths, and any potential gaps. Table 9.4. Performance Indicators – SLOs for Writing for EAP 140 Writing Specific Learning Outcome: Write structured researchfocused essays to convey cause/effect and compare/contrast relationships

EAP 140 Performance Indicators: *Refer to Assessment Items in the Grammar Section Write introductory paragraphs with clear, straightforward thesis statements, hooks, and background information. Write academic body paragraphs that include generally clear, straightforward topic sentences with a topic and controlling idea, and clear, straightforward and connected supporting ideas (e.g. 5-Ws, examples and facts). Write concluding paragraphs with clear, straightforward concluding statements and summarised main ideas. Present relevant information with cohesive details in a clear, linear sequence. Some details may be underdeveloped, repetitive or not always logical. Connect ideas using transitions and relationships (e.g. cause/effect, compare/contrast, examples, sequences) to provide cohesion. Use phrases or vocabulary to indicate cause/effect and compare/contrast relationships.

Finally, within the curriculum document each SLO is accompanied by a series of sample tasks. These tasks may be skill-building or more holistic in nature but all of them support the development of the language skills and proficiency to meet the goals of the course. Table 9.5 shows examples of the tasks that are included for the above-described specific learning outcome.

Innovation in EAP Programmes

155

These tasks are not intended to be a prescriptive description of what the teachers should teach, but rather a demonstration of how each specific learning outcome might look in the classroom. In other words, the goal is to provide some practical clarity and exemplification for teachers who may think and process to a greater extent in the classroom setting and in relation to what their students will actually be doing. Table 9.5. Sample Tasks – SLOs for Writing for EAP 140 Specific Learning Outcome: Write structured researchfocused essays to convey cause/effect and compare/contrast relationships

Sample Tasks: In small groups, look at student samples of thesis statements/ topic sentences, identify the topic and idea map, and improve any unclear sentences. Example: The increasing number of people (moving into cities) can cause serious environment issues. --------Collect and scramble all of the thesis statements and body paragraphs from student essays. Students must match the body paragraphs with the thesis statements. Other possible options:  introductory and concluding paragraphs  topic sentences and details  thesis statements and concluding sentences  essay maps and topic sentences --------Analyse the sentence structures and common phrases used to convey compare/contrast relationships in More Medical Models in the textbook LEAP: Learning English for Academic Purposes, Reading and Writing (Williams, 2012, Chapter 5, Reading 3, p. 103). Write sentences following those structures as practice. ‘Instead of reducing the patient to the physical body alone, the humanistic or humane practitioner …’

Learning Outcomes beyond the Four Skills In addition to the four skills outcomes, we added a set of outcomes associated with academic integrity to our curriculum document. A critical part of EAP, this area represents building an understanding of the principles behind academic integrity and strategies to avoid plagiarism, in particular. For each level of the EAP programme we created a statement of general learning outcomes and resources for teachers to support

156

Martin Guardado and Justine Light

learners in achieving this goal. Furthermore, the summative assessments used in the EAP programme had previously stressed the importance of grammar accuracy but had lacked systematic and consistently-applied guidelines for such an approach. We had realised throughout the curriculum review process that it was necessary to build an improved level of shared understanding, as well as a valid and more reliable assessment of what learners could do with the language. It became clear to us at this stage that despite a dearth of available exemplars of grammar curricula with a learning-centred philosophy, a strategic approach to resolving this issue was needed. Our solution to this need was innovative and methodical, but not developed without controversy and some initial push back from teachers. A set of expectations for grammatical accuracy for each level, termed grammar assessment items, was created. These items are expected to be used by learners at stated levels of accuracy in their writing in the final exam and in their coursework. The most fundamental items are expected to be used at an accuracy level of 80%, with the more challenging used at an accuracy level of 60%. The intent is not for direct grammar instruction of these items. Students are expected to have studied them in previous English language courses. The role of the instructor is to monitor these items in order to ensure that students were demonstrating the stated accuracy levels for each item. Instruction was to be centred on feedback. In addition to these items, the grammar curriculum contains the grammar items we anticipated would need more direct instruction, termed target teaching items. These items are not expected to be used by learners with high levels of accuracy in summative assessments, but could be attempted by learners rather than avoided. An accuracy rate of as low as 40% is acceptable for these items. The intent is for explicit grammar instruction of these items. Furthermore, each level document makes reference to the expectations of the previous levels. The goal is to ensure teachers and students are accountable for a level of grammatical accuracy that is stated explicitly, understood by all stakeholders, and consistently applied.

Summative Assessments The summative assessments in the EAP programme had evolved over a decade-long process and provided stable and reliable results each term for students attempting to enter undergraduate programmes. The learning outcomes in the new curriculum documents were well aligned with these exams, but a significant gap still existed in one area. The most important part of the exam was the writing portion which students were required to pass in order to successfully complete the course. After blinding, this writing was marked by teachers working in groups or pairs. The rubrics for this portion of the exam were detailed and specific in nature but did not align with the new curriculum, in particular with the grammar items. Therefore, the rubrics for all of the levels of EAP summative

Innovation in EAP Programmes

157

assessments have been re-written and the grammar assessment items at the 80% accuracy level were also added. This means that as teachers are asked to assess grammatical accuracy they have a checklist for the most important items. This has proven a critical element for teachers in developing that shared understanding of language proficiency at each level that we have been emphasising in this chapter.

CONCLUSION As we worked to overhaul our curriculum plan, we never lost sight of the fact that the curriculum-as-lived would be implemented by our instructional team. Change can be challenging. Revising the plan requires teachers to potentially undertake more work, develop new activities, and modify their own understanding of their students’ learning. Resistance can be anticipated, but rather than attempt to mitigate this resistance in order to execute the plan, we sought to actively engage with teachers, elicit meaningful input from them, and motivate them to refresh their instructional skills. Through this careful planning for inclusion we have been able to implement this major revision to the EAP programme with very little resistance from teachers. The teachers have been professional in their approach, listened to the arguments for change, and embraced the opportunity to be part of the change rather than simply the recipients of the changed context. The process has engaged teachers with understanding the documents, with literally leafing through every page and provided them a chance to see the process as a transparent one aimed at improving the students’ long term outcomes which is close to the hearts of all of our instructors. In understanding our limitations as the designers of the curriculum-as-planned, we have attempted to connect to the curriculum-as-lived through a long term, twelve-month plan for implementation. Perhaps in large part due to the inclusive and extensive engagement process with the instructional staff and all other stakeholders, the response from learners and teachers after a full year of implementation has been extremely positive. The following quote from a teacher is representative of the spirit of the feedback which has been received since implementation: ‘This curriculum explains to new teachers what it took me 5 years to understand about teaching in EAP.’ This teacher sums up the level of clarity and support that many other teachers have expressed in relation to our new outcomes-based curriculum. In closing, we would like to acknowledge that we have found inspiration in the seminal work of Canadian curriculum scholar Ted Aoki, and in the work of also Canadian language education scholar Virginia Sauvé. Sauvé’s (2009, p. 22) words have guided much of our thinking in this process:

158

Martin Guardado and Justine Light If the curriculum is to be successful, [the plan and the lived experience] need constantly to be interacting with and informing each other. In other words, a good curriculum is alive and subject to change.

It is thanks to Aoki and Sauvé that we fully embrace the notion that our curriculum will always exist in two planes – as a planned document and as a lived experience. The two planes will continue to inform each other, providing direction, feedback, and essential information as we look to future iterations of learning and renewal.

REFERENCES Aoki, T. T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255-268. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25. Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723-738. Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Derwing, T. M. (2008). Curriculum issues in teaching pronunciation to second language learners. In J. G. H. Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 347-369). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Finney, D. (2002). The ELT curriculum: A flexible model for a changing world. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 69-79). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 325-346). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384. Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York, NY: Routledge. Nusche, D. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: A comparative review of selected practices. OECD Education Working Paper No. 15. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/highereducationandadultlearning/40256023.pdf.

Innovation in EAP Programmes

159

Raymond, P., & Parks, S. (2002). Transitions: Orienting to reading and writing assignments in EAP and MBA contexts. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(1), 152-180. Sauvé, V. (2009). A curriculum frameworks research project. Unpublished report for Alberta Employment and Immigration. Skehan, P. (2014). Task-based performance and task-based instruction: Research contributions Paper presented at the Plenary address to the Task-Based Learning SIG-JALT, Osaka, Japan. Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Van Den Branden, K. (2006). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In K. Van Den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J. (2012). Learning English for academic purposes: Reading and writing. Montreal, Canada: Pearson.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 10

THE PRACTICE OF EAP IN AUSTRALIA: A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME? Douglas Bell University of Nottingham Ningbo, China

ABSTRACT Since its emergence in the 1970s, the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has enjoyed a period of significant expansion and is now a multi-million-dollar industry worldwide. Individual EAP practices, however, are not necessarily universal, and may differ considerably depending on particular operational contexts. This chapter provides one practitioner’s subjective overview of EAP in Australia and contrasts this with the practice of EAP in the author’s home country, the UK. Key concerns relevant to both contexts are then considered, and the chapter concludes that the future stability of EAP in both Australia and the UK may in fact be facing a number of threats.

Keywords: EAP in Australia, EAP in the UK, status of EAP practitioners, privatisation of EAP, future stability of EAP

INTRODUCTION Few would deny that since its formal emergence in the early 1970s, the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has enjoyed a period of significant expansion. Not surprisingly perhaps, one of the economic outcomes of this steady growth is that EAP now represents a multi-million-dollar industry worldwide.

162

Douglas Bell

From a disciplinary perspective, it might also be said that compared to the early days of its existence, when EAP was emerging as a science and technology-dominated subfield of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), the discipline as we know it today has considerably widened its scope and more explicitly marked out its boundaries. In so doing, EAP has evidently gained a much stronger sense of its professional identity. For example, while scholarly outputs dealing with EAP would once have appeared in the ESP Journal, they are now much more likely to be found in the pages of EAP’s own dedicated journal, the Journal of English for Academic Purposes (JEAP). In keeping with a developmental trajectory which appears to be common to new and emerging disciplines, EAP has also started to coin its own particular metalanguage, as evidenced by the use of EAP-specific terminology such as English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) and English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP). Individual EAP practices, however, are not necessarily universal and may differ considerably depending on specific operational contexts. This chapter will comment on the nature of EAP in one particular context – Australia, and offer some comparisons with the history, development and scope of EAP in the author’s home country, the UK. The chapter closes by highlighting some issues which the author believes are critical for the future of EAP, and which may in fact represent a threat to the ongoing stability of the discipline as currently practiced in both countries.

A SHORT HISTORY OF EAP English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has generally been defined as the teaching of English language and communication skills required for study (British Council, 1975; Jordan, 1997). What this has tended to mean in practice, is that EAP has been principally concerned with the higher education environment (Charles, 2013; Hyland & HampLyons, 2002). While it is true that in more recent years, there has been a growing interest in EAP at the pre-HE level, for example in secondary schools (Bunch, 2006; Cruickshank, 2009), and that EAP preparatory courses are also now sometimes offered by private language schools (Hamp-Lyons, 2011b), when considering the EAP industry as a whole, such practices are still relatively small-scale. For the most part, therefore, EAP as it is most typically realised today remains a university or college-based endeavour. Since its original inception, however, for some, the definition of EAP above has been widened to include the language and skills for carrying out research and teaching, as well as just studying (e.g. Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001), while others have placed more emphasis on EAP’s cognitive and social elements (e.g. Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). In their survey of developments in English for Specific Purposes (ESP), Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) arguably took things a step further than others had attempted up to that

The Practice of EAP in Australia

163

point, in providing their readers with a situational taxonomy of EAP worldwide, claiming that tertiary-level EAP can in fact take place in four very distinct sets of circumstances (see Table 10.1). When defining the scope and parameters of EAP, however, I believe that it is also necessary to acknowledge it as a practice, which has traditionally been considered to be a component of the much broader discipline of ESP. In his state-of-the-art survey of EAP for the British periodical Language Teaching (1989), Bob Jordan categorised EAP as being one of two possible sub-disciplines belonging to ESP. On the one hand, it was argued that ESP embraces English for the world of work, or English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) - sometimes also referred to as English for Vocational Purposes (EVP)whereas on the other, it covers English for the purposes of education and study i.e. EAP (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Jordan, 1989). Under the terms of this definition, it is also worth remembering that while EAP can be considered to be a sub-branch of ESP, ESP itself can be considered in turn as a sub-branch of English Language Teaching in general (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). What this means in practice, is that EAP as a discipline has been heavily influenced by, and has also itself had an influence on, at least two other varieties of English language teaching (de Chazal, 2013; Hamp-Lyons, 2011b; Hyland, 2006). Table 10.1. A Situational Taxonomy of Tertiary-level EAP Worldwide (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, p. 35) Situation 1 e.g. UK, USA, Australia Situation 2 e.g. Zimbabwe Situation 3 e.g. Jordan Situation 4 e.g. Brazil

Students come from another country to study in a foreign system; for them both general and academic culture may be different; everything around them operates in English. Education at all levels has been mainly in English; the Civil Service uses English, but people mostly use their first language (L1) in everyday life. In tertiary education some subjects are taught in L1 but others, such as medicine, engineering and science, are taught in English. All tertiary education is taught in the L1; English is an auxiliary language.

As is common, when one sub-discipline has been heavily influenced by another, the effects of ESP on EAP can be seen to have had both positive and negative aspects. This point has been highlighted by Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002), who see EAP as inheriting certain strengths from ESP, such as an emphasis on interdisciplinary research and linguistic analysis; an awareness of contextual relevance; and the application in the classroom of what they term ‘community-specific communicative events’ (p. 2). However, they also cite some potential weaknesses: for example, a lack of critical engagement with the students’ cultures; a poor awareness of what they have termed, ‘the values of institutional goals and practices’ (p. 3); and a propensity for working for subject specialists instead of working with them (p. 3). This latter question of whether EAP should be defined as a service industry, or as an academic discipline of equal standing

164

Douglas Bell

with other university subject areas has arguably become an important issue for EAP practitioners both in the UK and in Australia, and is a theme which will be returned to later in this chapter.

THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF EAP IN AUSTRALIA The first point which must be made when addressing the practice of EAP in Australia, is the sheer paucity of available literature dealing with this subject. While there is certainly no shortage of Australian EAP practitioners, nor indeed Australian institutions offering EAP courses, the matter of actually defining what EAP currently encompasses Down Under and then charting the specific history of its development there, largely seems to have escaped researchers’ attention. One notable exception to this, however, is an article by Kieran O’Loughlin, which appeared in the English Australia Journal in 2002. In a piece titled, ‘English for Academic Purposes: Where are we now?’, O’Loughlin presented an overview of Australian EAP as he then perceived it, and also identified a number of areas in which he believed the practice of Australian EAP could benefit by moving forward. Table 10.2. Illustrative Sample of Australian Tertiary Institutions with Pathways Colleges Institution Western Sydney University University of Canberra Curtin University Deakin University University of Newcastle Flinders University Australian National University Murdoch University University of Adelaide University of New South Wales University of Queensland Monash University University of Wollongong Swinburne University of Technology Bond University Macquarie University Federation University Queensland University of Technology RMIT University University of South Australia

Name Of Pathways College WSU International College UC College Curtin College Deakin College Newcastle International College Flinders International Study Centre ANU College Murdoch Institute of Technology University of Adelaide College UNSW Global UQ College Monash College UOW College Swinburne College Bond College MU International College Federation College QUT International College RMIT International College UniSA College

Model Joint venture with NAVITAS Outsourced to NAVITAS Outsourced to Study Group Outsourced to ACT Inc Separate entity

University-owned subsidiary

The Practice of EAP in Australia

165

As O’Loughlin’s article points out, EAP in Australia broadly falls under two different umbrellas: pre-tertiary EAP courses delivered in ELICOS centres1 and TAFE colleges2, or tertiary-level EAP instruction housed in universities or other institutions of higher education. More than a decade on from O’Loughlin’s contribution, it might be argued that the spectrum of Australian EAP activity which he had identified broadly remains the same, although since the compilation of his 2002 survey, it is perhaps also worth highlighting that in more recent years, by far the bulk of the ‘other institutions’ which O’Loughlin was then referring to, are now most likely to be international pathways colleges. A relatively recent academic phenomenon in Australia, such enterprises typically tend to be established in one of three ways: either as joint ventures with/or outsourced to private educational pathway providers; as separate academic entities in their own right; or finally, as university-owned subsidiaries. While a survey of every Australian tertiary institution clearly falls far beyond the scope of this current chapter, even from a small sampling, it is evident that the practice of establishing pathways colleges for pre-university level EAP delivery in Australia has become a very popular operational model. An illustrative snapshot of 20 Australian universities, all of whom now have well-established pathways colleges, is provided in Table 10.2. Depending on the nature of the specific institution, pathways colleges may offer what O’Loughlin (2002) has identified as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ varieties of EAP (p. 18). In their most basic form, ‘weak’ EAP programmes may in reality be little more than General English mixed in with an element of IELTS preparation. At the opposite end of this spectrum, ‘strong’ EAP programmes are likely to focus on the development of more recognisably academic skills, such as listening to lectures, writing essays or reports and delivering oral presentations. At the very strong end of the ‘strong’ EAP designation, pathway programmes may attempt to prepare students for specific academic disciplines such as Business or Engineering. In these cases, students are, by definition, much more likely to be exposed to genre specific varieties of English, and will therefore typically be engaging with the types of tasks and assessments most commonly found within their particular academic subject areas. In the same way that O’Loughlin categorised EAP activity as either weak or strong, using the definitions originally introduced by George Blue (1988), it is thus also possible to plot EAP activity in pathway colleges as falling on a cline from EGAP (English for General Academic Purposes) to ESAP (English for Specific Academic Purposes). Beyond the pathway programmes delivered by colleges, pre-sessional EAP courses in Australia are also still offered by a number of university English language centres. As England (in press) has described, EAP as practiced in these contexts is generally viewed 1 2

ELICOS: English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students. TAFE: Technical and Further Education.

166

Douglas Bell

as ‘a socialization process of acquiring a complex set of discourses, identities and values which allow for effective participation in academic communities of practice.’ As England goes on to state, however, there may in fact be considerable variation from institution to institution in how such aims are actually realised. It is also worth noting, as England acknowledges, that as in the EAP courses offered by pathways colleges, pre-sessional EAP classes delivered by English language centres also cover a broad spectrum of activity moving on a cline from EGAP to ESAP. A further area in which the delivery of EAP in Australian contexts may sometimes take place is as a part of university enabling programmes. When considered in their most basic terms, as the name itself suggests, the main aim of enabling programmes is to enable students to enter university, and as an inherent part of this, to ensure that they are adequately prepared for the demands of tertiary-level study. Offered exclusively to domestic students (participants must be Australian citizens) and typically financed through government funding schemes (such courses are often offered to students completely free of charge), enabling programmes usually include discrete modules on the development of academic language and literacy, which, though admittedly not formally named as EAP, in practice tend to cover very similar ground to the content commonly included in EAP courses. While there is unlikely to be an overt emphasis on the development of English language skills per se, participants may nonetheless find themselves grappling with issues such as how to plan and structure their academic writing, how to take effective lecture notes, and how to reference and cite academic sources appropriately, in other words, all the ‘usual suspects’ which can typically be found on an EAP course. I believe that this blurring of the lines between EAP and the development of academic literacies in general represents an important distinction between the ways in which the practice of EAP is perceived in Australia, and the ways in which it is currently viewed in the UK, an issue I will revisit in more detail below. In my discussion of Australian EAP thus far, I am mindful that my emphasis has been squarely on the preparation and support afforded to students pre-service i.e. before the commencement of their formal disciplinary studies. However, as EAP courses are often made available to students after their enrolment on degree programmes, it is also important to consider the possible scope and nature of in-sessional offerings. By and large, in-sessional EAP in Australia tends to be offered by professionals employed directly by and working within the tertiary sector. Typically speaking, such staff may be employed as adjuncts to specific faculties; as members of learning support hubs or international student centres; or as part of university English language centres (ELCs), for whom the provision of in-sessional EAP support may be just one of a number of different teaching hats. Within my own Australian university, in-sessional EAP support is largely provided under the auspices of the Academic Language and Learning Support Programme (ALLSP), which is a core operational arm of my school. However, unlike the equivalency

The Practice of EAP in Australia

167

of ALLSP in the British universities at which I have previously worked, ALLSP at CDU caters not only to the academic language needs of international students, but also to domestic Australians. As with the point that I raised earlier in connection with enabling programmes, I have come to believe that this highlights an important conceptual difference in how EAP may be defined in Australia in comparison with current practices in my home country, the UK. In my experience of working at six different British universities, EAP instruction has tended to be confined almost exclusively to international students. By contrast, in the manner in which it operates under the Australian system, there appears to be a much greater blurring of the boundaries between EAP and the development of what might be termed academic literacies in general. This means that in Australian contexts, the division between domestic students and international students is often much less clear-cut. One of the ways in which this may manifest in practice, is in the delivery of in-sessional academic support. For example, in an in-sessional course aimed at providing academic support on a topic such as effective essay writing, it is not uncommon to find the sessions populated by both international and domestic students grouped together. Of course, some of this simply comes down to the different ethnographic spread of what in fact constitutes a domestic student in many Australian contexts. Unlike the majority of cases in the UK, a university entrant formally classed as a domestic student in Australia may nonetheless be a speaker of English as an additional language (EAL), and as such, might benefit just as much from an EAP class as would a bona fide international student from China or Japan. Indigenous Australians, for example, are a particular case in point. Though typically classed as domestic students for enrolment and funding purposes, in terms of their linguistic and academic literacy profiles, many indigenous students do in fact require similar types of language and academic skills support as those which are more typically offered to international student cohorts. However, even when taking such differences in domestic student demographics into account, from my experiences in Australia to date, I remain convinced that the necessity of helping students to develop academic literacy appears to be much more widely recognised and refined here than is currently the case in the UK. Based on my experiences there, with very few exceptions, most British universities still seem to assume that it is only non-native speaking students of English who need academic guidance and support, all others apparently being expected to develop their academic language and literacy skills either by osmosis, or some esoteric form of magic. In this regard, one might suppose that when compared to the UK, the practice of EAP in Australia has been much more successful than its British counterpart in winning greater academic ground. However, as I will discuss in a later section, it evidently still faces a number of challenges around the formal recognition of its academic status. When discussing in-sessional EAP provision in Australian contexts, one further dimension of current practice is worth mentioning, and that is the concept of core or

168

Douglas Bell

common units, courses that all undergraduate students enrolled at a university may be required to take, most typically during their first year of study. Though certainly not a feature of every Australian university, a number of institutions have now adopted this model as a means of helping to ensure that their students are adequately prepared for the rigours of academia and are later able to display appropriate graduate attributes. Similar to the content of the preparatory modules offered in enabling programmes, this means that at Australian universities operating a core or common unit model, there are likely to be compulsory modules which focus on the development of academic language and literacy. As mentioned earlier, it is important to note that such content will be offered to both domestic and international students alike, without one cohort necessarily being favoured over the other. One final trait worthy of discussion with regard to EAP in Australian contexts is that course providers are now quite tightly bound by government regulations and must undergo a process of external scrutiny and validation before award-bearing programmes can even be offered. The Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA, 2016), which describes itself as ‘Australia’s independent national regulator of the higher education sector’, essentially serves as a quality watchdog in this regard, with oversight of all tertiary level offerings. Following the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act of 2000 and then subsequent additional legislation, all Australian institutions involved in the delivery of ELICOS and Foundation Programmes are now required by government legislation to meet the minimum standards as prescribed by TEQSA before they can be awarded formal accreditation. This stands in quite marked contrast to the systems currently operating in the UK. While it is true that the overall quality of higher education course provision in UK contexts is monitored by an external body, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), at time of writing, British universities still have the freedom to establish and validate EAP programmes using their own internal quality systems and benchmarks, without the need for formal government intervention.

THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF EAP IN THE UK In sharp contrast to the apparent paucity of research literature on the specifics of EAP’s birth and development in Australia, when charting the history of EAP in the UK, researchers have the benefit of being able to draw on a number of published accounts (e.g. Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002; Hyland, 2006; Johns, 1981; Jordan, 1989, 1997, 2002; Swales, 2001). As Jordan (1997) has explained, at British universities in the 1960s, English language support for international students had originally tended to be somewhat piecemeal in nature, and was usually only provided on an ad hoc or part-time basis. However, this situation gradually started to change as international student numbers began to increase,

The Practice of EAP in Australia

169

and as a consequence of this, a core group of British universities began to appoint academic staff with the specific twin remits of not only advising and supporting their existing international student cohorts, but also establishing more formalised induction courses to better prepare newcomers. As Jordan describes in a later article, The Growth of EAP in Britain (2002), the appointments of key figures such as Vera Adamson (1962), Alan Davies (1963) and Tim Johns (1971) at Birmingham University; Brian Heaton at Leeds University (1968); Ron Mackay at Newcastle University (1970); Ken James (1968) and indeed Bob Jordan himself (1972) at Manchester University, all paved the way for a much greater interest in, and a more systematic focus on, what in time would come to be universally known worldwide as the field of English for Academic Purposes. In those early days however, although they were involved in the delivery of quite similar work, the English language teaching professionals at the four British universities described above (Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle and Manchester) were largely operating in isolation and, as Jordan puts it, ‘beginning to feel the need to discuss their difficulties with their counterparts […] and to share materials and approaches’ (Jordan, 2002, p. 71). This desire to pool resources and to share best practices subsequently brought staff from the four universities together in a meeting which was held at Birmingham University on June 19, 1972, their main objective being to share samples of their respective teaching materials, and to discuss their research into overseas students’ language difficulties. Although the participants were probably unaware of it at the time, this first meeting ultimately marked an important watershed in the historical development of EAP because, as Jordan (2002) goes on to explain, one of its outcomes was the formal establishment of the group - Special English Language Materials for Overseas University Students (SELMOUS) - a professional organisation later destined to put EAP matters very firmly on the British, if not worldwide, academic map. In these preliminary stages of British EAP, as reflected in the ‘M’ of the SELMOUS title, it was agreed that the emphasis should mainly be on materials development, as this was felt to be the most pressing need at that time (Jordan, 2002). To that end, in a second meeting of the SELMOUS Group at Manchester University in June 1973, the members considered pre-sessional courses, research projects and English tests, while Bob Jordan and Ron Mackay also collaborated on data which they had independently gathered from international student surveys (Jordan, 2002). Two very evident outcomes of this collaboration were the publication of a commentary in the Times Higher Education Supplement (1973) and the publication of a research article in a university journal (Jordan & Mackay, 1973). Both of these events were almost certainly instrumental in bringing the concept of EAP to a wider academic audience, and in raising more general awareness of EAP as a newly developing field. As Jordan (2002) has since charted, from 1974 onwards, SELMOUS continued to grow, with a steady trickle of new members coming into the fold. 1974, for example, saw the membership of Reading University, with the now well-known and highly respected

170

Douglas Bell

names of Keith Johnson and Keith Morrow from Reading’s Centre for Applied Language Studies (CALS), while in 1976, the CALS, and by extension SELMOUS, ranks were swelled once again with the addition of Pauline Robinson, a figure who would later become very influential in writing about the teaching of ESP/EAP (e.g. Robinson, 1980, 1991). That same year, the SELMOUS membership further expanded to include the EFL Unit at Essex University, with respected members Jo McDonough and Tony French. In the years following, other high-calibre British universities and prominent individual academics involved in English Language teaching would also join SELMOUS, all essentially helping to ensure that EAP and everything connected with it would be able to gain a greater measure of academic credibility, flourish professionally, and ultimately, put down more longer-term and sustainable disciplinary roots. From its birth in 1972 up to the present day, SELMOUS (although since a change of nomenclature in 1989, it should be noted that the group is now known as British Association for Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes [BALEAP]3) has steadily grown and has consolidated its role as the pre-eminent professional UK organisation representing the interests of those involved in EAP (Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2008; de Chazal, 2013; Jordan, 2002). In 2016, there have been 21 biennial conferences, plus a joint conference in 1982, and the official listings currently make mention of 86 institutional memberships. In addition to a biennial conference, the member institutions of BALEAP regularly hold Professional Interest Meetings (PIMs), in which key concerns around EAP teaching can be disseminated and discussed, and there are also a number of working parties examining topical issues such as the teaching of EAP, testing in EAP, and EAP research. With regard to the current operational scope of EAP in the UK, the picture is broadly similar to that of Australia. The practice of EAP still tends to be predominantly a higher education-based affair and a similar conceptual division can be discerned between preservice EAP offerings and those that fall under the banner of in-sessional support. Similarities are also apparent in the gradation of EAP delivery from EGAP to ESAP, with some UK institutions focussing more on the former, while others have erred in the direction of ever-greater specificity. As I have already touched on above, one of the areas in which Australia and the UK differ, however, is in the broader structuring around which students are considered to be eligible for EAP-type support in the first place. Although an awareness of academic literacy and the benefits that are to be had in all students receiving formal instruction in academic writing conventions has arguably been growing (e.g. Coffin & Donohue, 2012), such developments have not yet become widely spread across the sector as a whole, and in most UK universities, there is still a very clear distinction drawn between the needs of 3

In his memoir, Incidents in an Educational Life, Swales provides an amusing personal account of how and why the name SELMOUS changed (2009, p. 138).

The Practice of EAP in Australia

171

students who are deemed to be international and those who have been categorised as domestic. As I have argued above, one very apparent effect of this, is that with few exceptions, EAP as currently practiced in UK contexts remains very clearly differentiated from work on developing academic literacies in general.

COMMON GROUND, COMMON CONTROVERSIES? From the discussion thus far, it should be apparent that EAP in Australia and EAP in the UK have some idiosyncratic differences. However, they also share a number of commonalities. As we have seen, both countries currently offer EAP courses in varying degrees of discipline-specificity, and each caters to both pre and in-sessional student cohorts. On a less positive note, in terms of academic status and formal recognition, it must also be said that the practice of EAP in both countries has suffered from an element of marginalisation and tends to operate rather on the periphery of the academy. Whatever the geographical location, when considering the longer-term trajectory of EAP as an academic field, and what this might then mean in terms of career opportunities for EAP practitioners, I believe it is difficult not to see this matter as a cause for serious concern. In UK contexts, the steady marginalisation of EAP has been most visibly evidenced in recent years by the reduction in scope of many university English language centres, the systematic downsizing of what had hitherto been 100% in-house EAP provision, and the subsequent outsourcing of EAP course delivery to private educational providers such as Navitas, INTO, Kaplan, Study Group and Cambridge Education Group (CEG). Whether viewed as a sinister or benign development, there can certainly be little doubt that the number of partnerships between British universities and private educational providers in the EAP realm has been steadily increasing. Writing in 2008, Ansell, for example, originally identified some 18 cases of UK university-private provider partnerships. As of 2016, less than a decade later, I would personally estimate that this number has now grown to at least 62, with British universities and higher education institutions typically forming strategic partnerships across 5 different private-provider domains listed in Table 10.3. Whilst not in any way wishing to demonise the individual teaching staff employed by the private sector, I do nonetheless believe, as Ansell (2008) originally cautioned, that this increase in private sector providers may represent a significant cause for concern for the practice of UK EAP as a whole, particularly when considered from the perspective of quality and standards. For example, although hard data from this area have been notoriously difficult to gain access to, there is growing anecdotal evidence that the admissions standards operated in the private sector may sometimes be lower than those normally found in universities; there have also been concerns that private sector providers may be using their own in-house English language proficiency tests rather than those

172

Douglas Bell

validated by the ELT/EAP industry as a whole (Ansell, 2008). Furthermore, the working terms and conditions offered to EAP practitioners in the private sector also tend to be considerably poorer than those offered in the university sector, and it must also be said that in the majority of cases, private sector enterprises provide their employees with significantly fewer opportunities, and much less institutional support than universities do, when it comes down to research, scholarship and ongoing professional development. When all of these issues are added together, it is difficult to disagree with Ansell’s worrying conclusion that in many UK EAP contexts, ‘enterprise has overtaken academic quality’ (2008, p. 19). And of course, when considered from a professional practice point of view, there is always the over-arching concern that all of this is simply helping to devalue the academic status of British EAP. Table 10.3. Private Educational Providers and UK University Partnerships, 2016 STUDY GROUP (18) University of Huddersfield University of Law, London University of Leeds University of Leicester University of Lincoln University of Sheffield University of Strathclyde University of Surrey University of Sussex Instituto Marangoni, London Keele University Kingston University, London Lancaster University Leeds Beckett University Liverpool John Moores University Royal Holloway, University of London Trinity College, Dublin University College, Dublin NAVITAS (10) University of Hertfordshire University of Northampton University of Portsmouth Anglia Ruskin University Birmingham City University Brunel University, London Edinburgh Napier University Plymouth University Robert Gordon University Swansea University

KAPLAN (14) University of Aberdeen University of Birmingham University of Brighton University of Glasgow University of Liverpool University of Nottingham University of Salford University of the West of England University of Westminster University of York Bournemouth University City University, London Cranfield University Nottingham Trent University

CEG (10) University of Central Lancashire University of Sunderland Birbeck, University of London Coventry University Goldsmiths, University of London London South Bank University Queen Mary Royal Holloway Royal Veterinary College The Courtauld Institute of Art

INTO (10) University of East Anglia University of Exeter University of Manchester University of London University of Stirling City University London Glasgow Caledonian Manchester Metropolitan Newcastle University Queen’s University

The Practice of EAP in Australia

173

In Australia, the downgrading of tertiary-based EAP (or to use the terminology more accurately, the work of those involved in ALL: Academic Language and Literacy) has perhaps been most clearly manifested when universities have decided to remove practitioners’ academic status and ‘re-badge’ their ALL professionals using administrative pay scales. As long ago as 2007, this was flagged as a cause for concern, when it was announced in that same year that the ALL staff at Monash University in Melbourne were to lose their existing ranking and henceforth be classed as ‘nonacademic’ (Clerehan, 2007). While space limitations currently prevent a fuller discussion of this issue, it seems clear from the blogs and discussion lists operated by the Association for Academic Language and Learning (AALL) that the erosion of EAP/ALL’s academic status in Australian universities has continued to the present day with yet further cases of job re-classification and academic downgrading. If the recent trend in both Australia and the UK has been for universities to move EAP more firmly towards the category of administrative service than recognised academic discipline, then it seems that perhaps one of the reasons why this shift has been able to occur so smoothly and with relatively little opposition from within the academy itself, is because EAP in both countries has lagged woefully behind other academic disciplines in terms of upgrading its qualifications base, and in more clearly defining the parameters of its professional practice. As I have argued elsewhere (Bell, 2016), more than two decades ago, Martha Pennington cautioned that unless university-based ELT practitioners actively worked to raise their qualifications from Masters to PhD, they would be running the risk of being ascribed second-class citizen status: ‘Like other professional areas, ELT must be perceived within academia and by the public at large as an educational specialisation with unique requirements for the preparation and evaluation of its practitioners… We can go a long way toward making this goal a reality if we insist that those without the proper qualifications are not, in fact, properly qualified to teach ESL, nor to evaluate the efforts of its practitioners. ELT has a history of being lenient in this regard, much more so than other tertiary level fields. Can you imagine, for instance, someone being hired for a tenured position in a History department who had a degree in TESL? Yet there are many with degrees in History who are teaching ESL…We must… face up to the fact that as long as we are a Master’s rather than a Doctoral level specialisation, we will have problems being recognised within tertiary institutions. The importance of the PhD, or for that matter, of any kind of specialised on-paper qualification, cannot be overestimated… Although people who have a Master’s level qualification in ESL have specialised skills and are appropriately qualified for teaching English at tertiary level, we must work to bring the qualification of the ELT professional up to a PhD level, or else settle for being second-class citizens in a society of PhDs.’ (Pennington, 1992, pp. 15-16)

174

Douglas Bell

Almost 25 years on from when this article first appeared, it is sobering to consider that in both UK and Australian contexts, the issues which Pennington had flagged around qualifications and the urgent need for a much clearer recognition of EAP as a professional practice have in fact changed very little. As indeed Hamp-Lyons (2011a) has since argued in an editorial contribution for the Journal of English for Academic Purposes (JEAP), issues around how best to approach the education of new teachers; the continuing professional development of existing EAP practitioners; and the question of greater professionalism in EAP in general should be ‘a matter for concern’ and can be expected to only become more pressing: ‘The provision of professional education and training for EAP teachers lags behind the vast expansion in the need for teachers of EAP…progress in materials development has not been matched by progress in developing and delivering professional training courses for future teachers of EAP, and a great need still remains in this area.’ (Hamp-Lyons, 2011a, p. 100)

In the specific case of EAP contexts in the UK, it might be argued that some steps have in fact been taken towards greater professionalising EAP. The BALEAP Competency Framework for Teachers of English for Academic Purposes (2008), for example, can be seen as a step in this direction, as can the introduction of EAP-specific teacher education programmes at British universities such as Plymouth4, Sheffield Hallam and Nottingham. However, the impact of such initiatives still remains fairly small and they have not yet made a significant difference to the wider acceptance of EAP as an academic field. In Australia, if anything, developments with regard to this particular aspect of EAP appear to have been even sparser. I have not yet been able to trace any formal equivalency of the BALEAP Competency Framework, for example, nor am I aware of any moves at Australian universities or other tertiary-level institutions here to establish EAP-specific teacher training programmes. It seems that as in the UK, debates around the efficacy and appropriateness of qualifications have remained largely confined to ELT in general (e.g. Stanley & Murray, 2013). As I have argued elsewhere (e.g. Bell, 2007, 2010, 2013), the relevance of mainstream ELT qualifications to the practice of EAP remains questionable, and in some cases, such training courses may even be doing both EAP practitioners and the professionalism of the field as a whole more harm than good.

4

A Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching English for Academic Purposes (PgC TEAP) was introduced at the University of Plymouth in 2005 (see Bell, 2007). At time of writing, however, this course is now defunct.

The Practice of EAP in Australia

175

CONCLUSION In writing this chapter, my main purpose has been to comment on the development and practice of EAP in Australia as I am currently experiencing it, and to provide a contrastive analysis with historical practices in the UK. I have also drawn attention to what I see as some common issues, which I believe may be threatening the future stability of EAP in both hemispheres. As a relative newcomer to Australia, however, I am acutely mindful that my observations in this chapter are highly subjective, and that more long-standing EAP professionals working in this domain may wish to offer alternative interpretations. To that end, I would urge my Australian EAP colleagues to ‘pick up where I have left off’ and consider shedding more research light on the matter of how EAP has developed and is currently being practiced Down Under. By way of conclusion, and returning to my title for this chapter, I do generally believe that EAP in Australia is essentially a rose by any other name. However, if I may be permitted to extend that horticultural metaphor a little further, if we are to safeguard the future of our profession in both Australia and the UK, then as EAP practitioners, I also firmly believe that we urgently need to start tending to some of the needs of the wider rose garden.

REFERENCES Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials. A teacher’s guide to principles and practice. Reading, England: Garnet. Ansell, M. A. (2008). The privatisation of English for academic purposes teaching in British universities. Liaison magazine. Retrieved from http://www.llas.ac.uk. British Association for Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes. (2008). Competency framework for teachers of English for academic purposes. Retrieved from http://www.baleap.org.uk/teap/teap-competency-framework.pdf. Bell, D. E. (2016). Blogged responses to ‘the limits of identity theory’. Retrieved from https://teachingeap.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/the-limits-of-identity-theory. Bell, D. E. (2013). The enduring legacy of TEFL: Help or hindrance in teaching EAP? Paper presented at the BALEAP Biennial Conference, University of Nottingham, England. Bell, D. E. (2010). Benchmarking practitioner expertise in the teaching of EAP. Paper presented at joint conference IATEFL English for Specific Purposes SIG and Bilkent University School of English Language Faculty Academic English Program. Bilkent University, Turkey.

176

Douglas Bell

Bell, D. E. (2007). Moving teachers from the general to the academic: Challenges & issues in teacher training for EAP. In T. Lynch, & J. Northcott (Eds.), Educating legal English specialists and teacher education in teaching EAP: Proceedings of IALS Teacher Education Symposia, 2004 and 2006. Institute for Applied Language Studies, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Bell, D. E. (2005). Storming the ivory tower. EL Gazette, June Issue, 7. Blue, G. (1988). Individualising academic writing tuition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: Process and product, (ELT Documents 129, pp. 95-99). London, England: Modern English Publications. Bunch, G. C. (2006). ‘Academic English’ in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens, expanding access. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 284-301. British Council. (1975). English for academic study with special reference to science and technology: Problems and perspectives. London, England: Author. Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Clerehan, R. (2007). ‘Language staff lose academic ranking’: What’s new managerialism got to do with it? Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 1(1), 68-77. Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012). Academic Literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 6475. Cruickshank, K. (2009). EAP in Secondary Schools. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 22-40). Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press. De Chazal, E. (2013). English for academic purposes. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Dudley-Evans, T., & St-John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. England, N. (In press). Pre-sessional English for academic purposes in the Australian context. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (Eds.) (2001). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011a). English for academic purposes: 2011 and beyond. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 2-4. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011b). English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol 2 (pp. 89-105). New York, NY: Routledge. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

The Practice of EAP in Australia

177

Hyland, K. (2006). English for specific purposes: Some influences and impacts. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 379-390). New York, NY: Springer. Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1-12. Johns, T. F. (1981). Some problems of a world-wide profession. In J. McDonough & T. French (Eds.), The ESP teacher: Role, development and prospects. ELT Documents: 112. London, England: British Council. Jordan, R. R. (2002). The growth of EAP in Britain. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 69-78. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes. A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Jordan, R. R. (1989). English for academic purposes (EAP). Language Teaching, 22, 150-164. Jordan, R. R., & Mackay, R. (1973). A survey of the spoken English problems of overseas postgraduates at the universities of Manchester and Newcastle. Journal of the Institute of Education. Newcastle University. O’ Loughlin, K. (2002). English for academic purposes: Where are we now? EA Journal, 20(2), 17-24. Pennington, M. C. (1992). Second class or economy? The status of the English language teaching profession in tertiary education. Prospect, 7(3), 7-19. Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Robinson, P. (1980). ESP (English for specific purposes): The present position. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Stanley, P., & Murray, N. (2013). ‘Qualified’? A framework for comparing ELT teacher preparation courses. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 102-115. Swales, J. M. (2009). Incidents in an educational life. Michigan, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swales, J. M. (2001). EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 42-54). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. (2016). Retrieved from www.teqsa.gov.au.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 11

ADDRESSING EAP STUDENTS’ READING-SKILL NEEDS THROUGH TEXTBOOK SUPPLEMENTATION Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller Northern Arizona University, USA

ABSTRACT Much is expected of the second language (L2) reader in academic contexts. English for Academic Purposes classes can prepare students for the reading challenges that await them by supporting the development of crucial component skills of reading, including vocabulary knowledge, strategic reading, discourse-structure awareness, main-idea comprehension, reading fluency, motivation, and the ability to read extensively. Because textbooks are often the primary resource with which these component skills are addressed, their comprehensiveness, or lack thereof, can have a considerable influence on the development of the L2 reader. With a textbook-evaluation tool that features specific questions about the extent to which reading component skills are addressed, teachers can more efficiently evaluate the efficacy of their reading textbooks. After gaps in the textbook have been identified, teachers can create supplementary materials, in a principled way, to augment instruction. A case study provides an illustration of textbook evaluation and supplementation processes in addition to numerous suggestions for supplementary activities that target reading-skill development.

180

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

Keywords: component skills of reading, English for academic purposes, reading for academic purposes, second language reading, textbook evaluation, textbook supplementation

INTRODUCTION Second language (L2)1 students enrolled in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programmes typically have pressing reading needs. When they enter our EAP programmes, they usually have little idea about how central reading will be to their future academic success. Rarely are they aware of the volume of reading that they will have to do for many of their classes and of the extent to which they will be held accountable for the content of assigned readings. In addition to not entirely grasping what awaits them in future classes, L2 students do not always fully appreciate their EAP reading classes, in which they are likely to have opportunities to develop the various aspects of reading that must coalesce for successful reading to occur. These component skills of reading include a large vocabulary, strategic-reading abilities, discourse-structure awareness, main-idea comprehension skills, reading fluency, reading motivation, and capability of reading extensively (Grabe, 2009). EAP programmes address students’ reading needs in various ways, to varying extents, and in different classroom configurations, including discrete-skill reading classes, integrated reading-writing classes, content-based classes, and extensive reading programmes (Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2008; de Chazal, 2014; Grabe & Stoller, 2014; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; McCarter & Jakes, 2009). In most of these settings, EAP teachers make use of L2 reading textbooks to achieve course aims. But their textbooks do not always sufficiently address students’ reading needs. Thus, EAP teachers must be able to (a) evaluate the efficacy and comprehensiveness of their EAP reading textbooks and (b) supplement them to ensure that the component skills of academic reading are adequately addressed. In this chapter, we describe the component skills of academic reading to illustrate what aspects of reading should be covered in EAP classes. Then we introduce an EAP reading textbook-evaluation tool that can be used by EAP practitioners to identify areas of reading that deserve supplementation. We conclude with a case study in which we describe how an EAP reading textbook was supplemented to provide students with the academic-reading preparation needed to succeed in future classes. The case study is

1

The ‘second language’ designation is used to refer to students who are studying English as a second, foreign, or additional language.

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

181

intended to serve as an example of what EAP teachers can do to enhance their reading instruction and support students’ academic growth.

COMPONENT SKILLS OF ACADEMIC READING The ability to read well may be the most important L2 academic skill needed by EAP students (Grabe & Stoller, 2014). In this section, we describe seven component skills of reading (following the work of Grabe, 2009) that should be addressed in EAP curricula.

Large Vocabulary A large vocabulary is critical for comprehension of academic texts. The close relationship between students’ vocabulary size and text comprehension suggests that the more familiar words there are in an assigned reading, the more likely the text will be understood (Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011). In general, the possibility of sufficient, unassisted comprehension occurs when readers know 98–99% of the words in a text; in academic contexts, this may require a recognition vocabulary of anywhere from 35,000 to 40,000 words (Schmitt, 2008). Vocabulary learning results from a combination of incidental and explicit learning, which permits frequent, repeated, and conscious exposures to lexical items, as well as opportunities to practise using vocabulary-learning strategies and the lexical items themselves (Schmitt, 2008). Grabe (2009) has identified nine elements of word knowledge, which extend well beyond simple definitions of words: spelling; morphology; part of speech; pronunciation; meanings; collocations; meaning associations, including synonyms; specific uses; and register. Depending on student needs and EAP-course aims, students will need some or all of these word-knowledge features to succeed in academic contexts.

Strategic-Reading Abilities Skilled readers, by definition, are strategic; they employ multiple strategies before, while, and after reading to achieve their reading-comprehension goals (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Pressley & Harris, 2006). Good academic readers initially, without a lot of conscious thought, apply a subset of strategies while reading. These strategies may include setting reading goals, underlining a key phrase, pausing to create a mental image of some aspect of the text, and/or connecting one part of the text to another.

182

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

When skilled readers’ initial set of default strategies does not lead to successful comprehension, they activate an intentional problem-solving mode of attention (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012). At this point, good readers consciously and willingly turn to other strategies to support their comprehension goals. The strategies used by skilled readers are many and varied. One useful way to categorise reading strategies (following the work of Mokhtari & Shoerey, 2008) is as follows:   

Global reading strategies (e.g. identifying main ideas) Monitoring reading strategies (e.g. taking steps to repair faulty comprehension) Support reading strategies (e.g. summarising)

In EAP reading classes, teachers should make a commitment to strategic-reader training so that students know which strategies to use, why, when, and how. In this way, EAP teachers prepare students for the challenges that they will face in future reading contexts (Stoller & Komiyama, 2013).

Discourse-Structure Awareness A text’s discourse structure reveals encoded information about a text, including its purpose, its main idea(s), and relationships among those ideas. Good readers can quickly identify and classify organisational patterns in a text, and then use that information to determine the type of text they are reading, for example, cause-effect, compare-contrast, and problem-solution (Grabe, 2009). When readers become familiar with common discourse conventions, they are better able to locate useful textual elements. Because relatively few discourse patterns exist in academic writing, fairly little instructional time is needed to introduce them, although activities that help students distinguish among discourse patterns should be frequent. The use of discourse-structure graphic organisers, rather than generic ones like a simple grid, has proven useful for such purposes (Jiang, 2012).

Main-Idea Comprehension One critical difference between reading for pleasure and reading for academic purposes is the importance of main-idea comprehension. For this reason, EAP reading courses should familiarise students with strategies for successfully achieving main-idea comprehension. These strategies include accessing background knowledge, asking

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

183

questions, making inferences, and writing summaries (Grabe, 2009). Main-idea comprehension can also be supported by contextualised grammar instruction. Although EAP textbooks and curricula tend to link vocabulary to reading and grammar to writing, grammatical awareness is key for identifying and comprehending a text’s main idea(s). Good readers utilise their grammar knowledge to, for instance, determine the most appropriate definition of a word that has multiple meanings, differentiate between main ideas and details, locate shifts in tone, and illuminate an author’s attitude toward the content (Grabe, 2009).

Reading Fluency Reading fluency refers to the speed, automaticity, and prosodic appropriateness with which readers read texts. Slow reading can have serious consequences for readers in academic contexts, where they are expected to read longer texts in much less time than they are used to. Slow, laboured reading reduces amount of input, weakens motivation, and limits incidental vocabulary development (Grabe, 2009). An increase in reading fluency generally leads to greater reading comprehension (Beglar, Hunt, & Kite, 2012). When students decode letters and words quickly, they can use more cognitive energy for higher-order reading processes, such as main-idea comprehension. Even advanced EAP students benefit from regular fluency training at word, phrase, and full-text levels.

Motivation to Read Faculty members across the disciplines report students’ lack of motivation to read as a major challenge in university classrooms (Anderson, 2015). Unmotivated readers both read less and use fewer appropriate reading strategies to mitigate comprehension breakdowns, limiting vocabulary growth, reducing overall text comprehension, and causing difficulties as students attempt to interpret more challenging texts (Grabe, 2009). Reading motivation is strengthened in EAP classrooms when (a) reading topics stimulate student interest, (b) students have choices about what they read, (c) students receive feedback from their instructors, and (d) students monitor and reflect on their own learning (Grabe, 2009; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). Komiyama (2009) has suggested that reading motivation can be increased when students have opportunities to regularly demonstrate competence, experience autonomy and control over their own reading behaviours, and relate to their teacher and classmates in supportive, collaborative classrooms.

184

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

Extensive Reading Good readers are able to read large amounts of material for extended periods of time with minimal scaffolding or interruption. This ability, crucial for academic success, can be developed through extensive reading (Suk, 2017). Extensive reading programmes provide students with plentiful opportunities to read large quantities of enjoyable, levelappropriate materials. Extensive reading also supports the component skills of reading necessary for academic success. Graded readers – generally considered the preferred material for extensive reading – facilitate repeated exposures to high-frequency vocabulary, making incidental vocabulary acquisition more likely (Suk, 2017). Gains in academic vocabulary knowledge also take place through extensive reading, even though the ‘traditional’ graded reader does not typically contain academic language (Al-Homoud & Schmitt, 2009). Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of extensive reading on increased reading fluency, which, in turn, supports text comprehension (e.g. Suk, 2017). Extensive reading also leads to greater levels of positive motivation toward reading (Ro, 2013; Takase, 2009), which leads to increases in comprehension and more time spent reading (Grabe, 2009). Successful extensive reading programmes stoke motivation further by allowing students to select their own reading materials according to their interests and goals.

EAP TEXTBOOK EVALUATION The seven component skills of reading described above, though crucial for success in academic contexts, are not always sufficiently addressed in EAP textbooks. Yet, it may be difficult for teachers to pinpoint exactly which component skills require further attention. This is why teachers benefit from a user-friendly textbook-evaluation tool (Byrd & Schuemann, 2014; Mukundan & Ahour, 2008) that is tailored to the component skills of reading. The textbook-evaluation tool in the Appendix can help teachers assess, in a principled way, the EAP reading textbooks that they use. By answering questions about specific textbook features, teachers can more easily locate gaps in their materials and, then, prepare supplementary instructional materials (by themselves or with peers) to fill those gaps. It is worth noting that our evaluation tool is intended as a prototype and can easily be adjusted to reflect programme aims with regard to academic-reading preparation. It is for that reason that the prototype has blank spaces in each major section, to be filled in by teachers using the tool. To profit from the tool, teachers should examine a few chapters and/or units in their textbooks and determine, using the Likert scale provided, the regularity with which particular reading-skill components are addressed in the textbook. Evidence of explicit attention to component skills of reading, if present at all, is most likely found in the

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

185

activities that precede or follow textbook reading passages. Teachers can extract additional information about the textbook and its attention to reading-skill development by looking over, in the author’s note to teachers, the goals of the textbook, its theoretical underpinnings, and the author’s assumptions about how students best learn to read for academic purposes.

EAP TEXTBOOK SUPPLEMENTATION: A CASE STUDY If the responses elicited from the textbook-evaluation tool reveal that one or more component skills are underrepresented in the textbook, EAP teachers should develop supplementary exercises to support students’ academic reading development. Teachers often, in fact, do this on their own, motivated by both a desire to prepare their students for success and a suspicion that their textbooks are lacking in some way. With a more precise evaluation of their textbooks, teachers can make more informed decisions about textbook supplementation. This case study identifies the strengths and weaknesses of a textbook2 used in an EAP reading course. The emphasis is on supplementary activities (developed by the authors of this chapter) to augment the textbook. The required course textbook was determined to have numerous strengths, including interesting and varied topics, eyecatching visuals, critical thinking tasks, and motivational end-of-unit projects. The textbook, however, was found to neglect numerous component skills necessary for successful academic reading. The activities showcased in the sections that follow were designed to fill ‘gaps’ in the textbook and are intended to serve as a sampling of the types of supplemental activities that can strengthen an EAP reading textbook and corresponding course.

Vocabulary Building Successful vocabulary development occurs over time and after multiple exposures to lexical items. Supplemental activities for vocabulary growth guide students in, for example, working with many words at a time by semantically mapping them, matching them to definitions or graphics, sorting them into thematic sets, and using them in meaningful contexts in writing and speech (Grabe, 2009). Vocabulary-building activities should also address multiple elements of word knowledge, although this is not a common EAP-textbook feature. 2

We have chosen not to name the textbook because the supplementary activities presented here could easily be adapted for other EAP textbooks that focus on reading-skill development.

186

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

Although our evaluated textbook features numerous vocabulary-building activities, the tasks largely focus on the single meaning and use of target vocabulary in chapter passages. To focus on other important aspects of word knowledge, the exercise in Figure 11.1 asks students to identify relationships among words from a reading passage. Students are likely to categorise these words by either part of speech or connotation (positive or negative); however, different classifications are also encouraged, as long as students can justify them.

Figure 11.1. Vocabulary Categorisation Task.

Strategic Reading Because the successful use of reading strategies underlies improvement across essentially all reading-skill components, strategic-reader training should not be approached in isolated lessons or detached from actual reading. Rather, strategy instruction should be (a) responsive to student needs and text demands and (b) an integral element of EAP reading instruction. One way for teachers to stimulate classroom discussions about which strategies are used, in addition to why, when, and how, is to create a ‘strategy wall’ on which students (or teacher) post useful strategies, clustered to denote purpose (e.g. pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies; strategies for comprehension; strategies for vocabulary development). Teachers may also develop more during-reading strategy activities, as these are often neglected in EAP textbooks. Our evaluated textbook guides students in using several common pre- and postreading strategies, including previewing headings to make predictions about the upcoming passage and connecting themes to students’ personal experiences. However, these tasks are not explicitly referred to as ‘strategies,’ depriving students of the opportunity to link them to one another and recognise, in a metacognitive way, their shared strategic value. During-reading strategies are entirely absent in the textbook. A

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

187

supplemental activity that aims to expose students to a variety of pre- and during-reading strategies ‘in action’ is worthwhile under these circumstances. In the activity introduced here, students are first told that the teacher is going to read aloud a new text, modelling appropriate reading strategies along the way. The text is projected onto a screen and students are asked to follow along. DIRECTIONS: Mark the strategies that you remember the teacher using. Some answers are provided. Then, work with a partner to determine why readers might use each strategy.

Description of strategy (a) Pre-read the title, headings, and/or graphics; predict what the text might be about (b) Skim the text before reading to see its length, organisation, etc. (c) Re-read a previous sentence or passage more slowly

Did you hear the teacher do this? (✓)

Why might readers use this strategy?

✓

To prepare to read something new; to become familiar with text organisation

✓

To better understand the details of a text; to fix a comprehension problem

✓

To reinforce vocabulary knowledge

(d) Highlight, circle, or number important ideas (e) Summarise a paragraph with margin notes (f) Connect new information to an earlier part of the text (g) Notice vocabulary that has been studied in class (h) Direct a question ‘to the author’ (i) Skip an unknown word

[other pertinent strategies]

Figure 11.2. Partial Reading-strategy Checklist (Scaffolded with Some Answers).

The teacher thinks aloud as she reads, modelling specific strategies, while also jotting down notes in the margins at certain points and posing questions that are ‘directed to the

188

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

author.’ Following the read-aloud, students receive a checklist (Figure 11.2) and, in groups, attempt to recall the strategies that they heard the teacher use. Then, the students discuss specific purposes for each of the listed strategies, including those not modelled by the teacher. For struggling students, a list of possible reasons for using strategies can be offered, including reasons like (a) preparing to read, (b) becoming familiar with text organisation, (c) re-reading to clarify a misunderstanding, (d) distinguishing between main ideas and details, (e) inferring the author’s intentions or attitudes, (f) learning new vocabulary, and (g) feeling more personally connected to a text.

Discourse-Structure Awareness One way to raise students’ discourse-structure awareness is through the regular use of discourse-structure graphic organisers (DSGOs), visual depictions of the organisational patterns in a text (Jiang, 2012). Students who are re egularly exposed to DSGOs in their reading classes experience significant gains in reading comprehension (Jiang, 2012; Jiang & Grabe, 2007; see also Jiang, 2016). Discourse-structure awareness can also be targeted through activities that require students to match main-idea descriptions to supporting details; reorder mixed-up paragraphs, sentences, or headings; and outline texts to show relationships among ideas.

Figure 11.3. Compare-contrast DSGO (Scaffolded with Partial Answers).

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

189

Figure 11.4. Cause-Effect DSGO (Scaffolded with Partial Answers).

Beyond directing student attention to text headings, our evaluated textbook does little to raise discourse-structure awareness and does not include any DSGOs. Figures 11.3 and 11.4 include DSGOs that guide students in identifying relationships among ideas in the text. Figure 11.3 represents a text that compares and contrasts the features of fossil fuel and renewable energy use. Figure 11.4 depicts cause-effect relationships, explained in select sections of a passage, that show how infants’ linguistic preferences can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. Depending on students’ reading levels and their familiarity with DSGOs, teachers can scaffold the task by partially filling in DSGOs (as done in Figures 11.3 and 11.4).

Main-Idea Comprehension Many EAP textbooks address main-idea comprehension through post-reading comprehension questions, which assess, but do not teach, comprehension. Main-idea comprehension can be better supported through supplemental exercises that (a) require

190

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

the use of pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies, (b) guide attention to main ideas at both paragraph and passage levels, and (c) feature particular grammatical structures needed for text comprehension. Our evaluated textbook includes passage-level comprehension questions, but does not require students to practise extracting main ideas from the text. To help students achieve main-idea comprehension and process content embedded in topic sentences (whether they are placed at the beginning of a paragraph or elsewhere), teachers can write a short, simple main idea statement for each paragraph. Students receive a list of these statements (Figure 11.5), in jumbled order, and use the text to sequence the ideas. By the end of the exercise, the students will have a clearer sense of each paragraph’s meaning, as well as a better understanding of the way(s) in which each paragraph contributes to the full text.

Figure 11.5. Main Idea–Paragraph Matching Activity.

Fluency Development Although most EAP practitioners would likely agree that good readers are fluent readers, fluency development exercises are often missing from EAP textbooks. To target student reading rate and/or automaticity, a teacher may use word-recognition exercises, timed readings, paced readings, and purposeful re-readings. Additionally, oral paired reading and Readers Theatre provide opportunities for students to read familiar texts aloud with meaningful expression (see Grabe & Stoller, 2011, for additional reading fluency activities).

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

191

Our evaluated textbook does not include any resources for reading-fluency development. In our supplemental word-recognition exercise (Figure 11.6), the bolded keywords are taken directly from the textbook passage and have next to them the repeated keyword along with four similar-looking words to serve as distractors (Stoller, 2012). Students work as fast as they can to mark the repeated words within a given time (e.g. 45 – 60 seconds).

Figure 11.6. Word-recognition Exercise.

Motivation The most motivating EAP reading textbooks include passages on interesting topics, support student autonomy by granting students some choice in what they read, and allow opportunities for feedback and reflection. By incorporating additional passages into instruction and offering students the opportunity to choose from among them, students can select materials more suited to their interests and levels of competence, better setting them up for reading success. In our case, the evaluated textbook features considerable diversity in the topics of its reading passages, which increases the likelihood that some subset of the topics will be of interest to students. Most passages are fairly short and scaffolded with pre-reading exercises that activate students’ prior knowledge and prepare them to tackle the new material. Teachers can motivate students further by developing engaging supplementary activities that take place after students read the text. The exercise in Figure 11.7 asks students to reflect on what they have learned from both the text and reading experience, bringing to a conscious level students’ individual reading successes. When suitable, students can be encouraged to share their reflections with one another (and the teacher) to maximise the motivating power of relating to others (Komiyama, 2009).

192

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

Figure 11.7. Post-reading Reflection Checklist.

Extensive Reading Ultimately, the more students read, the better readers they become. Teachers should always be looking for ways to facilitate more in-class and at-home reading of interesting, level-appropriate texts. Our evaluated textbook, like many EAP textbooks, features one main passage per unit, limiting the amount of reading that students do. The featured texts also offer little variation in difficulty, all requiring considerable teacher guidance and explicit vocabulary instruction. To supplement a unit on organic food, an additional, simpler text, from the Young Reader’s edition of The Omnivore’s Dilemma (Pollan, 2009) and excerpted in Figure 11.8, was shared with students.

Figure 11.8. An Excerpt from a Supplementary Passage (Pollan, 2009, pp. 17-18) that Is Easier than the Textbook Passage but Complements the Unit Topic.

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

193

CONCLUSION The EAP classroom is often the final place in which L2 students receive structured and targeted language-skill instruction before they transition to more challenging academic environments. When L2 students exit EAP programmes and enter regular classes, they are typically expected to function independently – as readers and students – with minimal instructor support. To prepare EAP students for the reading challenges that they are likely to face in future studies, EAP teachers should scrutinise the reading textbooks that they are using to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Textbooks can be supplemented as a way to target neglected components of reading. In this way, teachers can broaden the scope and impact of their courses and better set up their students for academic success. The prototypical textbook-evaluation tool featured in this chapter should be treated as a model, which can be easily modified to suit different EAP programme aims, course goals, and student needs. For example, this chapter did not mention reading-to-write as a ‘component’ of academic reading (Grabe & Zhang, 2013), though in academic settings, students often read-to-write. Read-to-write connections, if not covered adequately in a textbook, can be strengthened, for example, with activities that require students to demonstrate text comprehension through written output, including summaries, syntheses, expressions of their opinion, responses to an opposing viewpoint, and the transformation of an original text into an alternative genre. An adaptation of the textbook-evaluation tool presented in this chapter could easily include questions about read-to-write connections, in addition to other programme-specific reading-skill goals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to David Gasbarro Tasker for his feedback on the textbook-evaluation tool.

REFERENCES Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles and practice. Reading, England: Garnet Education. Al-Homoud, F., & Schmitt. N. (2009). Extensive reading in a challenging environment: A comparison of extensive and intensive reading approaches in Saudi Arabia. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 383–401. Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

194

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

Anderson, N. J. (2015). Academic reading expectations and challenges. In N. W. Evans, N. J. Anderson, & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), ESL readers and writers in higher education: Understanding challenges, providing support (pp. 95–109). New York, NY: Routledge. Beglar, D., Hunt, A., & Kite, Y. (2012). The effect of pleasure reading on Japanese university EFL learners’ reading rates. Language Learning, 62, 665–703. Byrd, P., & Schuemann, C. (2014). English as a second/foreign language textbooks: How to choose them – How to use them. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 380– 393). Boston, MA: National Geographic/Heinle Cengage Learning. de Chazal, E. (2014). English for academic purposes. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2014). Teaching reading for academic purposes. In M. CelceMurcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 189–205). Boston, MA: National Geographic/Heinle Cengage Learning. Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24. Guthrie, J. T. & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In. P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329– 354). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and contexts. New York, NY: Routledge. Jiang, X. (2012). Effects of discourse structure graphic organizers on EFL reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(1), 84–105. Jiang, X. (2016). Graphic organizers for reading teachers. Retrieved from http://community.wvu.edu/~xijiang/Graphicorganizers.html. Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 34–55. Komiyama, R. (2009). CAR: A means for motivating students to read. English Teaching Forum, 3, 32–37.

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill

195

McCarter, S., & Jakes, P. (2009). Uncovering EAP: Teaching academic writing and reading. Oxford, England: Macmillan Education. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (Eds.). (2008). Reading strategies of first- and secondlanguage learners: See how they read. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Mukundan, J., & Ahour, T. (2008). A review of textbook evaluation checklists across four decades (1970-2008). In B. Tomlinson & H. Masuhara (Eds.), Research for materials development in language learning (pp. 336–352). New York, NY: Continuum. Pollan, M. (2009). The omnivore’s dilemma: Young reader’s edition. Hudson, NY: The Penguin Group. Pressley, M., & Harris, S. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ro, E. (2013). A case study of extensive reading with an unmotivated reader. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 213–233. Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363. Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43. Stoller, F. L. (2012). Developing word and phrase recognition exercises. In R. R. Day (Ed.), New ways in teaching reading (revised version, pp. 254–257). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Stoller, F. L., & Komiyama, R. (2013). Making a commitment to strategic-reader training. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 396(12), 46–62. Suk, N. (2017). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 73–89. Takase, A. (2009). The effects of different types of extensive reading materials on reading amount, attitude, and motivation. In A. Cirocki (Ed.), Extensive reading in English language teaching (pp. 451–465). Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.

APPENDIX Textbook-Evaluation Tool How well does your EAP reading textbook address students’ reading needs? First, identify the reading textbook that you want to evaluate, selecting one that you are using or one that you plan to use. Second, orient yourself to the priorities and perspectives of the textbook by consulting the Note to the Teacher, if available. Third, review the textbook-evaluation tool (Table A) and add aspects of reading that are pertinent to your

196

Eleanor Kashmar Wolf and Fredricka L. Stoller

class goals, where appropriate. Fourth, examine a subset of textbook chapters and/or units and determine the frequency with which reading-skill components, itemised in the tool, are addressed. You may wish to first tally your answers as you go along, using the designated column of the tool, before deciding on a numerical value of frequency for each question. Your goal in reviewing these chapters/units is to grasp how and to what extent the authors have made a commitment to reading-skill development. Use this 0–3 scale to document whether components are addressed in: 0: No chapters/units 1: A few chapters/units 2: Many chapters/units 3: All chapters/units The results of this quick textbook review should reveal reading-skill areas in need of more attention, possibly achieved by developing supplementary materials. Table A. Textbook-evaluation tool to be used with EAP reading textbooks. ComponentSkills of Academic Reading

How regularly, if at all, does this EAP reading textbook …?

Vocabulary building

Pre-teach key vocabulary that is needed for comprehension Highlight key vocabulary (with, e.g. glosses, margin notes, bolding) Address multiple aspects of vocabulary, including morphology, part of speech, meaning, collocations, uses, and/or register Ask students to read for an explicitly stated and meaningful purpose Guide students in using appropriate pre-reading strategies (e.g. access background knowledge; set goals; make predictions; review text features) Guide students in using appropriate during-reading strategies (e.g. monitor comprehension; confirm, reject, and/or modify predictions; take notes or underline; form questions) Guide students in using appropriate post-reading strategies (e.g. summarise; make inferences; connect ideas across sections of the passage or different texts; reflect on meaning)

Strategic reading

Tally Frequency (optional) In __ chapters and/or units 0: no 1: a few 2: many 3: all

Addressing EAP Students’ Reading-Skill ComponentSkills of Academic Reading

Discoursestructure awareness

How regularly, if at all, does this EAP reading textbook …?

Draw student attention to the differences in organisation of featured texts Include and/or ask students to create graphic organisers that are reflective of the actual organisation of reading passages and their parts (as opposed to generic graphic organisers) Guide students in noticing linguistic markers (e.g. however, therefore, first, then) that indicate discourse organisation (e.g. comparison-contrast, problem-solution, chronology) Main-idea Support comprehension of main ideas with explicit comprehension strategy instruction Contain occasional grammar exercises to support comprehension of texts Guide students in identifying main ideas and distinguishing them from details Fluency Contain word- and phrase-recognition exercises development Measure reading rate through timed readings Explicitly require students to re-read passages Motivation Feature topics of potential interest to students and/or pertinence to students’ academic goals Contain sufficient numbers of texts to offer students choice in what they read Facilitate opportunities for teacher feedback and student reflection on learning Extensive Contain some texts that can be read with ease, reading including shorter or simpler texts, or texts on familiar topics Assume that in-class silent reading will occur

197

Tally Frequency (optional) In __ chapters and/or units 0: no 1: a few 2: many 3: all

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 12

THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING IN EAP CLASSROOMS IN HONG KONG Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong1,2 1

Centennial College, Hong Kong SAR, China HKU SPACE Community College, Hong Kong SAR, China 2 Hang Seng Management College, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT Many educationalists (e.g. Atkinson, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006) nowadays found that Asian students are challenged when applying critical thinking skills for academic purposes due to cultural factors. The purposes of this chapter are to explore the position of critical thinking in EAP classrooms in Hong Kong and to argue that non-Western learners have the ability to develop critical thinking if appropriate scaffolding strategies are implemented in classroom teaching. This chapter first examines the nature of critical thinking in EAP classrooms with reference to different definitions and theories. It then investigates Hong Kong students’ attitudes towards critical thinking by reviewing previous literature and group interview data collected in three tertiary institutions in Hong Kong. The concept of scaffolding in connection with the theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) proposed by Vygotsky (1978) is discussed with respect to the acquisition of critical thinking in EAP classrooms in Hong Kong. This chapter also highlights educational implications on scaffolding critical thinking in Hong Kong EAP classrooms, indicating that EAP teachers have an important role to develop students’ critical thinking apart from focusing solely on their English language skills.

Keywords: critical thinking, scaffolding, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Hong Kong learners, Chinese culture

200

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

INTRODUCTION Cultivating critical thinking has been one of the major objectives of global higher education. The new information age requires citizens to analyse and synthesise the flood of information, and make reasoned judgments by evaluating evidence from different perspectives. Having the ability to think critically can contribute to building a civilised and rational society (Barton & McCully, 2007). Critical thinking is also essential for students to develop lifelong learning skills so that they can continue to acquire knowledge, reflect on their experiences and solve problems independently after they graduate. The importance of critical thinking has been widely documented in different fields of literature, ranging from educational psychology to applied linguistics. A plethora of classroom pedagogies, including flipped classrooms, experiential learning, and collaborative learning, has emerged to encourage the use of a more critical approach in different disciplines. Although the critical learning approach has been widely embedded into university curricula globally, a number of research studies (e.g. Atkinson, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006) show that many Asian students lack the skills to think critically, due to cultural factors. These students may have difficulty accommodating themselves to academic traditions based on Western thinking. At the same time, they may have to face the language barrier when they study in English language contexts. The challenges may obstruct students’ personal and academic development, especially those who have to study abroad or learn alongside native English teachers. In Hong Kong, most secondary schools implement mother-tongue education and Chinese is used as the medium of instruction. When students enrol in higher education, they have to adapt to the new learning environment where English is now the medium of instruction in all courses. As memorisation and rote learning are highly valued in primary and secondary education, many Hong Kong students have to overcome the gap in their approach to learning in higher education by developing new styles of learning. In order to enhance tertiary students’ learning experience, all universities and colleges in Hong Kong offer EAP courses which aim to equip students with a range of academic English language skills. These courses require students to read English academic texts critically and produce different types of outputs such as essays and oral presentations. The aims of this chapter are twofold: to discuss the position of critical thinking in EAP classrooms in Hong Kong, and to argue that non-native English language learners are able to develop critical thinking if appropriate scaffolding strategies are adopted in classroom teaching. This chapter first explores the nature of critical thinking in EAP classrooms by making reference to various definitions and theories. It then examines Hong Kong EAP students’ attitudes towards critical thinking by reviewing relevant literature and interview data collected in their classrooms. The concept of scaffolding in connection with Vygotsky (1978)’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) model is also

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

201

discussed in regard to the acquisition of critical thinking in Hong Kong EAP classrooms. Lastly, this chapter highlights educational implications on scaffolding critical thinking in EAP classrooms in Hong Kong, indicating that EAP teachers have an important role to develop students’ critical thinking rather than focusing mainly on their English language skills.

THE ROLE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN EAP CLASSROOMS Critical thinking is commonly defined as the ability to think rationally, reasonably, reflectively and independently. Effective critical thinkers should be able to evaluate the evidence presented, understand and analyse the logical connections between ideas, consider different perspectives of arguments and draw logical conclusions based on evidence (Bowell & Kemp, 2005; Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2014; Facione, 1990; Glaser, 1941; Paul & Elder, 2008). Critical thinking involves a set of cognitive skills including conceptualising, applying, analysing, synthesising, evaluating information by logical inquiry and reasoning (Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; Paul & Elder, 2001; Scriven & Paul, 2003). Barnett (1997) explains the concept of critical thinking in the context of higher education and has proposed three forms of criticality: critical thinking, critical self-reflection, and critical action. Strong critical thinkers should be able to reflect critically on knowledge, develop the ability to critical self-reflection and take critical actions. They also should critically engage in the world and collaborate with the community. Atkinson (1997) discusses the role of critical thinking in English language classrooms. He describes the nature of critical thinking as ‘a non-overt social practice’ that many scholars seem unable to define precisely. Critical thinking is related to a set of social practices that can be learned and practiced subconsciously in Western or US cultures. Similarly, Ramanathan and Kaplan (1996) point out that critical thinking is an unconsciously shared practice based on Western societies. They argue that the culturallyrooted nature of critical thinking may challenge and marginalise non-native speakers of English in academic English learning. Besides developing English language skills, those students have to be socialised into a new culture of learning which may be entirely different from their own culture and ways of thinking. Therefore, there is a pressing need to develop appropriate pedagogy to teach this new cognitive skill to non-native English speakers. Gieve (1998) categorises critical thinking into monological and dialogical. Monological critical thinking is one-dimensional and ‘reducible to logical thinking’. This type of thinking is common in teacher-centred classrooms which aim at training students to recognise logical fallacies through a definite set of logical moves. It assumes that critical thinking can be taught and developed by learners if they understand certain types

202

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

of already-defined logical errors. It is often argued that this type of thinking neglects the importance of solving multilayered real-life issues. Dialogical critical thinking emphasises that ‘the taken-for-granted assumptions and presuppositions that lie behind argumentation are uncovered, examined and debated’ (Gieve, 1998, p. 125). In brief, it lays stress on the multi-perspective thinking which considers the strengths and weakness of opposing points of view. Learners have to critically analyse and evaluate information from different sources, including themselves, their peers, teachers, experts and authoritative texts. They should also understand and critically examine their own biases and deeply rooted prejudices. Gieve (1998) and Benesch (1999) highlight that ESL teachers have the responsibility to help non-native speakers of English to be capable of using dialogical critical thinking in order to promote a civilised and democratic society. The complex nature of critical thinking skills implies that the lack of certain cognitive skills may be related to cultural differences. More importantly, it shows the crucial role of EAP teachers to design culturally responsive pedagogies and educational strategies for Hong Kong Chinese tertiary students who have different cultural values to those of Western cultures. Although Hong Kong has a unique mix of Eastern and Western cultures, the Confucian way of thinking, which emphasises teachers as the authoritative source of knowledge, seems still to predominate in the primary and secondary education sectors in Hong Kong. Examination-oriented education tends to focus more on monological thinking, which encourages students to solve problems based on the definite logic set by the authority. Many students also prefer to follow a set of rules in order to satisfy assessment requirements so that they can achieve academic success. This explains why some Hong Kong first-year tertiary students may have difficulty adapting to the new academic environment, which encourages independent learning and critical thinking. The next section further discusses the Hong Kong Chinese learning culture and students’ attitudes towards critical thinking by reviewing relevant literature and classroom data collected in EAP classrooms, in order to draw educational implications for Hong Kong EAP classrooms.

HONG KONG CHINESE CULTURE AND LEARNING Extensive literature regarding Hong Kong students’ learning culture concludes that many Hong Kong students are reluctant to express critical opinions in class under the influence of their Confucian heritage. Rote-learning and memorisation of knowledge are also often described as the key features of Hong Kong students’ ways of learning. The influence of Chinese culture may be related to the development of critical thinking in Hong Kong students. In order to further investigate Hong Kong students’ beliefs towards classroom learning and their ways of thinking, group interviews were conducted with 30 first-year local undergraduates taking EAP as compulsory courses in three different

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

203

tertiary institutions in Hong Kong. Those students graduated from both Chinese-medium secondary schools and English-medium secondary schools. All of them took the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination for university admission. The interview data will be compared with findings discussed in previous literature. A vast amount of educational research (Kennedy, 2002; Murphy, 1987; Pierson, 1996; Pratt, Kelly & Wong, 1999; Scollon & Scollon, 1994) indicates that Hong Kong Chinese students treat the text and/or the teacher as the most authoritative source of knowledge. Students are expected to learn foundational knowledge that closely resembles the texts given by the teacher. There is very little debate or ambiguity of the knowledge presented by teachers. They assume that teachers have comprehensive knowledge and they rarely challenge teachers and the texts. It was also found that there is a clear hierarchy of authority in the relationship between teachers and students, which is consistent with the mores of Chinese culture. Hong Kong Chinese culture often stresses that respect for teachers should be given by not questioning their knowledge or wisdom as Confucius culture expects learners to be obedient and respect authority figures and that learning virtue is mainly achieved by learning from the past and imitating successful role models (Murphy, 1987; Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Students may feel uncomfortable emotionally or intellectually to work independently under the relational hierarchy which values teacher authority, obedience and conformity (Evans, 1996; Littlewood, 1999; Tsui, 1996). The interview data seem to be consistent with the literature on Chinese students’ attitudes towards the role of teachers. Many students commented that Chinese learners see teachers as the source of knowledge and never doubt the academic ability and moral values of teachers. They also show their obedience by being quiet in class. ‘Although I was born in Hong Kong, the Chinese tradition still has influence on my learning. In Chinese culture, we should show respect to our teachers. We never doubt about our teachers' ability because we assume our teachers know all the things. So I always expect my teachers to be my role models.’ (Participant 6) ‘I think that's Chinese traditional culture - sitting quietly and listening to teachers' instructions. We have to listen to teachers' instructions.’ (Participant 2) ‘At school, to be obedient is a way to show respect to teachers. We don't speak much in lessons and our main role is to listen to our teachers.’ (Participant 18)

Rote-learning is another key feature of Hong Kong learning culture. It was found that Hong Kong learners prefer memorising texts, being respectful of teachers and textbooks, being quiet and asking few questions (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Biggs, 1996; Carson, 1992; Cross & Hitchcock, 2007; Kumaravadivelu, 2003).The Hong Kong examination system, which stresses memorisation and tests students’ ability to repeat information,

204

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

instead of promoting and understanding knowledge, understanding, might discourage the development of critical thinking. The interview data further confirm the previous findings. Nearly all students interviewed felt that the education system in Hong Kong put too much emphasis on memorisation of knowledge. Some commented that this caused them to be less independent in their learning and hindered their critical thinking ability. They said they expected teachers to give them all necessary learning materials, such as handouts and learning exercises. Some students added that they expected their teachers to analyse questions for them and prepare model answers for each question so as to help them memorise the knowledge they needed more easily. ‘In public exams, most questions test students' ability of memorising knowledge, though English focuses more on applications and skills.’(Participant 2) ‘To prepare for English exams, my secondary school requires us to memorise the vocabulary and sentence structures. We were given a vocabulary list and lots of handouts about sentence structures. Sometimes I don't really understand the meaning well, but the English public exam usually requires students to use a wide variety of vocabulary and sentence structures. To get good grades in public exams, we have to use many difficult words and complex sentence structures.’ (Participant 14) ‘The education system in Hong Kong does not test students' ability to discover knowledge. Students only have to memorise the knowledge from handouts prepared by teachers.’ (Participant 1)

Furthermore, some students expected teachers to prepare all learning materials for them because they said they did not have time to discover knowledge and analyse information due to the tight learning schedule and packed syllabi. ‘Yes, I understand that the ideal way of learning is to learn independently, analyse information and discover knowledge by ourselves. But I find that it's quite difficult to do that. We have to spend so much time at school and have to do so many assignments, we don't have extra time to read extra learning materials and discover new knowledge at the library. We expect our teachers to highlight the important points.’ (Participant 3)

However, some researchers hold different views towards Chinese students’ ways of learning and argue that those studies might over-simplify the reality of the learning culture in Hong Kong. They found that Hong Kong students perceive memorisation as a process to deeper understanding, instead of mechanical memorising without meaning. Dahlin and Watkins’ (2000) study reveals that Hong Kong Chinese students believe that repetition in memorisation helps to create a deep impression on the mind and discover new meaning. Lee (1996) explains the conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

205

and concludes that the Confucian approach to learning also places much emphasis on deep thinking processes and enquiry. Memorisation is a part of the learning process that helps learners become familiar with the text. After memorising the text, they start to understand, reflect and question (Kember & Gow, 1990; Marton, Dall’Alba, & Kun, 1996). Tweed and Lehman (2002) found that Chinese students tend to follow a four-stage learning process (1) memorising, (2) understanding, (3) applying, (4) questioning or modifying, while Jin and Cortazzi (2006) proposed a similar model which suggests that Chinese students prefer questioning and inquiring after memorisation. They might follow models by imitating and memorising knowledge from teachers and textbooks so as to achieve extrinsic outcomes (i.e. passing examinations and/or securing employment). At the same time, Chinese students’ learning also involves reflective processes: learn from authorities (i.e. teachers and textbooks), and then think thoroughly and raise questions carefully in order to internalise knowledge and achieve intrinsic outcomes (i.e. selfcultivation and recognition of moral principles). The models proposed by Tweed and Lehman (2002), and Jin and Cortazzi (2006) match well with the interview findings. A number of interviewees pointed out that memorising knowledge can deepen their understanding and is also a way of establishing a solid foundation of knowledge. Analytical learning is not much emphasised at an early stage of learning as Chinese people generally believe that one should be able to analyse and investigate knowledge after acquiring basic knowledge through memorisation. ‘My parents always emphasise the importance of memorising knowledge. When we get older, we should further expand our basic knowledge and put it into practice.’ (Participant 30) ‘A Chinese proverb says that only after reading ancient works over a hundred times can we get familiar with the knowledge we need, and only then will be able to understand and reflect on the knowledge gained. I think that’s one of the rationales of Hong Kong or Chinese education. After memorising basic knowledge, we will be able to understand it and put it into practice. The first step is to get familiar with the texts by memorising them and finally we will be able to develop our own thinking.’ (Participant 18)

Although students generally believed that memorisation is an important step in language learning, especially in vocabulary learning, many of them stated that memorisation might be more useful at the early stage of learning and having good analytical thinking skills is essential for learning academic English, which is a more advanced level of English language learning when compared to general English. For example, many interviewees said good critical thinking skills are important in academic reading. To fully understand an academic text, they have to guess the meaning of words and identify the implied meaning by analysing academic texts. Having good basic vocabulary knowledge is essential to academic reading.

206

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong ‘If we don't understand the basics, how can we get to another stage? For example, in EAP lessons, we have to learn how to paraphrase and summarise a passage. If we don't understand the words and the grammatical structures, how can we understand the texts and rephrase the sentences? Of course, at this level, I don't think memorisation is as important as before.’ (Participant 26)

In addition, students found that memorising the basic grammatical structures and vocabulary is important at the basic level of English language learning. They considered EAP as a more advanced stage of English language learning, which memorisation might not be an effective way of learning. ‘Memorisation is important in some areas, such as basic grammatical structures and vocabulary. EAP lessons focus more on advanced language skills. Paraphrasing, summarising, using different citation formats, delivering academic presentations, writing academic essays and reports these are the skills that I acquired in EAP lessons. I don't think memorisation is effective anymore.’ (Participant 25)

The interview data indicate that memorisation of knowledge is part of the learning process only, and students may proceed to higher-order thinking when they get more advanced. The literature on Hong Kong Chinese students shows the gap between the Chinese and Western ways of learning. Under the influence of Confucian culture, Hong Kong students are reluctant to express opinions in class as they have to show obedience and conformity. In addition, the examination-oriented culture pushes them to memorise knowledge from authoritative sources of knowledge – their teachers and textbooks, and solve problems by following a definite set of rules. It was also found that Chinese learners demonstrate certain features of critical thinking ability – learn from the authoritative texts (conceptualising), think thoroughly (analysing) and raise questions (evaluating). Chinese learners are often stereotyped as quiet learners and are unable to think critically according to Western literature. The literature might neglect the fact that the learning environment and the examination-oriented education system in Chinese society might discourage them to be critical thinkers openly, especially in classroom learning. When learners acquire knowledge individually and without the influence of assessments, they might display the ability to think critically. For example, they are more motivated to discuss knowledge outside the classroom with their peers and teachers. They may also be more prone to taking risks to evaluate or critique authoritative sources when engaged in non-assessed learning activities. In order to help Hong Kong Chinese learners acquire critical thinking skills effectively, educationalists should further investigate what favourable factors might encourage students to practise critical thinking in classrooms. More importantly, EAP teachers should also consider how to incorporate culturally responsive pedagogies

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

207

effectively so that students can further develop their English language competence and critical thinking skills. When designing appropriate pedagogies, they should consider the stages of learning, which Hong Kong Chinese learners value highly. This may also imply that asking students to think critically without understanding the stages of learning might restrict learning outcomes. Examining the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) proposed by Vygotsky (1978) might be useful for educationalists to understand how to help Hong Kong Chinese learners further develop their critical thinking skills in EAP classrooms. The theory has been used in conjunction with the concept of scaffolding, which means giving support to a novice learner by a more capable peer. According to Vygotsky (1978), novice learners are able to lift their performance to a higher level which they may not be able to achieve individually without effective scaffolding. At a later stage, they are able to perform the advanced tasks independently. These concepts can provide useful insights into developing effective pedagogies on critical thinking skills in the Hong Kong context. Hong Kong learners see the support given by teachers and other authoritative sources as the first stage of learning. They believe they would be able to reach higher levels with adequate scaffolding and can perform those higher-level tasks independently at the final stage of learning. The concepts of ZPD and scaffolding will be further elaborated and discussed with reference to the Hong Kong context in the next section of this chapter.

VYGOTSKY’S ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT AND SCAFFOLDING The Social Development Theory developed by Lev Vygotsky (1978) describes learning as a process and explains the role of social interaction in the development of cognition. One of the important themes of the theory is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is defined as the distance between the actual developmental level, as determined by independentproblem solving, and the level of potential development, as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86).

The concept of ZPD focuses on two different levels of development – the actual developmental level and the potential level of development. The actual developmental level is the level in which learners are able to do on their own, while the potential level of development refers to the higher level which learners might be able to achieve when they are assisted by more knowledgeable or capable peers through meaningful interaction. The

208

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

more capable peers can be their classmates, teachers and parents. Figure 12.1 shows the two developmental levels with reference to the concept of ZPD developed by Vygotsky (1978).

What the

Zone of Actual

learners

Development

cannot

(ZAD) - What the

ZPD – the potential level of development with the

assistance of learners can do achieve, more capable independently even with peers assistance In short, individuals can learn and develop further when social interaction occurs. According to Vygotsky, learning and development are not the same, but are interdependent (Lake, 2012). Development refers to the internal processes, whereas Figure 12.1. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development.

In short, individuals can learn and develop further when social interaction occurs. According to Vygotsky, learning and development are not the same, but are interdependent (Lake, 2012). Development refers to the internal processes, whereas learning refers to the external processes. Continuous learning with peers can stimulate the development of individuals. Meaningful social interaction and collaboration can stimulate learners’ internal developmental processes and higher-order thinking can occur after going through external social stages before internalisation. Additionally, the concept of ZPD stresses that conceptual understanding and processes in classroom learning should take place within the ZPD, which is slightly beyond the level that they can achieve independently. When learners can complete a task in the ZPD with their peers successfully, they are able to complete the same task individually next time. They will eventually have a new actual developmental level and a potential level. The learning process is repeated and learners will then be able to complete higher levels of tasks. If the level of task is out of the ZPD (i.e. too challenging that learners cannot achieve even with the help of more knowledgeable peers), learners might ignore the task or even experience frustration (Vygotsky, Rieber, & Carton, 1988). On the other hand, tasks with low challenges which are in the ZAD may cause boredom and limit learners’ further development (Hammond & Gibbons, 2005). Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) use the term scaffolding to describe the practical application of teaching in the ZPD proposed by Vygotsky (Wells, 1999). Scaffolding refers to the teaching strategies that help learners build on their prior knowledge and internalise new knowledge by providing individualised support from more

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

209

knowledgeable peers during interactions. When learners can master the tasks successfully without the assistance of others, the scaffolding can then be withdrawn. The ultimate goal of scaffolding is to enable learners to be independent learners. Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) list six important aspects to achieve successful scaffolding: (1) getting learners’ attention; (2) simplifying the task by breaking it down into sub-parts, in order to make it manageable for learners; (3) maintaining directions by setting clear objectives; (4) highlighting important features of the task in question and providing feedback to help learners identify the correct direction; (5) minimising frustration; and (6) demonstrating and modeling. The concept of scaffolding shows the crucial role of teachers in helping learners to develop intellectually within the framework of ZPD. In L2 contexts, the concept of scaffolding encourages language teachers to design communicative activities so that learners can acquire language through collaborative talk. The more proficient peers can provide linguistic support through the negotiation of meaning in language classrooms. Many ESL/EFL studies suggest that learners should be active during interactions for effective language learning and learners’ performance can be improved when learners learn from each other. However, those studies have been criticised in the sense that power relations may exist in some classrooms. The less powerful individuals (less proficient learners) may have fewer opportunities to talk and thus limit their chances of being scaffolded. This situation is commonly found in Hong Kong classrooms where less proficient learners may hesitate to talk or give their opinions in class on account of the face-saving culture. Furthermore, teachers have a more powerful role than students in Hong Kong traditional classrooms. They are afraid of revealing their weaknesses in front of others, especially in class. In addition, the less powerful students may also hesitate to showcase their critical thinking ability due to a lack of self-esteem (Remedios, Clarke, & Hawthorne, 2008). This explains why communicative activities suggested by some Western educationalists may not always be effective in Hong Kong classrooms. More recent evidence (Kayi-Aydar, 2013) confirms that scaffolding may fail or be ineffective when students struggle with power relations, and that teachers should adopt strategies to support the less powerful ones so that all learners can benefit from scaffolded talk. In the context of Hong Kong, teachers may have to adopt a fusion of Western and Eastern teaching techniques. Although studentcentred classrooms are encouraged in ESL/EFL literature, teachers should still consider students’ cultural beliefs and provide ample support during classroom interaction. For example, they can clarify the objectives of activities, provide clear instructions and build a risk-taking learning environment. Asking students to give critical comments in class using a foreign language without offering adequate support might cause frustration and inhibit their linguistic and cognitive development. The literature on ZPD and scaffolding draws several profound implications on developing critical thinking pedagogy in Hong Kong EAP classrooms:

210

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong 1) Classroom learning should take place within the ZPD. The level of tasks should be slightly beyond learners’ actual levels. Tasks which are too challenging or too simple might limit the development of individuals. In other words, EAP teachers should have a good understanding of the learners’ level and design tasks which should be slightly beyond their present capacity. In the Hong Kong context, teachers should not expect learners, especially freshmen who are not familiar with the new style of learning, to demonstrate effective critical thinking in the more challenging tasks, without sufficient guidance. 2) The scaffolding process is temporary. When learners have been given enough support to manage a task, they are able to complete the same task independently. This is consistent with Chinese learners’ beliefs. Teachers should ensure that the ultimate goal of scaffolding is to enable students to learn independently. They also have to adjust the level of scaffolding at different stages of learning. 3) Effective scaffolding depends much on the teachers’ ability to manage the interaction process. Learners can internalise knowledge and develop cognitively only when teachers provide sufficient support in classroom interactions. Effective scaffolding includes six important aspects: motivating learners, simplifying tasks, giving learners clear directions, clarifying expectations and providing feedback, minimising frustration and modelling. EAP teachers should evaluate the effectiveness of the scaffolding strategies based on these aspects. 4) When implementing scaffolding strategies, teachers should consider the cultural factors and the power relations in classrooms. The concept of ZPD and scaffolding highlights the importance of interaction with the more capable peers. Although peer interaction is strongly promoted in the field of ESL/EFL, some Hong Kong learners may feel frustrated when trying to engage in classroom talks. In addition, they may hesitate to give critical opinions in class due to their cultural beliefs. EAP teachers should create a risk-taking and culturally inclusive learning environment when scaffolding.

The next section further explains the use of scaffolding to foster critical thinking in Hong Kong EAP classrooms by applying the insights gained in the literature and interview data.

SCAFFOLDING CRITICAL THINKING IN EAP CLASSROOMS IN HONG KONG EAP courses in the Hong Kong context are regarded as hybrids of ESL and EAP programmes. The EAP courses include the teaching of academic language skills, such as

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

211

writing academic essays, delivering presentations and note-taking in lectures. Basic language skills, grammar and vocabulary are also commonly incorporated in the courses. Table 12.1 shows a typical example of EAP assessments for first-year undergraduate students in a tertiary institution in Hong Kong. Table 12.1. An Example of EAP Assessments Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Assessment 3 Assessment 4

Class activities (e.g. Short quizzes on grammar and vocabulary) 500-word Expository Essay 1,000-word Argumentative Essay Group Presentation – Textual Analysis of Academic Sources

EAP is supposed to be designed for non-native English speakers who have sufficient language skills to enhance their language ability in order to tackle courses in Englishmedium learning environments (Jordan, 1997). However, many Hong Kong students have relatively low English proficiency and lack the necessary language knowledge and skills for tertiary studies (Lu & Julien, 2001). They cannot meet the minimal required English proficiency for tertiary studies and thus have difficulty in acquiring academic English skills. A study conducted by Evans and Green (2007) indicates that most of the Hong Kong tertiary students have problems with receptive and productive vocabulary in English. They conclude that inadequate basic language competence causes students to struggle to deal with complex macro-linguistic tasks. The more recent study conducted by Evans and Morrison (2011) also shows that first-year university students in Hong Kong face language difficulty when they have to adapt to the new learning environment where English is used as the medium of instruction. The problem is likely to be intensified with the increasing number of students who are taught in Chinese-medium secondary schools, as it was suggested that these students experience more language problems than those who study in English-medium secondary schools, particularly in the area of academic writing. Most of the assessments at university level require students to apply critical thinking skills. As seen in Table 12.1, assessments 2 – 4 require learners to demonstrate good English language ability and strong critical thinking skills. Students’ limited language ability is a barrier for them to use critical thinking skills effectively as they have difficulty understanding academic English texts and expressing ideas in English. Additionally, students in Hong Kong generally lack the opportunities to practise critical thinking skills due to a number of factors discussed in the previous sections. Those who have low English language proficiency might struggle in EAP courses. More importantly, they may face the same problem in other courses which have similar forms of assessments. It is obvious that much scaffolding should be done in EAP courses so that

212

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

they can apply the same skills to other courses conducted in English. The following strategies can be adopted in EAP classrooms with reference to the concept of ZPD:

Cultivating Intellectual Risk-Taking by Establishing a Supportive Learning Environment As already discussed, Hong Kong learners view teachers as authoritative sources of knowledge. They are hesitant to challenge their teachers and other authoritative sources. In addition, the examination-oriented culture in Hong Kong encourages students to follow a set of rules decided by the authority in order to fulfil the academic requirements and succeed academically. Most of the students are afraid of taking intellectual risks in assessments. Weaker students, especially those who experience low-esteem, may feel anxious when they are asked to use higher-order thinking skills due to the language barrier. In order to encourage intellectual risk-taking in learning, teachers should design more non-assessed, manageable, yet challenging, tasks which can help them acquire and practise the necessary academic English skills. Recent research (Wong, 2015) on EAP students’ language learning styles reveals that learners in Hong Kong are more willing to take intellectual risks if the learning tasks are non-assessed. When their learning is not limited by assessments, they are more motivated to step outside their comfort zones and think out of the box. Eventually, they can acquire critical thinking with more practice. In addition, teachers should also explain the importance of open-mindedness and discuss the value of embracing mistakes and challenges.

Understanding Students’ Prior Knowledge Understanding students’ prior knowledge is essential for teachers designing the appropriate level of learning activities. Learning can only occur when knowledge and skills are built upon existing knowledge. Tasks which are too challenging or too simple may demotivate learners and obstruct their development. Learning something without adequate prior knowledge may cause misconception, or result in rote learning. This adversely affects students’ ability to apply higher-order thinking skills and knowledge acquisition. Tertiary teachers should not assume that all students have acquired all necessary English language skills for their EAP courses. The English language syllabus at the secondary level in Hong Kong is very different from the EAP courses at university level. The English language syllabus at secondary level requires students to focus more on English for general purposes, and students have less exposure to academic English. Requiring students to write academic essays and apply critical thinking skills effectively without guiding them to understand the basic structure of research papers is unrealistic.

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

213

Teachers should ensure that students have enough language support in all learning activities so that students can exercise critical thinking skills without being limited by their language ability.

Simplifying Complex Tasks into Smaller and Manageable Tasks Most of the EAP assessments require learners to demonstrate not only their English language abilities, but also a wide range of higher-order thinking skills. Take the argumentative essay assignment of Table 12.1 as an example, students are required to demonstrate information literacy skills and critical thinking skills, apart from English language ability. Weaker students might have difficulty finding and reading academic sources before planning their arguments. The assessment can be divided into several nonassessed tasks and teachers can give summative feedback accordingly. For example, learners can first submit an essay plan outlining the sources of information and main arguments. Teachers can discuss the essay plan with students and encourage students to make further improvement. After receiving feedback from teachers, they can submit their first written draft. When giving feedback on the first draft to students, teachers can focus on the content and organisation of the essay first, instead of grammar and language style. This encourages students to think creatively and critically without being limited through their use of language. In the second draft, students can be reminded to focus more on grammar and language style. Peer-evaluation can be carried out before the submission of the final draft. By breaking down the assessment into several smaller tasks, students can build on their prior knowledge at every stage and gain the confidence they need to complete the more advanced tasks with support from their teachers and peers. More importantly, learners can acquire critical thinking skills step-by-step in order to minimise anxiety over the use of the language. Giving explicit guidelines also meshes well with Chinese learners’ learning beliefs.

Selecting Engaging and Culturally Relevant Materials Most EAP textbooks are designed for students of different cultures. The topics in these textbooks might sometimes not be culturally relevant to students. More importantly, in order to maximise the marketing targets, many textbooks focus on the generic uses of academic English and neglect the differences of language use according to the discipline(s) involved. Ning (2017) discusses the use of a British published EAP textbook in his classroom in China. It was found that the textbook could not motivate students as most of the texts were irrelevant to their disciplines and students struggled to understand the contexts due to lack of cultural understanding. Inappropriate teaching materials may

214

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

hinder students’ competence to use critical thinking due to their misunderstanding of learning materials. Teachers should choose engaging and culturally relevant materials and topics which can motivate students to analyse information and express ideas critically. For instance, students in Hong Kong may be interested in topics related to Hong Kong education policy as this topic is controversial and highly relevant to them. They are more motivated to search relevant materials for analysis and to express their ideas critically.

Implementing Cooperative Learning by Giving Explicit Instructions and Guidelines Cooperative learning has been proved to be effective in language learning and is now commonly implemented in English language classrooms. It is also an important pedagogy for the training of critical thinking. The higher-order thinking skills associated with cooperative learning are often taught implicitly or incidentally. Without providing examples of how or when to use them, students may not know how to transfer the skills they acquired in the cooperative learning activities to perform other similar tasks. More importantly, those who have lower English language proficiency may hesitate to participate in classroom interaction, especially with more capable peers. This limits their opportunities to develop critical thinking in classroom learning. In the Hong Kong context, many students are inexperienced in cooperative learning since they regard teachers as the source of knowledge. This type of learning may not be able to motivate those students successfully as they do not understand the purposes and benefits of peer interaction. Explicit instructions and guidelines should be given in cooperative learning so that learners understand the objectives of the cooperative tasks and weaker students can gain more confidence to participate in the tasks. For example, teachers can explain clearly how to evaluate other people’s work by presenting examples of evaluation and a set of guided questions. To promote learner autonomy, teachers can also discuss and plan the evaluation criteria with students. In addition, students should be taught to understand the learning objectives so that they can understand what they have acquired and transfer the knowledge and skills to similar tasks. Etiquette of peer interaction can be discussed in class in order to foster a supportive learning environment. For weaker students, a set of essential language expressions for interaction should be given so as to minimise their language anxiety. This learning approach matches well with Chinese students’ perceptions of learning. As discussed above, Chinese learners have several stages of learning. The scaffolding provided by teachers and other authoritative sources is the first stage of learning. When they become more competent in the tasks, they can complete similar tasks independently next time and eventually apply higher-order thinking skills.

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

215

CONCLUSION This chapter has explored the role of critical thinking in the context of Hong Kong EAP classrooms and provided teaching implications on scaffolding for educational and curriculum planners. Critical thinking has been regarded as an essential skill which can be acquired unconsciously and taught implicitly in Western cultures. However, under the influence of Chinese culture, many Hong Kong students may not be able to exercise the higher-order thinking skills effectively due to a number of cultural and educational factors/restraints. Expecting students to apply critical thinking skills effectively in EAP classrooms without adequate scaffolding is impractical and unrealistic. The scaffolding process requires teachers to create a favourable learning environment and to design culturally inclusive teaching activities skillfully. Although the learner-centred approach has been widely implemented in ESL/EFL classrooms, teachers still play a crucial role in the learning process. Critical thinking is one of the essential 21st century skills that every global citizen needs. Educationalists and curriculum planners should take the cultural factors into consideration when incorporating critical learning in the higher education curriculum.

REFERENCES Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 9-37. Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide for lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne, Australia: Longman. Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham, England: SHRE & Open University. Barton, K., & McCully A. (2007). Teaching controversial issues where controversial issues really matter. Teaching History, 127, 13-19. Benesch, S. (1999). Thinking critically, thinking dialogically. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 573-580. Biggs, J. (1996) Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45-67). CERC and ACER, Hong Kong: The Central Printing Press. Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2005). Critical thinking: A concise guide. New York, NY: Routledge. Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 37–60.

216

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

Cross, J., & Hitchcock, R. (2007) Chinese Students’ (or students from China’s) view of UK HE: Differences, difficulties and benefits, and suggestions for facilitating transition. The East Asian Learner, 3(2), 1 – 31. Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of memorisng and understanding: A comparison of the views of Western and Chinese school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 65-84. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skill and Creativity, 12, 43-52. Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EAP. ELT Journal, 65(4), 387-397. Evans, S. (1996). The context of English language education: The case of Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 27(2), 30–55. Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17. Gieve, S. (1998). A Reader reacts. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 123-128. Glaser, E. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Hammond, J., & P. Gibbons. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20, 6-30. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 5-20. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013). ‘No, Rolanda, completely wrong!’: Positioning, classroom participation, and ESL learning. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 130-150. Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74. Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 4(22), 539-550. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Problematizing cultural stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 709-719. Lake, R. (2012). Vygotsky on education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Primer. Lee, K. S., & Carrasquillo, A. (2006). Korean college students in United States: Perceptions of professors and students. College Student Journal, 40(2), 442-456.

The Development of Students’ Critical Thinking in EAP Classrooms …

217

Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25-41). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Victoria, Australia: The Australian Council for the Educational Research. Littlewood, W. (1999). Questioning some assumptions about East Asian students. Hong Kong Baptist University Papers in Applied Language Studies, 4, 142-153. Lu, D., & Julien, R. (2001). The delivery of EAP courses (English for Academic Purposes) within the changing linguistic landscape of Hong Kong: A time for reassessment. RELC Journal, 32(1), 106–119. Marton, F., Alba, G. D., & Kun, T. L. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: The keys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69-83). CERC and ACER, Hong Kong: The Central Printing Press. Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore education: A Hong Kong perspective. Australian Universities Review, 30(2), 43-44. Ning, D. (2017). The construction of EAP textbooks in Chinese context from the perspective of eco-education theory. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 214-221. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Paul, R., & Elder, l. (2001). Critical thinking: Inert information, activated ignorance, and activated knowledge. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 36-37. Pierson, H. D. (1996). Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context.’ In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 49-58). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Pratt, D. D., Kelly, M., & Wong, W. S. (1999). Chinese conceptions of 'effective teaching' in Hong Kong: Towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(4), 241-258. Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Some problematic ‘channels’ in the teaching of critical thinking in current L1 composition textbooks: Implications for L2 studentwriters. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 225-249. Remedios, L., Clarke, D., & Hawthorne, L. (2008). The silent participant in small group collaborative learning contexts. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 201-216. Rieber, R. W., & Carton, A. S. (Eds.) (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology. New York, NY: Plenum. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1994). Intercultural communication. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

218

Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Critical thinking as defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. In 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Rohnert Park, CA. Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2003). The critical thinking community: Defining critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-criticalthinking/410. Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Learning how to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 97−119). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. LopezMorillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wong, W. L. H. (2015). A study of language learning style and teaching style preferences of Hong Kong community college students and teachers in English for academic purposes (EAP) contexts (Doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand). Retrieved from https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/11661. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 13

CUSTOMISATION OF ACADEMIC WRITING MODULES FOR NOVICE RESEARCHERS IN A UNIVERSITY IN SINGAPORE Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on how academic writing is taught to three different groups of novice researchers in a teacher training college in Singapore. Novice researchers refer to different groups of students enrolled in a university possessing different linguistic and/or research abilities. There are three types of novice researchers in tertiary education and they are at different points of their education, having diverse learning needs as well as various learning goals. Three academic writing modules were designed to cater to these students at the university. This chapter discusses how the university customises the curriculum and assessment for those academic writing modules to address the needs of the students.

Keywords: academic writing, novice researchers, embryonic novice researchers, advanced novice researchers

INTRODUCTION Learning to write academic papers is a challenging task for novice researchers, who must be able to cope with the demands of conducting research and learning to ‘converse’

220

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

in a new discourse. Novice writers need to understand task requirements, instructor’s expectations, and the rudiments of writing their research in an acceptable format. Even when novice researchers are receptive to the challenge, this is particularly demanding for them since they have little experience of the meticulous academic writing skills expected of them. To facilitate the acculturation of students to academic research, support is provided for students through various avenues in universities such as workshops to teach them the ropes of carrying out rigorous secondary literature search or the research process, writing centres to guide the writing. Academic writing modules are also part of most courses and these provide a structured framework for learning discipline-specific academic writing conventions. But when we think of developing an academic writing module, we cannot think of it as a single entity. In fact, the literature has established that there are three different kinds of students or novice researchers in universities. Academic writing courses in universities need to take into account the profile of the student. Students enrolled in tertiary settings broadly fall into three categories: embryonic novice researchers/writers (Pillai, 2012), novice researchers/writers (Casanave, 2002), and advanced novice researchers (Rubdy, 2005) or isolated newcomers (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995). Embryonic novice researchers are generally enrolled in a foundation programme or a Diploma programme in universities. Often they require more scaffolding to acquire academic research and writing skills than their peers in the undergraduate programmes. In an earlier study, Pillai (2012) found that even after attending a 24-week module on academic writing, such students chose to foreground experiential knowledge in their essays as they deemed that to be the only way through which they could convey to the examiner that it was a poignant process for them. They valued experiential knowledge over secondary literature as they considered research paper writing to be a cathartic exercise. On a positive note, the students in the study generally exhibited an understanding of academic conventions. Their writing also differed from novice researchers as they tended to address the instructor directly by demonstrating how the paper meets the requirements of the task prompt, detailing the difficulties that they faced and overcame in completing the task, resorting to experiential knowledge in lieu of researched knowledge to substantiate the paper, and providing justifications for each step that they took in completing the research. The second group of students is referred to as novice researchers by researchers who have studied the acculturation process of students into academia and refers to students possessing different linguistic and/or research abilities. Casanave (2002) uses the term ‘novice researchers’ to describe first-year university students who, she argues, are the true novices as regards academic research. Advanced novice researchers are generally students enrolled in postgraduate programmes. They have to learn to use a more formal style of writing and to make explicit links to the literature. However, these postgraduate students should already be

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

221

familiar with the rudimentary elements of research and academic writing (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995). All three groups of novice researchers require different forms of support and scaffolding to help them with their writing. Hence, embryonic novice researchers were enrolled in a compulsory module tailored to their needs within the Diploma in Education programme. Novice researchers were enrolled in the undergraduate module that focused on preparing them to take on a small-scale research study while postgraduate programme students attended an elective module on academic writing of theses and dissertations. This chapter focuses on how academic writing is taught in a teacher training college in Singapore in three different programmes to cater to three different groups of novice researchers.

CONTEXT National Institute of Education (NIE) is the teacher training institute discussed in this chapter, and it is part of Nanyang Technological University. It is the only provider of preservice training for teachers employed by the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE). As a result, the institute works closely with MOE to ensure that new teachers have both skills and knowledge which are relevant to the current Singapore education context and for the future. The writing courses discussed in this article have been introduced at different times and are designed to serve the writing needs of specific groups of pre-service teachers. Academic writing is specifically taught at the diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Students enrolled in the Diploma track will be teaching at the primary or secondary levels. Those enrolled to teach in the primary schools are either on the General track and become generalist primary school teachers (teaching English, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies) while those on the specialisation track specialise in the teaching of Mother Tongue languages and Physical Education at primary schools or secondary schools. Those in the secondary school specialisation track become Art, Music or Home Economics teachers. All students enrolled in the diploma programme complete a compulsory academic writing module entitled ‘English for Academic and Professional Purposes’ (EAPP) module. Those who perform well in their Diplomas have the option of crossing over to the undergraduate programmes. The undergraduate programmes provide ‘the academic and professional development for undergraduates to become effective beginning teachers in schools’ (National Institute of Education, n.d.). There are two strands of full time specialisation in the undergraduate programmes: Bachelor of Arts (Education) and Bachelor of Science (Education), and a part-time Bachelor of Education

222

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

programme. All students enrolled in the full-time undergraduate programme complete a compulsory academic writing module entitled ‘Academic Discourse’. Postgraduate students have the option of taking on a module that specifically focuses on inter-disciplinary differences in academic writing or more specifically thesis and dissertation writing during the Masters or PhD candidature. The module, ‘Academic Writing for Postgraduates’ was introduced far more recently in 2013 to address the needs of this group of students. Students enrolled in this module are from different disciplines and are not necessarily teachers. The teachers would have completed the ‘Academic Discourse’ module as undergraduates. Almost all of them are part-time students unlike students in the other modules discussed in this chapter.

TEACHING ACADEMIC WRITING IN UNIVERSITIES This section provides several pedagogical suggestions by researchers who studied academic writing modules catering to embryonic novice researchers, novice researchers and advanced novice researchers.

Embryonic Novice Researchers Pillai (2012) proposed a supportive curriculum that would meet the cognitive, social, and linguistic demands of acquiring academic writing skills. Unlike product-oriented models, learning within this framework takes place by having learners experience, conceptualise, analyse, and apply knowledge. Learning conditions within this approach are such that they engage the learners’ identity by building upon their knowledge, experiences, interests, and motivations while acknowledging the varied experiences that students bring to learning academic writing. To accomplish this, it is suggested that students embark on a collaborative research project first. A visual representation of the key principles of such a curriculum framework is presented in Figure 13.1. The innermost circle represents the vision of the facilitation model, which is to socialise students into the academic culture. As learners acquire greater independence, this increases their self-efficacy, i.e. the belief that they are capable and competent to carry out the research. This makes them determined to succeed as well as receptive to learning. The second concentric circle from the centre highlights the point that, in a curriculum designed to promote self-confidence, four key learning outcomes should be built into the system. These consist of an understanding of the nature of research projects, which

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

223

involves collaborating with others to foster a supportive research culture, and to provide individuals with higher self-esteem.

Figure 13.1. Enculturation of embryonic novice researchers into academic research and writing (Pillai, 2012, p. 280).

This should be the focus of the first research project that novices embark on as a group in order to acquire adequate experiential knowledge of research in a supportive environment. The curriculum should provide sufficient opportunities for novices to develop domain knowledge about academic research and writing. The teaching of research skills should increase in complexity and encourage research at a higher level in the independent research paper. The curriculum could outline two stages through which novices can acquire appropriate genre conventions and linguistic features. The academic conventions of writing are constructed through grammatical resources that construe meanings, and students should be taught new lexical and grammatical strategies to fit both the task and the context. During this group-based research paper stage, the focus should be to provide explicit guidance in understanding academic genres and raising novices’ genre awareness of the relevant text types.

224

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

The third concentric circle also represents the objectives that can be achieved as students’ language and communication skills are enhanced. Other key features include the facilitation of the investigative process that is integral to successfully completing the research project with the help of a solid support network and for collaborating with other stakeholders such as the general public, who may consider the process ‘time consuming’ (Yeong & Pak, 2009, p. 111). The outermost circle represents the interaction patterns needed for scaffolding knowledge construction in different stages.

Novice Researchers Johns, Bawarshi, Coe, Hyland, Paltridge, and Reiff (2006) recommend a comprehensive model (see Figure 13.2) for teaching academic writing in universities to novice researchers. The components described in the model encapsulate the four domain areas namely, rhetorical knowledge, subject-matter knowledge, procedural knowledge, and formal knowledge that a novice writer needs to negotiate in order to succeed in academic writing by developing academic expertise and writer maturity.

Figure 13.2. Model of Genre Knowledge (Johns et al., 2006, p. 239).

As students develop more relevant skills and move from novice to expert competency, they develop additional skills and knowledge. This development can be

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

225

idiosyncratic. For example, some novice writers may develop competency in procedural, formal, or subject-matter knowledge before moving on to acquiring rhetorical knowledge. Figure 13.2 represents what novice writers need to know at different stages. However, one limitation of the model is that it does not explicitly explain how this can be translated into a curriculum. McDonald (2006) examined how writers who are provided with a solid grasp of rhetorical functions are able to learn the conventions of another discipline and adapt them to new situations. McDonald explored the notion that writing instruction may work in the manner in which instructors generally assume that it does. This ethnographic study documents the writing experience of 19 participants in a first-year writing class in a US institution over two or three years following a genre-based approach. The bulk of the participants were from two of the classes taught by the researcher and from a third group that she observed. McDonald argues that since novice writers learn to write over a period of time, the focus of writing classes should be on increasing rhetorical awareness through genre analysis rather than on improving novice writers’ writing per se. This would enable novice writers to acquire key professional writing conventions more readily. Thus McDonald also strongly recommends providing novice writers with ‘a nascent awareness of rhetoric, especially the ability to analyse the genres they wish to acquire in order to participate in the discourse of their educational objectives’ (p. 9).

Advanced Novice Researchers This group of researchers benefit from a module that bridges their transition into future researchers and brings them one step closer to becoming expert writers themselves. For instance, Rubdy (2005) discusses the pedagogical approaches that can be adopted to facilitate the integration of advanced student writers into academia. Rubdy (2005) focuses on the experience of students enrolled in a Masters programme in English Language Teaching at a private university in Bangkok. She poses the following research question: ‘How to provide students within the short length of time available to them with both an array of research skills and the language support that is so critical to producing successful research?’ She answers the question by describing the ‘various steps taken in fostering an appropriate research climate and cultivating an active research culture on the programme’ (p. 278). An outline of the programme, which forms the basis of the socialisation process that the students were engaged in, is provided. The key components of the programme are:  

An initial priming, semi-formal meeting with students on ‘What is research?’. A workshop to explain the rudiments of writing a research proposal.

226

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis         

A weekend workshop on thesis writing, in which students receive feedback from both faculty and peers on their proposals. A workshop on writing the thesis, with a focus on the discourse. A module on research methodology. A module on ‘theory and practice of writing,’ which aims to familiarise students with the various approaches to writing instruction. Workshops on specific topics relating to thesis writing and research. Professional seminars on research writing. Opportunities for students to publish in an in-house journal. Opportunities for students to present papers with faculty members. A supportive writing centre that mentors students requiring more support in their writing.

In order to learn the relevant disciplinary conventions, novices need to be ‘immersed into the culture and engage in a lengthy period of apprenticeship and enculturation’ (Rubdy, 2005, p. 280). She describes the enculturation of the participants into academia through two types of activities: activities that explicitly address research needs, and those that focus on enculturation needs (see Figure 13.3). The activities described in Figure 13.3 extend Pillai’s (2012) framework for enculturating embryonic researchers into academic research and writing (Figure 13.1) and Johns et al.’s (2006) model of genre knowledge (Figure 13.2), by showing readers how the various components (rhetorical knowledge, subject-matter knowledge, procedural knowledge, and formal knowledge) can be translated into a systematic curriculum to increase advanced novice writers’ expertise. Items 1 – 5 in Figure 13.3 are activities that were carried out with an explicit focus on learning research writing skills, while items 6 – 9 refer to professional activities that researchers participated in during the process of carrying out their research. This study shows that both the explicit teaching and implicit learning of genre conventions are crucial in socialising advanced novice researchers into academia. Success for novice researchers in university is dependent on writers learning how to communicate in a genre used by experts to achieve a completely different purpose. Experts write for their peers and generally publish in journals which are read by members of the same discourse community. By contrast, novices emulate expert features that were written for a different purpose, which is to write for their tutors. Briefly, when learning to write research papers, theses or dissertations, the pedagogical suggestions by researchers are that: •

Embryonic novice researchers need a longer enculturation period into academic writing. Hence, a one-year programme or a 24-week module that requires them to

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

•

•

227

complete a small scale study collaboratively is needed. The emphasis is on socialising them to academic research and the genre conventions. Novice researchers need to focus on increasing their nascent awareness of rhetorical conventions through analysing and reading expert writing. Explicit teaching of genre conventions will enable them to adapt these conventions to another discipline. Advanced novice researchers need to be engaged in a range of activities such as participating in professional seminars and workshops beyond the classroom. Exposure to different academic platforms and conventions in different disciplines enables them to move these advanced novice researchers into academia.

Figure 13.3. Support Activities that Address both Students’ Training and Enculturation Needs (Rubdy, 2005, p. 281).

At NIE, academic writing modules are customised to meet the learning needs and goals of students who are at different stages of their education. In the next three sections, we describe three academic writing modules which cater to three different groups of novice researchers.

ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES – EMBRYONIC NOVICE RESEARCHERS The academic writing course, English for Academic and Professional Purposes (EAPP), is a 12-week module comprising 2 hours of tutorial sessions each week. It is

228

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

meant for students enrolled in the Diploma programme. The course is designed to develop students’ language and communicative competence towards two desired outcomes. The first is to equip student teachers with the thinking and language skills needed to produce appropriate texts in course-related writing tasks for their assignments at university. The second is to guide them towards a reader-focused and socially aware approach to written communications with colleagues, parents, and other people that teachers interact with in the course of their work. In addressing these outcomes, the course also raises awareness of how grammar can affect meaning. This course aims to:  

 

take a rhetorical, reader-focused and socially aware approach to written communication, analyse communication tasks and situations to determine the social and communicative purpose of the written product and the expectations of the target audience, select and organise meaning to meet the conventions of written genres used in educational settings, demonstrate awareness of the role of grammar in effective communication.

There are three components of assessment for this module: a short 600-word academic essay and reflection, a professional piece of communication related to their jobs as teachers such as an email to parents and classroom participation. Table 13.1 provides more information on the assessment criteria. Student feedback on the module conducted in January 2017 indicated that they appreciated understanding academic conventions, learning about professional communication and the use of a textbook. In particular, they found ‘referencing conventions’ (Yati) and ‘the rhetorical moves in academic writing’ (Benjamin) used in different sections of the paper to be particularly useful. While the students had been exposed to academic writing conventions in grades 11 and 12 in school, this was the first time they focused on producing academic papers as well as how to communicate as a teacher professional in writing. Another student, Christine, points out that knowing the difference between academic and professional writing’ equipped her with the skills to manage both the academic demands at university and future demands to communicate effectively as a teacher to other stakeholders such as parents, colleagues, school leaders, Ministry of Education officials as well as vendors. This was the only group amongst the three discussed in this chapter for which a textbook ‘Academic and Professional Writing for Teachers’ (2010) was prescribed. Students found the textbook useful for their learning and for their future role as a teacher

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

229

as well as one of them pointed out that they will be able to obtain ‘all the information for future uses’ in the book. The book focuses on the nuts and bolts of academic writing and examples of student research papers making it more practitioner-oriented than the other two modules discussed in this chapter as those also included journal articles written by experts. Table 13.1. Assessment Criteria of English for Academic and Professional Purposes Module Assessment Components (individual)

Written Assignment 1: Essay and a Rhetorical Analysis

Description Students research a topic choice of three broad areas:  Discuss the application of ICT in your discipline. What are the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating ICT in the classroom?  How can you promote National Education in your discipline? Provide specific examples.  What principles of Service Learning could you apply in your classroom? Justify your response.

Weighting 45%

They are required to compose an essay of approximately 600 words and provide a reflection on their choices. The piece must include at least two relevant in-text citations and a reference list. One of the citations must be a direct quotation and use proper citation conventions (APA formatting).

Written Assignment 2: Professional Writing Participation

Students then complete an analysis of their essay and identify: a) the thesis statement b) the topic sentence of each paragraph in the body of the essay. Students write a professional piece of communication in response to a prompt (a professional letter, proposal, philosophy statement, evaluation report, academic feedback, testimonial, incident report). Students are expected to write 300 - 350 words. Quality of contributions and participation in class.

45%

10%

Given time constraints and curricular constraints, students in the Diploma programmes are usually enrolled in a 12-week module on academic writing rather than the 24-week module proposed by Pillai (2012). Hence, the task focuses on secondary data rather than on collecting primary data. Instead of completing a collaborative research project, the focus is on learning to carry out library search, concretising a research idea and learning the genre conventions and language of academic writing. Both embryonic novice writers and novice writers may not need to write as experts, but they do need to learn to interpret and comply with task prompts. Hence an important task is for

230

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

embryonic novice researchers to analyse task prompts in their language and subject matter classes. This is the focus of Assignment 1. Assignment 2 helps to sensitise them to the differences in the genres that they are required to write at the university and in their professional careers. At this stage, students are not privy to other research discourse community activities such as those described by Rubdy (2005). Many of these writers may not be ready to engage in these activities in a meaningful manner at the embryonic novice researcher stage, although it is essential that they begin to engage in some of the activities to understand institutional expectations and acquire knowledge of appropriate genres. The focus at this stage is on providing explicit guidance in understanding academic genres and raising their genre awareness of the relevant text types. As this is the group with the most difficulties with language, the curriculum focuses on enhancing language and communication skills. Academic conventions of writing are constructed through grammatical resources that construe meanings, and students are taught new lexical and grammatical strategies to fit both the task and the context. Scaffolding is provided for learners to develop their linguistic competence until they are able to perform independently. Embryonic novice researchers have been identified as a group of students who include experiential knowledge in the research projects. This group of students is often criticised for code-meshing by including experiential knowledge, often in a narrative mode, throughout their writing. However, as Canagarajah (2009) notes, this is not specific to novice writers only and expert writers also include experiential knowledge in the form of anecdotes in their research papers, which makes the paper more readerfriendly and accessible. If so, the criticism directed at novices is perhaps unwarranted. Hence, students are not prevented from including relevant experiences in their research papers.

ACADEMIC DISCOURSE – NOVICE RESEARCHERS At the undergraduate level, all students attend a compulsory module ‘Academic Discourse’. It is a 12-week module comprising 3 hours of tutorial sessions each week. It is a more demanding course on academic discourse than the EAPP module in the course content and assessment. The module is designed to support them in learning the conventions of academic research. It takes students through complex issues surrounding academic literacy, engage them in the critical analysis of academic texts, and require them to produce the kinds of writing that are valued at the university specifically. As such the focus of the course is on critical reading, writing in an academic context as well as on conducting a mini-research project. It takes students through what it means to be a critical reader – one who is able to evaluate and respond appropriately to academic texts and task

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

231

prompts. It also examines what it means to be a critical writer – one who is able to formulate workable research questions on his/her own, critically evaluate and present research findings and use language purposefully and appropriately to accomplish specific rhetorical goals. This course aims to:      

introduce students to the conventions of academic reading and writing at the university, including the use of citations, introduce students to the standards and practices of academic argument, encourage students to formulate opinions about the academic texts they read and to express those opinions in writing, encourage students to think of themselves as members of a specific academic discourse community, introduce students to primary and secondary research methods, equip students with the basic skills to carry out further independent investigations into the requirements/expectations of their specific academic disciplines.

There are three assessment components for this module: an analysis of an online academic writing support site, a 1,500 – 2,000 word research paper that entails collecting primary data, and classroom participation. Table 13.2 provides more information on the assessment criteria. Student feedback on the module in January 2017 indicated that they gained greater expertise in writing research papers and developed confidence as writers. More specifically, students pointed out that the academic writing conventions that they learnt in this module were applicable to other modules that they were studying at the university: ‘Learning how to write a good research paper because it will be used in other subjects.’ (Shakti) ‘I think the whole idea of academic writing itself is very useful as it is a skill that I can apply across modules/disciplines.’ (Melissa).

Many mentioned becoming more confident about writing research papers and having a clear direction on how to write research papers: ‘The tutorials on how to write a research paper gave me direction on how I should formulate my paper.’ (Fazli) ‘The module has thought me how research writing is conducted. I made many mistakes and understood the process of writing. I feel more confident now.’ (James) ‘Now I know how to conduct a research, analyse data and write up a research paper for all my other modules.’ (Mercy)

232

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis Table 13.2. Assessment Criteria of Academic Discourse Module

Assessment Components (Individual) Written Assignment 1: Analysis of Online Academic Writing Sources

Written Assignment 2: Research Project

Class Preparation and Participation

Description Students select one website that provides advice on academic writing and compose a 1,000 – 1,200 word report on one insight that they gained from this website. They are also required to discuss how their perspective on writing has changed as a result of this website. Students plan and carry out, and write up a short research project (1,500 – 2,000 word, not counting the reference list). The chosen topic must involve the gathering of primary data (via the use of either written questionnaires or oral interviews). Students choose one broad area in writing research or education which interests them. They decide on a specific angle within one of the above broad areas that they want to investigate. For example, they may want to consider an area of research that is relevant to teaching strategies or assessment or about the challenges in learning to write a research paper. Reading assigned texts and participating actively in class discussions.

Weighting 30%

60%

10%

It was evident that when students gained greater control of their writing and deeper understanding of discipline-specific genre conventions, they became more confident about their writing skills, about themselves as writers as well as being able to independently decode genre conventions in the other areas that they were required to write their papers in, as suggested by Johns et al. (2006) and McDonald (2006). The focus in this stage is to provide guidance that is pitched at a higher level, emphasising features such as stance-taking and reporting on researched knowledge while teaching novices to make informed choices about rhetorical organisation patterns in research projects and appropriate research tools (e.g. interviews and questionnaires). Another key feature includes facilitating the investigative process that is integral to successfully completing the research project. In this stage they are encouraged to learn through models, practice, and error recognition and correction, and by developing an understanding of what should be included in a research paper and what should not. Hence, how language is used appropriately by taking note of audience, writing purpose, and writing context is explicitly taught in specific contexts and followed by internalisation through experiential learning when carrying out their own research. The focus is on explicating the conventions and rhetorical requirements of academic writing as well as the expectations of academic communities, and on fostering a healthy research community for novices. Texts are similar or different because of the sociocultural purposes they serve and the

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

233

ways they are structured to achieve these (Hyland, 2002). This is based on the assumption that the organisation of a text can be described in relation to texts similar to it or to those written by experts and to the choices and constraints acting on the writer in a particular social context. In the context of novice researchers, texts are written in response to task prompts, and this allows these texts to be identified as belonging to the novice research paper genre. The tutorials also compare the similarities and differences between research papers written by novices and those written by experts as this serves as a starting point for writing instructors to facilitate the conceptualisation of various discipline-specific rhetorical frameworks.

ACADEMIC WRITING FOR POSTGRADUATES – ADVANCED NOVICE RESEARCHERS Postgraduate students from different disciplines have the option of taking up a module that focuses specifically to guide them in writing the postgraduate thesis called ‘Academic Writing for Postgraduates’. It is a 13-week module comprising 3 hours of tutorial sessions each week. The module provides support for students in the discourse and linguistic conventions of academic writing in their own discipline so that they can better manage the development of a coherent argument in their thesis/dissertation. In addition to studying the discourse practices of academic writing, students also examine the thinking processes underlying the production of those practices over 13 weeks. Upon completion of the course, it is expected that students will be able to:   

 



Demonstrate understanding of the concept of ‘academic discourse community’. Identify the textual and speech act conventions valued by the academic discourse community of their own discipline. Make appropriate organisation and selection decisions in the writing of an argument for an academic purpose, taking into account their argument goal and the expectations of the target academic discourse community. Use their understanding of the concept of participation in academic discourse to guide organisation and selection decisions in the writing of their thesis. Select linguistic devices to build textuality and meet the reader’s need for orientation, re-orientation, signals of part-whole relations, and indications of motivation for information. Monitor and evaluate their own composing decisions for appropriateness to the rhetorical goal of their text and the conventions of the genre and discourse community.

234

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

The second tutorial focused on abstract writing for conferences. Three out of eight students in the January 2017 class submitted papers to international conferences. All three papers were accepted and provided a platform for them to develop as academics. There are four assessment components for this module: an analysis of rhetorical moves found in an academic text of student’s discipline, a short academic essay outlining students’ research and an analysis of rhetorical choices made in the essay, a presentation and classroom participation. Table 13.3 provides more information on the assessment criteria. Table 13.3. Assessment Criteria of Academic Writing for Postgraduates Assessment Components (Individual) Written Assignment 1: Analysis Written Assignment 2: Research Paper Presentation

Class Preparation and Participation

Description

Weighting

Analysis of text to describe rhetorical moves

30%

Written essay of 1,500 - 2,000 words arguing significance of student’s own research problem, with commentary describing moves, justifying choice of content and citations Giving a presentation arguing significance of their own research problem, with commentary describing moves, justifying choice of content and citations Reading assigned texts as well as participating actively in online group discussion and class discussions.

50%

10%

10%

Student feedback on the module in January 2017 indicated that they found the module useful in understanding discipline-specific academic writing conventions they were able to immediately apply as students working on a thesis/dissertation as well as in their jobs. Compared to the other two modules described in this paper, the postgraduate academic writing module is different as it provides support for students who are specifically writing up their theses or dissertations. Given that they are in different specialisations and there is much disciplinary variation amongst the theses, there is often a range of additional readings that are included in this module to cater to students from various specialisations, as described by Jaslyn, who specialises in Music education: ‘The module and particularly the readings were very useful to me as I just started on my Master’s programme and had no prior knowledge on writing a thesis. Knowing the essential (rhetorical) structures and procedures in writing a research paper in Music education helped me in my assignments as well as the conduct of action research in school which I am doing now.’

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

235

Kannagi who is enrolled in the Applied Linguistics postgraduate module, summed up her experience with the module as follows: ‘The course was highly structured, where each lesson focused on one aspect of the writing framework. For every aspect of the framework, PowerPoint slides, relevant readings, and sample essays were provided to supplement our understanding of writing frameworks. A step-by-step approach was implemented, where after every lesson delivery, students had ample opportunities to refer to the readings we were using for our theses and study the rhetorical choices that experts in our field use and discuss them with our peers from different disciplines. This helped deepen our understanding of writing. Much flexibility was exercised, where students could also choose to work on their own theses while writing parts of the frameworks with the moves taught. This ensured effective working procedures. Since this course catered to students from different disciplines, different forms of guidance were rendered for the writing of the theses. A lot of guidance was provided during lessons, and during individual consultations. Modifications were done to the course structure based on students’ needs and expectations based on our weekly feedback. This enabled students to fully benefit from the course, and have a satisfying and enriching learning experience.’

Students in this module had attended discipline-specific research methodology courses in their own departments. They also had access to monthly workshops conducted by the Graduate Research and Academic Development Centre on research skills. Hence, the focus of this module was limited to focusing on writing their theses and encouraging them to participate in international conferences, prepare poster presentations in class and present their ideas coherently to peers in different disciplines as well as providing workshops for peers, as suggested by Rubdy (2005). In this stage, the emphasis is on the various steps that learners have to take in the process of developing specific skills and abilities, from taking part in group discussions to learning academic conventions suited to research writing. This lowers the risk that the focus will fall exclusively on the explicit teaching of academic writing conventions, as such an approach is likely to result in the uncritical reproduction of existing formats. Recent literature also indicates that the genre-based curriculum itself is becoming less top-down and now incorporates some aspects of the bottom-up approach (Chandrasegaran, 2008). A bottom-up approach that attaches equal importance to process as well as product will enable academic writing instructors to provide a supportive environment for advanced novice researchers to acquire the academic research and the writing skills that they find so daunting.

236

Anitha Devi Pillai and Mary Ellis

CONCLUSION This chapter has discussed three different writing programmes that cater to three different groups of novice researchers. In all three modules, novice researchers learn via the exchange of ideas and through interactions with peers and other stakeholders such as research participants, adding valuable personal experience to the research and research writing process. These modules support the developing of an embryonic novice writer to an advanced novice writer by meeting the cognitive, social and linguistic demands of acquiring writing skills. When novice writers move from one stage to another, they are also likely to gain more confidence and competence in completing the task. There are several opportunities within these three modules for novices to develop domain knowledge about academic research and writing. The teaching of research skills should increase in complexity and be pitched at the level that caters to students learning needs and goals.

REFERENCES Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in interdisciplinary communication: Cognition, culture and power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, S. (December 2009). Code meshing in academic writing: Rhetorical possibilities for multilinguals. Paper presented at the International TESOL conference, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah. Casanave, C. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). What does teaching writing as a process really mean? Paper presented at The 13th International Conference on English in South East Asia. National Institute of Education, Singapore. Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358. Johns, A., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R., Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., & Reiff, M. (2006). Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 234-249. McDonald, C. (2006). The question of transferability: What students take away from writing instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Washington. Macknish, C. (2010). Academic and professional writing for teachers. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.

Customisation of Academic Writing Modules for Novice Researchers …

237

Pillai, A. D. (2012). Discourse analysis of research papers & the acculturation experiences of novice writers in a university foundation program (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Rubdy, R. (2005). A multi-thrust approach to fostering a research culture. ELT Journal, 59(4), 277-286. Yeong, A., & Pak, T. N. (2009). An examination of project work: A reflection on Singapore’s education reform. In C. Ng & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Reforming learning (pp. 109-128). New York, NY: Springer.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 14

TEACHING ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES IN NEW ZEALAND: MAKING SENSE OF GENRE-BASED INSTRUCTION Diane Johnson University of Waikato, New Zealand

ABSTRACT Research on genre can be difficult to negotiate, partly because of the often confusing nature of the terminology involved. The same terms are sometimes used with reference to different concepts; different terms are sometimes used with reference to the same concepts; concepts are sometimes poorly defined or not defined at all. In this chapter, this terminological and conceptual minefield is unravelled, a simple framework accommodating different contemporary perspectives on aspects of genre studies and the relationships among them is proposed, and an example of the way in which this framework has been applied in a specific New Zealand context is provided.

Keywords: genre, academic writing, text-type, rhetorical structure, discourse structure

INTRODUCTION The study of genre can be traced back at least as far as the work of Aristotle, who, in Poetics, classified literary texts into categories such as poetry, the novel and drama (see, for example, Dubrow, 1982; Kinneavy, 1971). Since that time, genre has been discussed in a number of different ways with reference to a wide range of different contexts. Within

240

Diane Johnson

the context of applied linguistics, research on genre has focused not only on the ways in which genres can be defined, but also on related issues, such as: (i) whether genres are fixed or variable; (ii) whether texts can be made up of mixed genres as well as single genres; (iii) whether texts conforming to particular genres have definable internal lexical and syntactic regularities. Research on genre that relates to applied linguistics and, in particular, to the teaching and learning of academic writing, is often associated with one of three main approaches – the approach associated with New Rhetoric Studies (NRS); the approach associated with studies in the area of English for Specific Purposes (ESP); and the approach associated with the so-called Sydney School of Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL). Although these approaches have some things in common, there are also some differences among them. As Hyon (1996, p. 693) has observed: Both genre and genre-based pedagogy . . . have been conceived of in distinct ways by researchers in different scholarly traditions and in different parts of the world, making the genre literature a complicated body of scholarship to understand.

Much of the complexity to which Hyon refers relates to a proliferation of terminology, with the same terms sometimes being used in fundamentally different ways. One example of this is the way in which the terms ‘genre’ and ‘text type’ have been used by different researchers. Thus, for example, socially recognised textual varieties (e.g. academic articles, formal letters, lectures) are referred to by Biber (1989) and Hyland (2007) as ‘genres’, by Pilegaard and Frandsen (1996) as ‘text genres’ and by Bruce (2004) as ‘social genres’. The different textual functions or rhetorical purposes of different texts or text segments (e.g. argument, explanation, recount) are referred to by Derewianka (1994) as ‘genres’, by Hyland (2007) as ‘elemental genres’, by Quinn (1993) as ‘elementary genres’, by Bruce (2004) as ‘cognitive genres’ and by the Council of Europe (2001) as ‘macro-functions’. Although the use of different terms for the same phenomena or of the same term for different phenomena can be confusing for those who are not specialists in the area, the particular terminology used is, in one sense, unimportant so long as the intended referent is clear. What is important, however, is the way in which different phenomena interact and, in particular, so far as writing pedagogy is concerned, the way in which they relate to top-down and bottom-up processing. What is also important is the way in which topdown and bottom-up processing relate to one another. These are, however, things that are often not overtly discussed. My aim in this chapter is to attempt to introduce some clarity into this often murky area. In doing so, I hope to provide a way forward for those who are

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

241

interested in applying insights from genre-based research in the context of writing pedagogy and, potentially, in contributing to that research.

TOWARDS CONCEPTUAL AND TERMINOLOGICAL CLARITY Throughout the remainder of this chapter, the term ‘text type’ is used to refer to socially recognised textual varieties such as novels, plays, academic essays and advertisements, and the term ‘genre’ is used to refer to the textual functions or rhetorical purposes that whole texts or parts of texts perform or are intended to perform, such as instructing or explaining. Text types novels, plays, academic essays, etc. Genres (textual functions/rhetorical purposes) arguing, explaining, instructing How, then, do textual functions or rhetorical purposes (e.g. arguing, explaining, instructing, classifying and recounting) relate to text types (e.g. academic articles, formal letters, lectures)? How do each of these relate to the overall structuring of texts, that is, to their rhetorical, schematic or generic structure (referred to by Van Dijk (1980) as their macro-structure)? How does the overall structure of a text interact with its internal discourse structure, that is, with the semantic relations that occur at various stages of a text (e.g. reason-result; simple contrast) and the interaction among them? And how does all of this relate to language selection? Overall structure of texts structure/schematic structure/generic structure Internal structure of texts

macrostructure/rhetorical discourse structure

The Overall Rhetorical Structuring of Texts Some of the ways in which texts as a whole can be structured (their rhetorical structure) do not relate specifically to particular text types but can occur in the context of a range of different text types. These are referred to here as generic rhetorical structures. One of these generic rhetorical structures, referred to by Hoey (1983, pp. 43-53) as the Problem-Solution (PSn) type, has two obligatory elements – a problem and a solution/response to the problem. The PSn structure, according to Hoey, can also have two optional elements – a situation and an evaluation (of the solution): situationproblem-solution-evaluation. Van Dijk (1980, pp. 112-116) refers to a very similar

242

Diane Johnson

pattern – introduction-problem-solution-evaluation-conclusion. Once again, we have a PSn pattern but one that has a slightly different composition. Also identified by Hoey (1983) are two further types of generic rhetorical structure – a Matching structure that focuses on similarities and/or differences and a GeneralParticular structure that involves preview and details, generalisation and example(s) or topic plus restriction (further topic specification) and/or illustration (exemplification). A single text may exhibit one type of generic structure only (e.g. PSn) or may combine more than one type (e.g. PSn and Matching). In addition, the various components of generic structures (e.g. solution) may appear once only in a text or several times.

Generic Rhetorical Structures PSn: Matching: GeneralParticular: Mixed genres

(situation/introduction) + problem + solution + (evaluation) – (conclusion) text segments compared and/or contrasted preview + details and/or topic + restriction and/or illustration any combination of PSn, Matching and General-Particular

There are also more specific types of overall rhetorical structuring that are typically associated with particular text types, such as formal letters. These are made up of a number of specific types of moves (steps or stages). Thus, for example, Swales (1990, p. 141) identifies the moves typically involved in the introductory section of research articles as establishing territory, establishing a niche and occupying the niche. It is important to note, however, that not all texts belonging to the same text type will necessarily have, in all respects, the type of rhetorical structure that is characteristically associated with that text type. Texts may be more or less prototypical, that is, they may be exhibit all, or most of the features characteristically associated with a particular text type (prototypical examples) or they may exhibit fewer of them. That is why Hasan (1985) makes a distinction between a text’s ‘structure potential’ (the range of possible structural elements available) and the actual structure of a particular text (the structural elements that are present in a particular instance). It is also why Swales (1990, pp. 49 & 52) makes reference to ‘family resemblances’ as opposed to ‘fuzzy categories’. Specific rhetorical structures – made up of steps/stages/moves specific to prototypical examples of particular text types As van Dijk (1980, pp. 110-111) has observed, texts may be classified in terms of their generic rhetorical structure or in terms of their more specific rhetorical structure, with each segment of the generic rhetorical structure being further classified in terms of the more specific rhetorical structure it has by virtue of its occurrence in the context of a particular text type. Thus, for example, the generic rhetorical structure of a recipe is

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

243

likely to be General (Preview) / Particular (Details), the first of these being redefined (sub-classified) in more specific terms as Purpose or Goal (e.g. to make savoury pancakes), the second as Means (including equipment and ingredients required and activities to be carried out). Generic rhetorical structure (recipe): General (preview) + Particular (details) Specific rhetorical structure (recipe) - purpose or goal + means (equipment, ingredients, activities

Communicative Functions and Textual Functions/Genres The majority of communicative functions (e.g. greetings, warnings, promises) operate at a local level; some communicative functions (e.g. instruction, recount, argument, explanations, classification) can operate either at a local level or at a textual level, spanning complete texts or text segments. Where they operate at a textual level, they may indicate the communicative function of the text as a whole or of part of the text (e.g. to explain). In this role, they may be referred to as ‘rhetorical purposes’, ‘genres’ or ‘textual genres’. Certain text types are characterised by the preponderance of one particular genre (e.g. recipes are characterised by the instructional genre). In most cases, however, texts are multi-generic, with different genres or different combinations of genres appearing at different stages. Thus, for example, a personal letter (text type) might have recount as the dominant genre but also include sections where other genres such as explanation or argument are included. Novice writers need to understand how different textual functions (genres) are characterised if they are to develop the capacity to put these functions to work in the context of their own writing. They therefore need to need to understand not only how these textual functions relate to a text’s overall generic rhetorical structure but also how they relate to its internal discourse structure, that is, to its internal organisation. Communicative functions operate at a local level Textual functions/genres/textual genres/rhetorical purposes operate at a textual level

Genres and Internal Discourse Structures A text’s internal discourse structure is made up of the various relationships that link parts of the text to one another. These relationships (often referred to as ‘semantic relations’) are linked to particular types of cognitive process. Thus, for example, the reason-result relation is linked to the logico-deductive cognitive process, the simple contrast relation is linked to the matching cognitive process (involving comparison or contrast) and the temporal sequence relation is linked to the temporal cognitive process

244

Diane Johnson

(involving relationships in time). The parts or members of some of the relations do not necessarily appear in the same order on each occasion. Thus, for example, the reason member of a reason-result relation may appear either before or after the result member. Table 14.1 outlines cognitive processes and semantic relations in a way that is close to the outline provided by Crombie (1985). For an alternative model, see, for example, Longacre (1996). Table 14.1. Cognitive Processes and Semantic Relations

Cognitive processes Semantic relations

Associative (involving comparison & contrast)

Logico-deductive (involving cause & effect)

Simple Contrast (e.g. He’d nice; she’s nasty); Simple Comparison (e.g. He’s nice and so is she); Statement-Affirmation (He said it was an outrage and I agree); Statement-Denial (He said it was an outrage but I disagree); Statement-Example (All major conflicts, World War II for example, lead to major social changes); Statement-Exception (Everyone except John sheered); Denial-Correction (He isn’t a lawyer; he’s a doctor); Concession-Comment (Although she left early, she missed her train); Supplementary Alternatives (You can do the dishes or vacuum the carpets); Contrasting Alternatives (You can either do it or not); Paraphrase (He drove dangerously; his driving was dangerous); Amplification (She wore a raincoat and she also carried an umbrella).

Condition-Consequence (If you do that again, I’ll scream); Means-Purpose (He left early so that he wouldn’t miss the last bus home); Reason-Result (Because I trust you, I’ll lend you the money); Means-Result (By pressing on the vein, he stopped the flow of blood); Grounds-Conclusion (The security lights are on so there must be someone in the garden).

Temporal (involving relationships in time & space) Temporal Sequence (He opened the safe carefully and then slammed it shut); Temporal Overlap (She read the newspaper while he prepared supper).

Certain genres (textual functions) are typically associated with certain cognitive processes and semantic relations. Thus, for example, the recount genre is typically associated with temporal processes and, in particular, with the semantic relations of

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

245

temporal Sequence (X happened before/after Y happened) and Temporal Overlap (X happened while Y was happening), the classification genre is typically associated with the associative process and, in particular, with the semantic relations of Simple Contrast (X is different from Z in respect of Z), Simple Comparison (X and Y are the same/similar in respect of Z), Statement-Example(s) (X is an example/instance of Y) and StatementException (All except X have . . . ). It is the particular occurrences and co-occurrences of semantic relations that constitute a text’s internal discourse structure.The internal discourse structure of a text, that is, the particular occurrences and co-occurrences of semantic relations that occur, is sometimes neglected or under-played in literature on writing pedagogy although it provides an important link between the text’s overall rhetorical structure and its linguistic structure. OVERALL RHETORICAL SRUCTURE INTERNAL DISCOURSE STRUCTURE LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE Texts exhibiting particular genres are typically associated with a preponderance of the same types of semantic relations and combinations of semantic relations irrespective of text type. However, the ways in which the semantic relations that constitute a text’s internal discourse structure are encoded (realised) may vary depending on the text-type (e.g. recipe or business letter). Thus, for example, the instruction genre typically involves temporal sequence relations which, in the case of the recipe text type, are likely to be encoded as imperative and negative imperative constructions).

THE FRAMEWORK Figure 14.1 provides a framework for the analysis of texts that incorporates a range of different phenomena associated with genre-based and text-type-based research. Some texts are prototypical examples of particular genres and/or particular text types, that is, they exhibit all or most of the characteristics that are most commonly associated with particular genres and/or text types. Other texts, while exhibiting some of the characteristics of particular genres and/or text types, lack others. Some texts exhibit features associated with a single genre, others (blended texts) exhibit features associated with more than one genre. Texts belonging to the text type ‘recipe’ are often made up almost exclusively of features characteristic of the instructional genre; texts belonging to the text type ‘personal letter’ may exhibit features characteristic of a range of genres. A personal letter might, for example, include an account of what happened during a recent

246

Diane Johnson

police raid in the area where the writer lives (recount genre), an explanation as to why the raid took place (explanation genre), an account of the similarities and differences between the ways in which certain people who were present during the raid behaved (classification genre), an argument against police carrying weapons during raids in built up areas (argument genre) and instructions for what the recipient of the letter should do if caught up in a similar situation (instruction genre). In Figure 14.2, a prototypical example of a recipe text is outlined; in Figure 14.3, that recipe is analysed in terms of the framework outlined above. Genre

Text Type

Generic Rhetorical Structure

Specific Rhetorical Structure

Discourse Structure

Encoding of Discourse Structure

Grammatical Structure

Figure 14.1. A Framework for the Analysis of Texts in terms of Genre and Text Type.

How to make pancakes Equipment: A mixing bowl; A frying pan; A jug; A plate; A spatula; A whisk; A serving dish Ingredients: 4 oz flour; 1tbsb sugar; ½ tsp salt; 4 tbsp butter; 1 c milk Method: 1. Put the flour, sugar and salt into a bowl and mix together. 2. Break the eggs into the bowl. 3. Add the butter. 4. Pour the milk into the bowl. 5. Whisk all the ingredients to make batter. 6. Heat the frying pan. 7. Put some butter in the hot frying pan. 8. Pour some batter into the pan. 9. Cook until light brown. 10. Turn the pancake. 11. Cook until light brown. 12. Put the pancake on a serving dish. 13. Cook more pancakes until the batter is finished. 14. Put masked bananas, jam or maple syrup or any other topping you like) on the pancakes. Eat and enjoy!

Figure 14.2. Pancake Recipe.

With the framework outlined above in place, a framework that can be used in a variety of different ways, those involved in teaching writing in a range of contexts, including academic and professional ones, can accommodate differences among texts that are more or less prototypical (see, for example, Johnson & Crombie, 2015). They can decide where they want to focus their efforts in particular writing courses, what types of information and activity these courses should include, and how a range of courses can be

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

247

linked so as to create a coherent writing programme. Students could, for example, be helped to understand the ways in which different communities of practice typically structure texts, beginning by adhering closely to prototypical exemplars and gradually, as they understand more about text construction, becoming more creative and innovative in their own textual practices.

Genre Instruction (Purpose: to instruct)

Text Type Recipe

Generic Rhetorical Structure General (Preview)

Particular (Details)

Specific RhetoricalStructure

Semantic Relations

Grammatical Structure

Overall aim

Purpose (Goal)

Infinitive/ gerund + noun group

Equipment & ingredients

Means

List: nouns/ noun groups (with quantification and indefinite or zero article)

Temporal Overlap

Activities

Chronological Sequence & Temporal Overlap

Imperative (with definite article)

Encoding of Semantic Relations (To make/ making) savoury pancakes a large mixing bowl, a spatula etc. 4 oz. flour, etc.

Put the flour, sugar and salt into the bowl and mix them together Break the eggs into the bowl, etc.

Declarative (with present simple and present progressive)

Warm the milk while the batter is settling, etc.

Figure 14.3. Analysis of Recipe in Terms of the Framework

A NEW ZEALAND-BASED EXAMPLE OF A GENRE-BASED ACADEMIC WRITING PROGRAMME DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR TERTIARY LEVEL MAORI STUDENTS Background In spite of considerable efforts by educationalists to find ways of reducing the negative impact of colonisation on Māori educational achievement, there remains a significant gap between Māori and the rest of the population of New Zealand in terms of

248

Diane Johnson

educational success rates. Thus, for example, Māori students continue to have the lowest rate of progression from school to tertiary study of any ethnic group, and those who do go on to tertiary study achieve less well, on average, than other students (Earle, 2007; Ministry of Education [New Zealand], n.d.; Tertiary Education Commission, 2013). Many Māori, particularly those whose schooling was conducted, in whole or in part, through the medium of the Māori language, have difficulty in writing academic assignments in English in an appropriate way, yet many are reluctant to seek help, particularly from non-Māori staff (Johnson & Nock, 2015). The aim of the small-scale project reported here, a project that was supported financially by Ako Aotearoa (New Zealand National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence), was to design and trial part of a self-access academic writing resource intended primarily for tertiary level Māori students and centring on issues of relevance and significance to Māori. The project, which was run collaboratively by the author, a Māori colleague, Dr Sophie Nock, and a Māori post-graduate research assistant, ran for 4 weeks in the first semester of the 2015 academic year and involved 11 participants. These participants (self-selected respondents to publicity material about the trials) were all Māori students aged between 21 and 35 who were studying for a first degree at the University of Waikato in New Zealand and were enrolled in a number of different subject areas, including creative technology, environmental studies, law, management, Māori studies, media studies, psychology, science and social science.

The Writing Resource and the Trial Units The intention was to create a self-access writing resource which, when completed, would have two parts, each available in self-access PowerPoint format and each including a range of text-based exercises and an exercise key. The first of the two parts would focus primarily on genre, the second, primarily on text type. Each part of the resource would be made up of a number of units, with four of the units from the first part being included in the trial. The first of the four trial units introduced the concepts of genre and text type and included text segments exhibiting a number of different genres and combinations of genres. The next two units dealt, in turn, with texts exhibiting the explanation genre and the argument genre (one-sided arguments). The fourth unit focused on summarising, reviewing, quoting, referring and referencing, each of these explored in the context of texts exhibiting the explanation genre or the argument genre. Three of the remaining units in the first part of the course (not included in the initial project) focused on texts in which the instruction, classification, and recount genres predominated, one focused on twosided arguments, and the remaining two focused on blended texts in which two or more different genres were in evidence and on the interaction between genre and paragraph

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

249

types. Throughout the first part of the course, including the 4 units that featured in the trials, the text type, a type appropriate to undergraduate assignments requiring an essaytype response, remained constant. The trial units that focused on the explanation genre and the argument genre each began by exploring one or more sample texts in terms of characteristic features of the genre represented (generic rhetorical structure; internal discourse structure and linguistic signalling/encoding). These features were then further explored before the participants were provided with text templates (designed specifically to reflect the characteristics of prototypical examples of the genres in focus) and a range of activities which were intended to culminate in the production of texts which exhibited the types of features that had been identified and explored. The explanation unit began by discussing how the workings of the water table are understood within the context of Māori tradition (where the separation of Ranginui, the sky father, and Papatūānuku, the earth mother, lead to tears [rain]). The participants were then asked to read a text explaining how the water table is understood to work in Western scientific terms. That text was then analysed, in stages, in terms of its generic rhetorical structure (general-particular: preview-details) and its discourse structure (involving a combination of cause-effect relations (condition-consequence, reason-result and meanspurpose), associative relations (statement-example) and temporal relations [temporal overlap]) and their interaction at different stages of the text. Also in focus was the interaction between the text’s discourse structure and aspects of its language (e.g. meanspurpose relations encoded in sentences in which the purpose member is introduced by ‘to’ or ‘in order to’). Next, the participants were provided with some information about the endangered Hochstetter’s frog, a frog native to New Zealand, and asked to apply what they had learned about explanation texts in undertaking a series of tasks, ending up by writing their own explanation text about the life cycle of the Hochstetter’s frog. They were then invited to write further explanation texts based on information provided for the purpose or readily available on the Internet. One of these texts was about whitebait (the immature fry of fish) which were traditionally caught by Māori in woven flax nets. The one-sided argument unit began with an argument text that represented a response to the following question: Do you agree or disagree that it is a good thing to send children to Kura Kaupapa Māori (i.e. schools that are based on Māori philosophy and generally teach all or a large part of the curriculum through the medium of the Māori language)? The text was analysed in terms of its generic rhetorical structure (generalparticular: topic-restriction-illustration) and its discourse structure (involving a combination of cause-effect relations (reason-result and condition-consequence) and matching relations (statement-amplification, statement-exemplification and concessioncomment). Once again, the interaction between the text’s discourse structure and aspects of its language was also in focus. Following analysis and discussion of the sample text, the participants were invited to undertake a range of tasks, including adding sections to a

250

Diane Johnson

text whose purpose was to argue that off-shore drilling for oil represents a threat to traditional Māori ways of life. Finally, they were invited to produce their own complete text.

Participant Responses to the Units All except one of the participants in the trials completed all of the tasks involved. At the end of the trials, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted and a focus group discussion was held. The questionnaire responses indicated that the units the participants had found to be most valuable were those dealing with explanation and one-sided argument. These units were judged to be ‘very interesting and very useful’ or ‘interesting and useful’ by all of the participants in the case of the one-sided argument text unit and by all except one of the participants in the case of the explanation text unit. Most of the focus group participants indicated that they had had difficulty in writing assignments in English in the past but had resisted seeking help from university personnel. In the words of two of them: -

I was just too shy to ask for help. You can get a little whakamā (shy/embarrassed) about asking for help because sometimes looks can make you think that this might be a silly question and I just look dumb to them . . .

As in the case of questionnaire responses, reactions to the units as expressed in focus group discussion were generally very positive. Some of the comments made by participants are printed below. -

-

Some of it was helpful even though I’m in my third year. I still need help with structuring my writing because it’s loose and it’s all over the place. . . I think it would be a very good course for people going from high school to university. I used it as a tool for my assignment during the holidays and . . . I think that the essay mirrors how it’s being presented in the units. So, that was easy . . . I did the assignment and then went back to see if I had covered the points that were in the units and I did. I think they [students] would use it. I would. It’s a compact resource kit. . . . Also, some students don’t like to leave their comfort zone like asking for help or advice; this resource will solve that issue. . . The resource is a great tool to use for transitioning from secondary to tertiary level. The resource being FREE is a BONUS!

FINAL COMMENTS In this chapter, one application of the framework outlined above in relation to the trialling of a number of units of a writing resource intended primarily for Māori students

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

251

in New Zealand has been discussed. Designing writing materials based on the framework for use in different contexts and with different audiences is a relatively straightforward matter. Furthermore, with the framework in place and, therefore, with a clear idea of what to look out for in creating or analysing texts, there is no need for language teachers to rely on academic articles for information about typical features of particular genres and text types. All that is needed is the capacity to identify prototypical examples and an ability, using the framework, to analyse a number of these texts in order to identify typical features of the genre and/or text type in question. For example, teachers searching for two-sided arguments will find that they often occur in the context of blended texts. While the two-sided argument segments will centre on Matching (involving comparison and contrast), they will also often involve both General-Particular and Problem-Solution. Therefore, following the identification of a problem, there may be two or more responses to that problem, each of them involving one or more general statements followed by details plus examples. So far as semantic relations are concerned, Simple Contrast will typically be accompanied by Statement-Example and Amplification, with ConcessionComment, Reason-Result and Condition-Consequence also often making an appearance. In terms of encoding, there is therefore likely to be comparative and contrastive vocabulary and clauses involving contrast, concession, reason and condition. A sample text used in introducing Taiwanese students to text structuring (Johnson & Crombie, 2015), one that, although short and relatively simple, includes these features, is shown on the Appendix. As indicated in the sample text, textual features that are characteristic of different genres and combinations of genres are relatively easy to identify and exemplify and, consequently, to teach students to use appropriately. Once students have been introduced to these features, they can make use of them in creating their own texts in a way that reflects the characteristic practices of the relevant discourse community.

APPENDIX Sample Text on ‘Text Structuring’ The text represents a response to the following question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of sending children to cram schools? Some words and constructions signalling the presence of the textual features to which reference has been made are in bold print. There are many different types of computer games for all ages and interests. They are, however, particularly attractive to teenagers. Some computer games are educational but others contain content that is violent and anti-social.

252

Diane Johnson There are many advantages for teenagers who play computer games so long as they do not become addicted to them. When young children play computer games, they develop good computer skills. This is useful in many areas of life where people use computers. Computer games can also help to develop skills that are useful in a wide range of subjects. For example, many computer games require the ability to judge information and to make decisions based on that information. This is a useful skill to have in subjects such as economics, history and even English literature. Furthermore, playing computer games together at someone’s apartment after school can be fun and can help develop social skills. This is particularly important where young people live in apartments and do not have access to open areas, such as parks, where they can play. Although there are advantages, there are also many disadvantages associated with computer games. Playing computer games without any company for hours on end can isolate people. For example, there have been cases where young people refuse to eat with their families and keep quantities of snack food next to their computers to eat during a game. The increasingly urban life style of young people means that they often spend too much time indoors playing computer games and do not exercise enough. This lack of physical activity is leading to an increase in obesity in young people. Many young people become so hooked on computer games that they no longer see what is real and what is not. For example, in the USA, one young man lost an argument while he was playing a computer game on-line and became so upset and angry that he committed suicide. There are advantages for young people who play computer games for a limited period of time and in the company of friends. There are also some serious disadvantages if young people play computer games on their own for long periods of time. Parents need to think carefully about all the issues. They should, for example, supervise the choice of computer games and limit the time that their teenage children spend playing them. If they do that, their teenage children will be safer.

REFERENCES Biber, D. (1989). A typology of English text. Linguistics, 27, 3-43. Bruce, I. (2004). Unravelling the genre confusion: Towards an appropriate pre-tertiary writing curriculum for EAL learners. In J. Major & J. Howard (Eds.), Language, community, diversity: Hearing every voice. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Community Languages and English for Speakers of Other Languages, Christchurch, New Zealand, 24th – 27th Dec. Conference proceedings CLESOL 2004. Wellington, New Zealand: TESOLANZ. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Crombie, W. (1985). Process and relation in discourse and language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Teaching English for Academic Purposes in New Zealand

253

Derewianka, B. (1994). Exploring how texts work. Victoria, Australia: Australian Print Group. Dubrow, H. (1982). Genre. New York, London: Methuen. Earle, D. (2007). Te whai i nga taumata atakura: Supporting Māori achievement in bachelors degrees. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/Māori_education/10465. Hasan, R. (1985). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, text and context (pp. 70-96). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London, England: George Allen and Unwin. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693–722. Johnson, D., & Crombie, W. (2015) (2nd. Edition). A genre-based approach to academic writing. Taipei, Taiwan: TungHua. Johnson, D., & Nock, D. (2015). He whakawhitinga ki te whare wānanga: He rauemi tēnei hei tautoko i ngā tauira Māori ki te tuhituhi i te reo Ingarihi/ Bridging to tertiary study: A support resource for academic writing in English for Māori students. New Zealand: Ako Aotearo Northern Hub. Retrieved from https:// akoaotearoa.ac.nz/ako-hub/ako-aotearoa-northern-hub/resources/pages/bridgingtertiary-study-support-resource-academic-writing-english- Māori-studen. Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Longacre, R. E. (1996). The grammar of discourse (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Ministry of Education (New Zealand). (n.d.). Ka Hikatea: Accelerating success 2013 – 2017. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/ TheMinistry/KaHikitia/KaHikitiaAcceleratingSuccessEnglish.pdf. Pilegaard, M., & Frandsen, F. (1996). Text type. In J. Verschueren, J. O. Ostaman, J. Blommaert, & C. C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1-13). Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins. Quinn, J. (1993). A taxonomy of text types for use in curriculum design. EA Journal, 11(2), 33-46. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 15

PRACTITIONER INQUIRY GROUP EXPLORATIONS IN ACADEMIC ENGLISH: A DIALOGIC TEACHING APPROACH Rosemarie Brefeld University of Missouri, USA

ABSTRACT A practitioner inquiry group comprised of teachers of English Language Learner (ELL) was formed to study the following question: What happens when a group of English language teachers collaborate in a dialogically-inspired professional development context to learn about navigating discussion with complex, grade level texts and their ELL students? Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Boyd & Markarian, 2011; Reznitskaya, 2012; Wells, 2002) is presented here as a lens to understand how teachers engage ELLs in comprehending complex texts in academic literacy learning. Findings showed that practitioners’ discourse changed to include more positive appraisals of their students’ classroom discussions after working through readings about dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Boyd & Markarian, 2011; Reznitskaya, 2012; Wells, 2002). Current practice in teaching academic English at the university level is highlighted in this chapter. First, there is a discussion of the importance of understanding academic literacy learning processes as a backdrop for understanding academic English language learning at university. Next, the task of the practitioner to scaffold academic discussions for their English language learners is examined. In order to do so, several aspects of the contextual requirements for successful discussions are reviewed. Finally, examples of classroom discussions are examined and implications are drawn.

Keywords: practitioner inquiry, English language learners, dialogic teaching, academic English, literacy, professional development

256

Rosemarie Brefeld

INTRODUCTION There were three main reasons dialogic teaching (Reznitskaya, 2012) became a topic of interest. First, there was a felt need. All of my inquiry groups had experienced difficulty in trying to enact academic discussions with English language learners around difficult texts. Moreover, there had been published reviews of the literature which indicated a need for more emphasis on oral language development. In 2006, the National Literacy Panel (NLP) and the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence (CREDE) published two separate reviews of the research (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005) calling for more oral development for English language learners (ELLs). In addition, the academic reality for international English language learners, especially in higher education, is that students are expected to take active roles in discussions about texts, and many international students do not feel comfortable discussing in classrooms because they are not used to speaking about complex academic topics in English. As a result, I started what in hindsight can be called action research (Schmuck, 2009) with a small group of colleagues, where I identified the problem of ELL discussion around grade level texts and systematically endeavoured to create effective scaffolds to aid in classroom student participation. In my previous work, I have mentored students who struggled to master the advanced literacy skills needed for university endeavours. I have also worked with many students who knew English grammar, but who could not communicate in English comfortably. Consequently, I have honed my own ideas about classroom language learning for academic work and believe that language teachers play a key role in guiding students to navigate academic registers through instructional conversations and close reading and writing (see Burke, n.d.). To form our study group, I drew on the dialectical methodology of Vygotsky (1978), which posits that in joint activity, collaborators construct knowledge and are constructed by it and, as a result, it would be worthwhile to study. Scholars have described elsewhere the benefits to be gained from learning with and from others (Boyd & Markarian, 2011; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Nystrand, 2006). John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) asserted that learning is distributed and Rogoff (1994) looked at contexts in a community of practice. Participants in this study, besides myself, were teaching international students in ESL classes in a mid-sized university, a high school, and a community college.

Participant Profiles

Daphne (All participant names are pseudonyms.) Daphne is a Caucasian, mid-career ESL teacher at a mid-sized private university. She has a Ph.D. in English with a specialty in

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

257

Comparative Literature, but she had not had any coursework in academic English literacy pedagogy at the time of the inquiry. However, since she is a teacher trainer, she had read about many literacy aspects of teaching academic reading and writing at the higher education level.

Lucy Lucy is an African American/Caucasian, mid-career ESL teacher who is proficient in two languages other than English. She majored in a foreign language and married a man who speaks another language. She has taught 24 years, always in the U.S.. She has a Master’s Degree in TESOL, but did not have much training in teaching oral language skills. Nevertheless, she has a certificate in teaching writing and is connected to the local Writing Project. Lucy is the coordinator of ESL classes at the River Community College which is a mid-sized community college.

Anita Anita is an Asian-American, mid-career ESL teacher who works at a middle-sized private university. She has taught ESL or EFL for twenty years and she has a PhD in Education with a specialty in Applied Linguistics. Both her parents are from an Asian country, and as a result, Anita is bicultural and bilingual. She lived in her parent’s homeland for several years and has family there. Anita is the reading coordinator of ESL classes.

Debra Debra is a Caucasian early mid-career teacher at a public high school. She has not taught abroad and she does not speak another language, but she is active in the local Writing Project professional development group, leading sessions of teachers to explore new materials.

Study Design The study process began with observing how difficult enacting instructional conversations with ELLs was and noticing a gap in oral language skill development which was pointed out by the National Literacy Panel (Genesse, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006) and the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (August & Shanahan, 2006). These observations led to a gathering of relevant literature, and researching extant methodologies and materials to begin the study. The study design procedures were ongoing which promoted the practitioner group work of specifying the local teaching challenges and eventually designing solutions in the form of scaffolds for our own contexts. The study had multiple stages over approximately a nine-

258

Rosemarie Brefeld

month period of time which is broken into three phases (see Figure 15.1). I originally had several questions to address in the study, but here I only include the first question: What happens when a group of ESL teachers collaborate in a dialogically-inspired professional development context to learn about navigating discussion with complex texts and their ELL students?

Phase 1: Group Beginning

Practising EL teachers were recruited.

A schedule of approximately nine meetings of two hours and a half each over a nine month time span was set.

Each participant was interviewed for thirty minutes to an hour.

Phase 2: Joint Activity

Practitioners learned about levelling texts.

Practitioners discussed their class learning goals.

Practitioners chose texts for their dialogic teaching demonstration.

Phase 3: Implementation and Debriefings

Practitioners revised plans and utilised them in their classes.

After the dialogic lesson, the facilitator and practitioner debriefed it with the rubric.

Practitioners led a discussion about transcriptions of their lessons.

Professional literature was chosen and made available. Initial contextual requirements of teaching and learning were described. Practitioners discussed their possible questioning lines and a rubric was designed. Practitioners reflected about the affordances and constraints of using dialogic teaching with complex texts.

Figure 15.1. Phases of the Practitioner Inquiry Group.

The first phase of elucidating the local questioning protocols working in the classrooms captured the diverse situations of the EL (English language) teachers and surfaced core ideas regarding student and teacher discourse in ELL academic literacy learning situations. Academic literacy learning in this context is construed as learning the skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking. Factors such as learner English language proficiency, previous literacy learning, cultural background, and first language background were examined because they impacted decision-making. In order to discover the meaning EL teachers attached to enacting instructional conversations, a qualitative design, using interviews and later, tools for discourse analysis

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

259

were adopted. The unifying aspect of the study was that teachers taught and focused on students who speak English as an additional language, but who have trouble reading and discussing grade-level texts.

Individual Interviews Teachers’ individual attitudes and knowledge regarding text choice and dialogic teaching were discussed in interviews at the beginning of the inquiry group sessions. This was necessary because if the teachers did not accept the idea of more dialogic classrooms, then their responses in the interview would show that their participation of further research is not necessary. Luckily, all the participants agreed to experiment with dialogic teaching in their own classrooms and were willing to report their experiences to the group. Basically, the interviews followed the structure of a ‘responsive interview’ (Rubin & Rubin, 2012), a type of semi-structured interview in that an interview structure was envisioned and suggestions were implemented for explaining implicit information. A responsive interview ‘emphasises the importance of building a relationship of trust between the interviewer and interviewee that led to more give-and-take in the conversation’ (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 36). In responsive interviews, there is an accommodating tone with questions amenable to the interviewee so that the comfort zone of the interviewee is maintained. This was necessary because the interviewees were potentially joining the inquiry group, so an effort of rapport-building was begun during the interview so that participants felt safe with me to experiment later on with possibly new teaching repertories. The interviews ranged in length between 30 minutes and 60 minutes, contingent upon the participants’ openness and desire to elaborate on certain questions. The interviews provided baseline narratives of how the practitioners see their work in relation to enacting classroom dialogic conversations which partially answered the question, ‘What happens when a group of ESL teachers collaborate in a dialogicallyinspired professional development context to learn about navigating text complexity with their ELLs?’

Group Session Recordings, Observation Notes, and Transcriptions During the inquiry sessions, I used oral protocols adopted from the National school reform faculty resource book (2013) to structure the interactions. Questions led participants to engage in reflective conversations, descriptions of students’ work, and

260

Rosemarie Brefeld

collaborative analysis and interpretations of student language patterns. These discussions took place over the 90-minute sessions. Observations, recorded in field notes were written after all group sessions. I strived to achieve thick description (Geertz, 1973). For example, this means I paid attention to the context and the actions of the group members and recorded as much detail as possible about the flow of the discussion. The group sessions and some class observations were audio recorded. The recordings of the sessions were listened to and transcribed verbatim. I also later took notes of the teachers’ classroom teaching to record impressions of the student participation and ambience of the various classroom communities. These notes were combined with other notes summarising the observations. For session transcriptions, I began listening to the audio recordings and typing up a transcription as soon as possible after the group sessions. I had to listen to the recordings multiple times to get the correct wording, contiguous utterances, and pauses. I used many of Jefferson’s conventions as described by Atkinson and Heritage (1984).

Initial Meeting In the first meeting with the practitioners, frameworks of working together (Edge, 2002; ‘National school reform,’ 2013) were presented while I simultaneously elicited practitioner ideas, comments, and preferences. The discussions we had about assigned readings made up the bulk of the transcriptions of the group sessions. The readings gave us ideas to work out protocols for the texts they would teach (see Table 15.1). In the following section, I elaborate on the results of our work to understand dialogic teaching. A recurrent theme in our discussion was the challenge of enacting instructional conversations. An important property of discussion mentioned was ‘affect.’ Language use was connected to affect and if the affect of the classroom was not right, students would not speak. In addition, the teachers articulated their knowledge of facilitating instructional conversations and their knowledge of language teaching pedagogy. The teachers also revealed their appreciation for learning in conversations. In spite of this acknowledgment, there was still sometimes a tension surrounding the teachers’ explanations of why there is a challenge of enacting a discussion in class.

Dialogic Teaching The need for explicit teaching to enable discussions around grade-level texts is very real in all academic English areas and is presently a topic of discussion at the university level (see O’Boyle, 2012). The main vehicle for scaffolding discussion is the use of dialogic teaching. Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008; Boyd & Markarian, 2013;

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

261

Reznitskaya, 2012) focuses on using classroom talk to stimulate and extend students’ thinking and advance their learning and understanding. Table 15.1. Reading List by Session Session 1 Gee, P. (2004). Learning languages as a matter of learning social languages within discourses. In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 13-31). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for sociocultural diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 648-658. Resnitskaya, A. (2012), Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456. Session 2 Wurr, A., Theurer, J., & Kim, K. (2009). Retrospective miscue analysis with proficient adult ESL readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(4), 324-333. Rodgers, C. (2009). Attending to student voice. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 209-237. Student oral language observation matrix. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/twi/evaltoolkit/appendix/solom.pdf Session 3 McKeown, M., Beck, I., & Blake, R. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253. Moss, B., Lapp, D., & O’Shea, M. (2011). Tiered texts: Supporting knowledge and language learning for English learners and struggling readers. English Journal, 100 (6), 54-60. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180. Session 4 Adoniou, M., & Macken-Horaik, M. (2007). Scaffolded literacy meets ESL: Some insights from ACT classrooms. TESOL in Context, 17(1) 2007. Avalos, M., Plasencia, A., Chavez, C., & Rascon, J. (2007), Modified guided reading: Gateway to English as a second language and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 318- 329. Navigating text complexity. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Navigating_Test_Complexity Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2010). Guided reading. Retrieved from www.scholastic.com/guidedreading Session 5 Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2006). Texts and the way students understand them. Queries and planning. In L. Beck, & M. McKowen (Eds.), Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach (pp.1105). New York, NY: Scholastic.

262

Rosemarie Brefeld

Dialogic teaching means that teachers need to explicitly model and scaffold conversation skills; it is not just putting students in groups or just asking questions, it is an organised scheme of gradual release which depends on language proficiency level, context, goals etc. Each one of the factors in Figure 15.2 is important for consideration in preparing students for discussion. These factors were explicitly named at the beginning of our group so that they could serve as a check and balance of how goals were being elaborated as we proceeded. The term dialogic teaching is often described as what it is not. It is not monologic teaching where the teacher does all of the talking and the student is limited to simple answers. Major teacher moves to facilitate dialogic teaching includes asking open questions to which more than one response could be correct. After the question is asked, teachers focus on the third turn, (Boyd, 2012) that is, their response after a student has given a first response. A question or response contingent on what a student has said positions the answering student as knowledgeable and as having interpretive authority. Use of reasoning words, such as why, or how, to further probe the answer could also demonstrate the teacher’s interest in what the student has to say (Boyd, 2012).

Figure 15.2. Factors in Planning for ELL Discussions.

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

263

Academic Literacy Learning and Teacher Knowledge Because ELL teachers of academic English need to attend to both language and content learning for students, they need strong literacy teaching skills and a programme which focuses on the growth of students’ word knowledge, fluency, comprehension, and writing (Strickland & Alverman, 2004). The continuum of Academic English learning moves from a focus on basic language to reading and learning of content. Currently, there is an emphasis on professional development for all teachers in the U. S. to pay more attention to the language and literacy needs of students (Strickland & Alverman, 2004). Unfortunately, there was a disconnection between the knowledge base of L2 education and the activity of language teaching. Researchers of L2 education began to recognise that teachers’ prior learning and experiences gained through a situated perspective explained teacher practices more effectively than a focus on content proficiency alone (Freeman, 2002). Johnson (2009) has theorised such shifts in thinking as a sociocultural turn because many of the theoretical bases of the new perspective stem from Lev Vygotsky’s (1978; 1986) sociocultural theory. Moreover, a positivistic paradigm which positions teachers as conduits of knowledge to passive students does not adequately describe adequate L2 teacher work. Regardless of the shift to a more sociocultural view in many fields, the change from a positivistic position to a more qualitative research perspective in teaching English as a second language has been slow. Johnson (2009) remarks that ‘…despite this sociocultural turn and the challenges it has created for L2 teacher education, it has yet to infiltrate the positivistic paradigm that continues to dominate the public discourse surrounding the professional activities of L2 teachers’ (p. 237). In fact, debate continues around the question of whether L2 teacher education should remain focused on knowledge about language and language acquisition (Yates & Muchisky, 2003), or draw more on how L2 teachers learn to teach English in classrooms (Freeman & Johnson, 1998a). A focus on how language is acquired in classroom settings centres on language use. As a result, Johnson (2009) posited that ‘the construct of praxis is more suitable for the preparation of teachers because it captures how theory and practice inform one another and how this transformative process informs teachers’ work’ (p. 240). The idea of praxis implies L2 teaching is more than knowledge of language and language acquisition. Johnson advocates the use of professional inquiries to allow for spaces where L2 professionals can examine disciplinary knowledge and ‘reflect on and relate to such knowledge in ways that foster an understanding of experience through multiple discourses of theory and …cultivate the co-construction of knowledge that informs their practice’ (p. 249). A review of the literature shows that there are multiple studies pertaining to English language teachers, dialogic teaching, and literacy learning in the lower grades (Boyd & Maloof, 2000; Boyd & Markarian, 2001; Boyd & Rubin, 2002, 2006). Discussion based

264

Rosemarie Brefeld

approaches are also advocated for L1 middle school and high school students (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003). There are likewise studies of classroom teachers focusing on scaffolding and instructional conversations (Frey & Fisher, 2010; Wilkenson & Silliman, 2000), how to prepare classroom teachers for instructional conversations (Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000), and the merits of dialogic teaching for classroom teachers (Reznitskaya, 2012). Despite the plethora of work, this study was justified because there is little work focusing on how English Language teachers talk about and learn to teach dialogically with upper grade students or above. There are several different theoretical roots for dialogical teaching; the one most called on for teaching stems from Bakhtin’s (1986) and Vološinov’s (1973) writing. Bakhtin theorised more about the quality of the interaction and what it meant to understand and think in conversation. For ELL practitioners, the usefulness of classroom talk is determined by the nature of the talk for the learner. As Nystrand, Gamoran, Kacher, and Prendergast (1997) noted, The key features of effective classroom discourse cannot be defined only by identifying particular linguistic forms such as question types, or even the genre of classroom discourse (lecture, discussion, etc.). Ultimately the effectiveness of instructional discourse is a matter of the quality of teacher-student interaction and the extent to which student are assigned challenging and serious epistemic roles requiring them to think, interpret, and generate new understandings. (p.7)

Dialogic teaching is not a panacea for all that is problematic in ELL academic literacy learning, but it is a key piece in enabling students to develop a self-extending system of learning so that they may experience success (See Clay, 1991; Dozier, Johnston, & Rogers, 2006 for a discussion of a self-extending system in literacy learning).

Phase 1 Across nine meetings, our collaborative inquiry group took a sustained look at our understandings of materials, practices, and enacting literacy discussions with ELLs, starting with a general discussion on teaching academic literacy with ELLs who have trouble reading and writing grade-level texts. Professional discourse in readings about how to decide if texts fit the ELLs in our classes were consulted, and discussion centred on why literary discussions might be helpful at this level, and what progression of scaffolding and grouping made sense (Brefeld, 2013). Through reading and discussing selected professional literacy learning texts published for teachers working with English

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

265

language learners, the group decided what ideas from the readings were salient for their classrooms. Looking at the reading list in Table 15.1, one might note that there is a lack of studies addressing dialogic teaching directly. Before focusing on how dialogic teaching could be enacted, the whole context of the classroom had to be examined. This is to ensure that the practitioners understood that dialogic teaching was planned for and students needed to be primed to discuss, so to speak, so both the discussion skills and scaffolding for the reading had to be prepared. We prepared a form to guide our discussion (see Figure 15.4). If the texts were indeed complex, then a discussion could help students understand the meaning of the text. Moreover, students would need preparation in the form of multiple scaffolds to help them gain the background knowledge and vocabulary they needed. A graphic of the type of scaffolding necessary to consider was developed to consolidate our learning (see Figure 15.3). These scaffolding considerations were discussed in terms of what the students brought with them, what the texts offered the students, and how we could plan to enact dialogic discussion in the classroom to reach teaching goals of text comprehension and concept development. The scaffolding considerations were used as one way to think about preparing for dialogic teaching practices in our classrooms. Title of the text _______________________________________________________________ Qualitative Features ___________________________________________________________ http://www.ccsso.org/Navigating_Text_Complexity Vocabulary __________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Scaffolding for text structure, sentence structure, background gaps ___________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Selected passage to demonstrate for twenty minutes ________________________________ Adopted from Self-Assessment/Reflection Guide (p. 127, Beck & McKeown, Questioning the Author) Figure 15.3. Preparation for Dialogic Reading of Text.

Following Hammond and Gibbon’s (2005) idea of macro and micro-scaffolding, the consideration of text difficulties and student backgrounds was paramount. This was eagerly received because the teachers had had difficulty in enacting discussions with their

266

Rosemarie Brefeld

learners because many times their texts were beyond the students’ capabilities. We also read Walqui’s article, (2006), Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. Walqui builds on Hammond and Gibbon’s (2005) idea of macro and micro scaffolding and elaborates three different levels of scaffolding: (1) the planned progression of learning over time, (2) the actual classroom procedures, and (3) the collaborative process of interaction. All three levels of scaffolding are bolstered by certain features which van Lier (1996) has explained. Continuity of task is important so that it is repeated more than once. Contextual support is afforded so that learners have the means to reach the goals various times. There is an intersubjectivity established so that engagement is mutual and participation is non-threatening. Moreover, there is a contingency in the procedures so that activities are adjusted to how the learners react and there is work towards a handover so that learners may take over more of the activity. Lastly, there is a flow in the activity in that there is a balance of challenge along with skill use.

RESULTS Appreciation of Learning In the following transcription excerpt, Daphne commented about the usefulness of the article we read on levelling textbooks. For her, levelling books (Halladay, 2012) was new knowledge and useful for her university level programme. In fact, for all of the higher education practitioners, (Daphne, Anita, and Lucy) levelling books was new knowledge and they appreciated the new information. Daphne: Can I ask where that tool is about the instructional / frustration level is? // is that something we’ve read already or is it/ Rosa: I’ll point it out / It’s in the / here it’s right here (pointing to the article posted on the group website). Daphne: Because that’s been the most helpful concept so far/ I really appreciate this // even if I don’t get every reading read //.

Daphne appreciated the new knowledge that would help her in teaching international students who are in her programme. Various teaching practices important in literacy teaching in English were not familiar to the practitioners teaching in higher education who got MATESL degrees after getting an undergraduate degree in some related field other than Education. Matching text to readers and troubleshooting texts for problem areas are teaching practices which facilitate student comprehension (Halladay, 2012).

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

267

The Practitioners Appropriate a Dialogical Stance To establish starting points for the inquiry during the initial interview, all participants were asked to enact a whole class discussion in their own classroom within the first week of the first inquiry group meeting so we could report on that to the group. Practitioners shared how they established learning goals and instructional points for their academic literacy lessons with ELLs with a special emphasis on eliciting background knowledge and intertextual ideas, ideas which were already studied or read about that they took into consideration when planning a discussion. Then, we probed what instructional strategies and materials might be needed to accomplish the goals and how these might be scaffolded across lessons and within lessons. This involved an elaboration of what resources were available and how successful practitioners had been in utilising various instructional strategies and how the students reacted to the proposed teaching scenario. The affordances and constraints of the whole learning endeavour were shared. This first phase was closed by the practitioners conjecturing about their specific intentions for the inquiry.

Phase 2 As the activities of the practitioner inquiry unfolded, additional existing professional literature and materials were examined and discussed and practitioners were asked to use some of the ideas from the readings in their classrooms, and then to report back again to the group. The ideas about the contextual requirements and conjectures about scaffoldings negotiated in Phase One were revisited at the beginning of this second phase. Also in this second phase, the teachers presented an explicit plan for the observation of their classroom and described the texts they were using. We elaborated on their discussion objectives, scaffoldings, and possible prompts. The practitioners also specified what they wanted to focus on during my classroom observations. Discussion after practitioner presentations were centred around how the texts were received by the students, teacher questioning, and grouping scaffolds which would be useful for interpreting academic readings in their classrooms. Referring back to our shared readings and discussions, teachers explained reasons for their decisions. A rubric for self-assessment was devised collaboratively to encompass the agreed upon objectives for their own work. Besides an assessment of the varying contextual preparations for discussion planning, expected qualities of the enacted discussion for both the practitioners and students were articulated by the group. In preparation for my observation of their classes, the practitioners revised their lessons to get ready to demonstrate their dialogic lesson.

268

Rosemarie Brefeld

Phase 3 In the third phase, practitioners used the readings and discussion protocols they created with their own students in their classrooms. I observed a full class period, with at least a 20-minute segment of discussion which each of the four participants enacted with their students. The lesson was audiotaped along with the de-briefing with each teacher. The rubric which was previously created as a group was used as a springboard for the debriefing discussion. In the practitioner group sessions which followed the classroom observations, segments of the lesson which I transcribed were discussed centering on each colleague stating what worked and why or why not. The practitioner whose lesson was being reviewed led the group discussion with her analysis of the transcript of the recorded dialogue from her class. Then we all added observations of specific moments of dialogic teaching which we noted during the brief presentations. This phase ended with a focus group of what we had accomplished which was audio-recorded and which acted as a summary of teachers taking stock of their learning and any remaining felt needs for their discussion leading with complex texts. Below is just one example of how we applied dialogic teaching to our own contexts after studying and discussing dialogic teaching in our sessions.

Examples of Applications Taken from Classroom Observations EAP Reading 110 is a sustained-content reading class designed for intermediate-high ESL students in a university ESL programme. Besides the CQ Researcher articles that the students had to read and discuss for the Contemporary Issues content class, the students were also required to read a fiction novel as part of their extended reading project during the semester. The transcript below is from a classroom observation of EAP Reading 110 when students discussed The Maze Runner by James Dashner. TEACHER: It says here [pointing to a handout] the author give readers information about life in the Glade very slowly and in small bits, keeping the readers in the dark for much of the book / What does that mean in the dark? / Student 3: Don’t know everything / just parts / TEACHER: OK / so when you’re in the dark / right? /when the lights are turned off can you see? Student 4: No TEACHER: No OK / so it says here / [on the teacher prepared handout] why do you think the author chose to tell the story this way? Student 5: To make it interesting TEACHER: To make it interesting / OK and why else?

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

269

Student 6: To keep the reader reading TEACHER: Good / and why is that good to keep reading? Student 7: You’re gonna have better writing / better answers/ [TEACHER: laughs] TEACHER: But when we’re in the story / how does that make you feel when the author just gives you bits of information? / Student 7: You get the bits and you feel like Thomas / TEACHER: Does Thomas know everything right away? Student 7: He’s confused / TEACHER: He is pretty confused / right? / So you feel like you’re the main character / You feel like him / right? /

Through the teacher’s use of contingent questioning, the EAP 110 Reading students were more prone to participate in class as well as becoming more engaged in the classroom discussion. The students listened to one another and were aware that the instructor would respond to their questions and comments. Contingent questioning (Boyd, 2012) allowed the instructor to act as a facilitator during the class discussions and required the instructor to listen to the students. In the process, the students gained interpretive authority in the classroom. The instructor and the students worked on building meaning together instead of the instructor dominating the class.

The Role of Modelling An important step in developing dialogic discussion skills in ELLs involves modelling the type of metacognitive processes involved in interpreting a text (Beck & McKeown, 2006, p. 98; Fusco, 2012, p. 103). Modelling is often done orally, as a type of ‘think aloud’ that accompanies a group reading of a text (Rafael, Highfield, & Au, 2001, p. 46). In this example with ESL students in a university course, teacher-designed transcripts and transcripts of excerpts of class discussions were used to reflect on discussion skills. Modelling helped scaffold the meta-level reflection skills of students so that they could become aware of the various moves in a discussion and how the group could build knowledge together (Reznitskaya, 2012). One of the first modelling protocols was built around a discussion of what constitutes a ‘good’ discussion of a text being read in class (see Figure 15.4). After orally establishing what a good discussion is, the class was going to discuss the text, but they looked at examples of a discussion first. The following written teacher example was based on discussions about a movie series on cultural diversity. In the next class, the teacher brought in another discussion written out which had a short dialogue in which the students asked clarifying questions. The task that day was to

270

Rosemarie Brefeld

compare the two discussions and notice that students could arrive at a new understanding of the text as a group without having a teacher ask all the questions. The following is an excerpt from our discussion: Teacher: What do you think the main character meant by calling this group of people ‘savages?’ Student A: That they had a difficult life. Teacher: What does that mean? Student B: They did not have a real education. No schools. No churches. Student A: The man says they are lost souls. He thinks they have no religion. Student C: I think they have a religion. It is different. Teacher: So do you think ‘savage’ means someone without a religion? Student C: No, I think the man thinks this because their religion is not his religion. Figure 15.4. Handout of Example Academic Discussion.

Once the students felt comfortable analysing teacher-designed transcripts, the next step was to use transcripts loosely in an actual class discussion. The teacher wanted the class to notice how easy it was to get off topic. The following is an excerpt of the lesson: Student A: So, the movie asks if American fast food is healthy. What do you think? Student B: I think American food is very bland. Student C: Not all American food is bland. What about chili? Student B: That is not American. Okay. I think chili is not American. Because it is from Mexico. Student C: Wait. What was the question?

When analysing the strengths and weaknesses of this discussion, the students thought that the give and take between students was good because students used different types of moves such as using ‘I think’ and then gave support for their opinions by using ‘because’ statements. However, they noticed that the original question had not really been answered. This type of meta-level reflection helped students become more aware of how they could interact with a text and with each other to actively construct new knowledge.

Another Application of the Dialogic Teaching Method The purpose for the above activity was to allow students to take ownership of their learning by carrying out meaningful academic discussions without the explicit direction or questioning of the instructor in order to further their learning in a memorable way. Students had been taught how to engage in discussion with several modelled lessons. Then in subsequent classes, they were grouped to work together. In a subsequent class,

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

271

discussion skills were assessed for the quality of questions they asked and the number of classmate responses they commented on. After initial instruction, modelling, and practice of target forms, students were separated into small groups of comparable English fluency based on the instructor’s informal observation of their skill levels as seen in homework, quiz, and exam scores and general language production ability in class. Groups were given a difficult multiple choice activity developed by the instructor using the students’ content course reading text: Directions: Choose the correct form of the sentence a)

Notwithstanding undeniable progress since the era depicted in The Long Walk Home; Americans cannot yet claim with any degree of satisfaction that the realities of the 21st century live up to the professed ideals of a democratic society. b) Notwithstanding undeniable progress since the era depicted in The Long Walk Home, yet Americans cannot claim with any degree of satisfaction that the realities of the 21st century live up to the professed ideals of a democratic society. c) Notwithstanding undeniable progress since the era depicted in The Long Walk Home, however, Americans cannot yet claim with any degree of satisfaction that the realities of the 21st century live up to the professed ideals of a democratic society. Reason for your choice: _________________________________________________________

Using the multiple choice questions as their discussion basis, students were expected to engage in question-based discussion in order to reach a consensus for an answer that they could then defend with sound reasoning.

DISCUSSION Looking across the inquiry, after discussion of the readings and concrete examples, change in practitioner confidence was perceived. The change was incremental, starting with an admission of a problem in their practice to a buy-in of dialogic teaching. Figure 15.5 summarises the changes the practitioners experienced across the inquiry group sessions. For each practitioner, I have listed salient quotes from the transcriptions which typify their attitudes and show how they changed their attitudes about enacting instructional conversations. In answer to the research question, ‘What happens when a

272

Rosemarie Brefeld

group of ESL teachers collaborate in a dialogically-inspired professional development context to learn about navigating discussion with complex texts and their ELL students?’ I found that when practitioners were given an opportunity to appraise their practices and students in light of the new information about dialogic teaching, an interdependence emerged among the practitioners and knowledge synthesis began. According to sociocultural theory, the co-constructed verbal articulations of the group enabled practitioners to be transformed. They were transformed from a stance of reticence to more strategic awareness in regard to enacting instructional conversations. To answer the research question, ‘What happens when a group of ESL teachers collaborate in a dialogically-inspired professional development context to learn about navigating discussion with complex texts and their ELL students?’ I found that when practitioners were given an opportunity to appraise their practices and students in light of the new information about dialogic teaching, they began listening more closely to one another and became open to experimenting with dialogic teaching. According to sociocultural theory, the co-constructed verbal articulations of the group enabled practitioners to be transformed. They were transformed from a stance of reticence to interdependence and knowledge synthesis. According to sociocultural theory, the co-constructed verbal articulations of the group enabled practitioners to be transformed. They were transformed from a stance of reticence to more strategic awareness in regard to enacting instructional conversations.

Participant

Phase 1-

Phase 2-

Phase 3-

Anita

Students need to be active learners.

Students will talk more if they realise authors have biases

Students described understandings I hadn’t thought of.

Daphne

Students resist having discussion.

Levelling texts is a useful exercise.

Students did construct knowledge/[together]

Debra

Students can discuss in their own languages but others may complain.

‘I’m buying into this.’

The conversations they’ve been having are really good! They’re helping each other understand text.

Lucy

Students don’t have confidence in themselves [in discussion].

I don’t know if I ever give them a chance to talk/hh/ also the challenge of talking is that the discussion can go off [topic]

You kinda have to have some options in your head/ and just be able to go from what the students say/

Figure 15.5. Practitioners’ Change of Stance over the Different Phases of the Inquiry.

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

273

Practitioner Resistance Here I clarify that the learning of our group evolved in progressions of subtle resistance which eventually gave way to learning synthesis as can be seen in the remarks captured in Figure 15.5. In the first inquiry meeting, Daphne expressed the crux of her resistance to dialogic teaching and I responded: Daphne: Because essentially as you said / it[dialogic teaching] implies / trying to actually putting the teacher’s role down as equal to the students / which is extremely hard // to let go / Rosa: Uhhm / Daphne: Which is extremely hard / Rosa: Yes absolutely / but // it’s very beneficial /

While Daphne resisted the idea of dialogic teaching, citing the loss of authority, I rebutted her and elaborated further on the benefits for students. Then Lucy picked up the thread of resistance and elaborated her concerns of asking open questions and having to devote time to student responses. Lucy: I think another reason we don’t do it / it can be uncomfortable because / like when it says you have to ask questions // you don’t know the answer to / that can put you in a strange place with students / who also have expectations of you being the authority / right / Rosa: uhhum

These moments of resistance and rebuttal continued throughout the inquiry; needless to say, the practitioners are not unique in their resistance. Studies show that dialogic teaching is not common (Alexander, 2008; Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, & Prendergast, 1997). Nevertheless, essential learning outcomes cannot be ignored. Dialogic interactions have been shown to facilitate reasoning, allow for better understanding of concepts and increase learner inferences and augment the quality of their writing (Kuhn & Udell, 2001; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Murphy, Soter, Wilkinson, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Reznitskaya et al., 2009). Conceptually, it is easy to understand that dialogic teaching can help ELL students. There is research to support the idea that theoretically dialogic teaching is a good tool to engage students (Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Wells, 1999). Moreover, there have been studies to show that it improves student learning (Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; Sotar et al., 2008). From Reznitskaya (2012), we read that when teaching dialogically, there is a shared sense of authority; that is, what students say can determine where a discussion goes, that questions should be open and divergent which also makes the flow of ideas uncertain. In addition, the teacher is engaged with the learners by giving

274

Rosemarie Brefeld

feedback and prompting students to go further in elaborating their ideas. In fact, the practitioners’role is to guide the discussion by making meta-linguistic comments about the discussion itself which connects student ideas. Through discussion, practitioners can also push the level of thinking to a higher level. Therefore, there is a collaboration of ideas between students and teachers, students contribute more lengthy ideas, and they can learn how to think aloud and increase the sophistication of their thinking through the process.

Dialogic Teaching and Learning Each of the participants demonstrated using dialogic teaching in their classrooms. Diana used dialogic teaching to create a response protocol for her whole group which then was incorporated in student small group work for her monolingual students. Lucy used dialogic give and take in her design of small group work. And Anita incorporated dialogic teaching in her whole group questioning routine which allowed her students to take over a classroom discussion. This new learning for these veteran ELL practitioners was that after asking open questions for a discussion, they had to zero in on the student’s responses and contingently draw more discussion out. Once a student responded and had gone further in his/her response after some prompting, the practitioner could relate what was said to another student to solicit even further comment, inviting others to consider their answers as well. The probing and connections gave the practitioners the tools to encourage more student participation and to hand over the discussion to the students so that they were talking more to one another than to the teacher. Once that was accomplished in their classes, they were willing to try it again. And so they did and they were pleasantly surprised. Thereby, the practitioners positioned their students as interpreters of knowledge instead of just consumers of knowledge. Anita noted when she described their academic discussions, ‘...we built meaning, and it’s given my students authority too’. One important result of the collaboration was that I noticed a change in the practitioners’ appraisal of their students. This change in practitioner appraisal of their students’ capabilities was both cause and result of change in social practices due to implementing dialogic practices. When the practitioners began reporting their use of dialogic practices, their appraisals of the students’ abilities to participate in discussions changed to positive affect. This was the most important aspect of the practitioner inquiry. Empowered with new ways of doing discussion, reinforced with our narrative performances, and transformed by their students’ learning, as Anita remarked, ‘It [change to dialogism] is a work in progress.’ This sums up the work in the inquiry. Anita, like the others, was open to change and worked towards changing her teaching.

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

275

Dialogic Teaching Matters Benefits to dialogic teaching have been published as noted above, so now I ask the same question I asked earlier in this chapter, why aren’t we doing more of it? The ample research availabe showing the advantages of dialogic teaching for student learning in literacy (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003; Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessy, & Alexander, 2009; Nystrand, 1997) can be used to help EL practitioners. However, there is a need for more longitudinal fine-grained research of professional development about how teachers incorporate dialogic teaching into their teaching repertoires in all classrooms. The results from this research shows that that the process of change needed to embrace dialogic teaching takes time and that appropriation may or may not lead immediately to transformed teaching. Teachers need support over time to learn how to develop ‘sustained substantive dialogue’ (Coughlan, Juzwick, Kelly, Borsheim-Black, & Goldering Fine, 2013, p. 213) with their students. More work is needed to examine how pre-practice and practicing English language teachers could change their practices to include more dialogic repertoires. Besides the academic gains possible from dialogic teaching, dialogic teaching is a form of education that can foster ‘equity and a sense of belonging’ (Dunn, 2011). A sociocultural frame for academic literacy study can focus practitioners on understanding learners’ zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) to help garner attention on emotional and knowledge gap issues besides providing learners with appropriate background knowledge and skills. In addition, selecting readings at the appropriate learning level so that learners can feel agency in their learning is important (Halladay, 2012). Moreover, since language use in literacy brings with it many other variables such as cultural models, attitudes, values, and power (Gee, 1996), it is important to not only view literacy learning as social practices, but to endeavour to see how power relationships shape literacy practices (Perry, 2012). The change in how the practitioners talk about their learners i.e. as engaged participants rather than silent students is significant in that it changes how the students can be seen in future endeavours. If dialogic practices are continued, students can continue to gain more facility in discussions. Therefore, as Wortham (2004) has noted, behaviours can become to count as signs of particular identities. So by overtly acknowledging the students’ new behaviour, students are positioned in a more advantageous way and any aura of deficit in learning that might have been present can be dropped, especially if the practitioners are cognisant of how important it is to verbalise their new appreciations of student behaviour. Nonetheless, whether the change of appraisal can be sustained as a result of dialogic teaching is a question for further research.

276

Rosemarie Brefeld

The Power of Literacy Despite the promising practices of dialogic teaching, there are still power forces which impede international students from gaining full membership in U.S. classroom discussions. Brandt and Clinton (2002) have remarked, ‘what appears to be a local event also can be understood as a far flung tendril in a much more elaborate vine’ (p. 347). What can happen via dialogic teaching at the local level is generative for students at a particular site, especially if the EL practitioners recognise how they are disrupting the unwanted pall of deficit thinking about students’ oral participation and are encouraging one another to provide more abundant scaffolded opportunities for engagement. EL practitioners play an important role in how students take up talking about reading and writing at university. Nonetheless, students and teachers are not the only agents in academic literacy practices. We can begin to understand the issues of power in academic literacy more concretely if we analyse how the local literacy of discussion around texts is linked to other things outside of the local using literacy-in-action (Brandt & Clinton, 2002). Brandt (2001) theorised the concept of the literacy sponsor, ‘the literacy sponsor bridge[s] the usual gaps between micro and macro levels of social structure as they relate to literacy and literacy learning’ (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 349). The sponsor at the university is the university itself and besides its agents, the practitioners teaching in its programmes, it has standardised testing as its agent as well. Standardised tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or International English Language Testing Systems (IELTS) enact ‘localising moves [which] encompass actions of humans and things in framing or partitioning particular interactions’ (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 351). They do this by allowing students to be accepted into a university for study (the human action) and by testing certain things such as grammar, vocabulary, reading comprehension, speaking and writing through multiple-choice formats. The test serves as the thing which frames further human action because students can augment their scores on the test by studying how to take the test and practising how to answer the various types of questions. Conveniently, there are commercial programmes and books which afford students this kind of practice. As a result, the test as a literacy object in action localises the context of admission to a university which orients perspective students to that meaning of what it means to be prepared for university study. The localising move of emphasising test scores is also enhanced by universities posting the required scores for admission on their web sites. Sometimes the test score is the only requirement listed for admission on a website. There is no mention of verbal abilities to participate in discussions or present an oral argument. Never mind that many universities require students to be re-tested at the local level despite what has been determined by the university as a good score on one of those tests. A good score on one of those tests is the students’ foot in the door, so to speak.

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

277

Consequently, the tests ‘accomplish globalising connects (Brandt & Clinton, 2002) as they carry reading and writing actions in and out of local contexts or consolidate them in one place, sometimes in transformed ways’ (p. 352). As a result, EL practitioners at university find themselves in a predicament. As agents of the university, they must acknowledge that the test scores are important to the students, yet they realise that students studying for those tests will only be prepared to pass the tests and not be ready to participate as engaged students in many university classrooms. The power of the globalised university to demand a certain score for admittance is folded into (Latour, 1993, as cited in Brandt & Clinton, 2002) the lives of the students. ‘Folding in’ is a concept that expresses ‘the relationships between people and things’ (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 353). The scores on the test extend the relationship that the university has with students irrespective of the local agents, the EL practitioners in English speaking countries.

Disrupting the Power of Tests By mapping this network out, I see ‘the processes by which diversity and inequality in literacy are actually sustained’ (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 354). Unfortunately, the globalising connect that standardised tests have on EL learners fits into the epistemological frame of reference in classrooms in many countries so that local literacies on that end of the globalised connect might promote studying for the test as well. Consequently, the focus of studying for admission to a university in an English speaking environment becomes that of studying for the multiple-choice test which does not afford the learners dialogic practice which is needed for classroom success in an English speaking environment (see Figure 15.6).

Figure 15.6. The Power of Standardised Tests for Pre-university EL Learners.

278

Rosemarie Brefeld

Some learners can ford that breach; others struggle. Nevertheless, EL prctitioners on both sides of the ‘global connect’ (Brandt & Clinton, 2002) can act to disrupt this globalised folding in of the standardised tests to enact local resistance in the form of dialogic teaching.

CONCLUSION Personally I have heard many sad stories from EL students who were underprepared for active participation in English speaking classrooms where they have suffered personal humiliations, feelings of dissonance, and even depression. Moreover, I have seen the power of dialogic teaching to enact changes at the local level at least, and so I feel confident that students can be empowered even if the power of the standardised tests are not disrupted. Teacher educators can implement change by taking many different routes, but this chapter indicates that it is incumbent that teacher and student voices be listened to in a detailed way. Dialogism (Nystrand et al., 1997) can empower teachers and learners to better understand how comprehension of difficult texts can be built. Careful attention to the many different facets of understanding through dialogic teaching (Boyd & Maloof, 2000; Boyd & Markarian, 2011; Boyd & Rubin, 2002, 2006; Edwards & Mercer, 1987) should be an important focus for teacher education programmes for both monolingual and multilingual learners because if done well, it can empower EL students to orally engage in their classrooms. Dialogism is a fundamental piece to all teaching for ELLs. Longitudinal professional development in dialogism for established ELL practitioners is important so that possible sedimented attitudes and practices can be shifted. Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) have called for an inquiry stance in professional development so that practitioners can realise how culture impacts their teaching. Care has to be taken to allow practitioners to narrate their concerns and time has to be set aside to nurture their vulnerabilities (Kelchtermans, 2009). Finally, my experience from this research tells me there are no fast ways to learn how to teach dialogically. When it comes to the teaching of English to language learners, knowing how to engage learners around text and feeling competent to lead students to understanding and agency usually requires practice with actual students. MATESL programmes which are fully on-line skirt their obligations to provide hands-on teaching experiences with focused feedback. I believe that professional development endeavours are hardly worth the time if they do not involve application within classrooms. I agree with Fang, Fu, and Lamme (2004) that ‘professional development efforts in education must recognise the complex, multifaceted and lifelong nature of becoming and being an effective literacy teacher’ (p. 64). Darling-Hammond (1993) has delineated what quality professional

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

279

development should look like. Edwards, McMillon, and Turner (2010) highlight teacher reading groups and on-going professional learning communities. Moreover, higher education programmes for teaching ELLs which focus on decontextualised skills and discrete aspects of language should be examined for more integrative curricula so that understanding of the social situatedness of teaching and learning can be focused on for those learners who struggle to perform their student roles in English (Gee, 2004). My reflexivity in the process of creating and enacting this practitioner inquiry was self-conscious. I acknowledge that it was difficult to rise above my background in applied linguistics in higher education. Likewise the various identities expressed by all of us in the inquiry included biases and concerns and excluded other aspects of teaching ELLs with difficult texts. In addition, the voices of the students were in the background in this study; in future research, the students’ voices should be foregrounded. According to the inquiry group participants, all of their students showed significant improvement in English fluency and retention of information as a result of their dialogic learning affordances. Through student-led discussion and dialogic style questioning in small groups, students developed the lexicon needed to successfully engage in metalinguistic discussion on the topic at hand, as well as to identify and produce appropriate responses and further comments in the context of their content course readings. The data collected through the informal observation of these proceedings suggest that retention of form and function of target structures and fluency development of students are greatly increased by the use of the dialogic method in academic English courses. The benefits observed were that students had a vastly increased chance to produce and reinforce appropriate target language use within meaningful contexts, including providing or requesting evidence, offering or requesting examples, rewording for clarification, returning to the topic from tangents, considering alternative perspectives of groupmates, expressing agreement and disagreeing politely (Zwiers, 2008). With adequate modelling and preparation in place, instructors can be free to circulate and interact with multiple groups to check and observe and assess meaningful output and comprehension. After reading about dialogic teaching, discussing the readings, and then trying to apply it in our own classrooms, the inquiry group felt it was a worthwhile effort as professional development. We practised dialogic teaching and found that it involved thoughtful planning, brief instruction, careful modelling, contingent questions (Boyd, 2012) and comments, plus coordinating students’ responses so that students were eventually responding to one another. Putting dialogic teaching into practice was challenging, but students were able to take up what was modelled and the results were educative. Academic language starters (Zwiers, 2008) were folded into the procedures and helpful for the students moving into mainstream classes. To become proficient in all that dialogic teaching entails, the practitioner group agreed that they will continue to

280

Rosemarie Brefeld

work as much as possible through their dialogic teaching skills to position their learners as knowledgeable learners.

REFERENCES Alexander, R. (2008). Exploring talk for learning. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk for school (pp. 91-114). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2008). Developing reading and writing in second language learners. New York, NY: Routledge. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2006). Texts and the way students understand them. Queries and planning. In L. Beck, & M. McKeown (Eds.), Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach (pp.1105). New York, NY: Scholastic. Boyd, M. (2012). Planning and realigning a lesson in response to student contributions: Intentions and decision making. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 25-51. Boyd, M., & Maloof, V. M. (2000). How teachers can build on student-proposed intertextual links to facilitate student talk in the ESL classroom. In K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.163-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in the service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515-534. Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2002). Elaborated student talk in an elementary ESOL classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(4), 495-530. Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141-169. Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American Lives. New York, NY: Cambridge. Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the Local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337-356. Brefeld, R. (2013). Effective literacy teaching for ELLs: Best practices from research. The Missouri Reader, 37(2), 17-29.

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

281

Brefeld, R. (2015). Practitioner inquiry: Teaching literacy with English language learners (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses (UMI No. 3726041). Burke, B. (n.d.). A look at close reading: Scaffolding students with complex texts. Retrieved from http://nieonline.com/tbtimes/downloads/CCSS_reading.pdf. Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, England: Heinemann Education. Coughlan, S., Juzwik, M., Borsheim-Black, C., & Goldenring Fine, J. (2013). English teacher candidates developing dialogically organized instructional practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 212-246. Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006). Critical literacy/critical teaching: Tools for preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dunn, W. (2011). Working toward social inclusion through concept development in second language teacher education. In K. Johnson & P. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development (pp. 50-64). New York, NY: Routledge. Edge, J. (2002). Continuing cooperative development. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understadning in the classroom. London, England: Methuen. Fang, Z., Fu, D., & Lamme, L. (2004). From scripted instruction to teacher empowerment: Supporting literacy teachers to make pedagogical transitions. Literacy, 38(1), 58-64. Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. (2001) Guiding readers and writers: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998a). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of langauge teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417. Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Identifying instructional moves during guided learning. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 84-95. Fusco, E. (2012). Effective questioning strategies in the classroom: A step-by-step approach to engaged thinking and learning, K-8. New York, NY: Teachers College. Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning languages as a matter of learning social languages within discourses. In M. R. Hawkins, Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 13-31). Clevedon, England, Multilingual Matters.

282

Rosemarie Brefeld

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(4), 363-385. Halladay, J. (2012). Revisiting key assumption of the reading level framework. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 53-61. Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). Putting scaffolding to work: The contribution of scaffolding in articulating ESL education. Prospect, 20(1), 6-30. Jefferson, G. (1984). Jefferson’s transcript notation. In Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 158-166). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychology, 31(3-4), 191-206. Kelchtermans G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257272. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-113. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764. National school reform faculty resource book. (2013). Bloomington, IN: Harmony Educational Center. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 392-412. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Practitioner Inquiry Group Explorations in Academic English

283

O’Boyle, A. (2015). English language education at University: Trends and challenges in teaching and learning academic discourse in the UK. In L. T. Wong & A. DubeyJhaveri (Eds.), English language education in a global world: Practices, issues and challenges (pp. 251-260). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Perry, K. (2012). What is literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journalof Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf. Raphael, T. E., Highfield, K., & Au, K. H. (2006). QAR now: A powerful and practical framework that develops comprehension and higher-level thinking in all students. New York, NY: Scholastic. Reeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1-13. Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the communities of learners. Mind, Culture and Activity, 1(4), 209-229. Roskos, K., Boehlen, S., & Walker, B. J. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversations: The influence of self- assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 229-252. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Schmuck, R. A. (2009). Practical action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Strickland, D., & Alverman, D. (2004). (Eds.). Bridging the achievement gap: Grades 412. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Summerfield, E., & Lee, S. (2006). African American culture: ‘The long walk home’. In E. Summerfield & S. Lee (Ed.). Seeing the big picture: A cinematic approach to understanding cultures in America. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. New York, NY: Longman. Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1929). Vygostsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1935). Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1934). Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.

284

Rosemarie Brefeld

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociociultural practice and theory of education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wilkenson, L. C., & Silliman, E. R. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M., Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol III (pp. 337-360). New York, NY: Routledge. Wortham, S. (2004). The interdependence of social identification and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 715-750. Yates, R., & Muchinsky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 135-147. Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 16

WEBQUESTS AND SCREENCASTS: STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING EAP AT THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE Mark Brooke National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT The modern English language class in higher education is increasingly linked to the use of technology. This can be honed by lecturers to facilitate the delivery of a multidimensional curriculum such as one pertaining to a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach. Due to the availability and quality of online resources today, as well as the ubiquity and asynchronous nature of technology, lecturers are able to provide learning experiences in and outside of the classroom. This enables them to implement a diverse and complex curriculum and strive for the teaching of multiple objectives. Learners are also provided with more opportunities to review classroom input or teacher-student interactions in their own time. This chapter will present strategies from a sample CLIL module at the Writing Unit, a satellite of the Centre of English Language Communication at the National University of Singapore, which exemplify this. Two strategies, based on the outcomes of empirical research conducted by the author, will be presented and examined: first, the use of a webquest to teach critical thinking and academic writing skills; second, the use of screencasting of tutor-student consultations to enable students to review input in their own time. It is hoped that this chapter will add to current practices using technology for teaching and learning in higher education, particularly but not solely in CLIL, and further practitioner knowledge in this burgeoning field.

286

Mark Brooke

Keywords: academic persuasive essays, Toulmin Method, Aristotelian appeals to pathos, logos and ethos, webquests, screencasts

INTRODUCTION The practices of teaching EAP presented in this chapter occurred in a module entitled Sport and Competition. This module pertains to a suite of courses at the National University of Singapore’s Centre of English Language Communication for first year undergraduates in their first semester at university. These modules have been set up to cover a particular topic and then used as a means for developing students’ critical thinking skills through academic writing. Classrooms for the modules are small (with a maximum of twelve students per class) and often multinational (Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean) and Singaporean and multidisciplinary (Science, Engineering, Arts & Social Science, Medicine, Business, Design & Environment, Computing and Law). Most but not all students function well academically in English but English is not necessarily their first language. Throughout the course students are taught how to construct evidence-based arguments through the analysis and construction of academic persuasive essays (APE). Sport and Competition is primarily a sociological analysis of sport as a cultural global phenomenon, with a particular focus on the emergence and growth of ultra-competitive, elite modern sports. However, it not only draws on sociology as a specialised field. A topic such as doping in sport also draws on medicine, pharmacy, philosophy, law, psychology and a number of other disciplines. Being able to cater to a diverse group of learners similar to those described above is important. It is for this reason that lecturers refer to the courses as belonging to a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach. CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach which promotes both content and language learning using an additional language (Marsh et al., 2010, p. 11). As noted above, one theme up for debate from the Sport and Competition module is the ethics of doping seen either in relatively basic terms as an issue to do with, say, the use of anabolic steroids, or from a more complex perspective in terms of Embryo Gene Doping. Students read about the subject and assess arguments that experts in the field present regarding whether it should be condoned or made illegal under criminal law. Some students then decide to go on and write an APE on it of approximately 1,500 words. Journals covering these issues abound; some that are commonly used are Sports medicine, the British Journal of Sports Medicine, the Journal of Medical Ethics, the Journal of Sport and Social Issues, or the International Journal of Emotional Psychology and Sport Ethics. This topic is further explored in the chapter through the presentation of the webquest.

Webquests and Screencasts

287

THE UBIQUITY OF TECHNOLOGY Back in 1996, Green wrote a paper entitled The Coming Ubiquity of Information Technology. In it he argued that faculty were more likely to see an overhead projector in a bowling alley than in the classroom. Nevertheless, he went on to argue that email use was developing, so too was commercial software and the use of the World Wide Web or WWW. Twenty years on, these comments appear anachronistic. Tertiary institutes all over the globe have heavily invested in developing an effective technology infrastructure to ensure the quality and the flexibility of the learning experience (Allen & Seaman 2008; Johnson et al., 2012; McCarthy & Samors, 2009). Other than the internet, podcasting, webcasting and screencasting are also gaining importance in academic study (Faramarzi & Bagheri, 2015; Rosell-Aguilar, 2015). Institutions such as Stanford University and the National University of Singapore have embraced these strategies so that lectures are available to their students on YouTube channels. In addition, students are encouraged to download and use free podcasting software (Podshow, Podbean) or screencasting software (Camtasia, Ink2go) to create their own presentations and share them online with peers and the wider community.

LEARNING THEORIES RELATED TO THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY One primary reason for using technology for instruction is the learning freedoms it offers. It has long been argued that the asynchronous environment creates transactional distance (Moore, 1993), which does not occur in face to face interaction (Anderson & Garrison, 2004; Garrison, 2009; Moore, 1993). Transactional distance (Moore, 1993) seeks to describe the distance between stakeholders and the distance between stakeholders and the content of a course. Anderson (2008) has more recently described this as the freedoms of ‘relationship’ and ‘media’ that online learners enjoy. For example, students can access multi-modal resources freely and use different sources as evidence for their papers e.g. podcasts or videos. Students are also able to communicate asynchronously with each other or to engage with the tutor at any time. Garrison (2009, p. 2) explains that compared to face-to-face instruction, this can lead to more meaningful communication because time is available online to carefully consider a text, audio or visual as well as spend time on one’s reflections; this increases the quality of interaction, leading to higher-order communicative content. Another important benefit of using technology in educational practices is that it can help in catering to multiple intelligences and consequently learning preferences (Ferry & Kervin, 2007). Gardner’s (1993) Inventory of Multiple Intelligences is comprised of nine intelligences (verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, logical-

288

Mark Brooke

mathematical, musical-rhythmic, bodily kinesthetic, naturalist, and existentialist). Multimodal learning develops multiple literacies and can therefore cater to these intelligences. For example, tutors can cater to all of the styles if they enable students to work with video, podcasts, online texts, images or graphics such as mind maps, and encourage students to participate in collaborative or independent research and reflection. E-learning courseware for teaching and learning can therefore empower students by activating their unique proclivities.

THE ARGUMENTATIVE PERSUASIVE ESSAY (APE) GENRE This chapter explores how technology was exploited to teach students to write an effective academic persuasive essay (APE). Freadman (1994) considers genre, or text type, as a system in terms of place and function. It is situational and functional. A genre such as the APE may be used for assessment purposes of a school student or an undergraduate. It is rare to see the genre in other circumstances. In addition, the rules of each genre can be considered in the same way as those of social etiquette. If a writer is not familiar with the intricacies of a particular mode of writing, communication can be impeded, and the credibility of the author compromised. Consequently, it is critical that teachers are aware of the discourse features of a genre, and that they are able to use strategies for getting students to develop their knowledge of these. The APE’s particular discourse level schema always comprises an introduction, main body and conclusion and each of these sections contains specific parts that perform certain functions. For example, a paragraph from the main body seeks to prove the thesis statement communicated in the introduction. It typically describes, exemplifies, analyses, explains and discusses the criteria that help to do this. Often, more than one of these functions is performed simultaneously within the same clause. Without explicit instruction and guidance to notice details such as these in an APE’s main body, a novice writer may produce unsuitable work. One way to teach students about the APE genre is to present them the Toulmin Method. Stephen Toulmin (2003) developed a framework that could be used for practical argumentation and moral reasoning. The main notion he put forward was that a sound and realistic argument commonly comprises six parts: Data: Evidence supporting an argument Claim: The point or thesis being argued Qualifiers: Statements to limit assertions and/or provide conditions for an argument. Warrants: Logical statements to bridge between the data and the claims. These are often implicit. Backing: Statements that serve to support warrants not the main claim or thesis. Rebuttals: Counter-arguments.

Webquests and Screencasts

289

It can be seen from the above that Toulmin’s model considers arguments as nonabsolutes with qualifiers and rebuttals to demonstrate other feasible assertions. An example applying Toulmin’s method is provided in John Gage’s (2006) The Shape of Reason: Congress should ban animal research (Claim #1) because animals are tortured in experiments that have no necessary benefit for humans such as the testing of cosmetics (Data). The well-being of animals is more important than the profits of the cosmetics industry (Warrant). Only congress has the authority to make such a law (Warrant) because the corporations can simply move from state to state to avoid legal penalties (Backing). Of course, this ban should not apply to medical research (Qualifier). A law to ban all research would go too far (Rebuttal) (‘Toulmin model,’ n.d.)

Another important area of knowledge that instructors need to focus on when teaching APE writing, is how persuasive writers seek to appeal to the Aristotelian notions of pathos, logos and ethos. These are essential components of any effective argument used in an APE, especially ethos and logos. Appealing to logos invokes a reader’s reason using logic and evidence. Appealing to pathos is invoking a reader’s sentiments and, finally, when appealing to ethos, an author seeks to demonstrate that he/she is knowledgeable of the topic, and therefore a credible, authoritative voice. Each of these persuasive appeals is constructed using particular linguistic resources. For example, quoting and reporting on the research of experts, enables the writer to appeal to ethos. One strategy ESL students often adopt to do this is through attribution and authorial (dis) endorsement. Attribution involves presenting a proposition as grounded in the subjecthood of an external voice, i.e. X (author) said…; authorial (dis) endorsement is the adoption of a stance in relation to the academic source, i.e. X (author) convincingly demonstrates that… An effective APE writer is very adept at constructing cogent and convincing arguments by adopting a value position and appealing to these Aristotelian notions. The principal objective of the writer is to develop a strong relationship with the reader, and ultimately to engage the reader, perhaps even persuade the reader, to take on the same value position. The next sections describe some of the principal problems faced by this author teaching how to write effective APEs for the course Sport and Competition. This is then followed by the solutions found to address these problems. The first solution is a suite of web-based activities designed to provide students with input on APE writing. The second solution is using ink2go to create screencasts of this tutor’s annotations of students’ essays during consultations. With the software, the sessions can also be videoed so that the consultations can be reviewed by students. The software proved to be very effective in ensuring maximal uptake from these consultations, and this meant that feedback on APEs was more readily responded to by students. It is argued that these two interventions helped to enhance the quality of the papers significantly.

290

Mark Brooke

THE STUDY Problem One This section presents an empirical study of a webquest that has been developed and how it can facilitate effective APE writing. The need for the following interventions arose as students required instructions in how to develop a logically-constructed and persuasive academic essay. Several students had handed in essays with paragraphs that were neither cogent nor coherent. They lacked an effective thesis statement or paragraphs were not headed with appropriate topic sentences. Evidence provided was sometimes anecdotal with no actual reference to scholarship or empirical data from the field. In addition, few students included counterarguments to be rebutted in their papers. Although this was not obligatory, it can add a great deal of persuasion to an essay if students attempt to predict what readers might think in opposition to their lines of argumentation and then demonstrate why their own view is the more valid one. An author’s ethos can increase in this way as a reader is guided to believe that the author has weighed the pros and cons of the phenomenon under investigation. To exemplify the kind of writing that students were submitting, an extract from a student’s work is provided. It is obvious to anyone thinking logically that athletes should represent positive social values. If they take performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), they are not. In addition, as stated by the President’s council on bioethics, no biological agent powerful enough to induce major bodily alterations can be entirely trustworthy or without side effects.

The logic is not clear in this extract because there are two lines of reasoning in the paragraph and the second on health is not part of the controlling idea opening the paragraph. In addition, the value position is not elaborated appropriately: a simple, ‘they are not’ is evidently not persuasive. It also lacks sophistication in citing evidence. The reference to the President’s council on bioethics helps to substantiate the student’s argument as this is an authoritative figure from a very relevant field; however, where this statement can be found is not provided and this reduces the credibility of the student’s argument. In addition, it is not clear if this is a paraphrase or a direct citation as the author uses the reporting verb ‘state’, which is commonly used to report a direct citation. Further, broad, more generic terms such as ‘social values’ are used without expansion; thus, it is difficult for the reader to guess what the writer wishes to convey. The next section goes on to describe how problematic writing such as this was dealt with by the teacher through the use of technology, in particular, by creating a webquest to guide students in their independent learning.

Webquests and Screencasts

291

Solution The rationale for developing a webquest was to enable students to work at their own pace outside the classroom with an element of guidance. They were asked to work independently and then together in groups, using Google Docs or the university virtual learning environment’s discussion forum, to discuss what they had learned from wellknown academic writing sites such as the Writing Centre of the University of North Carolina, Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab and the Writesite at Sydney University. Many students were not yet familiar with those sites. These were selected because they could instruct students about what makes good academic persuasive writing. A webquest is a fairly specific genre and it is commonly divided into the following sections: introduction; task(s); process; and evaluation. The role of the introduction is to orient students and engage them in the topic and the purpose of the research. It therefore provides the context required and any key language or conceptual underpinnings that students may need to carry out the task(s) satisfactorily. The task(s) section outlines for students what they need to do in addition to describing what the end product of the tasks should be. The process stage instructs students on how they will perform the tasks; this is normally set out through a set of pre-defined resources e.g. websites to use; task questions and so on. Finally, the evaluation section describes for students how the tasks can be evaluated; it also normally involves asking students to reflect about what they have learned from the webquest. As already noted, the core main task of the webquest that was set up was to teach students how to write a good APE. This was done by using a suite of tasks that gradually became more technical; thus scaffolding the learning process. The ultimate objective of the process was to guide students to be able to analyse a paper using the Toulmin Method of reasoning followed by the students developing their own papers explicitly incorporating the Toulmin model, in order to present an evidence-based logical and effective argument. The tasks ranged from open structure, in that no websites were provided for the search, to structured, whereby students were directed to precise online sources to find specific information. The first preliminary task was open: students found out from a source of their choice about a relatively simple paragraph development model, the State, Explain, Evidence and Connect (SEEC). SEEC is an example of a mnemonic strategy which guides students to think about how to sequence their paragraph logically. A paragraph should commence with a hyper-theme (often referred to as a thesis or a topic sentence). This is one single controlling idea, and is normally constructed using a single sentence. It represents the theme of the paragraph and should also reflect back to the introduction and the macrotheme or the purpose of the entire paper. Next, there should be the Statement. This should be more detailed than the thesis. The statement elicits a question in the reader’s mind that

292

Mark Brooke

the explanation then answers. The first E, Explain, guides students to unpack the hypertheme and statement further to ensure that the reader has a good idea about its meaning. This is sometimes done using a definition or providing context and answering why the thesis is important. The second E, Evidence, requires students to provide examples to persuade readers why the thesis is true. This is normally achieved using one or more of three ways: using an in-text reference, a quotation, or a paraphrase. Summaries can also be employed as evidence but these are commonly whole paragraphs so they are not generally taught as a means of supplying evidence for a paragraph. Finally, C, Connect, is the concluding section of the paragraph, which should sum up what has been said clearly and interestingly in addition to introducing what will come in the next paragraph, thereby offering a good transition to maintain the reader’s interest. Having researched the SEEC model, it was found that a useful instructional strategy is to bring up an extract of a weak paper, similar to the one presented above on Google Docs, and to ask students to analyse it in groups using the model. In an online discussion, the instructor elicits responses using questioning such as Can you tell me if this paragraph’s thesis is effective? If not, why not? Could you provide a better one? How about the statement? Does it effectively expand on the thesis statement? As a group, please rewrite the paragraph? If the content of the paragraph above on why doping should not be legalised were to be analysed in this way it could be expanded into two paragraphs: one at the macro level and the social values involved in PED usage, and another at the micro level examining the reasons why they should not be legalised due to the potential risk to an individual’s health. For this chapter, only one paragraph will be presented, the one on social values. A more appropriate opening or thesis statement for the first paragraph might be: As Wiesing (2011) argues, an athlete should represent positive social values.

This can then be followed by a Statement to clarify what the thesis is saying: He should be seen to be striving for distinction naturally through dedication, and not excelling through cheating (ibid, p. 171).

The Explanation that follows enables the reader to further understand the importance of these social values that athletes should represent: If an athlete is involved in taking performance enhancing substances, this could have negative consequences for adolescents who can be greatly influenced by their heroes (ibid, p. 173).

Webquests and Screencasts

293

Finally, an example to make the argument clear and systematic might be added in the following way: For example, Lance Armstrong was discovered to have lied about doping allegations throughout his professional career, one which spanned seven consecutive Tour de France victories. This professional athlete inspired thousands of cyclists all over the world. He was stripped of all of his titles in 2012. Research by Hambrick, Frederick and Sanderson (2015) demonstrates that this significantly disappointed many of his fans who realised that he won because of the drug use, not his own natural talents and dedication. Due to his cheating, they were put off from following the Tour de France.

A final sentence to perform the Connect function might be: As Wiesing (2011) concludes, it is important that society maintains this strong antidoping attitude; not only because cheating is not acceptable in sport but also because it has detrimental effects on the athlete’s health.

This helps to sum up the paragraph and also to introduce the following one on the micro-analysis, the individual’s health; consequently, it acts as a good transition. Elaboration, using an example of a social value aids the line of reasoning. Also, the reporting of research and stance of a well-known expert in the field provides more persuasive appeal. Finally, a consequence of not representing positive social values is provided: that is, the loss of cycling fans – a very severe consequence of doping. The next task that students were asked to do was also open. Students were asked to find out about Aristotelian persuasive appeals. To do this, they researched the meaning of logos (appeals to logic), pathos (appeals to emotion) and ethos (appeals to status/ credibility of the author) and explored how they are used to analyse texts. They were then asked to find interesting examples from the web to present an analysis using these concepts. This activity can be multi-modal. For example, students can retrieve visuals from online sources such as Google Images or corporation homepages to demonstrate how companies use sports or sporting celebrities to sell their brands. Using a photo of a sports star to advertise training shoes appeals to logic and ethos because the celebrity endorsement helps consumers think that they might be able to increase their running performances. Once students had discussed the strength of the examples shared using these appeals, they were told that these concepts would be returned to later. Next, they were asked to contemplate what organisational structure is usually adopted in the development of an argument. They were directed to Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab and were asked to look for two terms syllogism (which is the triadic structure above) and enthymeme (an informal syllogism) made up of only one premise and a conclusion. When doing this,

294

Mark Brooke

they read and used terms such as claim, evidence and rebuttal. One of the most famous of syllogisms was created by Aristotle: All humans are mortal. (Major premise) Socrates is human. (Minor premise) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

The enthymeme, otherwise termed an informal syllogism, of this is Socrates is mortal because he’s human. The enthymeme is closely connected to the Toulmin Method. It is constructed with the warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the reason to the claim, which exists in relation to an unstated claim; in this case, that is all humans are mortal. This activity therefore prepares students well for reading about the Toulmin Method. This was followed by guiding students to further peruse Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab to find out about logical argumentation using the Toulmin Method. They saw examples such as the one below: Switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution (claim) because cars are the largest source of privately produced air pollution (grounds).

The site asked them to think about what the warrant in these cases might be. In this particular example, the warrant is clearly that most people do not use hybrid cars and thus heavily pollute the globe. The answers to these tasks were provided on the site. Students then read examples of deconstructions of entire essays using the Toulmin Method on a different site, the Writing Studio website of Colorado State University and they noticed more features of the model such as backing for a warrant, counterclaims and rebuttals. The backing is the reasoning that may be needed to provide support to the warrant. If students are comfortable with the input at this stage, they can also be presented with the different semiotic elements to warrants such as argument based on generalisation, analogy, cause, authority or principle. Good sites for input on this can be found at Colorado State University, the University of Maryland and San Diego State University (see References). After students had explored these resources and conducted the tasks, they were required to either analyse a previous student’s expository paper (1,500 words) or a short academic journal paper and to deconstruct these using the Toulmin Method. One example academic journal paper used was by Spriggs et al. (2005) entitled Hypoxic air machines: Performance enhancement through effective training or cheating? from the Journal of Medical Ethics. Again students first worked individually and then worked in groups online to complete a final version of the analysis. They then shared their work and

Webquests and Screencasts

295

discussed it with other members of the class. An example of a deconstruction of an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics by Spriggs et al. (2005):    

  

Claim: Athletes can train to perform at high altitudes with hypoxic air machines. Data 1: If athletes from low altitude countries have a competition at high altitude, they need to use them. Warrant 1: Using hypoxic air machines makes it fairer for athletes who are from low altitude countries. Data 2: If you interview coaches and athletes, they will tell you that using hypoxic air machines is different to cheating by using performance enhancing drugs. Warrant 2: Using hypoxic air machines is not cheating. Counterclaim: Green (2004) believes it is cheating as it is an artificial method used for training. Rebuttal: Air machines do not cause physiological effects as PEDs do. They just reproduce the necessary conditions for breathing at high altitude. Some countries can afford to send their athletes to train at high altitude before a competition. Why shouldn’t poorer nations use the cheap technology available to make the build up to competition fairer?

To finalise this activity, students were asked to evaluate this argumentation by considering questions such as do you think the argumentation is sound? What do you think of the evidence cited? They were asked to justify their opinion by applying what they have learned about the SEEC model, syllogisms and Aristotelian persuasive appeal. For example, Spriggs et al. (2005) appeal to pathos a great deal in their argumentation as they consistently refer to fairness for poorer nations. It may be the case that it is much cheaper to use the machines than to send a squad to train at high altitude. However, why not argue that teams should not have the right to send their squad to train at high altitude before a competition? It seems that the key issue for these authors is much more about allowing the use of technical enhancement to improve athlete performance. Indeed Spriggs et al. (2005) argue that all aids, including performance enhancing drugs such as human growth hormone (HGH) should be allowed. Fairness appears to be a straw man in their argumentation. The real crux of the matter is to legalise all performance enhancement technology (as long as it is safe for athletes) so that sport can become more exciting and thereby evolve exponentially. After this, students completed a final webquest task on what makes for good academic persuasive writing found on sites provided by the Writing Centre of the University of North Carolina, the Writesite at Sydney University and OWL at Purdue University. For this task, they were provided with a set of questions to answer. It was a

296

Mark Brooke

structured activity as there was a fair amount of information to scan and skim for gist over several sites. This task consisted of information-finding and questions asking students to analyse texts. One of the sections of the quiz guided students to the Writesite to find out all about using sources, for example, presenting Evidence. On this interactive site, students were provided with activities to teach them authorial attribution as well as how to endorse and distance themselves from authors; how to use evaluative verbs; intensifiers and limiters; modality and concessive clauses to foreground or background other views or evidence. This site is very extensive and along with interactive activities with answers, it contains model essays that students can explore. In addition to what had been learned prior to the quiz, students were well-equipped to write good academic essays. They had studied how they could use the SEEC model as a basic system for paragraph development; they had had also learned how to appeal to a reader’s reason as well as how to present a position cogently and coherently using the Toulmin Method. As a final core task, which could be conducted in or out of class, groups reflected on other areas where there is cheating in sport, for example, matchfixing is prominent today. To do this, students first conducted research to develop a core understanding of the phenomenon; they then made a plan for a paper and presented it using the Toulmin Model as a means of organisation (i.e. claim; data; warrant; counterclaim; and rebuttal). These form the basis for a discussion online or in class. Thus, students connected new and prior knowledge from multiple texts to write a new rhetorically-intensive text. The webquest process is presented below in flow chart form in Figure 16.1.

Task 1

• Research online sites and explore SEEC, Aristotelian forms of persuasive appeal and the Toulmin Method (TM).

Task • Deconstruct a text by applying the Toulmin Method. 2 Task • Do online quiz on what good academic writing is. 3 Task 4 Task 5

• Discuss the student's text or academic journal paper already deconstructed to analyze the author's rhetorical skills. • Think of a similar case whereby cheating occurs: research & present your line of reasoning using the TM.

Figure 16.1. Online Activities to Develop Academic Persuasive Essay Writing Skills.

The final task in this suite of activities was to ask students to present their case using the Toulmin Method and to think about persuasive appeal when they present their work. This was followed by an online or classroom discussion on the topic. The online

Webquests and Screencasts

297

discussion is sometimes more interesting as students can provide links to resources to help the discussion flow such as drugsinsport.com, debate.org or sportsanddrugs. procon.org. Those sites offer a variety of views on issues regarding cheating in sport from both sides as well as plenty of evidence from credible sources.

Problem Two This section presents an empirical study on how the use of screencasting software ink2go has been developed and how it can facilitate both face-to-face and independent learning. Academic writing tutorials, also known as conferences, between students and their course tutors are generally established to perform three functions. These are diagnosis + directive + report writing. In other words, a tutor evaluates a student’s writing, offers feedback on the student’s progress and gives advice on improvements; a tutor also uses the occasion to take note of how well the student is doing. Much research has concluded that students value their teacher’s feedback during this event (Eckstein, 2013; Straub, 1997). Unlike some writing tutor consultations at writing centres, whereby tutors only concentrate on teaching good writing (North, 1984; Thonus, 2001, 2002), the consultations for the IEM1 course Sport and Competition focus also on the student’s knowledge of the discipline and of the genre (Staben & Nordhaus, 2009). This means that there is a great deal of tutor mediation which, as noted by Coffin and Shrestha (2012, p. 56) refers to text-based interaction about the assignment text between the tutor and the learner, over the thirty minutes assigned. These sessions are therefore typically very intensive in nature and comprise intricate discourse and interactional features such as shifts in volubility, overlapping (interruptions), back-channeling to reinterpret what has been discussed, tutor directives often using mitigation strategies, and student acceptance or rejection of feedback (Blau, Hall, & Strauss, 1998; Thonus, 2001). A problem arises over the extent of the student uptake from this kind of session. Uptake is, according to Allwright (1984) that which students can report having learned after an input session. If a consultation consists of a large amount of input, it is unlikely that the student is able to remember the bulk of it. This means that consultations lose their effectiveness. Indeed, prior to the use of ink2go, informal feedback gathered from students about the sessions cited this as a common theme. One student reported: Normally I am only able to remember points that I jot down during consultation and sometimes I don’t remember why I have written something.

298

Mark Brooke

This problem represents a flaw in the consultation system and it was one that this author sought to resolve. The following is the way that this was achieved.

Solution In2go is an annotation and screen recording tool that allows you to write on top of your active desktop applications in real time. It is possible to save desktop screenshots as images in PNG, JPEG, Bitmap or GIF (for Windows), and PNG (for Mac OS X) formats. It is also possible to record videos of the entire desktop together with the annotations in WMV (for Windows) and MOV (for Mac OS X) formats or to select a region of interest on the screen and record only that. In this way, you can add to active applications such as Microsoft PowerPoint or Word, or on running video and record these activities while simultaneously making a live audio or video file of the interaction. There is a function that allows the user to pause and resume during a session. The software has a floating toolbar which can be positioned horizontally or vertically on the screen for convenience. It comprises several functions including video and audio recording, various pen, highlighter and eraser options as well as text embedding functions. This can be seen in Figure 16.2. The author used ink2go to create videos of thirty-minute tutor-student consultations on student draft papers. Three classes of twelve were offered consultations using the software. The research questions that the author focused on were the following: Do students perceive any benefits from using ink2go to record tutor-student consultations? What are this author’s perceptions of the software?

Students were asked to submit a first draft of the Academic Persuasive Essay. This was examined by the tutor before the consultations and several general points were communicated to each student about how improvements in these drafts could be made. The consultations were then conducted. Students were asked to submit a second draft based on the feedback from these less than a week later. After submission of the second draft, they were asked to complete an anonymous quantitative survey on the effectiveness of the software and its application. Following that, they were also asked to respond qualitatively to some questions. Survey Monkey was used for the data collection. All 24 students found the software useful. The vast majority of the students found the combination of the desktop screencast and video file the most useful as demonstrated in Figure 16.3. Qualitative feedback from students highlighted the effectiveness of the software in several areas. The freedom to review the consultation was pinpointed as a major benefit. One student wrote: I could skip or replay different parts depending on my needs. It was really useful.

Webquests and Screencasts

299

Figure 16.2. Ink2go’s Floating Toolbar.

25 20 15 10 5

Use of ink2go

0 Seeing the use of the cursor on Word

Video of the The tutorial combination of these two

Figure 16.3. Questionnaire Results on Use of ink2go.

Having a screen cast and video of the consultation enabled students to work autonomously, at their own pace, and to focus on particular areas of the feedback on their essays that they found challenging. This meant that any conversations on complex conceptual or linguistic content that emerged could be reviewed later by students allowing for deeper understanding and greater uptake to occur. Another area of positive feedback was on the multi-modal characteristics of the feedback. This was highlighted by several students. In particular, the combination of the audio recording and the screen cast of the annotation were reported to be very effective as it allowed students to follow the video of the cursor activity on their Word documents during the consultation while simultaneously listening to the feedback about this. One student noted: Seeing the cursor and hearing the tutorial at the same time clearly pinpointed which part of the essay to pay attention to. So it was much better than just a recording.

Other positive comments regarding the fact that students needed to be more prepared for this method of conducting consultations were made. As this was a recorded consultation, it was felt important by the students that they were able to follow the comments on their work from the tutor and that they perform well. On the whole,

300

Mark Brooke

students did respond well during the interactions because they had heeded the initial general feedback on the first draft, sent to them prior to the consultations by email and had prepared for the session. One student remarked this in the qualitative feedback: Students need to prepare well before-hand to prevent any waste of time.

From the tutor’s perspective, the use of ink2go was highly beneficial. It was possible to simultaneously teach academic writing skills, language and conceptual content confidently knowing that if any clarifications might be required, there were shared files. This meant that the input could be of a greater depth and breadth. If any students had follow-up questions about the session, the recordings could be referred to. The recordings were also useful as part of the process of formative assessment. They were records of what the students had been doing at a particular stage during the course and could be used to rationalise how well the students had progressed by the end of the course. Finally, the recordings helped this researcher to analyse his own practice and to determine whether he was using effective strategies during the sessions. Thus, not only student learning took place from the action research.

DISCUSSION The webquest activities and consultation strategy presented in this chapter were part of empirical research conducted with three classes (each with twelve students) studying a module related to the sociology of sport. All were first year undergraduates from multiple disciplines and linguistic backgrounds. The students were tasked to write a 1,500-word APE on a debatable topic in this field. Comparisons made, between the pre- and postinterventions, demonstrated that their papers had greatly improved. They were much more able to write sophisticated essays using logical argumentation and precise wording; applying evidence convincingly; and bringing in potential arguments against their own and rebutting these. Indeed, it was noted that the great majority of the students were using the Toulmin Method as a model to guide them in the planning of their papers. The following is an example from a student’s work at the end of the course: Savulescu’s (2004) central argument for the limited legalization of PEDs in power and performance sport is that athletes want a safer sport and this would help to do that. This argument appears persuasive for it might lead to fewer drugs on the black market. The warrant here is that black market drugs may be dangerous as there are no safety controls. However, Savulescu’s (2004) argumentation is really an appeal to pathos that

Webquests and Screencasts

301

plays on one’s concern for the welfare of the athlete. Wiesing (2011) appears to better understand the hegemony of sport practices. It is probable that more dangerous drugs would appear on the black market if some, such as ephedrine, were legally available because athletes and their coaches are willing to do whatever it takes for sporting success. In addition, what makes a drug safe is difficult to say due to insufficient knowledge about the long-term effects of polypharmacy. Wiesing’s (2011) argumentation clearly appeals to ethos and logos, comes across as grounded in a deeper understanding of doping, as well as the dominant sport culture, and is therefore more convincing.

It can be seen from this extract that there is a good level of field-specific language and that authors are referred to correctly using authorial attribution and (dis) endorsement. Also, the analysis of the argumentation is very sophisticated as it not only describes why the content of one author’s argument is more convincing but also which appeal is more persuasive. This opens up a further dimension with which to work at the discourse level, going beyond reading for gist. In this paragraph, the student compares the argumentation of two medical experts’ opinions. The student signals that while the prolegalisation text contains appeals to pathos, the anti-legalisation text appeals more to logos. Appeals to logos are more convincing for this student. Thus, there is a strong rebuttal of this author’s premise, an important aspect of using the Toulmin Method. One caveat about using the Toulmin Method in the EAP classroom is that there is some metalanguage that needs to be taught. There is also some higher order analysis of text that is required. Students with little prior knowledge or experience in the field of rhetorical analysis may find this challenging. This is particularly true when deconstructing an academic text into its basic parts: data; claim; warrant; qualifier; backing; and rebuttal. When dealing with challenged students, it was found that first deconstructing text into a syllogism and then an enthymeme is useful as it enables students to practise finding the core meaning of a text at discourse level and little metalanguage is required: major premise (in the example from Aristotle, this provides the data needed for the meaning of this semantic unit to be conveyed) + minor premise (in the example from Aristotle, this provides more important data but this can be left out to make an enthymeme) = therefore (logical connector that demonstrates to the reader that this is the thesis statement). Once it is shown that the minor premise can be removed to make an enthymeme, the notion of warrant can be taught. Further, from this point, educators can demonstrate to students the difference between data and backing; that is the evidence that supports the main claim or thesis statement and that which supports the warrant or unstated claim. If this systematic progression is implemented, challenged students can be guided to progressively learn how to use the method. The term webquest might seem anachronistic today (coined when the internet for educational purposes was in its infancy) because use of the Internet is ubiquitously integrated into tertiary level modules. Thus, using the Internet as a tool for teaching and

302

Mark Brooke

learning is no longer an event as it once was. However, with its rapid growth, there are now a multitude of sites offering varying degrees of quality. It can still be recommended that the educators research and isolate sites to be assigned for certain tasks. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, they should carefully scaffold students’ use of these sites so that there is graded input, and so that introductory tasks can be accomplished before more challenging ones are attempted. If the web is used selectively and wisely in this way, it is an excellent tool that promotes autonomous and reflective learning. As a multimodal resource, it can also provide for learning intelligences, as conveyed by Gardner (1993). In addition to online technology, educators can also make use of screencasting software to improve the consultations that they conduct with their students. Similarly to the independent work that students can do to exploit online resources, ink2go affords asynchronous use, which facilitates deeper learning as students can focus more time and concentration on the aspects of the feedback that they find most problematic. In addition, with the use of visual cues, in particular the video of the cursor or keyboard activity on their Word documents, students are more able to understand the video and audio file as the comments are often made based on the words being highlighted or written. This appeals to different learning styles, notably, verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal and bodily kinaesthetic. It appeals to interpersonal learning styles because students can listen to and watch the interaction between the teacher and the student as it occurred; it appeals to intrapersonal learners as students can work on the feedback in their own way and in their own time.

CONCLUSION To conclude, the ubiquity of technology in this digital age can be exploited to facilitate instruction for a diverse set of learners. Due to asynchronicity and transactional distance for learners and tutors, it increases the quality of interaction, leading to higher– order communicative content. It also allows for multi-modal learning and therefore caters effectively to different intelligences and learning style proclivities. Finally, for the tutor, it is empowering because out of class study can be planned into the course allowing for more input and enabling students to conduct more independent study. This means that today, in comparison to courses before these technologies were common, a much greater infrastructure is available for teaching and learning. Current practices using technology for teaching and learning in higher education, particularly but not solely in CLIL, are diverse in method and practice. It is hoped that the present chapter will contribute in some way to furthering knowledge in this domain.

Webquests and Screencasts

303

REFERENCES Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Allwright, B. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teachers teach? The interaction hypothesis. In D. Singleton & D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin, Ireland: Irish Association for Applied Linguistics. Blau, S. R., Hall, J., & Strauss, T. (1998). Exploring the tutor/client conversation: A linguistic analysis. The Writing Center Journal, 19(1), 19–48. Caruso, J. B., & Kvavik, R. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning roadmap. Boulder., CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Colorado State University. (2016). The Toulmin method. Retrieved from http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=58 Eckstein, G. (2013). Implementing and evaluating a writing conference program for international L2 writers across language proficiency levels. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 231-239. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. (2007). Retrieved from http://connect. educause.edu/library/abstract/ECARStudyofStudentsa/37610 Faramarzi, S., & Bagheri, A. (2015). Podcasting: Past issues and future directions in instructional technology and language learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 207-221. Freadman, A. (1994). Anyone for tennis. In A. Freedman & Medway, P. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 43-44). Bristol, England: Taylor and Francis. Gage, J. T. (2006). The shape of reason: Argumentative writing in college. 4thed. New York, NY: Pearson Longman. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books. Hambrick, M. E., Frederick, E. L., & Sanderson, J. (2015). From yellow to blue: Exploring Lance Armstrong’s image repair strategies across traditional and social media. Communication & Sport, 3(2), 196-218. Lazear, D. (1998). Eight ways of knowing: Teaching for multiple intelligences. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Pearson Skylight. McKenzie, W. (2002). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology: A manual for every mind. Washington, DC: ISTE. Gordon, L. M., (2006). Gardner, Howard (1943–). In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human development vol.2 (pp. 552-553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google. (2016). Google docs. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/docs/about/

304

Mark Brooke

Green, K. (1999). The coming ubiquity of information technology. The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(2), 24-28. Green, S. P. (2004). Cheating. Law Philosophy, 23, 137-185. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the ‘net generation’. Sociological inquiry, 80(1), 92-113. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). Technology outlook for Australian tertiary education 2012-2017: An NMC horizon report regional analysis. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2010). The European framework for CLIL teacher education. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern Languages. McCarthy, S., & Samors, R. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset, vol. 1: A resource for campus leaders. Washington, DC: Association of Public and LandGrant Universities. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/tag/samors/ #sthash.rEhsv0y6.dpuf Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), The handbook of distance education, second edition (pp. 89-108). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. North, S. M. (1984). The idea of a writing centre. College English, 46, 433-446. Oliver, B., & Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the Net generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171-186. Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab. (2016). Using logic. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/02/ Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2015). Podcasting as a mobile learning technology: A study of iTunes U learners. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 7(1), 4160. San Diego State University. (n.d.). The Toulmin model of argumentation. Retrieved from http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm Savluesco, T., Foddy, B., & Clayton, M. (2004). Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(6), 666-670. Spriggs, M., T. T., Tännsjö, T., Tamburrini, T., & Fricker, P. (2005). Hypoxic air machines: performance enhancement through effective training or cheating? Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(2), 112-115. Staben, J. E., & Nordhaus, K. D. (2009). Looking at the whole text. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 78–90). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Thonus, T. (2001). Triangulation in the writing centre: Tutor, tutee, and instructor perceptions of the tutor’s role. The Writing Center Journal, 21, 57–82.

Webquests and Screencasts

305

Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is ‘success’? Assessing Writing, 8(2), 110-134. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. University of Maryland. (n.d.). Warranting claims. Retrieved from http://terpconnect. umd.edu/~jklumpp/comm401/lectures/warrant.html Wiesing, U. (2011). Should performance-enhancing drugs in sport be legalized under medical supervision? Sports Medicine, 41, 167-176.

In: Teaching and Learning English for Academic Purposes ISBN: 978-1-53612-814-7 Editors: Lap Tuen Wong and Wai Lam Heidi Wong © 2018 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 17

DEVELOPING ACADEMIC PRESENTATION COMPETENCE IN EAP CLASSROOM Sabina Ho-yan Mak Centennial College, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT Academic presentation (AP) is the most common type of oral tasks for academic studies. It is not only a means for speakers to exchange their ideas with (and gain feedback from) members in the academic communities but also provides speakers with an opportunity to develop higher-order thinking skills, through the process of which construction of new knowledge takes place. Regarding its unique roles, speech functions, linguistic and discourse features, recent scholarly discussion and research findings on academic presentation suggest that AP should be taught as a genre, and yet there is still a scarcity of research-based pedagogical instruction or instructional materials designed for EAP contexts. To be able to deliver quality presentations, ESL/EFL learners, as new comers of the academic communities, not only have to face the linguistic and cognitive demands, but also develop new identities and roles that are often very different from their L1 cultures. This chapter discusses the needs of ESL/EFL learners and their challenges in developing academic presentation competence in EFL contexts, such as Hong Kong. Following on a review of the knowledge, skills and strategies pertaining to the development of academic presentation competence and a discussion about current EAP practices, a pedagogical framework for EAP settings, comprised of designated tasks and evaluation measures, is proposed.

Keywords: oral academic discourses, oral academic socialisation, academic presentation competence, EAP course design, teaching and learning of academic speaking in EFL/ESL contexts

308

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

INTRODUCTION One aim of university education is to promote exchange of ideas and the development of higher-order thinking skills (e.g. critical thinking), through which construction of new knowledge takes place. Students are therefore expected to actively participate in various types of oral academic discourses (e.g. academic presentation, class discussions) for intellectual exchange. In Hong Kong, like many EFL contexts, it was pointed out by some university instructors in a large-scale study (Evans & Green, 2007) that their students had problems with presenting information and ideas clearly in oral presentations. Apart from the linguistic and cognitive demands, studies on academic discourse socialisation also indicate that university students, in mastering oral academic discourses, have to develop their voices and identities in the new culture (e.g. Duff, 2010; Lantolf, 2000). It is therefore proposed that explicit instruction (e.g. courses on English for academic purposes) should be provided to help learners develop the academic skills necessary for exchanging opinions and evaluation of subject knowledge in oral academic discourses. This chapter focuses on developing competence in delivering academic presentations, a common type of oral academic tasks in EFL university contexts, such as Hong Kong. It first discusses the challenges and difficulties EFL undergraduates are facing in developing academic presentation competence, with an aim to identify the areas needed for attention. Literature on specific aspects of academic presentation competence and the current EAP practices are also reviewed. It is followed by a proposal to develop designated EAP courses and tasks for enhancing EFL learners’ academic presentation competence.

EFL LEARNERS’ CHALLENGES AND NEEDS FOR DEVELOPING ACADEMIC PRESENTATION COMPETENCE Linguistic Demands on EFL/ESL Students One of the problems about EFL/ESL learners’ oral presentations commonly observed by many instructors is learners’ failure in delivering presentations in a spoken discourse and a conversational style (e.g. King, 2002). Dubois (1985, 1987) pointed out that, comparing academic written and spoken language, ‘spoken language tends to be more casual than academic writing, with more talk directed at establishing common ground with the audience’ (as cited in Barrett & Liu, 2016, pp. 1230-1). Students who fail to observe the differences in spoken and written English very often read aloud a ‘written essay’ with long and complex sentence structures, resulting in imposing a heavy cognitive load on listeners in processing the information. It is also common to find

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

309

ESL/EFL speakers giving memorised word-for-word speeches in a monotonous tone, making it even more difficult for audience to understand the main messages and raise their interest in the speeches, not to mention establishing a rapport with the audience.

Challenges in Developing Personal Voices, New Identities and Roles in Academic Discourses in EFL Contexts Literature on learners of English as a second/foreign language in Asian contexts (e.g. Hong Kong) shows that, apart from students’ level of proficiency and communicative competence, there are potential factors affecting their willingness to freely evaluate and express opinions and ideas in oral academic discourses, resulting in limited opportunities for co-constructing new knowledge in the process. These factors are learners’ prior learning experiences (e.g. secondary school education), the examination-oriented systems and the deeply-rooted Confucian educational values and practice (e.g. respect for authority, an emphasis on knowledge transfer from authoritative figures, a preference for deductive learning, face-saving to avoid conflicts) (e.g. Jin & Cortazzi, 2006; Mak, 2011). In fact, recent studies on Asian students’ reticence to speak up in class show that students who appear relatively silent in class may not be passive (Jackson, 2002), and they may be actively negotiating their identities in the new academic communities (Morita, 2004). Tsui (1996) has also pointed out that students’ reticence could be related to teachers’ interactional styles in class (e.g. types of questions asked, wait time for students’ responses). This suggests that EAP instruction needs to address the issue about Asian students’ reticence to speak and help them transform their thoughts into spoken words. Apart from the above factors, learners’ individual goals, beliefs, personal histories, and identities would also affect their awareness of and willingness to adapt to the conventions and practice expected by the academic communities. Findings of studies on ESL learners’ academic discourse socialisation (e.g. Duff, 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Morita, 2004; Morita & Kobayashi, 2008; Wenger, 1998; Yang, 2010; Zappa-Hollman, 2007) showed that new comers entering an academic community, not only had to negotiate ‘their academic and linguistic demands but also the various contextual aspects – social, cultural, institutional, interpersonal, historical, and pedagogical aspects of a given academic community, as well as their goals, personal histories, and multiple identities’ (as cited in Morita & Kobayashi, 2008, p. 244). Academic socialisation normally takes place when learners observe and gain feedback from experts in the communities, such as instructors and English-speaking peers, which is a similar process to that of mastering skills through apprenticeship. Yet, for ESL/EFL learners in largely monolingual classroom contexts (e.g. Hong Kong), there is relatively less exposure to oral academic

310

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

discourses illustrated and scaffolded by English speaking peers, and one would easily imagine the greater challenges for the learners to develop competence in oral academic discourses (e.g. academic presentations). Other means of pedagogical instruction, such as explicit instruction, could be introduced to provide a more favourable learning environment to facilitate this process.

ORAL ACADEMIC PRESENTATION COMPETENCE To be competent in delivering academic presentation, ESL learners need to apply the relevant knowledge of language and discourse, core speaking skills and communication strategies, according to the model of second language speaking competence (Goh & Burns, 2012). With an aim to identify the instructional needs of university students, this section reviews the specific aspects of knowledge about academic presentation as a genre, including its linguistic and discourse features, as well as the presentation skills and communication strategies expected in the academic communities that would facilitate intellectual exchange and construction of knowledge.

Need to Apply the Knowledge of Academic Presentation as a Genre Swales (2004) regards academic presentation as a genre, consisting of linguistic features different from that of academic lectures and written papers. Recent studies on academic presentations (AP) further illustrate the unique features in the form of lexical choices, information structure, discourse structures and delivery style (e.g. RowleyJolivet & Carter‐ Thomas, 2005; Zareva, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2016). It was found that native English-speaking presenters packaged information differently and employed different syntactic structures to help audience process and understand information more easily in delivering oral presentations (e.g. adopting a similar rhetorical structure in giving an introduction of a speech, presenting given information before introducing new information, using shorter clauses and active verb structures, employing different syntactic structures to draw audience’s attention to a particular item of information) (Carter-Thomas & Rowley-Jolivet, 2001; Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005). Studies comparing L1 and L2 presentations showed that L2 presenters used relatively more lower-frequency words than the L2 presenters, leading to a general impression that L2 presenters sound more ‘bookish’ and a distancing interpersonal relationship with the audience, although the lexical density may vary according to the subject matter (e.g. Weissberg, 1993). To facilitate interaction and establish rapport with the audience, L1 speakers were found to use more personal pronouns (e.g. I, we, you), rhetorical questions and wh-clefts (Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005). They would also keep the

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

311

audience actively involved in their presentations as part of the relevant discourse community and negotiate information by using linguistic devices, such as adverbials, in packaging the informational content of presentations (Zareva, 2009a, 2009c). Such features of oral academic presentations, as opposed to that of written academic discourses, need to be shown explicitly to students (Zareva, 2009b), and, more importantly, there needs to be instruction designated to help students transfer the knowledge of academic presentation as a genre and its linguistic features into practice. Speakers’ roles in establishing an interpersonal relationship with the audience and in reducing the cognitive processing load on the audience should also be reinforced through instruction on the linguistic and discourse features of AP.

Need to Develop Skills to Perform Specific Roles and Speech Functions Expected in Academic Presentations To be able to perform designated roles and achieve specific communicative purposes expected in academic contexts, ESL learners not only need to acquire the knowledge about the features of AP, but also develop the ability to proceduralise their knowledge through practice (Johnson, 1996). These abilities, to put the knowledge into action, are the speaking skills learners have to develop. Goh and Burns (2012) propose four categories of speaking skills that ESL learners need to develop in general: pronunciation skills (e.g. speaking accurately with appropriate stress and intonation patterns), skills to perform speech functions (e.g. giving explanation, expressing opinions), interaction management skills to regulate conversations and discussions, and discourse-organisation skills to create extended discourses in appropriate spoken genres. Similarly, in delivering academic presentations, speakers should apply the specific pronunciation skills (e.g. use of appropriate sentence stress and intonation patterns) to stress and highlight the important or new information and ideas in order to help audience understand and appreciate their contributions to the fields. Apart from basic speaking and communication skills (i.e. the abilities to speak accurately, fluently and appropriately), literature on the development of competence for academic presentations (e.g. Bankowski, 2010; ZappaHollman, 2007) shows that, learners are expected to develop advanced skills for intellectual exchange and construction of new knowledge, such as the skills illustrated below:   

demonstrating personal voice through evaluations, making interpretations, evaluating, generating and organising information from different sources, making judgements, explaining and drawing conclusions

312

Sabina Ho-yan Mak  

presenting ideas in a concise and precise manner while being prepared to elaborate on ideas presenting with an appropriate register, such as speaking with an authoritative tone while showing openness of mind

To help audience follow the flow of their ideas/interpretations and achieve the communicative purposes stated above, learners need to acquire the discourse-organisation skills (e.g. using appropriate discourse markers and linguistic convention as discussed in the previous section). In addition to the spoken discourse, presenters in preparing for visual aids, such as PowerPoint presentation designs, should pay attention to the relevance, simplicity and ‘consistency’ (i.e. systemically applying the organisation, style and typological features to their PowerPoint presentations), so as to serve the purpose of supplementing presenters’ speeches and facilitating listeners’ comprehension (Zareva, 2011).

Need to Develop Metacognitive Strategies, Enquiry and Research Skills in Preparing for a Focused and Well-Structured Presentation Metacognitive strategies refer to mental operations employed by speakers to regulate thinking and language use in preparing, monitoring and evaluating their speeches before, during and after a speaking task. In Chou’s study (2011) on the use of learner strategies by a group of Taiwanese undergraduate students, it was found that the application of metacognitive strategies in oral presentations ‘had a positive impact on the development of learner comprehension and the organisation of collected materials, the efficiency of the learning process, the acquisition of specialised knowledge and vocabulary and oral language performance’ (p. 281). In preparing for an academic presentation, learners should be taught to use research skills and metacognitive strategies, such as skills in setting an appropriate scope of topic that addresses the gap in the current knowledge of audience, connecting sub-topics and organising informational content to clearly show their interpretations, arguments or stance. They also need to apply enquiry and reflective skills in the planning process to evaluate and refine the content of their presentations so as to maintain a clear focus (e.g. Bankowski, 2010). It is generally observed by EAP instructors that most Hong Kong students appear not prepared for independent study and ‘are often not able to present their work or ideas in original or creative ways’ (Bankowski, 2010, p. 187). Students’ presentations are often found to be either descriptive or a reiteration of ideas or information already known to the audience, resulting in a failure in appealing to the audience. The problems often lie in the lack of enquiry and research skills in setting topics with an appropriate scope that give room for presenters’ voice (e.g. interpretations, critical analysis, stance), skills in

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

313

evaluating, selecting and synthesising information from various sources to support their arguments or interpretations, as well as underuse of metacognitive strategies and discourse-organisation skills to manage and organise their thoughts.

EAP COURSES/INSTRUCTION ON DEVELOPING ORAL ACADEMIC PRESENTATION COMPETENCE English for Academic Purposes (EAP) is generally defined as teaching English to facilitate learners’ study and research in the language (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Jordan, 1997). Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002) emphasise that EAP instruction should be designed to address the communicative needs and practices of the academic communities, including helping learners to meet the cognitive, social and linguistic demands of specific academic disciplines. Traditionally, EAP courses, particularly those conducted in English-speaking countries, put more emphasis on academic writing, rather than speaking (Evans & Morrison, 2011). With the surge in the number of ESL students studying in English-medium universities, some basic communication skills for academic studies have been introduced in EAP courses (e.g. basic presentation skills), though they still carry relatively less weight than academic writing does. In Hong Kong, where English is regarded as the official medium of instruction but Chinese as the dominant language for out-of-class communication, a review of compulsory English language courses offered to undergraduate students in the government-funded universities also show a relative neglect of oral academic communicative competence development; the assessments of speaking components of most EAP courses are worth less than 30% of the overall course grades. Nevertheless, in recent decades, oral communication tasks (e.g. presentations and class discussions) have become increasingly important in various disciplinary communities. It is believed that, through the spoken language, students engaging in opinion-exchange activities (e.g. presentations and discussions), learn to develop thinking skills that are specific to different disciplines (e.g. exploring, developing, investigating ideas and evaluating propositions) (Barnes, 1988), and it is regarded as an important tool for thinking and learning in academic settings (Goh & Burns, 2012). In order to meet the demands in oral academic activities, EAP courses or instruction should be designed to address the specific oral communicative needs of learners. Despite the call for application of research findings to EAP instruction design, most guidelines on academic presentation given in EAP courses remain ‘prescriptive in nature and tend to focus on the style of delivery rather than the linguistic features, such as the grammatical, lexical and discourse features used in first or second language presentations (Zareva, 2009a)’ (as cited in Barrett & Liu, 2016, p. 1231). With a slight increase in the

314

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

number of studies on academic presentations as a genre since 2000s, some EAP courses on oral presentations, such as those introduced in some Hong Kong universities, have started to introduce the general differences between speaking and writing; yet there still needs more evidence-based instructional approaches or instruction, such as instruction focusing on specific linguistic features of academic presentations and how different language forms are used to package the informational content to achieve specific communicative purposes (e.g. Feak, 2013; Zareva, 2009a).

A PEDAGOGICAL MODEL TO DEVELOPING ORAL ACADEMIC PRESENTATION COMPETENCE Among all academic-related oral communication tasks, academic presentation (AP) is regarded as the most common type of tasks in which English is used for communication in ESL/EFL contexts, such as Hong Kong, and the development of academic presentation competence should therefore be regarded as a key component of EAP courses (Evans & Morrison, 2011). Taking into account the above factors influencing success in the development of oral academic competence in the literature, the characteristics of ESL/EFL undergraduates and their needs, a pedagogical model to developing academic oral presentation competence in EAP contexts is proposed, including designated instruction, task types and activities at various stages as well as formative and summative assessment components.

Explicit Instruction and Discussion about Expected Performances Considering that ESL/ EFL students have less exposure to how oral presentations are delivered in the academic communities, EAP teachers can give explicit instructions (Yang, 2010) and discuss with students the expected performances using some sample plans/outlines, or showing some video-recordings of academic presentations. This would help to ease the anxiety of students, especially those who prefer deductive teaching approach from Confucian culture (see Barrette & Liu, 2016, p. 1251). According to the findings of a large-scale study on first-year students’ and instructors’ concerns about expected performance of students’ oral presentations in a Hong Kong university (Evans & Morrison, 2011), the instructors of different disciplines emphasised the quality of content, in addition to the ability to deliver messages in clear, accurate and appropriate English. To help learners transfer learning from EAP courses to content-based courses in their disciplines, particularly their ability to deliver messages of good quality that meet the expectations in their disciplines, EAP courses should put more emphasis on the

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

315

quality of informational content of students’ presentations, rather than merely providing practice on basic presentation skills. Specific instruction can be given to draw learners’ attention to the relationship between the quality of message and the preparation process (e.g. selecting topics that give room for speakers’ voice, setting appropriate scope of topics, dividing a topic into subtopics that are well-connected, the kinds of information and references to be used for support). Also, instead of requiring learners to work on designated topics for presentations in EAP courses, which is a common practice in EAP courses, learners should be encouraged to work on topics that are relevant to their disciplines or potential research topics that they have to deal with in their disciplines (Van Ginkel et al., 2015). Giving students’ autonomy to work on discipline-related topics not only helps learners relate their learning in EAP courses to their disciplines, but also provides learners with an opportunity to practise advanced skills in dealing with complex ideas and concepts about their disciplines, which would enhance the transferability of oral presentation skills learnt in EAP courses to their disciplinary settings. To further enhance learners’ reflective skills, the expected outcomes, including the criteria on the quality of content, the organisation of informational content and flow of ideas, speakers’ interpretations and stance, can also be aligned with the formative and summative assessment requirements and evaluation tools. This would be more appealing to learners who are extrinsically motivated, one of the characteristics of learners commonly found in Chinese educational contexts.

Awareness-Raising Tasks: Uncovering Gaps between the Expected Outcomes in the Academic Communities and Learners’ Beliefs Awareness-raising activities are often used to help learners uncover gaps in their knowledge about speaking (Thornbury, 2005). For undergraduate students, who have normally acquired some basic knowledge and skills in delivering oral presentations, these activities can be used to uncover gaps in learners’ understanding of the expected outcomes in the academic communities. For instance, it is observed that many ESL undergraduates, especially those whose mother tongue is a mono-syllabic language, often ignore the importance of the use of appropriate stress and intonation patterns in conveying messages to the audience. Many have the beliefs that one can speak ‘beautiful’ English with appropriate stress and intonation patterns but ignore its important role in communication. Awareness-raising activities can therefore be employed to help learners’ identify how stress and intonation patterns can be used to facilitate communication in a speech. This can also be followed by controlled or communication tasks helping learners to proceduralise the knowledge and consolidate the relevant skills. Other than raising learners’ awareness of the gaps in specific aspects of speaking competence, awareness-raising activities can also be used to help learners identify, for

316

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

instance, expected roles in academic presentations (e.g. in giving personal voice). Learners can be shown video clips of academic presentations and guided to discuss, from the audience’s perspective, how the speakers’ interpretations and evaluations have addressed the gap in audience’s knowledge. This can also be followed by activities, such as discourse-analysis tasks, focusing learners’ attention to how linguistic devices and discourse features can be used to achieve the purposes.

Discourse-Analysis Tasks on Common Discourse Features and DiscourseOrganisation Skills To enhance learners’ awareness of the differences between written and spoken discourses, a genre-based approach can be adapted (Burns, 2010). Attention should be drawn to the unique discourse features in academic presentations, such as moves taken in an introduction stating the rationale and setting the scope of the presentation, discourse features used in information packaging integrating speakers’ personal voices with credible sources (Zareva, 2009a), and linguistic devices used in speaking with an appropriate level of formality and in participatory style (e.g. Bankowski, 2010; Hood & Forey, 2005). Discourse-analysis tasks giving learners’ opportunities to analyse the target discourse features could be introduced, following awareness-raising activities (refer to a sample discourse-analysis task in Appendix A). In this activity, learners, taking the role of audience, first watch two samples of video clips, with one illustrating good use of linguistic and discourse features, and evaluate whether the presentations are effective in engaging and conveying messages to the audience. Then they are invited to analyse the discourse features with a set of guided questions. To enhance the transferability of the newly acquired knowledge, learners can be asked to write a script or practise presenting the relevant sections of their own presentations, followed by teacher or peer-feedback.

Audience-Oriented Activities to Enhance Learners’ Metacognitive Strategies and Enquiry and Reflective Skills In preparing for an academic presentation, speakers often have to set an appropriate scope of a topic to address the gap in literature or the existing knowledge of the audience, and structure their arguments/interpretations with the support of credible sources. This involves recurring processes in brainstorming, reviewing relevant literature, searching for appropriate sources, critically evaluating and synthesising materials and thoughts, as well as structuring (and restructuring) informational content. While some processes require similar research skills employed in academic writing (e.g. skills in reviewing and searching for appropriate sources), EAP courses on academic presentation competence

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

317

should put more emphasis on equipping learners with metacognitive strategies and critical thinking skills in selecting, evaluating and structuring information content and materials so that their presentations would appeal to the audience or address the gap in their knowledge. Instructional input could be given at various stages in the form of guidelines, list of guiding questions and templates for proposals and outlines, accompanied by teacher and peer feedback (see Appendices B and C for samples). To acquire the intellectual/cognitive abilities pertaining to quality messages, another source of learning is the experienced members of the target disciplinary communities, who act as agents facilitating learners’ academic socialisation process as found in previous studies conducted in English-speaking countries. Yet, ESL learners in EAP courses have relatively less exposure to the kind of intellectual exchanges/interactions with experienced members in the academic communities. It is also generally observed that ESL learners need more support in developing critical thinking, particularly the cognitive thinking process learners have to go through in preparing content of a good quality. In view of the constraints, more audience-oriented activities involving elements of teacher modelling and scaffolding could be introduced. For instance, in the stage of evaluating and restructuring informational content of their presentations, students can be invited to give mini-presentations based on their outlines to a small peer group, after which their peers, taking the role of audience, are invited to ask questions and give feedback, especially on sharing their thoughts on what they are interested (and not interested) in learning from the speakers. Speakers can also take the opportunities to further explain areas of interest and those ideas that the audience are not clear about, and respond to audience’s feedback. To enhance the quality of feedback and interactions between the speakers and audience, EAP teachers could act as facilitators and role models during the exchanges, demonstrating how to ask good quality questions or shaping the audience’s questions/feedback. This would create a more favourable learning environment for the development of metacognitive strategies, enhancement of reflective and enquiry skills in which learners can be exposed to quality intellectual exchanges between peers, given demonstrations and support in the cognitive thinking process, as well as given opportunities to articulate their thoughts and discover gaps in listeners’ understanding, to improve on the quality of their messages in response to the listeners’ oral feedback, and to negotiate and internalise their new roles expected in the academic communities.

Peer and Self-Evaluation as Formative Assessments Other reflective and evaluation measures including peer- and self-evaluation can also be introduced at various stages of reviewing and editing the informational content, overall structure and information flow of presentations as well as speaking practices on

318

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

presentation skills and specific aspects of academic presentation competence. It has been acknowledged in the literature that both peer- and self-evaluation can be effective in enhancing learners’ speaking competence when students are given clear evaluation criteria and sufficient training. In designing the evaluation criteria or evaluation forms, to enhance ESL learners’ awareness of the major objective of academic presentations, (i.e. communicating to the target audience in the academic communities, not just the EAP instructors), it is suggested that emphasis should be put on drawing learners’ attention to audience’s reactions. For instance, instead of stating the peer evaluation criterion about organisation as ‘the flow of ideas is clear.’, more specific, audience-oriented statements in peer-evaluation forms could be provided: ‘I was able to follow the speakers’ main ideas.’, ‘Sufficient evidence or examples are provided to help me understand the target issues.’

Figure 17.1. A pedagogical model to developing oral academic presentation competence.

To enhance learners’ awareness of and the abilities to interact with audience, in both perspectives of establishing rapport and facilitating cognitive processing of listeners, learners should be encouraged to employ the relevant linguistic and discourse features in structuring and delivering their messages. The relationship between quality messages conveyed to audience, structuring of ideas and language use can be highlighted by

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

319

inviting learners to evaluate speakers’ use of linguistic devices and discourse features. For instance, evaluation criteria for peer-evaluation can include statements related to language use (e.g. ‘The speaker has shown clearly when he starts a new point with the use of some linguistic devices such as signposting phrases.’). The major components of the model are summarised in Figure 17.1. The weight of each component and the target linguistic features/skills/strategies in each task can vary with learners’ prior knowledge and experiences in conducting AP. For instance, when implementing this model in EAP courses to senior undergraduates who have acquired basic knowledge and skills about AP, the discourse-analysis tasks can then focus on the problematic areas commonly found in learners’ presentations (e.g. skills in information packaging and discourse features employed to present personal voice).

CONCLUSION This chapter first discusses the challenges and needs of EFL/ESL learners in developing academic presentation competence. Apart from the linguistic demands on the learners, it has been pointed out that learners’ previous learning experiences, beliefs and identities about their roles would also affect their awareness of and willingness to adapt to the conventions and practice expected by the academic communities. It is then followed by a review and discussion of specific aspects of knowledge, skills and strategies that are critical for developing academic presentation competence in EAP settings. Attention should be drawn to the unique linguistic and discourse features of academic presentation (AP), the enhancement of language skills for learners to assume expected roles and perform specific speech functions in conducting AP, as well as the development of metacognitive and enquiry skills necessary for handling complicated informational content. In view of the scarcity of research-based instructional materials and instruction, a pedagogical model is proposed, highlighting the importance of uncovering the gaps in learners’ understanding of the expected outcomes and roles in the academic communities, the use of discourse-analysis tasks to raise learners’ awareness of academic presentation as a genre, as well as the enhancement of metacognitive strategies and the use of audience-oriented and scaffolding activities to facilitate cognitive processing in the stages of planning, reviewing and evaluating.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the Faculty Development Scheme (FDS) of the Research Grant Council (RGC) of Hong Kong. (Project No.: UGC/FDS/H02/15).

320

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

APPENDIX A. SAMPLE AWARENESS-RAISING AND DISCOURSE-ANALYSIS TASKS Demonstrating your personal voice with academic support Instructions: Task A (Awareness-raising): Watch the two clips about presentations on the topic of ‘compensated dating’ given by Speakers 1 and 2. In small groups, discuss which speaker gives a more convincing and insightful speech by answering the following questions. Task B (Discourse-analysis): Read the transcripts of the two clips. Analyse the language used by the two speakers, and discuss what makes script 2 a more attractive and insightful speech. You could consider areas such as the use of vocabulary and expressions, sentence structures, and organisation and flow of information. Questions for discussion: 1. What are the main ideas of each speaker? 2. Which speaker’s speech is more relevant to the audience and is more effective in catching your attention? Why? 3. Which speaker has explained the focus of the topic, (i.e. the rationale of the subtopics) more clearly? Which speech is more convincing? Why? 4. Which speaker has shown you the gap in our knowledge? 5. Which speaker cares more about the audience’s concerns or queries? Why? 6. Both speakers have given the definition of ‘compensated dating’. Why do they do so? What do the speakers want to tell the audience? Which speaker has given more convincing and insightful ideas after giving the definition? Why? 7. Discuss why the second speaker has shown more effective use of the following strategies. i. Wording of sub-topics ii. Use of signposting phrases iii. Explanation of reference materials

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

321

APPENDIX B. SAMPLE PROPOSAL AND OUTLINE

Sample Proposal Proposed topic: (Check if the scope of your topic is specific enough to give room for in-depth analysis / critical reflection):

Rationale and significance of the proposed topic (in about 200 words): (e.g. Any background information? Why is [your topic] important for your classmates to learn? What is the gap in our knowledge about the topic? If you choose to revisit a familiar issue, what is the unexplored area/perspective? Can you explore the issue in greater depth or from a new perspective? How can your subtopics guide the audience to explore the topic in greater depth? What do you want your classmates to learn from your presentation?)

Subtopics (e.g. different perspectives into an issue, factors leading to a phenomenon, areas of concern, causes of a problem, suggestions to solve a problem) (Check if your subtopics are focused enough so that you could systematically analyse the issue in greater depth.)

1. 2. 3. 4.

322

Sabina Ho-yan Mak Appendix B. (Continued) Sample Outline I. Presentation topic and subtopics II. Learning objectives (in response to your contribution) List 2-3 short statements about the significance of your topic, indicating what ideas/concepts the audience should be able to take away from your presentation. (e.g. The presentation examines the causes of a current problem.., The audience can understand different factors leading to…, understand the issues from the perspective of …, learn new solutions.., identify problems and concerns, identify the potential effects on…, anticipate future actions or identify room for future research…)

III. An outline of your presentation (with citation of major sources of information/ ideas) 1. Introduction i. Attention-getting opener, relevant background information and rationale for addressing the issue/ topic from the audience’s perspective (e.g. identifying a gap in our knowledge, the need for solutions to an unsolved problem, the significance of exploring an issue from a new perspective)

ii. Preview (e.g. setting the scope of your topic and outline subtopics in response to session i)

2.

Body 1st subtopic + details (including your opinions/ reflection/ critique/ analysis and evidence from academic sources)

3.

2nd subtopic + details 3rd subtopic + details Conclusion i. Summary ii. Memorable concluding remarks

IV. References (using an appropriate referencing style, e.g. MLA, APA) V. Follow-up discussion questions for feedback session (write 1-2 questions to stimulate discussion)

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

323

APPENDIX C. LIST OF GUIDED QUESTIONS FOR CRITIQUE Critiquing Presentation Proposal Imagine that you are the audience, ask the following questions: 1. Audience’s perspective (Significance & New Insights):  Why do I have to care about this presentation? Why is it relevant, interesting and beneficial to us? What is something new I can gain from the speaker? 2. It’s educational :  What are the speaker’s insights? (e.g. gap in knowledge? Analysis from different perspectives?) 3. It’s worth academic pursuit (Integration of insights & literature)  What’s the point of using information from reading?  Are the references used to support or further explain the speaker’s opinions? How?  Can I gain the same kind of information through reading on my own? How different is the presentation compared to the information available in existing reading? (Will the speakers’ give his own interpretations or synthesis information from different sources?)  What kinds of reading will the speaker use (e.g. concepts, theories, research articles, case studies)? 4. Structure of subtopics:  If the subtopics are well known to me, should the speaker narrow it down to more specific aspects?  What are the specific aspects the speaker attempts to explore?  How can the subtopics help me explore the topic in greater depth? 5. Making necessary changes in setting an appropriate scope of topic and subtopics with a clear focus:  I already have some knowledge about the topic of the presentation. Why should I listen to the speaker?  What I want to learn more about is….(suggest more specific areas of interest)  The questions I have about this topic are…

324

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

REFERENCES Bankowski, E. (2010). Developing skills for effective academic presentations in EAP. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 187196. Barnes, D. (1988). The politics of oracy. In M. Maclure, T. Phillips, & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Oracy matters: The development of talking and listening in education (pp. 4355). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G.-Z. (2016). Global trends and research aims for English academic oral presentations: changes, challenges, and opportunities for learning technology. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1227-1271. Burns, A. (2010). Teaching speaking using genre-based pedagogy. In M. Olafsson (Ed.), Symposium 2009 (pp. 230-246). Stockholm, Swedan: National Centre for Swedish as a Second Language, University of Stockholm. Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2001). Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific discourse: The role of information structure. ASp. la revue du GERAS, 3133, 19-37. Chou, M. H. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 272-285. Dubois, B. L. (1985). Popularization at the highest level: Poster sessions at biomedical meetings. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 56, 67–84. Dubois, B. L. (1987). Something on the order of around forty to forty-four: Imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society, 16, 527–541. Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192. Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17. Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EAP. ELT Journal, 65(4), 387-397. Feak, C. B. (2013). ESP and speaking. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 35-53). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 8-24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hood, S., & Forey, G. (2005). Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 291-306.

Developing Academic Presentation Competence in EAP Classroom

325

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1-12. Jackson, J. (2002). The L2 case discussion in business: An ethnographic investigation. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 268-286). Essex: England: Pearson Education. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 5-20. Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill development. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers. Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. King, J. (2002). Preparing EFL learners for oral presentations. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic Studies, 4, 401-418. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (Eds.). (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Mak, S. H.-Y. (2011). Tensions between conflicting beliefs of an EFL teacher in teaching practice. RELC Journal, 42(1), 53-67. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. Morita, N., & Kobayashi, M. (2008). Academic discourse socialization in a second language. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 2805-2817). Boston, MA: Springer. Rowley‐ Jolivet, E., & Carter‐ Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45-70. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Harlow, England: Longman. Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 145-167). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Van Ginkel, S., et al. (2015). Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher education. Educational Research Review, 14, 62-80. Weissberg, B. (1993). The graduate seminar: another research-process genre. English for Specific Purposes, 12(1), 23-35.

326

Sabina Ho-yan Mak

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Yang, L. (2010). Doing a group presentation: Negotiations and challenges experienced by five Chinese ESL students of commerce at a Canadian university. Language Teaching Research, 14(2), 141-160. Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). Becoming socialized into diverse academic communities through oral presentations. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 455–485. Zareva, A. (2009a). Informational packaging, level of formality, and the use of circumstance adverbials in L1 and L2 student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 55-68. Zareva, A. (2009b). Lexical composition of effective L1 and L2 students' academic presentations. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 91-110. Zareva, A. (2009c). Student academic presentations: The processing side of interactiveness. English Text Construction, 2(2), 265-288. Zareva, A. (2011). International graduate student PowerPoint presentation designs: A reality check. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 9(2), 127-144. Zareva, A. (2016). Multi-word verbs in student academic presentations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 83-98.

INDEX A academic discourse, vii, xi, xiv, 66, 89, 222, 230, 231, 232, 233, 283, 308, 309, 311, 324, 325 academic English, vi, 15, 16, 25, 89, 129, 175, 176, 200, 201, 205, 211, 212, 213, 255, 257, 260, 263, 279 academic literacy, 5, 19, 28, 70, 74, 76, 80, 83, 95, 166, 167, 170, 176, 230, 236, 255, 258, 263, 264, 267, 275, 276 academic persuasive essays, 286 academic presentation competence, vi, 307, 308, 310, 313, 314, 316, 318, 319 academic vocabulary, x, 22, 23, 31, 32, 66, 184 academic writing, vi, xi, xii, xiv, 17, 18, 19, 22, 42, 43, 71, 74, 89, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 129, 136, 166, 170, 176, 182, 195, 211, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240, 247, 248, 253, 285, 286, 291, 297, 300, 305, 308, 313, 316 accent, 57 acculturation, xiv, 88, 220, 237 accuracy, 120, 123, 124, 151, 153, 156, 157 achievement, 71, 92, 125, 136, 194, 247, 253, 283 acquisition, x, xi, xiii, xv, 21, 23, 30, 31, 37, 47, 48, 50, 83, 88, 97, 98, 107, 125, 126, 135, 139, 158, 199, 201, 212, 263, 312 active design, 69, 83, 84, 86 advanced novice researchers, 219, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 233, 235 affective, 61, 133

ambiguity, 113, 114, 115, 124, 203 analogously, 16 analogy, 294 anxiety, 137, 140, 213, 214, 314, 325 aotearoa, 51, 248, 253 applied linguistics, vii, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, 24, 32, 33, 47, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66, 68, 72, 87, 90, 108, 124, 136, 138, 177, 200, 217, 235, 240, 257, 279, 303, 324, 325, 326 aptitude, 126 argumentation, 37, 106, 122, 202, 288, 290, 294, 295, 300, 301, 304 Aristotelian, 286, 289, 293, 295 Aristotelian appeals to pathos, 286 Asia, xvi, 25, 36, 62, 139, 236 assessment for learning, 22, 25, 32 asynchronous, 285, 287, 302 attention, 10, 25, 28, 31, 49, 53, 75, 77, 78, 86, 98, 99, 107, 113, 121, 137, 164, 175, 182, 184, 189, 190, 196, 197, 209, 260, 263, 275, 278, 299, 308, 310, 312, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 322 attitudes, 87, 126, 132, 137, 188, 199, 200, 202, 203, 259, 271, 275, 278 audio, 260, 268, 287, 298, 299, 302 Australia, ix, xiii, xvi, 17, 69, 70, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 173, 174, 175, 215, 217, 253 Australian, 71, 80, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 217, 253, 304 authentic, 23, 57, 150 authority, 69, 71, 80, 83, 84, 86, 92, 202, 203, 212, 262, 269, 273, 274, 289, 294, 309 autonomy, 46, 85, 131, 183, 191, 217, 283, 315

328

Index

awareness, 22, 25, 37, 60, 106, 107, 111, 122, 129, 130, 163, 169, 170, 179, 180, 182, 183, 188, 189, 197, 223, 225, 227, 228, 230, 272, 283, 309, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320

B barrier, 77, 200, 211, 212 behaviour, 61, 78, 275 belief, 73, 222 bias, 52 blended, xi, 47, 48, 50, 93, 245, 248, 251, 304 blogs, 42, 153, 173 bodily kinesthetic, 288 brainstorming, 316

C Canada, xii, 137, 143, 150, 159 case study, 49, 92, 133, 138, 179, 180, 185, 195 challenges, 22, 24, 27, 36, 37, 39, 44, 45, 46, 48, 53, 57, 72, 74, 75, 76, 87, 92, 95, 125, 139, 167, 176, 179, 182, 193, 194, 200, 208, 212, 232, 257, 263, 283, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 326 China, ix, xiii, 21, 25, 36, 40, 57, 66, 93, 108, 111, 130, 161, 167, 199, 213, 216, 307 Chinese, x, xii, 12, 32, 56, 58, 62, 74, 80, 95, 102, 130, 133, 140, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 286, 313, 315, 325, 326 Chinese culture, 199, 202, 203, 215, 216, 325 citation, 113, 117, 153, 206, 229, 290, 322 citizen, 173, 215 cognitive, xv, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 69, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 94, 108, 125, 127, 133, 137, 162, 183, 195, 201, 202, 209, 222, 236, 240, 243, 244, 307, 308, 311, 313, 317, 318, 319 cohesion, 71, 100, 107, 115, 123, 131, 154 collaboration, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 81, 85, 169, 207, 208, 274 collaborative, 35, 38, 39, 52, 53, 54, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 78, 82, 83, 84, 86, 183, 200, 209, 217, 222, 229, 260, 264, 266, 288 college, x, xii, xv, xvi, 48, 75, 80, 88, 92, 93, 95, 111, 116, 122, 130, 133, 136, 140, 162, 164, 172, 199, 216, 218, 219, 221, 256, 257, 281, 282, 283, 303, 304, 307 collocations, 99, 100, 102, 107, 108, 181, 196

comfort zone, 212, 250, 259 communicative, 44, 52, 53, 54, 65, 107, 112, 151, 163, 209, 228, 243, 287, 302, 309, 311, 312, 313, 314 competence, 36, 38, 46, 53, 63, 107, 183, 191, 207, 211, 214, 228, 230, 236, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 318, 319, 325 complexity, 13, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 152, 223, 236, 240, 259, 261, 265 component skills, 136, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185 component skills of reading, 179, 180, 181, 184 comprehensible input, 37 comprehension, 33, 35, 37, 38, 46, 66, 80, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 190, 193, 196, 197, 261, 263, 265, 266, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 312 computer, 5, 39, 55, 68, 87, 112, 251, 252 conferences, xi, 18, 170, 234, 235, 297 Confucius, 203 constructivism, 82 content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach, 285, 286 content-based, xv, 17, 81, 180, 314 context, xii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 27, 41, 60, 62, 66, 67, 68, 74, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 88, 100, 105, 113, 121, 127, 129, 130, 134, 135, 144, 146, 147, 148, 157, 162, 176, 201, 207, 209, 210, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223, 230, 232, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 248, 249, 251, 253, 255, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 272, 276, 279, 291, 292, 325 contextualised, 3, 4, 5, 8, 183 cooperative, 45, 48, 81, 214, 281 corpus, v, 6, 7, 18, 25, 26, 33, 34, 65, 68, 89, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 107, 108, 109, 114, 117, 123, 138 correlation, xi, 6, 119 course design, vii, 48 critical literacy, 81, 91, 93, 281 critical pedagogy, 69, 70, 75, 76, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89 critical thinking, vi, xvi, 5, 38, 44, 86, 185, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 285, 286, 308, 317 critical thinking skills, 86, 199, 202, 205, 206, 207, 211, 212, 213, 215, 286, 317 cross-cultural, 44, 82, 92 cultural beliefs, 209, 210 cultural differences, 202 cultural diversity, 86, 269

Index culture, xiv, 5, 27, 36, 45, 48, 53, 54, 62, 73, 74, 82, 87, 95, 134, 163, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 209, 212, 215, 216, 217, 222, 223, 225, 226, 236, 237, 278, 283, 301, 308, 314, 325 curriculum, vi, viii, xii, xv, xvi, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 48, 51, 64, 67, 71, 80, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 215, 216, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 230, 235, 249, 252, 253, 261, 283, 285, 325 curriculum design, vi, xvi, 51, 64, 143, 144, 148, 149, 158, 222, 253 curriculum renewal, 143

D data, 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 33, 46, 51, 55, 56, 64, 71, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 108, 112, 130, 131, 133, 135, 150, 169, 171, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 206, 210, 229, 231, 232, 279, 283, 288, 289, 290, 295, 296, 298, 301 debate, 203, 263, 286, 297 decoding, 125, 127, 128, 134, 137 decontextualised, 6, 279 democratic, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 202, 271 demographic, 150 diagnostic, 133 dialectical, 256 dialogic, vi, xiii, xiv, 16, 18, 54, 65, 69, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 94, 218, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 284 dialogic teaching, vi, 78, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 268, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 283 dialogical, 75, 81, 82, 83, 85, 201, 264, 267 dialogues, 76, 77, 81 dichotomy, 115 digital, xiv, xvi, 72, 91, 302, 304 disciplinary, ix, xiv, xvi, 37, 41, 55, 64, 74, 81, 83, 86, 108, 123, 162, 166, 170, 222, 226, 234, 263, 313, 315, 317 discipline, vii, 5, 17, 19, 21, 22, 28, 30, 31, 41, 55, 66, 74, 81, 112, 126, 128, 162, 163, 171, 173, 213, 220, 225, 227, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 297, 315

329

discourse, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, 17, 37, 63, 65, 67, 80, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 108, 113, 114, 121, 123, 127, 128, 135, 158, 179, 180, 182, 188, 189, 194, 197, 216, 220, 225, 226, 230, 233, 237, 239, 241, 245, 246, 249, 251, 252, 253, 255, 258, 263, 264, 282, 283, 288, 297, 301, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 318, 319, 320, 324 discourse analysis, xii, xiii, xvi, 93, 237, 258 discourse markers, 312 discourse structure, xiv, 182, 194, 239, 241, 245, 246, 249, 310 discourse-structure graphic organisers (DSGOs), 182, 188, 189 distractors, 191 diversity, 49, 121, 191, 252, 256, 257, 277 domestic, 166, 167, 168, 171

E EAP course design, xii, 307 EAP in Australia, vi, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 175 EAP in the UK, 161, 168, 170, 171 education policy, 74, 214 elicit, 112, 157 ELICOS, 165, 168 embryonic novice researchers, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 226, 227, 230 emotion, 10, 15, 293 emotional, 7, 10, 102, 137, 275, 286 employment, 27, 159, 205 encoding, 128, 246, 247, 249, 251 engagement, v, 9, 30, 35, 39, 44, 45, 46, 62, 63, 69, 81, 82, 83, 93, 105, 126, 136, 137, 157, 163, 266, 276 English as a foreign language (EFL), 74, 94, 135, 138, 139 English as a second language (ESL), ix, xiii, xv, 24, 27, 32, 39, 49, 66, 68, 69, 70, 76, 80, 82, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 173, 194, 202, 209, 210, 215, 216, 218, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 268, 269, 272, 280, 282, 289, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 326 English as an additional language (EAL), 167, 252, 259 English for academic purposes (EAP), 1, iii, v, vi, vii, ix, x, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17,

330

Index

18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95,97, 98, 99, 107, 111, 114, 116, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184,185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 239, 268, 269, 285, 286, 301, 307, 308, 309, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 324, 325, 326 English for general purposes (EGP), 212 English for specific purposes (ESP), ix, x, xiii, xv, 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 32, 34, 55, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 88, 108, 126, 158, 162, 163, 170, 175, 176, 177, 240, 324, 325 English language education, vii, ix, 92, 139, 216, 283 English language learners, x, 89, 126, 128, 131, 200, 255, 256, 261, 265, 266, 281, 282, 283 English language learning, vii, 70, 93, 152, 205, 206, 255 English language teaching (ELT), x, xii, xvi, 50, 65, 66, 90, 94, 108, 123, 139, 140, 158, 163, 169, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 195, 216, 217, 225, 236, 237, 324 enhancement, xii, 294, 295, 304, 317, 319 epistemological, 75, 85, 277 errors, iv, 139, 202 ethnic, 248 ethnographic, 55, 167, 225, 325 ethos, 289, 290, 293, 301 evaluation, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 41, 101, 102, 144, 147, 148, 151, 173, 179, 180, 184, 185, 193, 195, 196, 213, 214, 217, 229, 241, 242, 291, 307, 308, 315, 317, 319 examination, 25, 37, 116, 136, 202, 203, 206, 212, 237, 309 examination-oriented, 202, 206, 212, 309 exercise, 33, 186, 190, 191, 213, 215, 220, 248, 252, 272 existentialist, 288 experiential learning, 82, 200, 232 experimental, 111, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 expertise, xiv, 25, 38, 68, 69, 112, 137, 175, 224, 226, 231

explicit, 45, 74, 89, 93, 107, 156, 181, 184, 192, 197, 213, 214, 220, 223, 226, 227, 230, 235, 260, 267, 270, 288, 308, 310, 314

F face-to-face instruction, 287 factors, v, ix, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 63, 64, 65, 81, 93, 126, 131, 135, 138, 139, 147, 148, 199, 200, 206, 210, 211, 215, 258, 262, 309, 314, 321, 322 failure, 36, 49, 137, 308, 312 familiarity, 22, 27, 44, 57, 189 family, 242, 257 feedback, 22, 28, 33, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 154, 156, 157, 158, 183, 191, 193, 197, 209, 210, 213, 226, 228, 229, 231, 234, 235, 274, 278, 289, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 307, 309, 316, 317, 322 field, vii, 5, 22, 29, 48, 53, 55, 64, 69, 73, 81, 85, 98, 114, 124, 144, 161, 162, 169, 171, 174, 210, 235, 260, 266, 285, 286, 290, 293, 300, 301 first language, vii, 58, 102, 107, 116, 126, 132, 133, 139, 163, 215, 258, 286 flipped classroom, v, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 200 fluency, x, 120, 123, 124, 135, 151, 153, 179, 180, 183, 184, 190, 191, 197, 263, 271, 279 foreign language, x, xii, xv, xvi, 32, 33, 36, 47, 48, 91, 137, 140, 194, 195, 209, 257, 280, 309 formal writing, 111, 121 formality, vi, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 152, 316, 326 forms, 12, 27, 38, 42, 45, 74, 80, 81, 97, 98, 113, 119, 132, 145, 201, 211, 221, 225, 235, 264, 271, 314, 318 four resources model (4RM), 80, 91 framework, ix, 11, 16, 60, 69, 75, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 93, 126, 129, 139, 174, 175, 177, 209, 216, 220, 222, 226, 235, 239, 245, 246, 247, 250, 252, 261, 266, 282, 283, 288, 304, 307 freedom, 104, 168, 298 F-score, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121 future stability, 161, 175 future stability of EAP, 161, 175 fuzziness, 113, 114, 115, 124

G GAMMA pedagogy, xiv, 70, 82, 83, 85, 86

Index general learning outcomes, 152, 153, 155 generalisation, 242, 294 generative learning, 70, 91 generative practice, 69, 83 generic, 5, 15, 16, 25, 106, 182, 197, 213, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 249, 290 generic rhetorical structure, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 249 genre, vi, xii, 5, 6, 19, 37, 43, 53, 68, 71, 73, 80, 87, 88, 90, 112, 127, 165, 193, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 264, 281, 288, 291, 297, 303, 307, 310, 314, 316, 319, 324, 325 global, ix, 5, 35, 36, 46, 92, 111, 139, 152, 164, 182, 200, 215, 253, 278, 283, 286, 324 global reading strategies, 182 government, iv, 15, 32, 36, 80, 89, 166, 168, 313 grammar, xii, 29, 31, 37, 71, 107, 108, 129, 131, 132, 140, 150, 151, 154, 156, 183, 197, 211, 213, 228, 253, 256, 276 group work, 52, 53, 257, 274 guidelines, 36, 214

H handwriting, 127 health, xv, 8, 9, 290, 292, 293 hedging, 105, 106, 108 higher education, vii, ix, xiv, 18, 33, 49, 50, 54, 66, 67, 69, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 108, 112, 129, 158, 162, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 194, 200, 201, 215, 216, 217, 236, 256, 257, 266, 279, 285, 302, 324, 325 higher thinking skills, 132 history, 5, 6, 70, 101, 162, 164, 168, 173, 177, 215, 252 holistic, 54, 65, 152, 154, 324 homogenous, 130 Hong Kong, v, vi, x, xii, xiii, xvi, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 56, 58, 62, 66, 81, 93, 111, 116, 120, 123, 136, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 307, 308, 309, 312, 313, 314, 319, 324 Hong Kong learners, 23, 199, 203, 207, 210, 212 hypothesis, 106, 120, 136, 303

331 I

identity, x, xi, 48, 67, 68, 73, 85, 86, 88, 90, 94, 123, 162, 175, 222, 236, 325, 326 ideology, xi, 38 implementation, 49, 83, 86, 143, 144, 148, 150, 157, 258 implications, v, vii, 40, 51, 52, 64, 65, 66, 71, 73, 80, 91, 94, 97, 100, 136, 138, 150, 199, 201, 202, 209, 215, 216, 217, 253, 255, 304, 324 implicit, 74, 83, 86, 226, 259, 288 independence, 134, 222 independent, iv, 30, 42, 43, 69, 116, 118, 131, 168, 202, 204, 209, 223, 231, 288, 290, 297, 302, 312 independent learning, 69, 202, 290, 297 indigenous, 167 individual differences, 135, 136 industry, 70, 72, 161, 162, 163, 172, 289 inequality, 277 inference, 93, 134, 139 inferential skills, 134, 140 inherent, 166 input, viii, 48, 75, 77, 78, 82, 106, 107, 127, 144, 150, 157, 183, 285, 289, 294, 297, 300, 302, 317 insights, 46, 60, 71, 77, 79, 98, 138, 143, 149, 207, 210, 241, 261, 323 institutional, 26, 30, 61, 74, 163, 170, 172, 230, 309 instructional, xv, 44, 45, 88, 106, 121, 137, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 157, 182, 184, 243, 245, 256, 257, 258, 260, 264, 266, 267, 271, 281, 283, 292, 303, 307, 310, 314, 317, 319 integration, 91, 225, 323 integrity, 155 intensive, xvi, 74, 165, 193, 296, 297 interaction, v, xiii, 12, 37, 38, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 81, 87, 127, 207, 208, 209, 210, 214, 218, 224, 241, 248, 249, 253, 264, 266, 280, 283, 287, 297, 298, 302, 303, 310, 311, 325 interactive, 39, 47, 52, 53, 54, 56, 61, 67, 76, 89, 127, 296 intercultural, xiv, 18, 19, 65, 74, 83, 217 interlocutors, 112 internal discourse structure, 241, 243, 245, 249 international English language testing system (IELTS), xi, xiv, 6, 18, 70, 76, 80, 90, 129, 130, 136, 165, 276

332

Index

interpersonal, 45, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 136, 287, 302, 309, 310, 324 interpretation, 93, 113, 282 interventions, xv, 100, 120, 122, 289, 290, 300 interview, 7, 42, 55, 56, 88, 115, 199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 210, 259, 267, 295 intonation, 311, 315 intrapersonal, 287, 302 intrinsic motivation, 46, 82, 83 inventory of multiple intelligences, 287

J jobs, 228, 234 justifications, 220

K knowledge, xiii, 7, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 97, 98, 99, 107, 114, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 136, 139, 144, 147, 153, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 196, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 217, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 230, 232, 236, 256, 259, 260, 261, 263, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 272, 274, 275, 281, 283, 285, 288, 289, 297, 301, 302, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 315, 316, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323

L L2 teaching, 111, 135, 263 L2 writers, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107, 108, 132, 134, 303 language development, xii, 36, 41, 136, 256 language proficiency, vii, xiv, 35, 46, 47, 107, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 145, 146, 147, 152, 157, 171, 211, 214, 258, 262, 303 language skills, xv, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 67, 127, 128, 131, 134, 136, 138, 146, 147, 148, 154, 166, 199, 200, 201, 206, 210, 211, 212, 228, 257, 319 language use, 4, 52, 114, 120, 213, 260, 261, 263, 275, 283, 312, 318, 320 learner autonomy, 38, 46, 83, 140, 214, 217 learner-centred, 215 learning outcomes, 32, 42, 45, 46, 143, 144, 152, 155, 156, 158, 207, 222, 273

learning process, 119, 129, 205, 206, 208, 215, 255, 291, 312 learning strategies, xii, 67, 130, 131, 135, 136, 137, 181 learning styles, 62, 136, 212, 216, 302 legislation, 168 lexical, v, vi, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 139, 181, 185, 223, 230, 240, 310, 313, 326 lexical formality, 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122 lexico-grammatical, 37, 107 lexicon, 121, 122, 127, 279 lingua franca, 36, 49, 50, 138 linguistic analysis, 5, 163, 303 linguistics, 1, ii, iii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, 6, 16, 18, 24, 59, 68, 93, 101, 108, 109, 123, 124, 138, 240, 252 listening, 5, 18, 24, 33, 41, 52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 66, 70, 74, 78, 128, 134, 152, 165, 203, 258, 260, 272, 299, 324 literacies, xiii, 37, 171, 277 literacy, xi, xiii, xiv, xv, 19, 49, 71, 73, 74, 77, 81, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 138, 166, 167, 168, 173, 213, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 261, 263, 264, 266, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 284 literature, xiv, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 43, 56, 86, 89, 97, 98, 99, 126, 164, 168, 199, 200, 202, 203, 206, 209, 210, 220, 235, 240, 245, 252, 256, 257, 258, 261, 263, 267, 283, 311, 314, 316, 318, 323 logical-mathematical, 288 logos, 286, 289, 293, 301 logos and ethos, 286, 289

M mainstream, 76, 87, 89, 149, 150, 151, 174, 279 Malaysia, 56 Malaysian, 134, 140, 286 manipulation, 135 Māori, 247, 249, 250, 253 mapping, 185, 277 materials development, xii, xvi, 169, 174, 195 meaning, 6, 7, 10, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 91, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 105, 108, 113, 120, 127, 128, 129, 132, 181, 186, 190, 196, 204, 205, 209, 228, 258, 265, 269, 274, 276, 292, 293, 301, 326

Index measurement, 113, 123 media, 90, 126, 248, 253, 287, 303, 304 medium of instruction, 26, 200, 211, 313 memory, xiii, 9, 133, 136 mental, 8, 9, 122, 127, 128, 132, 181, 312 mental representation, 128 metacognitive, 73, 76, 77, 80, 83, 129, 130, 133, 137, 138, 186, 269, 312, 313, 316, 317, 319 metalanguage, 73, 78, 83, 85, 89, 92, 162, 301 metalinguistic, vi, 125, 137 metaphor, 69, 71, 83, 85, 89, 90, 112, 175 methodology, viii, xii, xv, xvi, 6, 38, 51, 53, 55, 100, 116, 158, 226, 235, 256 Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers, 97, 98, 101, 108 misconception, 212 mistakes, 212, 231 modality, 71, 296 modelling, 78, 81, 124, 187, 210, 269, 271, 279, 317 monitoring reading strategies, 182 monolingual, 88, 274, 278, 309 monological, 201, 202 moral, 62, 63, 203, 205, 288 moral values, 203 morphological, 27 morphology, 181, 196 mother tongue, 221, 315 motivation, x, 15, 38, 69, 126, 136, 179, 180, 183, 184, 191, 194, 195, 197, 233 multi-dimensional, 285 multi-disciplinary, 176, 286 multi-modal learning, 288, 302 multiple literacies, 37, 288 musical-rhythmic, 288 mutuality, 69, 83, 85

N narrative, 71, 149, 230, 274 native English speakers, 201 native speakers, 63, 70, 101, 108 naturalist, 288 negative, 10, 36, 37, 63, 119, 132, 135, 138, 163, 186, 189, 245, 247, 292 negotiation, 74, 78, 80, 209 New Zealand, vi, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, 32, 51, 52, 55, 67, 125, 140, 218, 239, 247, 249, 251, 252, 253

333

nominalisation, 115, 120, 121 non-English speaking, vii non-native, vii, xiii, 52, 67, 82, 99, 101, 123, 137, 167, 200, 201, 202, 211 norms, 107 novice researchers, vi, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 230, 233, 236

O objectives, 24, 35, 40, 42, 45, 200, 209, 214, 224, 225, 267, 285, 322 observation, 55, 98, 99, 259, 261, 267, 268, 271, 279 online, xi, 12, 18, 42, 49, 70, 92, 101, 139, 231, 232, 234, 285, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293, 294, 296, 302, 303, 304 ontological, 75, 85 oral, xii, xv, 40, 42, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 65, 66, 67, 165, 190, 200, 232, 256, 257, 259, 261, 276, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 324, 325, 326 oral academic discourses, 307, 308, 309, 310 oral academic socialisation, 307 organisation, 3, 37, 42, 43, 117, 122, 131, 147, 169, 170, 187, 188, 197, 213, 232, 233, 243, 296, 311, 312, 313, 315, 316, 318, 320 orientation, 50, 54, 233 orthographic symbols, 127 outcomes-based education, 143, 144 output, 22, 126, 193, 279

P paradigm, 68, 88, 144, 146, 147, 151, 158, 263 parents, 205, 208, 228, 252, 257 participants, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55, 56, 64, 75, 116, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 166, 169, 225, 226, 236, 248, 249, 250, 256, 259, 267, 268, 274, 275, 279 participation, v, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 126, 151, 166, 216, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 256, 259, 260, 266, 274, 276, 278, 325 passive, 15, 32, 78, 115, 263, 309 pathos, 289, 293, 295, 300, 301 pedagogy, v, xiii, xiv, 18, 65, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 140, 151, 201, 209, 214, 240, 245, 253, 257, 260, 324 peer, ix, xiii, xiv, 39, 49, 58, 60, 81, 91, 126, 136, 207, 210, 213, 214, 316, 317, 319

334

Index

peer evaluation, 318 perceptions, 15, 18, 45, 49, 66, 75, 93, 131, 132, 214, 216, 298, 304 performance, 38, 43, 48, 106, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 152, 153, 154, 159, 207, 209, 280, 290, 292, 294, 295, 300, 304, 305, 312, 314, 324 persuasive writing, 70, 76, 81, 88, 92, 95, 291, 295 philosophy, 12, 18, 75, 83, 88, 92, 101, 112, 146, 151, 156, 229, 249, 283, 286, 304 physiological, 295 pleasure, 9, 182, 194 podcasting, 287, 303, 304 population, 26, 28, 71, 150, 247 postgraduate studies, 51, 52, 56, 59, 60 power, xi, xiv, 70, 78, 80, 191, 209, 210, 236, 275, 276, 277, 278, 300 PowerPoint, 235, 248, 298, 312, 326 practice, vi, x, 5, 9, 16, 25, 29, 33, 37, 38, 39, 45, 47, 54, 59, 63, 64, 66, 67, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 94, 120, 129, 135, 136, 138, 139, 144, 154, 155, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 193, 194, 201, 205, 212, 218, 226, 232, 247, 255, 256, 263, 271, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 282, 284, 300, 302, 309, 311, 315, 319, 325, 326 practitioner, vi, 155, 161, 175, 177, 229, 255, 257, 258, 260, 267, 268, 271, 273, 274, 279, 281, 285 practitioner inquiry, vi, 255, 258, 267, 274, 279, 281 presentation, 12, 13, 42, 43, 68, 211, 234, 286, 307, 308, 310, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326 pressure, 42, 72 prior knowledge, 127, 191, 208, 212, 213, 234, 296, 301, 319 private verbs, 114 privatisation, 161, 175 privatisation of EAP, 161 problem-solving, 38, 127, 182 process oriented, 54 productive, 150, 211 professional development, 148, 152, 172, 174, 221, 255, 257, 258, 259, 263, 272, 275, 278, 279, 281 professionalism, 148, 174 proficiency, xi, xiv, 28, 36, 37, 43, 48, 57, 58, 70, 74, 75, 81, 90, 92, 121, 122, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 147, 154, 211, 263, 309 progression, xiv, 36, 248, 264, 266, 301 pronunciation, xi, 113, 158, 181, 311

proposition, 289 protocol, 274 psychological, 7, 11, 42, 54, 68, 113, 126, 138, 140, 215, 217, 218, 283 psychology, xi, xiv, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 47, 92, 101, 136, 137, 139, 140, 195, 200, 216, 217, 218, 248, 282, 286

Q qualifications, ix, 173, 174 qualitative, xiv, 16, 17, 18, 66, 92, 123, 258, 263, 265, 283, 298, 300, 325 quality standards, 168 quantitative, 108, 124, 298 questioning, 11, 78, 203, 205, 217, 258, 261, 265, 267, 269, 270, 274, 279, 280, 281, 292 questionnaire, 131, 133, 250, 299 questions, iv, 7, 38, 40, 42, 44, 62, 64, 71, 97, 100, 112, 115, 147, 148, 179, 183, 184, 187, 189, 190, 193, 196, 203, 204, 205, 206, 214, 231, 258, 259, 262, 269, 271, 273, 274, 276, 279, 280, 291, 295, 298, 300, 309, 310, 316, 317, 320, 322, 323

R reactions, 12, 45, 250, 318 reading comprehension, 33, 77, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 183, 188, 189, 194, 195, 261, 276, 282 reading for academic purposes, 180, 182, 194 reading process, 183 reasoning, 19, 71, 78, 106, 134, 201, 216, 262, 271, 273, 282, 288, 290, 291, 293, 294 reciprocal, 127 reflection, 9, 84, 85, 93, 144, 150, 151, 191, 192, 197, 201, 228, 229, 237, 265, 269, 270, 282, 288, 321, 322 reflective, x, 42, 84, 143, 144, 145, 148, 197, 205, 259, 302, 312, 315, 316, 317 reform, 76, 92, 218, 237, 259, 260, 282 region, 298 register, 37, 112, 124, 153, 181, 196, 312 rehearsal, 126, 131 relevance, 163, 174, 248, 312 repertoires, 106, 275 representation, 106, 127, 222 resistance, 14, 39, 44, 157, 273, 278

Index resources, 12, 23, 59, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 83, 86, 92, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 132, 147, 148, 150, 155, 169, 191, 223, 230, 253, 267, 285, 287, 289, 291, 294, 297, 302 responsibilities, 82 restructuring, 132, 139, 316, 317 rhetoric, 19, 68, 80, 90, 91, 225, 240, 303, 325 rhetorical, 37, 41, 71, 80, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 301, 310 rhetorical structure, 80, 239, 241, 242, 245, 246, 310

S scaffolding, 45, 69, 76, 77, 81, 94, 107, 154, 184, 199, 200, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 220, 221, 224, 230, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 281, 282, 283, 291, 317, 319 schema, 288 schematic, 241 scholarship, x, xv, 172, 240, 290 scientific, x, 5, 249, 324 scoring, 47, 71, 132 screencast, 298 screencasting software, 287, 297, 302 screencasts, vi, 285, 286, 289 second language, vi, vii, ix, xii, xiii, xv, xvi, 24, 25, 37, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 66, 67, 68, 70, 80, 90, 91, 107, 108, 111, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151, 153, 158, 176, 179, 180, 194, 195, 215, 236, 253, 261, 280, 281, 282, 303, 310, 313, 324, 325 second language reading, 126, 180 second language teaching, xvi, 151, 176 second language writing, xv, 25, 90, 91, 108, 111, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 215, 236, 253, 303 self-access, 248 self-confidence, 126, 222 self-determination theory, 46, 49 self-directed, 41, 131 self-efficacy, 80, 126, 131, 137, 138, 140, 222 self-esteem, 209, 223 self-evaluation, 317 self-report, 43, 134 semantic, 79, 92, 99, 108, 127, 148, 241, 243, 244, 245, 247, 251, 301 semantic relations, 241, 243, 244, 245, 247, 251

335

sentence, 41, 42, 43, 71, 113, 117, 118, 120, 127, 138, 155, 187, 204, 229, 265, 271, 291, 293, 308, 311, 320 sequence, 71, 147, 154, 190, 243, 244, 245, 247, 291 Singapore, vi, x, xi, xiv, 219, 221, 236, 237, 285, 286, 287 Singaporean, xi, 286 social, xii, xiii, xiv, 5, 9, 11, 17, 36, 37, 48, 51, 54, 56, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 90, 99, 102, 107, 113, 115, 124, 126, 133, 135, 136, 162, 201, 207, 208, 221, 222, 228, 233, 236, 240, 244, 248, 251, 252, 261, 274, 275, 276, 279, 280,281, 282, 284, 286, 288, 290, 292, 293, 303, 309, 313 social bonds, 60 social class, 113 social context, 233 social development theory, 207 social interaction, 207, 208 social practice, 5, 201, 274, 275, 280 social stages, 208 social structure, 276 socialisation, 52, 53, 54, 64, 81, 225, 308, 309, 317 sociocultural, 37, 54, 81, 218, 232, 261, 263, 272, 275, 281, 282, 283, 325 sociology, 17, 101, 286, 300, 324 sounds, 57, 132 speaking, vii, xi, xii, xiii, 24, 31, 36, 40, 46, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 74, 91, 99, 113, 120, 133, 137, 146, 150, 151, 166, 167, 256, 258, 276, 277, 278, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 324, 325 specific learning outcomes, 152, 153 speech, 6, 16, 53, 56, 57, 92, 94, 112, 113, 114, 120, 181, 185, 186, 196, 233, 280, 307, 310, 311, 315, 319, 320 spelling, 37, 71, 127, 132, 136, 181 spoken interaction, 51, 56 spoken language, 99, 308, 313 standard English, 80 standardised tests, 36, 276, 277, 278 status, vii, ix, x, 55, 63, 69, 72, 161, 167, 171, 172, 173, 177, 293 status of EAP practitioners, 161 strategic processes, 132, 193 strategic reading, 179, 186, 196 strategies, vi, 42, 43, 47, 50, 54, 64, 65, 66, 73, 74, 89, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 155, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 190, 195,

336

Index

196, 199, 200, 202, 209, 210, 212, 223, 230, 261, 267, 281, 285, 287, 288, 297, 300, 303, 307, 310, 312, 313, 316, 317, 319, 320, 324 strategy instruction, 186, 197 strengths, 38, 149, 154, 163, 185, 193, 202, 270 student capacity building, 69, 70 style, 3, 11, 16, 37, 42, 52, 72, 73, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 153, 210, 213, 218, 220, 252, 279, 302, 308, 310, 312, 313, 316, 322 style-shifting, 112 subject context, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16 support reading strategies, 182 syllabus, xii, 26, 93, 146, 149, 212 synonyms, 121, 181 syntactic, 37, 81, 92, 130, 240, 310, 324 syntax, 31 systemic functional linguistics, xii, 5, 6, 97, 98, 99, 108, 176

test of English as a foreign language (TOEFL), 66, 70, 94, 130, 131, 276 textbook, vi, 5, 24, 32, 155, 179, 180, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 213, 228 textbook evaluation, 179, 180, 184, 195 textbook supplementation, vi, 179, 180, 185 text-type, 239, 245 textuality, 233 threshold, 21, 23, 33 Toulmin Method, 286, 288, 291, 294, 296, 300, 301, 303 training, x, xii, xvi, 3, 9, 36, 72, 80, 89, 93, 111, 114, 174, 182, 183, 186, 195, 201, 214, 221, 227, 257, 293, 294, 295, 304, 318 transcription skills, 127 transfer, 17, 133, 134, 139, 214, 309, 311, 314 transformation, 39, 193 translation, x, 19, 128, 132, 134 turn-taking, 77, 78 typological, 312

T U target language, 87, 279 task-based language teaching, x, xii, 143, 146, 151, 159 teacher education, xii, xiv, 39, 48, 49, 89, 94, 174, 176, 261, 263, 278, 281, 282, 284, 304 teacher training, ix, xii, xv, 6, 174, 176, 219, 221 teacher-centred, 146, 151, 201 teaching and learning of academic speaking in EFL/ESL contexts, 307 teaching english as a second language (TESL), xii, xv, 67, 137, 173, 263 teaching strategies, 208, 232 team-based learning, 35, 46 technical, 21, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33, 100, 128, 153, 165, 291, 295 technical vocabulary, 21, 22, 24, 32 techniques, 66, 71, 133, 209 technology, xi, xii, xiii, xv, 5, 21, 24, 28, 33, 47, 73, 88, 91, 94, 147, 162, 164, 176, 248, 285, 287, 288, 290, 295, 302, 303, 304, 324 terminology, 34, 112, 162, 173, 239, 240 tertiary education, 56, 163, 168, 177, 219, 248, 304 test, xi, xiv, 12, 25, 36, 41, 43, 69, 70, 71, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 104, 116, 117, 129, 130, 131, 133, 137, 204, 261, 276, 277

ubiquity, 70, 285, 287, 302, 304 undergraduate, v, vii, xiii, xiv, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 52, 54, 60, 61, 67, 101, 111, 115, 122, 123, 136, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 156, 158, 168, 211, 220, 221, 230, 249, 266, 288, 312, 313, 315 United Kingdom (UK), xi, xiii, xiv, 3, 5, 18, 26, 89, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 216, 283 United States (US), xvi, 5, 35, 36, 57, 67, 75, 97, 137, 179, 201, 216, 225, 255, 303 universal, 161, 162 universities, xi, 36, 51, 52, 67, 94, 98, 99, 150, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 200, 217, 220, 222, 224, 276, 304, 313, 314 urban, 75, 252 utterances, 260

V validation, 168 validity, 75, 86, 114 values, 37, 105, 163, 166, 202, 203, 275, 290, 292, 293, 309 variables, 126, 133, 275 variation, 108, 120, 123, 124, 166, 192, 234, 304

Index verbal-linguistic, 287, 302 video, xiii, 39, 287, 288, 298, 299, 302, 314, 316 visual, 11, 12, 13, 15, 30, 188, 222, 287, 302, 312 visual aids, 312 visual-spatial, 287, 302 vocabulary, v, x, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 52, 66, 71, 81, 91, 99, 111, 121, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 154, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 195, 196, 204, 205, 206, 211, 251, 265, 276,312, 320 vocabulary acquisition, 23, 99, 125, 139, 184, 195 vocational, xiii, 163

337

webquests, vi, 285, 286 website, ii, iv, 33, 232, 266, 276, 294 wordlists, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 31 worldwide, 70, 161, 163, 169 writing composition, 126 written language, 99, 118 written texts, 21, 31, 128

Y young learners, 27

Z W weakness, 60, 202

zone of proximal development (ZPD), 199, 200, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212