The TEAPing Point

Explorations in EAP

Ontologies of EAP

I spent the afternoon in Edinburgh on Friday. About 25 EAP professionals got together for the inaugural meeting of ‘EAP in the North’. The format was informal and open, but we had agreed to focus on sharing our contexts and the freedoms and constraints these bring. A key question some of us moved towards was:

How do the colleagues we work with, the materials we use and the institutions we are part of colour and construct our views of EAP?

This is the kind of question that I’m very interested in. As an external examiner of Pre-Sessional courses since 2009, I have had the privilege to visit a number of EAP units across the UK, view materials, talk with course directors and observe teachers at work in their classrooms. What has become clear is that, just within my own national context (and, to be honest, even within my own unit!) EAP is a Many Splintered Thing. This sense was reinforced on Friday afternoon. While there were, of course, many overlapping views of what ‘EAP’ is and what it needs to be, institutional contexts construct in important ways the reality of what EAP becomes.

At my own institution I have worked with departments and with central admissions over the last 3-4 years to agree Faculty standards for direct entry and for pre-sessional entry. For a 12 week pre-sessional our Science Faculty students can still join us at IELTS 5.5 (all skills), but most of our Humanities and Social Science students now need at least an IELTS 6.0 in all skills (MA TESOL need 6.5 for three months of PS). Listening to many colleagues yesterday, this puts us in a relatively privileged position. Students are already at CEFR B2, so we don’t have to think about UK Border Agency visa hurdles and can focus on teaching students over testing them. The university trusts our course and our assessments and thus we have no need to go anywhere near IELTS type content or assessment. We can prepare our students via discipline-appropriate texts and tasks, and use internally developed marking criteria to report exit levels on our own terms.

This is not everyone’s position. The very first session on our long pre-sessional shows students how and why an IELTS style of ‘academic’ writing is something they need to move away from, yet in other contexts, EAP courses are required by the university structures above to continue to use IELTS type assessments on exit. This means course time must be spent on teaching to this test (and thus not so much on preparing students for the reality of the academic road ahead). We have written all of our own materials, as we are less than enamoured with most of what is on the textbook market. However, others may not have this freedom and may be working with a prescribed textbook. One or two colleagues yesterday felt that EAP textbooks were more than adequate for their students and thus ‘why reinvent the wheel?’ We had to disagree – but then we would. We have the freedom and we make the time to do something different.

The placing of an EAP unit within an institution (school of education? Autonomous Service unit? Part of central services? Within modern languages? Linguistics? Careers and study skills?) changes how we are viewed and thus, perhaps, what we are allowed to become. The qualifications required of EAP teachers (CELTA / DELTA / DELTA + MA / MA only) and the experience of those in coordinator roles changes the nature of the expertise in a department, and thus attitudes to materials, staff development observations and relations with the rest of the university. International student recruitment, tied inevitably to market forces and to the symbolic capital of individual institutions, changes the profile of the student body we work with. How far, I wonder, are our conceptions of EAP, at least institutionally, market-driven? If you need to take students at IELTS 4.5, then you’re going to be interested in low-level EAP. For one or two of my colleagues, however, working at this level is not ‘EAP’ at all…

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vincepal/3526479580/

Informally on blogs and other online platforms, formally in conference discussions and in journal papers, we all talk of ‘EAP’…but it is increasingly clear to me that the iceberg of beliefs and assumptions beneath the waves looks very different as we cross teachers, as we cross contexts. This is likely to be all the more true as we move to English-medium tertiary education outside Inner Circle contexts, to lingua-franca contexts, where there may be no native speakers involved in the EAP delivery, to certain Third World contexts, where constraints on access to resources and expertise will deeply colour the nature of what gets called EAP.

Notwithstanding the inherent issues of power and differential distribution of wealth and expertise in some of the above (a conversation for another day), I don’t believe we necessarily need to reconcile (all) these differences.  While continuing and evolving collaborations and sharing of practice across individuals and institutions will, no doubt, result in some alignment (and The Competency Framework for Teachers of EAP gives us a starting point for one such conversation…), we need to recognise, after Pennycook (2010), that practice is always local. We can never fully reconcile the differences beneath the waves, precisely because the local assemblies of people, principles and practice make local ontologies of practice inevitable.

The same is at least partially true of what students need to learn. Corpus mining of academic spoken and written texts, such as Nesi & Gardner’s (2012) Genres Across the Disciplines, and the pedagogical implications that emerge (e.g., in this case, Andy Gillet’s emerging website based on corpus insights from the book) are invaluable to our understanding of disciplinary variation. However, perhaps we need also to be preparing our students for the local, not just for the notionally disciplinary.

In our pre-sessional teacher induction last year, we had staff brainstorm their views of good academic writing, before then handing out example assignments to discuss from Law, Chemistry, TESOL and Classics. Assignments chosen were deliberately slightly leftfield. The Law assignment, for instance, required students to write a judgement as if they were the judge. The TESOL assignment was a concept map + commentary. We cannot, of course, prepare our students for every type of writing that might come up, but becoming more aware of local enactments of disciplinary understanding, locally developed reading lists, collaborative project tasks, and local assessments that emerge from these are surely essential in light of the above.

For some, this may be a no-brainer in an in-sessional context, but perhaps not so much on a pre-sessional course. If we can explore with learners the kinds of writing they are actually going to produce, maybe we can also avoid veering towards misleading maxims as ‘never use ‘I’ in academic writing’ or ‘the passive is more academic’, and instead towards more nuanced conversations about how and why writers (need to) make the choices that they do.

The insight that, just like language practices (Pennycook 2010), EAP practices are local and emergent, serves further to remind us of why EAP professionals need to be engaging with scholarship – and with each other across contexts.  Local assemblies and institutional cultures may black-box what we do and thus hinder or prevent critical engagement with what has become The Norm. Through scholarship and stepping outside our own physical localities (either into other real or virtual spaces) we raise the likelihood of meeting other ways of thinking, other ways of practising.

This helps to ensure that we continue not only to be, but rather to become. I have often (and recently) met an idea here or there in a book chapter, or in chance conversations with like-minded colleagues, that has proved somehow transformational in how I perceive EAP practice. This is one of the key aspects of my work that I find most satisfying. I’m always learning, shifting, changing in my sense of What To Do.

I’ll share one or two of these in a future post, but for now, what about you? Was there a particular journal paper or book chapter that stared a seismic shift in your thinking? Was there a critical incident in your classroom that you interpreted in light of a blog you read that changed how you thought about your students? Was there a conference conversation that influenced how you thought about yourself as an EAP professional? And are there crucial aspects of your local context that have coloured your personal ontology of EAP?

Advertisements

7 comments on “Ontologies of EAP

  1. theeaparchivist
    3 December 2012

    So many good questions and an identification of the need to stop trying to find ‘global’ answers to them all! Absolutely ESAP is local and we should focus on our own contexts, yet there is a real need for global support, a community to fall back on, to learn from and to offer reassurance – like-minded individuals are not always in your own department unfortuately.
    For me the greatest challenge is how to make EAP (for me EAP is more pre-sessional and ESP in-sessional) ‘local’, how to tailor a course to different students hoping to join different disciplines, needing English for slightly different academic purposes, having so many differing backgrounds and directions to go in. How to do this and it not be generic nothingness? This for me is something that really needs further discussion and I am envious of the window into other contexts that you get to look through as an external examiner – how priviledged indeed! I agree with you the answer lies in exploring what students are going to produce but this is still not easy. Also you’re right to point out that we need to be extremely careful not to mislead students with a generic understanding of what academic writing is that ultimately contradicts what their departments expect of them. For me the teaching of EAP (i.e. pre-sessional) is the most problematic and the most at risk of doing students a disservice.

    To answer some of your questions, reading Benesch after attending Gary Riley-Jones’ presentation on Criticality in EAP at the BALEAP PIM in Durham this year and reading James Donohue’s article on ‘Using systemic functional linguistics in academic writing development: an example from film studies’ has been a real revelation for me. Actually, everthing I read has value, highlighting the need to not only engage in scholarship, but to have the space to apply the knowledge you have gained from doing so.

    • Steve Kirk
      5 December 2012

      Your pre-sessional / in-sessional distinction is an interesting one. I think you’re right that, while not inevitable, this is often the pattern. I wonder whether this means teachers may be best served in their ‘EAP education’ by ensuring that they are part of the latter. What do you think? I certainly feel far less informed than I would like to be about disciplinary differences by not being involved in our in-sessional. I took myself to a science faculty forum on research-led teaching the other day for precisely this reason. I’m fascinated by what constitutes ‘knowledge’ across departments, what are considered the legitimate objects of enquiry, and so on. Like you, I imagine, I believe we will make better EAP professionals the more we get a sense of this variation.

      Thanks also for sharing those two insightful reading experiences. I’ve been influenced more by SFL than by Benesch, I think, but I agree that the critical perspective is crucial to our awareness – though on that score I prefer the Expanding Circle lucidity of Canagarajah. Perhaps I’ll write about him myself another time :-)

  2. Patrick
    3 December 2012

    A really interesting posting and it emphasises the complexities of the tasks EAP teachers have. Do you think the idea of encouraging students to be linguistic ethnographers might be useful? So, when they come to the “leftfield tasks”, they are primed to think about what they might need to do to carry them out.

    • Steve Kirk
      5 December 2012

      Thanks for commenting Patrick. I certainly agree that students becoming ethnographers of sorts is probably essential to any EAP practice that is not already deeply embedded in a particular disciplinary context (such as a bespoke English-for-Law course, or similar). We sometimes see the suggestion of students needing to become ‘discourse analysts’; however, like you, I would prefer the term ‘ethnographer’.

      I think students need be more than linguistic ethnographers, however. Indeed the image of the ethnographer encourages a wider view anyway. They need to understand more than just the language in the text. Students need to see something of how the writer (e.g.) orients to knowledge, takes a stance (or not), makes themselves ‘visible’ to the reader (or not), etc – and the reasons for these things go beyond the ‘words and the grammar’.

      If we can help our students get a sense of this kind of thing (in addition to the linguistic tendencies of genres, etc), then yes we are probably giving them usefully generative tools for the future.

  3. Julie Moore (@lexicojules)
    3 December 2012

    Lots of great ideas, Steve, and so many things to respond to and bounce off when I have the time … I’ll ponder and return to comment later.

    And Patrick, I love the idea of students as “linguistic ethnographers” … I may borrow that one!

    • Steve Kirk
      5 December 2012

      I’ll hold you to that Julie! Hope to see you here again soon, once the dust settles.

      And I need to head over to your neck of the blogwoods again too. You’ve a couple of recent posts I need to catch on…

  4. Pingback: EAP Blogs | Pearltrees

Please add your own thoughts here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on 3 December 2012 by in Communities of Practice, Ontologies of EAP and tagged , , , , , .

a thought

"We are told and socialised into what to reject, but rarely told how to create." (Bernstein, 1977, p. 167)

micro msgs

%d bloggers like this: