Introduction Continuing challenges This expanding role for EAP has not been entirely smooth and trouble-free.Many EAP courses still lack a theoretical or research rationale and textbooks too often continue to depend on the writer's experience and intuition rather than on evtive EAprcn.This situation is changing as we sce more interesting and approa as cons ng,genre analys modules ,2001;Johns, 1997;Swales an cak,1994,. These hav e to the teac ware that a on e-fits ema the needs con s in EAP tia sogic and d curricular crea and a great deal of innovative practice is unsung and not widely disser ated ublish letrim ntal to localla the V e thriv 。15 ng ere is alsc ng the ge lear eks to induct le and co rticula cted with what Swales (m referred to as the hegemony of English (see also Benesch,2001:Canagarajah,1999). eap continues to strugele with these issu s.seeking to find ways of understanding and dealing with the social,cultural and ideological contexts of language use.It is in recognizing and highlighting these concerns that the field also demonstrates its vibrancy and its responsiveness to critique.EAP is a field open to self-scrutiny and change,and for these reasons it offers language teachers an ethical,reflec tive and fruitful field of research and professional practice and offers students a way of understanding their chosen courses and disciplines. 5
Continuing challenges This expanding role for EAP has not been entirely smooth and trouble-free. Many EAP courses still lack a theoretical or research rationale and textbooks too often continue to depend on the writer’s experience and intuition rather than on systematic research. This situation is changing as we see more interesting and innovative EAP courses being developed which are based on current pedagogic approaches such as consciousness raising, genre analysis and linked EAP-content modules (Benesch, 2001; Johns, 1997; Swales and Feak, 1994, 2000). These have had considerable success, but teachers are aware that a one-size-fits-all approach is vulnerable to the demands of specific teaching contexts and the needs of particular learners. As a consequence, there is substantial pedagogic and curricular creativity in local contexts in EAP and a great deal of innovative practice is unsung and not widely disseminated. Further, the spread of EAP has often been detrimental to local languages as scholars in many countries seek to publish ‘their best in the West’ so that English replaces once thriving indigenous academic discourses. Equally, there is also a growing sense of disquiet concerning the socio-political implications of an ‘accommodationist’ view of language learning which seeks to induct learners into uncritical acceptance of disciplinary and course norms, values and discourses, particularly those connected with what Swales (inter alia) has referred to as the hegemony of English (see also Benesch, 2001; Canagarajah, 1999). EAP continues to struggle with these issues, seeking to find ways of understanding and dealing with the social, cultural and ideological contexts of language use. It is in recognizing and highlighting these concerns that the field also demonstrates its vibrancy and its responsiveness to critique. EAP is a field open to self-scrutiny and change, and for these reasons it offers language teachers an ethical, reflective and fruitful field of research and professional practice and offers students a way of understanding their chosen courses and disciplines. Introduction 5
SECTION A Introduction
SECTION A Introduction
Theme 1:Conceptions and controversies INTRODUCTION The applied ature of EAPnd tergfrom ESPriginally pduced an agend concerned with curriculum and ins struction rather tha ncory anc analysis.R on of its d.From its place at the int linguistic ucation,an ving a m ive and research Students have to take o e roles and with knowledge in new ways en the er highe ■ are ne acros s academic disciplines bu eflect different ways of constructing knowledge and engaging in teaching and lea ■Thes tices are i ed with power and authorit y which or ma erent groups a ■Thcg wth of English as a world language of academic communication has resulted in the loss of scholarly writing in many national cultures. These features raise interesting issues and controversies in conceptualizing EAP and determining its nature and role.In engaging with these issues EAP has matured as a field,and practitioners have come to see themselves as not simply preparing learners for study in English but as developing new kinds of literacy which will equip students to participate in new academic and cultural contexts.But these issues are by no means resolved and debates continue concerning what they mean for EAP and how we should respond to them.These issues and challenges are the topic of Theme 1. 大Task A1 Do you agree with the four points listed above?What do you think they might mean for teaching and learning in EAP?Select one of them and consider what you believe to be its implications for the field of EAP
INTRODUCTION The applied nature of EAP, and its emergence from ESP, originally produced an agenda concerned with curriculum and instruction rather than with theory and analysis. Responding to changes in higher education, however, EAP has developed a more sophisticated appreciation of its field. From its place at the intersection of applied linguistics and education, and following a more reflective and researchoriented perspective, EAP has come to highlight some of the key features of modern academic life. Among them are that: ■ Students have to take on new roles and to engage with knowledge in new ways when they enter higher education. ■ Communication practices are not uniform across academic disciplines but reflect different ways of constructing knowledge and engaging in teaching and learning. ■ These practices are underpinned with power and authority which work to advantage or marginalize different groups and to complicate teaching and learning. ■ The growth of English as a world language of academic communication has resulted in the loss of scholarly writing in many national cultures. These features raise interesting issues and controversies in conceptualizing EAP and determining its nature and role. In engaging with these issues EAP has matured as a field, and practitioners have come to see themselves as not simply preparing learners for study in English but as developing new kinds of literacy which will equip students to participate in new academic and cultural contexts. But these issues are by no means resolved and debates continue concerning what they mean for EAP and how we should respond to them. These issues and challenges are the topic of Theme 1. Task A1 ➤ Do you agree with the four points listed above? What do you think they might mean for teaching and learning in EAP? Select one of them and consider what you believe to be its implications for the field of EAP. 8 Theme 1: Conceptions and controversies ★
Unit A1 Specific or general academic purposes? One key issue surrounding the ways we understand and practise EAP is that of specificity,or the distinction between what has been called English for General Academic Purposes(EGAP)and English for Specific Academic Purposes(ESAP). Following an EGAP approach,teachers attempt to isolate the skills,language forms and study activities thought to be common to all disciplines.Dudley-Evans and St John(1998:41),for instance,include the following activities among such a core: Listening to lectures. Participating in supervisions,seminars and tutorials. Reading textbooks,articles and other material ■ Writing essays,examination answers,dissertations and reports This approach might encourage us to see such activities as questioning,note taking. summary writing,giving prepared presentations and so on as generic academi practices.E AP,on t other hand,refl cts th dea t t,while some generali an b differences among thes an ns across distin simil anguage which are related to the demands of a particula e or department erefore challe they viev in and toex ne t e ques heth e a s ent discip e should focu rms nee eded b TaskA1.1 ★ Spend a few minutes to reflect on your own view of this issue.Based on you experiences as a teacher(or a student),do you think there are generic skills and language forms/functions that are useful across different fields?Or is learning more effective if it is based on the specific conventions and skills used in the student's target discipline?Is there a middle way? 9
Unit A1 Specific or general academic purposes? One key issue surrounding the ways we understand and practise EAP is that of specificity, or the distinction between what has been called English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) and English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP). Following an EGAP approach, teachers attempt to isolate the skills, language forms and study activities thought to be common to all disciplines. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998: 41), for instance, include the following activities among such a core: ■ Listening to lectures. ■ Participating in supervisions, seminars and tutorials. ■ Reading textbooks, articles and other material. ■ Writing essays, examination answers, dissertations and reports. This approach might encourage us to see such activities as questioning, note taking, summary writing, giving prepared presentations and so on as generic academic practices. ESAP, on the other hand, reflects the idea that, while some generalizations can be made, the differences among these skills and conventions across distinct disciplines may be greater than the similarities. ESAP therefore concerns the teaching of skills and language which are related to the demands of a particular discipline or department. The issue of specificity therefore challenges EAP teachers to take a stance on how they view language and learning and to examine their courses in the light of this stance. It forces us to ask the question whether there are skills and features of language that are transferable across different disciplines or whether we should focus on the texts, skills and forms needed by learners in distinct disciplines. Task A1.1 ➤ Spend a few minutes to reflect on your own view of this issue. Based on your experiences as a teacher (or a student), do you think there are generic skills and language forms/functions that are useful across different fields? Or is learning more effective if it is based on the specific conventions and skills used in the student’s target discipline? Is there a middle way? 9 ★
Introduction This debate is not new.The idea of specificity was central to Halliday et al's(1964) original conception of ESP over forty years ago when they characterized it as centred on the language and activities appropriate to particular disciplines and occupations. They distinguished ESP from general English and set an agenda for the future development of the field.Matters are perhaps more complex now as university courses become more interdisciplinary and we learn more about the demands these courses make on students.There is,however,still a need to stress students'target relate to the particular fields But not everyon argue against subj t-specific to ng on the grou uld be on rs and an on target text hould first vans and St d,suggest t work to REASONS FOR GENERAL EAP Six main reasons have been given for taking an EGAP approach: Language teachers are said to lack the trainin ertise and confidence toteach 6 ntions Ruth that ev ntion could be should be left them hest the t teache In other words EAp teachers "lack ntrol' cialist content and do a diss he Pto be just too hard for students ith limitenisproficiency. Weaker students are not ready for discipline-specific lang and learnin tasks and need preparatory classes to give them a good understanding o general English'first. ◆ Teaching subject-specific skills relegates EAP to a low-status service role by simply supporting academic departments rather than developing its own pendent subject knowledge and skills.This leads to what Raimes(1991) calls 'the butler's stance'on the part of EAP,which acts to deprofessionalize teachers and allows universities to marginalize EAP units. Closely related to this is the view that by basing course content on the com- municative demands of particular courses and disciplines,EAP does not prepare students for unpredictable assignments and encourages unimaginative and formulaic essays.Widdowson(1983)argues that developing skills and familiarity with specific schemata amounts to a training exercise He sees this as a more restricted and mundane activity than education,which involves assisting learners to understand and cope with a wider range of needs Following a similar argument,Raimes(1991)argues that academic writing at university should be part of a liberal arts curriculum teaching grammar
This debate is not new. The idea of specificity was central to Halliday et al.’s (1964) original conception of ESP over forty years ago when they characterized it as centred on the language and activities appropriate to particular disciplines and occupations. They distinguished ESP from general English and set an agenda for the future development of the field. Matters are perhaps more complex now as university courses become more interdisciplinary and we learn more about the demands these courses make on students. There is, however, still a need to stress students’ target goals and to prioritize the competences we want them to develop and these often relate to the particular fields in which they will mainly operate. But not everyone agrees with this view. Some EAP writers, such as Hutchison and Waters (1987), Blue (1988) and Spack (1988), argue against subject-specific teaching on the grounds that our emphasis should be on learners and learning rather than on target texts and practices. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998), on the other hand, suggest that teachers should first help students develop core academic skills with more specific work to be accomplished later. REASONS FOR GENERAL EAP Six main reasons have been given for taking an EGAP approach: ■ Language teachers are said to lack the training, expertise and confidence to teach subject-specific conventions. Ruth Spack (1988), for instance (Text B1.1), argues that even if subject-specific conventions could be readily identified, they should be left to those who know them best, the subject teachers themselves. In other words, EAP teachers ‘lack control’ over specialist content and do a disservice to the disciplines and mislead students when they attempt to teach their genres. ■ EAP is said to be just too hard for students with limited English proficiency. Weaker students are not ready for discipline-specific language and learning tasks and need preparatory classes to give them a good understanding of ‘general English’ first. ■ Teaching subject-specific skills relegates EAP to a low-status service role by simply supporting academic departments rather than developing its own independent subject knowledge and skills. This leads to what Raimes (1991) calls ‘the butler’s stance’ on the part of EAP, which acts to deprofessionalize teachers and allows universities to marginalize EAP units. ■ Closely related to this is the view that by basing course content on the communicative demands of particular courses and disciplines, EAP does not prepare students for unpredictable assignments and encourages unimaginative and formulaic essays. Widdowson (1983) argues that developing skills and familiarity with specific schemata amounts to a training exercise. He sees this as a more restricted and mundane activity than education, which involves assisting learners to understand and cope with a wider range of needs. Following a similar argument, Raimes (1991) argues that academic writing at university should be part of a liberal arts curriculum teaching grammar, 10 Introduction A SECTION