Читать книгу English for Academic Purposes - Edward de Chazal - Страница 8

There are a number of myths, misunderstandings, and misconceptions about EAP. These may arise due to differing approaches or levels of experience. There may be differences in views between people working in the EAP sector and those working in other sectors. In the light of the discussion so far in this chapter, this section turns to seven of the more common myths.

Myth 1: To teach EAP is to teach subject knowledge and content

The main focus of EAP is to meet the needs of students wanting to study their discipline in English. As the discussions so far have shown, the number of disciplines is extremely large, and growing. The focus of EAP is not on the subject and the specific language of the subject itself, whether administration or zoology, but on the skills, competences, and language needed to study the subject. It is the job of the academic department, and the teachers on the programme of academic study, to teach specific items and concepts. Even after a lifetime of teaching, EAP teachers cannot possibly ‘know’ all the academic subjects in sufficient depth, although with experience a general sense of familiarity with certain disciplines gradually develops.

The sector primarily concerned with teaching subject knowledge and content as well as the target language is content and language integrated learning (CLIL), also known as content-based instruction (CBI). CLIL is concerned with teaching content through the target second or foreign language; it can involve any language, but is most likely to be in English, particularly in Europe, or other widely spoken languages, such as French (for example in Anglophone parts of Canada) and German. In contrast with EAP, CLIL takes place at quite young ages, in primary and secondary schools.

Myth 2: Vocabulary in EAP means a focus on subject-specific words such as scientific terms

As in the first myth, specific vocabulary learning is not a central concern of most EAP teaching. In earlier incarnations of ESP, technical and scientific vocabulary was a major focus. Vocabulary suitable for an EAP class, on the other hand, may include any core words (starting with the most frequent word, the), plus general academic words, such as analyze, evaluation, conclusion, focus on, homogeneous. These words in themselves are not ‘owned’ by any particular discipline; they occur across disciplines and are therefore essential for students of any discipline.

Myth 3: To study in an English-medium university you must have an extremely high level of English

The vast majority of students do not reach C2 (proficiency) level, in general ELT or EAP. Many students have not reached C1 (advanced) at the start of their English-medium programme. Depending on the context, students typically move from general English to EAP at B1 (pre-intermediate to intermediate) or B2 (upper intermediate), and work their way up towards somewhere in B2 or C1 territory before starting their studies. An increasing trend is to begin EAP at lower levels, for example from A2 (elementary) rather than B1. This is particularly the case in growing education hubs such as Turkey and the Middle East. Many degree programmes, including foundation courses, bridging degrees, and many undergraduate degrees, ask for a level somewhere around B2 or B1. In the UK, science and business often require lower scores than the arts, humanities, and law, though this is not always the case in other regions of the world. A typical target for science students in the UK might be IELTS 6.5 (B2), and 7.0 (B2/C1) for arts and humanities; the most prestigious universities may typically ask for IELTS 7.5 (C1) for law students. In short, English requirements vary quite widely, but are often not as high as might be expected.

To clarify language level descriptors, many familiar descriptors such as ‘intermediate’ map fairly neatly onto the Council of Europe Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) scale, approximately as follows: A1 beginner/starter; A2 elementary; B1 pre-intermediate; B1+ intermediate; B2 upper intermediate; C1 advanced; C2 proficiency.

Myth 4: EAP is dry and dull

EAP should not and need not be so, any more than studying one’s chosen discipline is dry and dull. The academic world is about the study, research, and communication of ideas; EAP is every bit as communicative as general English, but in a different way. As shown in Table 1.1 on page 17, much of the communication takes place in set-piece events such as seminars, and through written assignments. A major challenge for EAP teachers is to make learning not just relevant but engaging and motivating.

Myth 5: EAP is basically IELTS

Again, there are, arguably, as many differences as similarities between the two. IELTS involves a flavour of academic tasks, and to a degree some of the language, but without the rigour of academic cognitive activities such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. In IELTS Writing Task 1 for instance, candidates have to describe a graphic, or more recently, more than one graphic. In EAP, such graphics would be used as part of a wider purpose, such as to provide support in written work or in a presentation. The student would search for, select, interpret, and evaluate the material. This would lead to the incorporation of parts of the referenced material into an original piece of written or spoken work. It would be synthesized with material from other sources. Simply describing a given graphic is by comparison quite a basic activity. Similarly, the IELTS speaking examination does not aim to replicate the kind of speaking done in academic settings.

Myth 6: EAP involves proofreading students’ written work

Proofreading refers to the practice of correcting the errors and ensuring clarity in a text; this can be done either by the writer of the text or another person, such as a language teacher, peer, or editor working for a publisher. The main aims in proofreading a text or manuscript are: to eliminate language errors (by identifying and correcting them) including errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation; to ensure clarity, by rephrasing any language which is hard to understand or ambiguous; to harmonize style, for example by rephrasing language which appears too informal or formal for the purpose; and to ensure accuracy in non-language areas, particularly with regard to in-text references, bibliographies, and any tables and graphics. Since the main aim of proofreading is to arrive at a high-quality text, the proofreader may not offer explanations and alternatives for their corrections, and so the process is not primarily developmental and pedagogical; however, for the reflective writer receiving their proofread text can be a very instructive experience.

Proofreading is not generally considered to be a core activity for EAP teachers. EAP teachers periodically raise and discuss issues surrounding proofreading, such as who should do it, whether it should be a paid-for service, and how it should be carried out. A key question in proofreading is the remit of the proofreader, and how far they should cover non-language aspects of the text such as quality of the argument and use of sources. While a major role of an EAP teacher is to read and give feedback on their students’ written work, there are typically three main focuses: content, organization, and language. When giving feedback on content and organization, the focus is on aspects such as the strength of the ideas, how they are presented, the coherence of the argument, and use of academic sources. The work on language may involve identifying typical errors and giving an indication of the type of error and perhaps how to correct it. Students will then work on these errors themselves, rather than relying on their teacher to correct them, and the students’ revised texts can then be checked for accuracy. Ultimately, then, EAP teaching aims to foster students’ proofreading skills as far as possible, rather than the teacher providing a proofreading service for their students.

Myth 7: EAP is objective rather than subjective

Academic texts have been described as ‘objective’ rather than ‘subjective’ (for example Clanchy and Ballard (1981: 74, and 1992; also cited in Jordan 1997: 244), but this statement is overgeneralized and highly misleading. The academic world is both objective and subjective. It is objective in the sense that it searches for and transfers knowledge, and this knowledge needs to be in some sense validated. Research needs to be replicated in different contexts in order to yield similar results. However, different interpretations and evaluative responses are highly valued and essential to the dissemination of ideas and research. Such interpretations may be responses to objective evidence, but by their nature they are subjective: one person’s interpretation or evaluation of the same evidence may differ from another’s. A significant part of critical thinking is subjective and carried out by ‘subjects’ or people. None of the following examples of academic thought is an objective ‘fact’: a theory of learning; the assessment of the impact of a historical event or medical trauma; a policy response to a crisis. There is subjectivity in all of these. Academic practice is concerned with relations between objective phenomena, such as the findings of a piece of research, and subjective responses, such as interpretation and evaluation. It is important to bear in mind that these responses need to be grounded in evidence rather than seemingly plucked out of the air.