Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels Olwyn Alexander* School of Management and Languages, Heriot-WattUniversity, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, United Kingdom

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Teacher beliefs EAP Low level learners Barriers to effective teaching Success factors

Teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP) requires teachers experienced in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to acquire additional skills, abilities and approaches. Beliefs about CLT teaching may not be appropriate for teaching EAP, especially to low level learners. Making teachers aware of their beliefs is the first step in helping them to change. This study explored the beliefs of two teachers as they piloted and evaluated a new coursebook for low level EAP, which is based on a functional syllabus and supports students to perform beyond their current level of competence. The teachers were interviewed about their experiences of using the coursebook and from these interviews, 23 pairs of contrasting belief statements were interpreted. Informed by the literature and the BALEAP Competency framework for Teachers of EAP, these statements were categorised as barriers to or success factors for successful EAP teaching. They were compiled into a reflective questionnaire, which was completed online by 124 teachers. The results highlighted two key aspects where CLT and EAP approaches differ: the description of the language system within which teachers frame their talk and the approach to scaffolding student performance. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP) focuses on ‘teaching English specifically to facilitate learners’ study or research through the medium of English’ (Hamp-Lyons, 2011, p. 89). EAP teaching sits within a broader Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) paradigm, which aims to develop communicative competence in learners by encouraging participation in communicative activities (Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2007; Thompson, 1996). Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) place EAP on a continuum stretching from ‘General English courses through to very specific ESP courses’ (p. 8) with the context of a programme determining learner needs and the appropriate degree of specificity (Bax, 2003; Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Graves, 2008; Savignon, 2007). For EAP that context is secondary and tertiary education. EAP is a growth area of language teaching, as increasing numbers of scholars choose to study, research and publish in English (Ferguson, 2007). The stakes are high for EAP learners with limited time and funding so the aim of most EAP programmes is to find the quickest, most efficient and effective ways to equip students to perform appropriately in academic settings (Belcher, 2006; Bloor & Bloor, 1986; Hyland, 2006). Currently, there is pressure to begin teaching EAP as early as possible within a language programme and to achieve considerable gain over a short span of time. Learners with a level of proficiency as low as A1 (basic user) on the Common European framework of Reference (CEFR)1 want to study EAP and a number of coursebooks have recently been published for this level. Teacher interactions with one of these were used to identify the beliefs investigated in this study.

* Tel.: þ44 131 451 3542; fax: þ44 131 451 3079. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) is a framework which describes what learners of any language have to be able to do in order to use that language for effective communication. It provides criteria to measure proficiency at six levels, A1 (Basic User) to C2 (Proficient User). 1475-1585/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.12.001

100

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

This growth in EAP has created a demand for teachers, especially on short intensive pre-sessional courses, which prepare students just prior to the start of their academic programmes. In order to cater for this seasonal surge in demand, centres often have to employ teachers who, although they may be trained and experienced in general CLT, may have little prior experience of teaching EAP. The EAP approach is based on field-specific instructional materials informed by corpus-enhanced genre studies and critical pedagogy (Belcher, 2006; Hyland, 2006). This can be very different to general CLT in contexts which are not located in the target language community or in which language needs are less easily specified (Graves, 2008). Indeed, teachers with considerable general CLT experience sometimes report feeling deskilled (Ding, Jones, & King, 2004) when they first move to teaching EAP, effectively reverting to pre-service status in relation to this specialist type of language teaching. Although research linking teacher beliefs and student learning is scarce, teachers’ beliefs about what constitutes good language teaching have been shown to impact on their classroom practices (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992; Phipps & Borg, 2009). Those teachers who are unaware of the different approach required to teach EAP may create barriers to effective learning for their students. Although beliefs can change as a result of new teaching situations, for this change to happen teachers need to explore what their beliefs are and reflect on how appropriate they are for the new challenges. The impetus for this study arose from an earlier investigation into the routes available to teachers in the United Kingdom who wished to move into teaching EAP (Alexander, 2007). In that study 150 EAP teachers were surveyed online about their early training and experiences and the challenges they faced. The findings revealed that few teachers in the UK context had access to formal training in EAP. However, a question about the length of time taken to feel confident teaching EAP elicited a surprising response. Over half of teachers with less than five years’ experience reported that it had taken them only one year or less to feel confident teaching EAP. In contrast, the majority of those with more than five years’ experience said it had taken two years or more to feel confident and a third said they had needed at least five years or they were still learning. One less experienced respondent commented, I truly believe that EAP can be picked up with practice, and support, and that there is really no need for a distinct qualification in this field. As long as the teacher is experienced and is given a thorough induction and on-going support the need to pay to study for such an EAP certificate/diploma can be avoided. This comment seemed to suggest that some teachers believe that teaching EAP involves simply applying their current expertise to new materials and contexts, rather than embracing a new paradigm and developing towards ‘the E[A]P ideal: combined needs assessor, specialised syllabus designer, authentic materials developer, and content-knowledgeable instructor, capable of coping with the revolving door of content areas relevant to learners’ communities’ (Belcher, 2006, p. 139). Belcher emphasises the breadth and depth of commitment required, especially from teachers with humanities backgrounds, to engage with technical content areas, a process which takes much longer than a year and which can be a daunting prospect. In the absence of formal training, it is important to support critical reflection on the appropriateness of general CLT beliefs for the EAP context. In this study, the beliefs expressed by two experienced teachers, who were relative newcomers to teaching EAP, were explored as they piloted units from Access EAP: Foundations (Argent & Alexander, 2010). The CEFR basic user level of this book is particularly appropriate for exploring teacher beliefs about teaching EAP because a number of taken for granted assumptions about CLT at this level have recently been questioned (Cook, 2009; Widdowson, 2009). The study investigated the following research questions: What beliefs do teachers hold about teaching EAP to low level students? Which of these beliefs might act as barriers to successful delivery of EAP materials for low level learners? Which of these beliefs might be success factors in enabling students to achieve their target competence? This paper first outlines the background against which CLT teacher beliefs are likely to have formed and some critiques (Bax, 2003; Cook, 2009; Savignon, 2007; Widdowson, 2009) of the assumptions which underpin the CLT approach. It also contrasts general CLT and specific EAP approaches. This theoretical basis and the BALEAP Competency Framework for Teachers of EAP2 (BALEAP, 2008) were used to classify those beliefs uncovered in the study into success factors or barriers to effective EAP teaching. A subsequent online survey sought to generalise the findings beyond the case study. The main outcome of this study is a questionnaire which could be used to stimulate reflection and discussion on EAP teacher training courses. 1. Theoretical background Teacher beliefs about teaching and learning are the ‘tacit, personally-held practical system of mental constructs’ (Borg, 2006, p. 35), which guide decisions and actions. They underpin classroom interaction, curriculum design and learning content (Borg, 2006; Pajares, 1992) and contribute to the ‘culture of learning’ of classrooms (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996, p. 169). They include emotional and evaluative components and moral judgements (Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Pajares, 1992). Although

2 The Competency Framework for Teachers of English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP, 2008) consists of eleven competency statements outlining knowledge and skills required for effective EAP teaching. It was informed by a three-stage survey of EAP practitioners and thus reflects best practice in EAP.

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

101

teacher beliefs are formed first from experiences of learning in childhood, which can be particularly resistant to change (Lortie, 1975 cited in Pajares, 1992), beliefs are not fixed but form part of a complex, interconnected and dynamic system, in which existing and emergent beliefs may be in tension. For example, there can be inconsistencies between core beliefs, which have been established through practical classroom experience, and peripheral beliefs, newly acquired through training programmes, which express ideal practices not yet transferred to practical classroom realities (Borg, 2006; Phipps & Borg, 2009). In their exploration of the underlying reasons for differences in teachers’ stated beliefs and classroom practices in relation to grammar teaching, Phipps and Borg (2009) noted ‘how contextual factors such as classroom management concerns and student expectations can cause tensions between teachers’ beliefs and their practices’ (p. 385). These authors stressed the importance of viewing these tensions positively, as a valuable way of raising teachers’ awareness of the beliefs underlying their practice. It is the recognition by teachers of tensions between their beliefs and their classroom practice which constitutes a powerful force for change in their professional development (Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Grundy, 2001; Pajares, 1992). Guskey (1986 cited in Pajares, 1992) concluded that change in beliefs is more likely if teachers can be persuaded to try out new ways of teaching which turn out to be successful with their students. In the present study, the two teachers interviewed were relative newcomers to teaching EAP. Thus their core beliefs were likely to be their beliefs about general CLT, which had been established through early training and classroom practice, whereas their peripheral beliefs were likely to be their newly acquired and emergent beliefs about teaching EAP. The next section will review the historical development of CLT and EAP teaching in order to highlight the differences between them, which might have led to tensions for these teachers, particularly in the context of teaching EAP to low level learners. 2. The origins and development of general CLT and specific EAP teaching A paradigm shift in language pedagogy occurred in the 1970s, when the focus moved from form to function (see Breen, 1987; Johnson, 2009; Richards, 2006; Widdowson, 2009 for discussion of this change). This shift was a reaction against a perceived overemphasis on teaching the formal, structural properties of language but it was also driven by real needs: in CLT, for communication between peoples in the new European Economic Community (Johnson, 2009; Savignon, 2007) and in EAP, for continuing access, through a lingua franca, to the technical expertise and academic knowledge of former colonial powers (Bloor & Bloor, 1986; Hamp-Lyons, 2011). At the same time, developments in second language acquisition (SLA) research, notably the concept that learners had their own developing ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker, 1972 cited in Cook, 2009, p. 139), shifted the responsibility for learning away from the teacher towards the learner. Prior to these changes, the syllabus for language courses was derived from the linguistic description of grammatical structures and rules (Richards, 2006). Components of the language system, e.g. the present perfect, were the starting point for a lesson and teachers searched for contexts within which to practice this form (Richards, 2006, p. 28). When this traditional syllabus was replaced by functional syllabuses, these were initially targeted at learners who had already developed grammatical competence, leading to ‘an implicit teaching strategy in which structural teaching was undertaken at the early stages’ (Johnson 2009, p. 320) with a communicative orientation added only at a later stage. Both EAP and CLT are underpinned by the concept of communicative competence (Richards, 2006; Savignon, 2007; Widdowson, 2009) and the importance of knowing what is appropriate in any given context (Johnson, 2009). This requires that the target context for language use can be identified and specified precisely. Although this is possible for EAP courses, it is much more difficult for general language courses in which learners do not have clear purposes for learning (Graves, 2008; Johnson, 2009). One way to address this problem was The Threshold Level (van Ek, 1975 cited in Johnson, 2009), which specifies a so-called common core of functions for general socialising, e.g. greeting, inviting, which all learners, whatever their eventual purposes, are assumed to need. Insights from SLA research led to changes in teaching methodology by placing the learners at the centre of the learning process (Cook, 2009; Savignon, 2007). Effective language learning occurred when learners were given situations where they needed to use language meaningfully to communicate. Good language learners adopted strategies which suited their own learning style and the role of the teacher changed to that of a facilitator, helping students to use strategies effectively. Initially interference from the first language (L1) was seen as a barrier to learning a second (L2) and the use of L1 was banned from the language classroom. However, more recent SLA research has come to view second language learners as developing bilinguals with the ability to code-switch between L1 and L2. The two languages interact dynamically in developing language competence and this interaction should be encouraged inside as well as outside the classroom (Cook, 2009). A parallel influence on CLT was the priority given to the spoken language with written language seen as a secondary and derived form (Cook, 2009; Widdowson, 2009). This view seems to have originated with the reaction of the 19th century Reform Movement against grammar-translation methods (Howatt, 2004). However, it is based less on research than on analogy with children acquiring their first language, in which speech occurs naturally but reading and writing have to be taught some time later (Cook, 2009). It had a particular impact on methods for beginner and elementary levels. According to this view, only the target language should be spoken in the classroom and explicit grammar instruction should be avoided (Cook, 2009). Students just needed to let language wash over them to acquire it. However, the analogy with L1 acquisition may have led to the unfortunate tendency to infantilise learners at lower levels, reducing them to the dependent state of little children so they could acquire language naturally (Cook, 2003). As a result of these influences, the main focus of teacher training programmes for CLT came to be methodology for oral proficiency, i.e. how to create conditions in the classroom which promote social interaction and the authentic use of spoken

102

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

language to achieve social purposes so that learners are actively involved in negotiating meaning in pairs or groups in order to solve problems, discuss issues or express their personal views (Mangubhai, Marland, Dashwood, & Son, 2005; Senior, 2006). Spoken fluency tends to be promoted over accuracy and the use of the target language in spoken activities is a priority. This usually leads to a relaxed classroom atmosphere with a priority on establishing good social relations (Senior, 2006) but can also mean that ‘the measure of a good lesson for many teachers. is one where activities work and students are happy, with little tangible evidence that students have learnt anything’ (Cook, 2009, p. 139). Several authors have pointed to inconsistencies in the practice of CLT (Bax, 2003; Savignon, 2007; Thompson, 1996), suggesting that CLT can involve interaction through written texts, that grammar can be taught, that pair work is optional and that the goals depend on learner needs in a given context. In addition, some taken for granted assumptions no longer fit with current thinking in SLA research (Cook, 2009) and may even create barriers to successful L2 learning, especially for low level EAP learners. For example, it is now recognised that there are significant differences between acquiring an L1 and learning an L2: L2 learners are typically older and hence more cognitively, socially and emotionally mature; they have already acquired communicative competence in their L1 so do not need to re-learn general ideas about the way languages function (Cook, 2009); they are likely to be literate or developing literacy and their experience of studying at school or university may have given them analytical capabilities which are well suited to understanding explicit grammar instruction, especially if this is done in the L1. Moreover, they do not need to be treated as first language learners, learning to listen and speak before reading and writing, or learning social functions and discussing personal topics when their purpose is to learn and use academic English. Some of the influences which shaped CLT have also informed EAP, in particular the shift of focus from language form to language function and the centrality of the learner, responsible for his or her developing interlanguage. The concept of addressing learner needs to enhance motivation and promote learning is also important for both. Where these two types of teaching diverge markedly is in their teaching content. CLT content at low proficiency levels is still drawn largely from the common core of functions for conversation and basic survival detailed in The Threshold Level (Johnson, 2009). In addition, when grammar is taught in the CLT approach, use tends to be made of a ‘proportional syllabus’ (Yalden, 1983 cited in Johnson, 2009, p. 320), which assumes that low level learners require a basic foundation of core grammatical structures before more complex notions and functions can be introduced. Specific varieties such as EAP or English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) are assumed to be too difficult without this basic grounding. In contrast, from its early beginnings, EAP course design has followed a ‘deep end strategy’ (Johnson, 1982 cited in Bloor & Bloor, 1986, p. 12) in which even at lower levels, learners can interact with authentic texts from their disciplines and, through these, acquire grammatical structures relevant to their needs (Bloor & Bloor, 1986). They can be supported to function beyond their current level of competence by instructional scaffolding (Foley, 1994), sharing responsibility for tasks with teacher or peers. The more skilled partner models the use of spoken or written language, asks questions to extend existing knowledge and gradually transfers control of the task to the less skilled partner (see Feez, 1998, for a text-based approach to scaffolding). EAP involves helping students to perform effectively in an academic context so the focus is on understanding and producing academic texts, with syllabuses based on the rhetorical functions and genres (Bruce, 2008; Swales, 2004; Trimble, 1985) common to that context. This type of syllabus avoids atomistic approaches by showing how language components are functioning features of whole texts. It encourages students to acquire procedural knowledge about discourse and reapply this in different situations (Bruce, 2008). However, key challenges for new EAP teachers involve working with texts from a variety of academic disciplines in order to learn how academic discourse is patterned at whole text level and to use this procedural knowledge to anchor their teaching rather than descriptions of language structures. 3. Materials for teaching EAP at low proficiency levels In his analysis of EAP textbooks, Harwood (2005, p. 158) claimed that ‘we need teaching materials to raise awareness of key features of academic discourse for teachers and learners alike. But we cannot rely on most textbooks to do this to an acceptable standard at present’. Harwood claimed that existing materials were too reliant on intuitions and folk beliefs about academic discourse and called for materials writers and publishers to take better account of research findings to inform EAP textbook content. Coursebook materials for low level learners, whether general or EAP, have also been over-reliant on the kind of received wisdom about second language acquisition described above and have not taken account of changes in thinking brought about by recent research (see Cook, 2003; Islam, 2003, for a detailed analysis of the content and pedagogy of low level coursebooks). Access EAP: Foundations (Argent & Alexander, 2010) attempts to respond to Harwood’s call and draws on insights from the EAP literature (see Belcher, 2006; Bruce, 2008; Hyland, 2006 for comprehensive reviews) which informed the writing of Alexander, Argent, and Spencer (2008). It uses an approach to teaching EAP based on sociocultural theories of language learning, which see learning in general proceeding via social interaction in communities of practice (Bruce, 2011; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wells, 1994). Table 1 shows the syllabus and content of Access EAP: Foundations in comparison with traditional pre-intermediate coursebooks typically used with low level learners. Pre-intermediate coursebooks are usually organised in self-contained, topic-based units. Because the context of language use is less readily specified, these books tend to follow a structural syllabus based on verb grammar, vocabulary and functions for general socialising. In contrast, Access EAP: Foundations is integrated and developmental, each unit building on what went before. The syllabus is functional with the choice of appropriate grammar and lexis driven by functions, situations, tasks and genres (Bruce, 2008; Feez, 1998) typical of university contexts. The aim is to enable students to achieve academic performance

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

103

Table 1 Key differences between pre-intermediate coursebooks and Access EAP: Foundations. Pre-intermediate coursebooks

Access EAP: Foundations

Discrete topic-based units Text selection based on newspaper genres of general interest Syllabus driven by grammar structures The language determines the choice of context and tasks Grammar prioritises verb phrase Provides practice at or just above the current level of the students

Each unit builds on what went before Text selection based on typical genres in academic contexts Syllabus driven by rhetorical functions Academic context, genres and tasks determine the language Grammar prioritises noun phrase Provides practice near the target level with scaffolding to support performance

with a restricted repertoire of grammatical structures (Breen, 1987), which can be expanded as they become more proficient. There is a greater emphasis on noun phrase grammar, to reflect the nominalised style of much academic text (Biber & Gray, 2010). Another key difference lies in the assumptions about the level of language to teach. Pre-intermediate coursebooks tend to provide practice in grammar structures that students are already expected to know but use inaccurately. Texts are graded to be at or just above the current level of the students. In contrast, Access EAP: Foundations attempts to support students to perform near the target level. Texts are graded but maintain some of the complexity of authentic texts and students are scaffolded in their performance with carefully stepped tasks. The aim is to make the transfer of language use to their own discipline easier for students to achieve. Teachers who are used to using pre-intermediate coursebooks may find some of their core beliefs challenged by the different approach. 4. Methodology for investigating teacher beliefs In order to uncover beliefs it is necessary to make inferences on the basis of what teachers say, what they intend or how they behave (Rokeach, 1968 cited in Pajares, 1992). In summarising research directions, Pajares (1992, p. 327) emphasised that ‘teachers’ verbal expressions, predispositions to action, and teaching behaviours must all be included in assessments of beliefs’ in order to make richer and more accurate inferences. Commonly used techniques for eliciting beliefs are self-reports, semi-structured or stimulated recall interviews and observations (Borg, 2006) as well as teacher narratives (Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Sakui & Gaies, 2006). Beliefs can be stated explicitly in the form of propositions (Rokeach, 1968 cited in Pajares, 1992), which may be descriptive (having different clauses in a sentence and complex sentences is part of the way IELTS is evaluated), evaluative (I think they have really got no idea about what’s involved in studying. certainly at Higher Education level) and prescriptive (in EAP you should try whenever possible to use the passive)3. Evidence of beliefs can also be uncovered by identifying metaphors used to describe teaching, e.g. rein them in, feed them ideas, as well as interpreting evaluative comments or presuppositions in narratives (Barcelos, 2006; Grundy, 2001). Phipps and Borg (2009) note the impact of the teaching context in uncovering tensions between teachers’ core and peripheral beliefs. The present study reports a relatively unexplored context for eliciting teacher beliefs, in which teachers with considerable CLT experience can revert to pre-service status when they begin teaching EAP. The first stage of the study was an exploration, using semi-structured interviews, of the context in which Access EAP: Foundations was piloted so it is important to acknowledge the subjectivity of the analysis and the limitations this places on the interpretation of the interview data. The researcher was one of the two authors of Access EAP: Foundations, a teacher trainer for a short course the two teachers had followed the year before and also a senior colleague (in terms of EAP experience only, with no recruitment or line management function). The two teachers were on temporary part-time contracts so there was no opportunity to observe them teaching a class in order to compare what they said with what they did. In recognising the likely impact these power relations would have on the interviews, the study did not aim to uncover these teachers’ personal beliefs in this context but to elicit their views about the differences between general CLT and EAP contexts for low level learners, stimulated by their evaluations of the coursebook they were piloting. In addition, the beliefs about EAP teaching inferred from the interview transcripts were filtered through the researcher’s 18 years of experience of teaching EAP across a wide variety of contexts in Further and Higher Education. During this time my core beliefs about EAP have become fairly well established and have been articulated in Alexander et al. (2008) and the Competency Framework for Teachers of EAP (BALEAP, 2008). My beliefs about the differences between general CLT and EAP teaching have been informed by conversations over a period of 8 years with around 150 teachers who came on a short professional development course for EAP. In an attempt to overcome these inherent limitations, a second stage survey was carried out to address any bias introduced by my beliefs in formulating the belief statements derived from the interviews. 5. Data collection and analysis This study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, interviews were conducted with two teachers who piloted Access EAP: Foundations, eliciting their reactions to this new coursebook. In the second stage, an attempt was made to assess

3

These examples are drawn from the interviews conducted in this study.

104

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

the validity of the beliefs inferred from these interviews by compiling pairs of contrasting belief statements into a reflective questionnaire, which was made available online to EAP teachers working in the UK. The class for the pilot in stage one comprised ten students from Saudi Arabia and Libya, who studied the materials for twelve hours per week over ten weeks. This class was shared by two teachers, Ellen and David (names they selected), who taught the group for eight and 4 h per week respectively. Ellen has a Master’s degree in Language Education from the Open University and David has a Cambridge ESOL Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults (DELTA). Both have many years of general CLT experience and had held positions as directors of studies in private language schools before moving to a university context to teach EAP. Prior to this study they had attended a one-week EAP Teacher Development course and had taught on a pre-sessional course, using prescribed EAP materials. Thus, they could be considered to have well established core beliefs about CLT but many of their beliefs about EAP might be emergent and peripheral. Both teachers gave informed consent to take part in the study. Individual interviews were conducted with the teachers about their experience and approach to language teaching before the course started. They were then interviewed, either together or separately, each week during the course, generating a total of five joint interviews (134 min) plus three individual interviews with Ellen (190 min) and four with David (132 min). The focus of the interviews was the evaluation of the new coursebook, based on the following set of questions, but the teachers were encouraged to expand on particular points or classroom incidents they found important.    

What is your overall impression of the materials this week? Did anything surprise you about the materials? What did you notice about students’ level of engagement with the materials this week? Did that surprise/concern you? Did you have to change the way you would normally teach this level in order to use these materials? If you did, what changes did you have to make?

6. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed Stage two was carried out in order to ascertain whether the findings could be generalised beyond the case study in stage one. The analysis of the interview transcripts produced 23 different belief statements, which fell into four broad groups (largely as a consequence of the interview prompts): beliefs about low level learners, beliefs about coursebooks for this level, beliefs about teaching at this level and beliefs about teaching EAP at this level. The statements were paired into beliefs which might form barriers to efficient teaching and beliefs more likely to promote effective teaching in an EAP context. Statements shown in italics in the tables in the results section were not found in the data but were inferred from the partner statement. The interpretation of the interview data and the inference of the missing partners in some pairs were based on the literature reviewed above and the Competency Framework for Teachers of EAP (BALEAP, 2008). The statements were organised into a reflective questionnaire (Appendix), which was made available online via SurveyMonkey4 from June 26th to September 29th 2010 and advertised through the BALEAP, EATAW and TTEdSIG discussion lists.5 Beliefs were presented in opposing pairs in the questionnaire in order to discover if these contrasts reflected real differences between beliefs about effective or less effective teaching for low level learners in an EAP context. If equal numbers of teachers selected each statement in a pair, this would indicate no real difference in effectiveness for EAP teaching. Clearly, these pairs do not necessarily constitute either barriers or success factors for teaching in other contexts. Respondents were asked to choose the statement from each pair which best represented their view. They were explicitly instructed to choose only one statement even if their preferred response was ‘it depends’ or ‘none of these’. 7. Analysis of the interview data In the interviews, the teachers made explicit statements of their beliefs about their own lessons or about teaching in general. Sometimes they suggested beliefs that they thought CLT teachers would hold but which they themselves did not. They also conducted short reflective monologues or described their teaching in short narratives, both of which contained evaluations of the students, the materials or their lessons. The monologues and narratives were analysed to uncover presuppositions and interpret evaluations (following Grundy, 2001), which might indicate underlying beliefs. Examples of the interpretation of possible beliefs are shown in the extracts below.

1) I’m not very good at drilling. I think it’s worthwhile doing. It’s not something I do religiously. I’m not coming from the point of view of having done a lot of drills. They do need it because I know they’re not always getting their patterns right. In this monologue Ellen makes reflective comments about a particular teaching technique, drilling, in response to a specified approach to a task in the coursebook. Her comments alternate between her lack of experience of and preference for this

4

http://www.surveymonkey.com/ BALEAP and EATAW are organisations based in the UK and Europe, which support the professional development of EAP teachers working mainly in European higher education. TTEdSIG is a special interest group of IATEFL interested in teacher training and education worldwide. 5

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

105

technique and her recognition that it will benefit her students. She acknowledges that the task does not match her current teaching style but she rationalises its inclusion in the coursebook in terms of its usefulness in meeting her students’ needs. Her underlying belief was interpreted as: A teacher needs to adjust her style in order to follow the specified approach to the materials in a coursebook. 2) I spent some of the class doing grammar. I did a little kind of quick thing to satisfy them. something on the passive which is useful for academic writing. and they took it and ran and sort of an hour and a half later we were still doing it and it was incredible. they were so reluctant to let it go. In this narrative David relates a teaching sequence. He prefaces this with a minimiser ‘a little kind of quick thing’ and two justifications ‘to satisfy them’ and ‘useful for academic writing’. These hedges may indicate his awareness that he has departed from the specified approach in the materials, something he says elsewhere he tried not to do. His main evaluation concerns the students’ positive response to the activity, which he presents as a justification for the amount of time it took. His underlying belief was interpreted as: A lesson is successful if students liked it and want to do the same activities again. In a new teaching context where beliefs are being challenged and developed, teachers may experience tensions between core and emerging beliefs. For example, in his first interview, David highlights the importance of sharing the purpose and aims of activities with students. He describes a good teacher as ‘a teacher who has rapport with the class but equally importantly makes them understand why they need to do what they’re doing’. In the interview conducted in week 2, his narrative demonstrates an inconsistency between his stated belief about ideal practices and his classroom realities: I had a little warmer on Thursday. an adjective-preposition collocation thing. as far as I was concerned it was a fifteen minute warmer, just to keep them occupied while everyone else came in. It stretched to 45 minutes and if I hadn’t been really strict, they’d have gone on for another 15 or 20 minutes. [At the end of the lesson a student said] ‘I really enjoyed today’s lesson. the best bit was the thing we did at the start because I really worry about those things’ And I thought that wasn’t the important stuff, that was a little throw away! I kind of thought you’re actually missing the point! He did not share his own aim for the activity ‘to keep them occupied while everyone else came in’ but his final evaluation seems to suggest that he expected the students to interpret this aim and not ‘miss the point’. This was interpreted as a pair of contrasting beliefs: A teacher should explain the aims of a lesson to help students to reflect on their learning. A teacher need not explain the aims of a lesson because reflection is not important at this level.

8. Results and discussion Ellen and David are well qualified and experienced teachers and during the interviews they gave ample evidence of their developing expertise in teaching EAP. Many of their beliefs could be identified as critical for successful EAP teaching. Nevertheless, there were two key areas in which their beliefs appeared to be inconsistent with an EAP approach: the description of the language system within which they framed their talk and the approach to scaffolding student performance. Although the organising principle of the syllabus in Access EAP: Foundations is functional, both teachers tended to talk about language structures rather than performance, especially when confronted with unfamiliar concepts. For example, the book introduces a concept not commonly found in CLT coursebooks at any level, information structure and the flow of discourse from what is given to what is new in a developing text. In order to position sentence constituents to flow from given to new, objects move to the beginning of sentences and verbs require the passive voice. Although they clearly understood the concept of information structure, both teachers tended to talk about the passive and the importance of producing it accurately, rather than the need to bring topics into theme position, e.g. in her final interview Ellen is surprised how well the students have understood the functional concepts: .they did pretty well with the familiar to new and general to specific and it really seemed to click with them. it was easier to sort of get through than I thought it would be. However, her main evaluation of the students’ on-going needs is presented in terms of language structure They’re still a bit tied up in when to use the passive. and they keep using the passive when they don’t need to So I said ‘Just don’t use it’ .we have talked about it before on this course, doing processes. we have used it. and there’s also changing the topic. so they were quite aware of it but they still get in a muddle. Similarly, David describes the students’ awareness of academic style in terms of language structure: .they’re aware of the fact that you should try whenever possible to use the passive, even although they can’t always form it as well as they might want to. The need to scaffold performance arises because of a basic orientation in EAP towards teaching to the target rather than the students’ current level. Ellen understood this principle and demonstrated some particularly creative approaches to scaffolding student autonomy:

106

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

So you know, you can pick out little examples[from their learning diaries] and say. ‘Here’s an example of some good way to improve your English.’ . But it is a continual sort of process, isn’t it? I gave them the first [vocabulary test]twice, because it was so bad the first time round that I gave them the same test again. So they could see that they made progress there . and actually today I got them to choose their words that we’re going to do [for the test] tomorrow. However, David often talked about scaffolding in rather negative terms, suggesting he did not see the value in supporting students to perform beyond their current level of competence: I had to really bully them into coming up with something reasonable. If I asked them to contribute without feeding them stuff, or feeding them ideas, then probably I would get nothing. a lot of it is me manipulating things. 9. The online survey The survey in the second stage of this study attracted 124 complete responses. Most respondents (90%) had English as their first language and 96 percent had between five and ten or more than ten years’ teaching experience. The timing of the survey meant that most respondents were likely to be involved with English-medium pre-sessional EAP programmes when they completed it. Thus a belief could be considered to be a success factor for teaching EAP if a high percentage of respondents selected it, and a barrier to effective EAP teaching if few selected it, even though this belief may be highly appropriate in other contexts with different learner needs. Not all belief statements could be unambiguously assigned as barriers or success factors in this way, but in only one case were respondents almost evenly divided between the two polar statements: It is better to supplement a coursebook by bringing in new texts and tasks. (48%) It is better to supplement a coursebook by exploiting its texts and tasks further. (52%) Contrasting pairs of belief statements are shown in Tables 2–4 below. Respondents’ choices are shown as a percentage next to each statement in the tables. The questionnaire also included four questions about syllabuses for low level learners but these results are not reported here. Table 2 Beliefs about low level learners of English. Potential barriers to EAP Students learning a second language are similar to children learning their first language. Students should be divided into levels and taught at the correct level in order to make progress. Students should study the language system before they study academic English. Students should follow the natural order of acquisition: listening / speaking before reading / writing. Students should not be challenged with material and tasks which might be too difficult for them. Students at this level are not able to study independently.

% 8 73 32 8 20 7

Success factors for EAP

%

Students learning a second language are adults with experience of learning their first language. It is not necessary to put students into classes according to their level for them to make progress. Students should study the language system at the same time as they study academic English. Students should learn language skills in the order that suits their needs and abilities. Students should be challenged with new and unfamiliar material and difficult tasks. Students at this level are able to study independently.

92 27 68 92 80 93

The responses in Table 2 show that most teachers in this survey (92%) see students at low proficiency levels as adults who can study independently and choose a preferred order to learn language skills. Most do not believe that students at this level should be treated as children, highly dependent on their teacher and learning their L2 in the same way that they acquired their L1. Respondents were slightly divided on what should be taught and at what level. Access EAP: Foundations teaches the language system at the same time as academic English and 68% of respondents would agree with this approach. The book challenges students with unfamiliar concepts (information structure) and difficult tasks (thinking critically) and 80% of respondents agreed that students at this level should be challenged. In contrast, most respondents (72%) thought that students should be taught at the correct level to make progress and would not see this as a barrier to success in EAP teaching. As noted in the introduction to the CEFR ‘Any attempt to establish “levels” of proficiency is to some extent arbitrary, as it is in any area of knowledge or skill. However, for practical purposes it is useful to set up a scale of defined levels to segment the learning process for the purposes of curriculum design, qualifying examinations, etc’ (p. 17). Thus, division into levels can be seen to serve administrative and teacher needs rather than learning needs and it is possible that too rigid allocation to levels on the basis of, for example, grammatical competence may prevent some students from progressing as fast as they are able. When teachers responded to beliefs about coursebooks, shown in Table 3, they may have had in mind the preintermediate coursebooks described by Harwood (2005), which, he claimed, rely on intuitions and folk beliefs rather than research findings. The results for this table show a preference for a variety of topics (76%) and for imposing the teacher’s own style on a coursebook (94%), even though that may work against achieving academic outcomes (see Alexander et al., 2008, pp.

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

107

Table 3 Beliefs about coursebooks for low level learners of English. Potential barriers to EAP

%

Success factors for EAP

%

Students need to meet a variety of topics and texts briefly to maintain interest and motivation. The units in a coursebook are not linked and they can be taught in any order. If a teacher has to support students to achieve tasks, then the materials are at the wrong level. It is better to supplement a coursebook by bringing in new texts and tasks. A teacher needs to impose her/his own style and approach on the materials in a coursebook. The Teacher’s Book is mainly useful for new and inexperienced teachers.

76

Students need to master a small number of topics and texts to maintain interest and motivation. The units in a coursebook are linked so it is important to follow the specified order. If students want to study at a higher level, then a teacher can support them to achieve tasks. It is better to supplement a coursebook by exploiting its texts and tasks further. A teacher needs to follow the specified approach to the materials in a coursebook. The Teacher’s Book is useful even for very experienced teachers.

24

38 6 48 94 27

62 94 52 6 73

100ff for a case study). It may seem that the high percentage of responses suggesting that students can be supported to study at a higher level contradicts the finding in Table 2 that students should be divided into levels and taught at the correct level. In a follow-up discussion of this apparent contradiction on the BALEAP Jiscmail discussion list, respondents clarified ‘higher level’ not as the target level competence but as the next level, i.e. intermediate level, competence (Schmitt & Slaght, 2010). In response to the suggestion that ‘students should be allowed to try out whichever class they feel motivated to study in’, Schmitt commented, ‘I think this would work if classrooms worked more like video games - help provided at the point of need, plenty of opportunities for fresh starts and failure to live up to expected levels done in private. Unfortunately most classrooms and programme requirements [do not] support this approach’. Table 4 Beliefs about teaching low level learners of English. Potential barriers to EAP A teacher should not explain the aims of a lesson because reflection is not important at this level. A lesson is successful if the students liked it and want to do the same activities again. It is important at low levels to correct all the mistakes in students’ writing or speaking. It is the students’ responsibility to develop as independent learners. If students are working towards an exam, lessons should focus on exam tasks in past exam papers.

% 2 19 6 25 10

Success factors for EAP

%

A teacher should explain the aims of a lesson to help students to reflect on their learning. A lesson is successful if the students struggled but progressed in their learning. It is important at low levels to correct only mistakes relating to the focus of the lesson. It is the teacher’s responsibility to develop students as independent learners. If students are working towards an exam, lessons should focus on the skills and language tested.

98 81 94 75 90

Table 4 indicates that most respondents agreed that lesson aims should be shared with students (98%) although it is possible that the wording of the opposing belief might have skewed this result and it would be better to use a more neutral expression ‘need not explain the aims’ in this statement. The majority of respondents (more than 90%) also agreed that lesson aims should be made explicit and content should align with outcomes and assessment, which is in line with good practice in education more generally. Although 81% of respondents selected challenge and achievement over student satisfaction as the criteria for judging a successful lesson, the wording of this pair of statements does exclude the possibility that students are satisfied because they are challenged. Most respondents (75%) believe that the teacher has responsibility for helping students to develop as independent learners. Table 5 presents key aspects of teaching EAP which are potentially most challenging to teacher beliefs about teaching low level learners according to the literature reviewed earlier. However, most respondents (90%) agreed that students are able to discuss academic concepts, especially in their first language and 82% agreed with the statement that the teacher should relate classroom tasks and activities to the university context. A similar number (80%) thought that students needed to build up functional vocabulary for comparing, defining or discussing problems and 74% thought this could be done using academic texts. Around one third of respondents viewed language in terms of the traditional structural syllabus, with its emphasis on verb forms, and considered that students should be taught at or near their level of competence. Although the interview data and its interpretation are subject to a number of limitations, as outlined in the methodology section above, the findings in these tables largely support the subjective interpretation of teacher beliefs derived from the interviews as barriers or critical success factors in EAP teaching. They also provide some confirmation for the two areas in which beliefs within general CLT and EAP teaching can be most at odds: description of the language system and the approach to scaffolding student performance. The majority of respondents in the survey agreed with the statements that students should build up functional vocabulary and that this could be done using academic texts and tasks. However, opinion was more divided over whether students should study the language system before or at the same time as they study academic English and whether the priority should be noun phrases and meaning relations between sentences or verb phrases and sentence linking words.

108

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

Table 5 Beliefs about teaching EAP to low level learners of English. Potential barriers to EAP

%

Success factors for EAP

%

It is not necessary to relate tasks and activities in the classroom to a university context. Students need to build up topic-based vocabulary, related to their discipline. Students need to learn verb tenses and sentence linking words.

18

82

32

Newspapers and magazines are a good source of texts for this level.

26

Students at this level cannot understand and discuss academic concepts even in their first language. Students should practise reading, writing, listening and speaking at their level of competence.

10

The teacher should relate tasks and activities in the classroom to a university context. Students need to build up functional vocabulary for comparing, defining or discussing problems. Students need to learn noun phrases and meaning relations between sentences. Academic texts from textbooks can be adapted for this level. Students at this level can understand and discuss academic concepts in their first language. Students should be supported to read, write, listen and speak beyond their level of competence.

20

34

80 68 74 90 66

The concept of scaffolding is apparent in the statements which suggest that students should be challenged and can be supported to perform beyond their current level of competence, as well as the beliefs that students can study at a higher level and develop as independent learners with support from the teacher. The generally high percentages in the survey for success factors relating to these beliefs would suggest that the majority of the 124 teachers taking part were aware of the importance of scaffolding student performance in EAP. In spite of this, there was strong agreement that students should be divided into levels and taught at the correct level. 10. Conclusions and implications for teacher development This exploratory study set out to uncover beliefs about general communicative language teaching which might form potential barriers to successful delivery of EAP materials for low level learners and to identify concomitant beliefs which might constitute critical success factors in enabling such students to achieve their target competence. Borg (2006, p. 274) suggested that ‘whole areas of language education. remained unexplored from a teacher cognition perspective’ and indeed much research into teacher beliefs has been based on a general CLT paradigm, which differs from EAP teaching in two fundamental respects. The traditional CLT focus identified in the literature review above, especially at low proficiency levels, is on teaching language as a system of grammatical structures contextualised within a common core of functions for general socialising, with a priority on spoken language. Teachers within this context tend to frame their talk and their practice through language structures and coursebooks continue to adopt an approach that is not always supported by recent research (Cook, 2009; Harwood, 2005). In contrast, an EAP approach follows a deep end strategy, teaching towards the target academic performance and scaffolding tasks so that students can read, write, listen and speak beyond their current level of competence. Teachers frame their talk using genres and language functions, thus supporting students to acquire procedural knowledge about discourse processes which they can reapply in the context of their own academic disciplines (Bruce, 2008). This difference in approach means that, when moving from general CLT to EAP, teachers effectively revert to pre-service status in terms of what language to teach and how best to teach it. Reflective teachers who become aware of the challenges to their personal constructs of teaching can experience a loss of confidence and disruption to their normal teaching routines. Verity (2000) describes this experience of being thrown into a new teaching context – in her case, large classes and unresponsive students in a Japanese university – as very emotionally upsetting. ‘What had been automatic, subtle and fun was suddenly obscure, laborious and worrisome’ (p. 183). She attempted to regain her sense of expertise by keeping a diary, in which she interpreted her experiences through narrative, relying on her expert cognitive self to mediate the experiences of her newly novice emotional self in order to learn how ‘to know differently’ (p. 192) in her new situation. The two teachers interviewed in the present study used short narratives and reflective monologues to make sense of their experiences, talking their lessons into meaningfulness by retelling them to a colleague, and making evaluative comments about the students, the materials and their teaching. The subjective interpretation of these introspections resulted in a reflective questionnaire which could be used in induction and training sessions to raise teachers’ awareness of their beliefs about EAP. The questionnaire could also be used in conjunction with observations of teaching or teachers’ own narratives (Grundy, 2001) in order to highlight discrepancies between what teachers think they do and what they actually do in the EAP classroom. In the conclusion to their paper, Phipps and Borg (2009) suggested that teacher education programmes should do more than simply identify tensions in teachers’ belief systems and should seek to help teachers understand how core and peripheral beliefs impact on their teaching. The teaching of EAP to learners with a low level of proficiency has been a relatively unexplored context for understanding teacher beliefs so it has been important in this study to explore the tensions which might exist between beliefs about general CLT and EAP teaching in this context. Further research might seek to discover whether the belief statements compiled in the reflective questionnaire have relevance for EAP contexts outside the UK and how they compare with teachers’ classroom practices.

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

109

Appendix. Teaching Academic English to Low Level Learners The purpose of this survey is to understand teacher beliefs about teaching English for Academic Purposes to students with a low level of proficiency, i.e., A1/A2 on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). [For questions 3 to 5 you have to choose one answer only. Even if your response is ‘it depends’ or ‘more than one of these’, try to select the answer which is closer to your view.] This part of the survey is omitted. For the remaining questions you have a choice of 5 or 6 paired statements and you have to choose one from each pair. Even if your response is ‘it depends’ or ‘neither of these’, try to select the statements which are closest to your view. 1. What is your first language? a. English b. Other (please specify) 2. How many years have you been teaching English? a. Less than 5 years b. 5 – 10 years c. More than 10 years [Three questions about experience of syllabuses for low level learners have been omitted as they are not reported as part of this study.] 6. Low level learners of English. Below are pairs of statements about low level learners of English whose goal is to study in an English-medium university. Choose six statements – one from each pair – which best represent your view about these learners. a. Students learning a second language are similar to children learning their first language. b. Students learning a second language are adults with experience of learning their first language. c. Students should be divided into levels and taught at the correct level in order to make progress. d. It is not necessary to put students into classes according to their level for them to make progress. e. Students should study the language system before they study academic English. f. Students can study the language system at the same time as they study academic English. g. Students should follow the natural order of acquisition: listening / speaking before reading / writing. h. Students can learn language skills in the order that suits their needs and abilities. i. Students should be challenged with new and unfamiliar material and difficult tasks. j. Students should not be challenged with material and tasks which might be too difficult for them. k. Students at this level are able to study independently. l. Students at this level are not able to study independently. 7. Coursebooks for low level learners. Below are pairs of statements about coursebooks for low level learners of English. Choose six statements – one from each pair – which best represent your view about these coursebooks. a. Students need to meet a variety of topics and texts briefly to maintain interest and motivation. b. Students need to master a small number of topics and texts to maintain interest and motivation. c. The units in a coursebook are not linked and they can be taught in any order. d. The units in a coursebook are linked so it is important to follow the specified order. e. If a teacher has to support students to achieve tasks, then the materials are at the wrong level. f. If students want to study at a higher level, then a teacher can support them to achieve tasks. g. It is better to supplement a coursebook by exploiting its texts and tasks further. h. It is better to supplement a coursebook by bringing in new texts and tasks. i. A teacher needs to impose her/his own style and approach on the materials in a coursebook. j. A teacher needs to follow the specified approach to the materials in a coursebook. k. The Teacher’s Book is mainly useful for new and inexperienced teachers. l. The Teacher’s Book is useful even for very experienced teachers.

110

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

8. Teaching low level learners. Below are pairs of statements about teaching low level learners of English. Choose five statements – one from each pair – which best represent your view about teaching at low levels. a. A teacher should explain the aims of a lesson to help students to reflect on their learning. b. A teacher should not explain the aims of a lesson because reflection is not important at this level. c. A lesson is successful if the students liked it and want to do the same activities again. d. A lesson is successful if the students struggled but progressed in their learning. e. Is it important at low levels to correct all the mistakes in students’ writing or speaking. f. Is it important at low levels to correct only mistakes relating to the focus of the lesson. g. It is the students’ responsibility to develop as independent learners. h. It is the teacher’s responsibility to develop students as independent learners. i. If students are working towards an exam, lessons should focus on exam tasks in past exam papers. j. If students are working towards an exam, lessons should focus on the skills and language to be tested. 9. Teaching Academic English to low level learners. Below are pairs of statements about teaching English for Academic Purposes to low level learners whose goal is to study in an English-medium university. Choose six statements – one from each pair – which best represent your view about teaching Academic English at low levels. a. The teacher should relate tasks and activities in the classroom to a university context. b. It is not necessary to relate tasks and activities in the classroom to a university context. c. Students need to build up topic-based vocabulary, related to their discipline. d. Students need to build up functional vocabulary for comparing, defining or discussing problems. e. Students need to learn verb tenses and sentence linking words. f. Students need to learn noun phrases and meaning relations between sentences. g. Newspapers and magazines are a good source of texts for this level. h. Academic texts from textbooks can be adapted for this level. i. Students at this level can understand and discuss academic concepts in their first language. j. Students at this level cannot understand and discuss academic concepts even in their first language. k. Students should practise reading, writing, listening and speaking at their level of competence. l. Students should be supported to read, write, listen and speak near the target level of competence.

References Alexander, O. (2007). Groping in the dark or turning on the light: routes into teaching English for academic purposes. 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. Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP Essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet Education. Argent, S., & Alexander, O. (2010). Access EAP: Foundations. Reading: Garnet Education. BALEAP. (2008). Competency framework for teachers of english for academic purposes. Retrieved 26.04.11 from. http://www.baleap.org.uk/teap/teapcompetency-framework.pdf. Barcelos, A. (2006). Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In A. Barcelos, & P. Kalaja (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 7–34). New York: Springer. Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278–286. Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for specific purposes: teaching for perceived needs and imagined futures in the worlds of work, study and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133–156. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: complexity, elaboration and explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1986). Languages for specific purposes: Practice and theory. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional Paper 19. Dublin: Trinity College. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Breen, M. P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Part I. Language Teaching, 20(1), 81–92. Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. London: Continuum. Bruce, I. (2011). Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cook, V. (2003). Materials for adult beginners from an L2 user perspective. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 275–290). London: Continuum. Cook, V. (2009). Developing links between second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. In K. Knapp, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 139–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

O. Alexander / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 99–111

111

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2001). Common european framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Available online at http://www.coe.int/t/ dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf Retrieved 14.11.11. Ding, A., Jones, M., & King, J. (2004). Perfect match? Meeting EAP teachers’ needs and expectations in training. Presentation to BALEAP professional issues meeting, teacher training in EAP, University of Essex. Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, NSW: AMES. Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: questions of equity, access and domain loss. IBÉRICA, 13, 7–38. Foley, J. (1994). Key concepts: scaffolding. ELT Journal, 48(1), 101–102. Golombek, P. R., & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second-language teachers’ development. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 307–327. Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: a social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 411(2), 147–181. Grundy, P. (2001). Listening to ourselves. Humanising Language Teaching, 3(6), Retrieved 21.01.11 from. http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov01/mart1.htm. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). English for academic purposes. InHinkel, E. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 89–105). New York: Routledge. Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 149–161. Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Islam, C. (2003). Materials for beginners. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 256–274). London: Continuum. Johnson, K. (2009). Foreign language course design. In K. Knapp, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 309– 340). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mangubhai, F., Marland, P., Dashwood, A., & Son, J. (2005). Similarities and differences in teachers’ and researchers’ conceptions of communicative language teaching: does the use of an educational model cast a better light? Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 31–66. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37/3, 380–390. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. J. (2006). A case study: beliefs and metaphors of a Japanese teacher of English. In A. Barcelos, & P. Kalaja (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 153–170). New York: Springer. Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: what’s ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207–220. Schmitt, D., & Slaght, J. (2010). Responses to discussion topic beliefs about teaching low level EAP. [email protected] 26th September, 2010. Senior, R. M. (2006). The experience of language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and analysis. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–15. Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Verity, D. P. (2000). Side affects: the strategic development of professional satisfaction. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 179–197). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a ‘language-based theory of learning’. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 41–90. Widdowson, H. G. (2009). The linguistic perspective. In K. Knapp, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 193– 218). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.