- Email: [email protected]
“Fiction talk” in the ESP classroom
Pergamon
English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 77-86, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 The American University Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0889.4906195 $9.50 + .OO
0889-4906(94)00021-2
Discussions
and Research
Notes
“Fiction Talk” in the ESP Classroom Renata K. Kelly and Lakshmy A. Krishnan Introduction Many studies and publications have been devoted to the re-emergence of interest in the use of literature in the ESL classroom (Gadjusek 1988; Maley 1989; Robson 1989; Spack 1985). Recently, even the more specialized field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has claimed success from the introduction of literature into its curriculum (Hirvela 1990). Although it is generally true that the use of literature in EFLiESL teaching declined in the post-World-War-II era, giving way to the “ascendancy of methodologies based on linguistic theories” (Robson 1989: 25), writers as far back as Povey (1967) and Arthur (1968) have argued that literature can in fact enrich ESL learning. Widdowson (1975, 1982) has also long given support to the use of literature in ESL teaching. He contends that the study of literature can stimulate “a sharper awareness of the communicative resources of the language being learned” (Widdowson 1975: 83). Both Spack (1985) and Hafiz and Tudor (1989), in different ways, have pointed out that reading improves second language students’ linguistic skills and translates directly into better writing. However, the use of literature in the ESL classroom has also attracted criticism (Horowitz 1990; Robson 1989). Some of the most common objections to the use of literature in ESL classes - such as literature being too difficult, unnatural in language and content, unrelated to ESL students’ learning objectives - suggest that literature in language classes “does little or nothing to help students to become competent users of the target language” (Robson 1989: 25). It should be noted that Robson himself does not agree with the above sentiments, but Horowitz certainly does. Horowitz (1990) presents a strong argument against the three main claims made by advocates of using literature in teaching ESLIESP. He methodically questions what he names as: 1. The “training versus education” claim; 2. The “interpretive richness” claim;
Address correspondence to: Lakshmy A. Krishnan, School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, 2263 Singapore.
77
78
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
3. Claims related to the connection between reading and writing about literature (p. 161). In arguing against the first claim, Horowitz contends that education (rather than training) can be imparted not only through literature, but through the teaching of various other disciplines such as “philosophy, art, contemporary political issues, or other subjects on the humanist agenda” (p. 162). As for the “interpretive richness” claim, he suggests that there is little reason to believe “that the interpretive demands made by literature are in fact richer, or greater, than those of nonfiction” (p. 164). Finally, countering the third point - i.e., claims made by writers such as Spack (1985) and Gadjusek (1988) on the advantageous relationship between the reading of literature (fiction) and the development of writing skills - Horowitz queries “whether or not teaching our students to read and write about literature is the best reading/ writing combination” (p. 165). He points out that writing about literature does not transfer easily into the kind of academic writing that students must produce in their other courses. However, it is important to note that in his conclusion Horowitz stresses that his arguments against the main claims for teaching literature in the ESLi EFL classroom are not made to dissuade teachers completely from using literature in their teaching. Rather, his critical analysis is meant to encourage teachers to weigh the benefits of using literature in their particular EFL classes and “to think hard about how the actual activities performed in class fit in with their students’ needs and wants” (p. 167). Fiction “Talk” in ESP: Our Experience Background In 1991, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore initiated a first-year engineering programme common to the three engineering schools (Electrical, Mechanical, and Civil). All first-year engineering students are required to take, amongst other subjects, a course on Technical Report Writing (TRW). In addition, all foreign students and local students who do not possess a specific level of English proficiency, determined by the university, are required to sit an in-house Qualifying English Test (QET). Any student who fails the test has to attend an English Proficiency (EP) course. Drift Towards
ESP
After the first year of the English Proficiency programme (1991), which was structured as a general proficiency instrument, the Communication Skills lecturers involved in the teaching of EP decided to restructure the programme. It was felt that materials of a technical nature should be included in the course, answering to a common request voiced by EP students that their English
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
79
classes should reflect more closely the language and skills which they needed for their technical subjects, including Technical Report Writing. Therefore, the new curriculum incorporated units such as the writing of instructions and procedures to laboratory reports, describing mechanisms and mechanical processes, interpreting data, and integrating graphics into texts. These units closely resembled the type of materials found in the mandatory Technical Report Writing course; indeed, the function of these units was specifically calibrated to Technical Report Writing in order to help the English Proficiency students to perform better in their mainstream English course. Other units dealing with paragraph development, essay structure, and revision and proofreading incorporated technical subject matter. In this manner, our English Proficiency course moved from an emphasis on general English language proficiency to an emphasis on English for specific (academic) purposes (ESP), as it is generally understood. Widdowson in “English for Specific Purposes: Criteria for Course Design” describes this general understanding of ESP as follows: If a group of learners’ needs for the language can be accurately specified, then this specification can be used to determine the content of a language program that will meet these needs. (1981: 1)
Widdowson himself (1981) points out that the phase “learners’ needs” can in fact refer either to a “goal-oriented” or a “process-oriented” definition of needs (p. 2). In his later work on the same subject, Widdowson equates goal- and process-orientation respectively with training and education, conformity and creativity, competence and capacity (Widdowson 1983). Widdowson further augments his explanation of the “learner’s needs” dichotomy (goal-orientation/ training/conformity/competence, on the one hand, and process-orientation/ education/creativity/capacity on the other) by suggesting that “the purposes of ESP [can be] arranged along a scale of specificity with training at one end and education at the other” (Widdowson 1983: 10-11). In terms of ESP course design, Widdowson suggests that the two ends of the scale of specificity (training vs. education) lead to narrow-angled (goal-oriented) and wide-angled (process-oriented) approaches. On the basis of Widdowson’s definition, our restructured EP programme reflected a narrow-angled, goal-oriented approach to the design of our course materials. The Reading
Component
To counteract this obvious, but seemingly necessary, drift towards the narrower confines of ESP course design, it was decided that a reading unit, unrelated to technical concerns, be built into the English Proficiency course. This was done because we strongly believed that reading was one of the better ways to improve a student’s language proficiency. In this we were in agreement with a significant body of opinion (cf. Gadjusek 1988; Hafiz & Tudor 1989; Krashen & Terre11 1983; Povey 1967; Spack 1985; Widdowson 1975). For example, Spack (1985) specifically mentions the benefits of literature to stu-
80
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
dents of science and technology. As she claims, not only are such students often interested in literature (cf. Mullen 1984), but also “the focus of their college education should not be limited to vocational skills, for such a programme may impede the full development of the educated mind’ (1985: 720). In addition, Spack feels that the use of literature in ESL courses teaches students critical thinking which in turn “helps them in other courses which demand logical reasoning, independent thinking, and careful analysis of text” (1985: 721). Although Horowitz (1990), as mentioned in the Introduction, questions Spack’s humanist claims for the advantages of incorporating literature into EFL/ESP, we felt fully justified in our attempt to do so. Just as the adaptation of our EP programme to the technical language needs of the engineering students had its rationale, as explained above, we realized that the technical nature of the language materials confined our students even further to a narrow genre of communication. We felt that the introduction of literature/fiction into their programme would be useful not only for the purported advantages that literature might bring to the ESLiESP student, as discussed before, but also for the simple advantage of exposing students to other methods of communication and other bodies of knowledge. In addition, we had a plan to incorporate reading into our programme in a manner that would specifically provide our students with an activity that would complement their broader academic needs. In that way (unwittingly at the time), we satisfied one of Horowitz’s (1990) concluding caveats: More specifically, before teachers make the decision to use literature with their classes, they should think hard about how the actual activities performed in class fit in with their students’ needs and wants. (p. 167)
In our case, students are asked to select a book and then are expected to give an oral presentation - i.e., an oral book review - on their chosen text. The Oral Component
The importance of and emphasis on Oral Communication Skills in engineering/technical courses and in the industry itself has been reflected in many surveys (see Huckin & Olsen 1991). It can even be said that “in many fields of science and technology, the ability to communicate technical information orally is just as important as the ability to write well” (Huckin & Olsen 1991: 371). In fact, the Nanyang Technological University mandatory Technical Report Writing course includes a unit on Oral Presentations. This is done to prepare students for oral presentations, both group and individual, which are a part of their engineering curriculum. In view of the above, it was felt that the EP course should also incorporate an oral skills unit. Oral presentations as part of a technical writing course
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
81
certainly adhere to the narrow-angled, goal-oriented ends of ESP course design. However, it is exactly this oral presentation unit that, in our EP course, we decided to adapt to the more wide-angled (process-/education-oriented) reading component discussed in the previous section. The Novel Twist This marriage between the oral unit, originating from the narrow-angled oral presentation component of Technical Report Writing and the wide-angled literature/reading unit in English Proficiency, constitutes a slightly different approach to the usual handling of literature in course curricula and at the same time provides the students with an activity that relates to their mainstream technical coursework. It should be noted that Hirvela (1990), reporting on the successful use of science fiction stories in an EAPiEST context, mentions that “ . . . in addition to small group work involving interpretation of [a given] passage [from a science fiction story], students can be asked to write essays or to give presentations . . .“. Hirvela’s focus, however, is on small group discussions of a given set of questions related to “specific passages of the [science fiction] text” that can help to improve the students’ “language ability relative to science” (1990: 246). In our situation, the focus is on: a) the students’ access to a broad variety of literary works which they choose freely; b) each student reading a different text; and c) each student giving an oral, rather than a written, book review in front of the whole class. Because the TRW and EP courses at our university had never before included a reading component, we, as the English Proficiency course coordinators, were granted permission by the University to build a special collection of books earmarked for the first year engineering EP students. This was done with the help of the NTU library staff. The books we chose ranged from original unabridged texts (e.g., The Lord of the Flies by William Golding) to simplified readers (advanced level). This was done to accommodate a range of reading abilities amongst the English Proficiency students. Moreover, we tried to include local and commonwealth writers (e.g., Catherine Lim, Anita Desai, RK Narayan), whose works were originally written in English, and likewise some translations of Chinese literary classics. Oral Book Review
Component
In the pilot year (1992/93) of implementing the reading/oral component, students were only given broad guidelines for their oral book reviews. This approach left students on their own to negotiate the meaning of their texts and
82
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Kxishnan
the content of their book reviews. The resulting presentations of the book reviews were disappointing because the students found it difficult to identify the key elements and issues of a literary text (i.e., point-of-view, theme, characterization). Most of them could only recognize the plot (story-line) and they were generally unable to draw any broader inferences from it. In fact, it appears that the students were only “reading for information” (Gadjusek 1988: 233) and applying this basic technique (which they use to negotiate their academic texts) to the fictional realm. One might argue, following Horowitz’s line of thought, that reading for information is the most important skill for engineering students to acquire. However, few would dispute that the “information” content of a literary text is inextricably interwoven with elements such as character, symbolism, theme, etc.; indeed to ignore such elements would mean allowing students to emerge from the reading experience impoverished. In our own experience, it appears that the engineering students at NTU, by force of their choice of discipline, probably fall into the category of what Hudson (1966) calls “convergers” - i.e., students who prefer “precision and rational control” and therefore are more likely to follow scientific/technical disciplines. However, our initial approach to the reading component proved to favor a more “divergent” (creative) cognitive study - i.e., students who prefer “wider networks of association [and] imaginative excursions” and therefore are more likely to choose the arts and social sciences (Widdowson 1981: 8). Therefore, in the second year, we decided to provide the students with specific guidelines for their oral book reviews incorporating a methodology more familiar to our engineering (“converger”) students and yet one that would allow them to reap the greatest benefits from their reading experience. In formulating the new guidelines, the oral presentation techniques, taught in the students’ Technical Report Writing course, and the norms of written book reviews were merged. This formalized the aforesaid liik between the narrow (ESP) and wide (reading) angles of our English Proficiency Course. Book Review
Criteria
In the book review section of the guidelines, we decided that students should consider two main aspects of a given book: 1. information about the book, and 2. critique of the book. In the guidelines, under the first aspect (infomzatz’onabout the book), students are required to cover the following points: 1. Author 0 primary information about author (e.g., name, age, nationality, etc.) ?? additional information about the author (e.g., any awards, any best sellers, favourite genre, etc.)
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
2. Book ?? link between title and subject matter ?? type of book (e.g., science fiction, mystery, romance) ?? publication information (if relevant)
83
adventure, historical,
However, students are expected to give most of their attention to the second aspect of the book review criteria (critique of book). Here, the guidelines are quite specific, attempting to help students to recognize the key features that are common to most works of fiction: 1. Point-of-view (who is the narrator?) ?? author ?? omniscient observer ?? one of the main/minor characters 2. Plot/Story-line ?? setting (place and time of story) ?? sub-plots (parallel story-lines) ?? conflict (do events come to a high point and does a solution to the conflict/mystery emerge?) 3. Characterization ?? main/minor characters (hero/heroine) ?? physical features and/or personality traits ?? relationship to each other and to their setting (specific conflicts, divergent interests, etc.) 4. Theme ?? purpose of story (any special message about society, values, policies, etc.) ?? personal interpretation of message (what did the book mean to the reader?) 5. Language ?? formal/informal (conversational, dialect, etc.) ?? easy/difficult to understand (why?)
Oral Presentation
Techniques
The oral presentation section of the guidelines incorporates a brief description of what students should do in delivering any kind of presentation. These guidelines are based on the oral presentation format which the engineering students are expected to follow in their engineering curriculum. In our case, we took into account principles of organization and presentation which pertain to formal oral presentations and integrated them with the book review criteria:
84
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
1. Speaking from notes, not reading a prepared script (or written book review). 2. Proper introduction of the speaker and the topic [in introducing the topic, students should include points under information about the book]. 3. Proper delivery of speech, taking into account elements such as eyecontact, rapport with audience, appropriate and correct language use. 4. Correct use of visual aids [Suggested uses: ?? introduction of book 0 characterization (e.g., family tree, organization chart, tables, etc.) ?? sequence of events (e.g., story map, flow diagram)]. 5. Proper organization of content [in organizing the content, students should include points under critique of the book]. 6. Rehearsal before the actual presentation. Conclusion Although the oral book review guidelines were only implemented in the academic year (1993/94), results so far have been encouraging. Students have improved both in their presentation of the book review and in their ability to examine and talk about a literary text. It seems that the focused and guided approach to the task of reading and reviewing a fictional narrative are just what our students needed. In terms of course design, our students appeared to feel more at ease in the narrow-angled (vocation-oriented) confines of ESP and therefore achieved better in tasks that were guided towards recognizable goals. On the basis of the above observation, it is possible to suggest that the introduction of a literature/reading component into a basically ESP course environment, where students appear to appreciate the “narrow-angled” (vocational) focus of the course materials, must respect or take into account the students’ apparent “cognitive style.” Indeed, realising a student’s potential in the development of course materials might be another way of taking into account Horowitz’s (1990) warning that teachers must calibrate class activities with their students’ academic/professional “needs and wants.” Although the benefits of introducing literature/fiction to L2 students of science and technology are potentially considerable, it is important to realize that such an introduction needs to be couched in (so to speak) a familiar “language” - that is, in a familiar methodological environment. In our case, the combination of the training/goal-oriented oral presentation component with the education/process-oriented reading unit was the first step towards these objectives. But, as we came to realize, the combination alone of the two components did not yield satisfactory results. What was needed were more specific guidelines - in other words, a formalized union between the oral and reading components - to help students understand more clearly what was expected of
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
85
them and so derive greater benefit from the literature that they were reading in their English Proficiency course. (Received JU(Y 1994) REFERENCES
Arthur, B. (1968). Reading literature and learning a second language. Language Learning, 18, 199-210. Gadjusek, L. (1988). Toward wider use of literature in ESL: Why and how. Tesol Quarterly, 22, 227-255.
Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills. ELT Journal, 43, 4-13. Hirvela, A. (1990). ESP and literature: A reassessment. English for Specific Purposes,
9, 237-252.
Horowitz, D. (1990). Fiction and nonfiction in the ESLiEFL classroom: Does the difference make a difference? English for Specific Pzqboses, 9, 161-167. Huckin, T. N., & Olsen, L. A. (1991). Technical writingandprofessional communication for non-native speakers of English. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations. London: Penguin. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon/Alemany. Maley, A. (1989). A comeback for literature? Practical English Teaching, 10(l), 59. MulIen, J. S. (1984). Outsiders: American short stories for students (Teacher’s manual). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Povey, J. (1967). Literature in TESOL programs: The language and the culture. TESOL Quarterb, 1, 40-46. Robson, A. E. (1989). The use of literature in ESL and culture-learning courses in US Colleges. TESOL Newsletter, 23(4), 25-27. Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL: Bridging the gaps. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 703-725.
Widdowson, H. G. (1975). S(ylistics and the teaching of literature. London: Longman. Widdowson, H. G. (1981). English for specific purposes: Criteria for course design. In L. Selinker, E. Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for academic and technical purposes (pp. l-11). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Widdowson, H. G. (1982). The use of literature. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), ON TESOL ‘81 (pp. 203-214). Washington, DC: TESOL. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learningpurpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renata K. Kelly has just returned to the UK after 2 years at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, where she taught and co-ordinated
86
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
Technical Communication and English Proficiency programmes for engineering and business students. She has also taught English in Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and English literature at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lakshmy A. Krishnan teaches technical writing to engineering students at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, and also co-ordinates the English Proficiency programme. She has also worked with the RELC Language Teaching Institute and has designed and taught ESP courses for bankers, health officers, and general administrators. Her primary research interest is in writing.
English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 77-86, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 The American University Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0889.4906195 $9.50 + .OO
0889-4906(94)00021-2
Discussions
and Research
Notes
“Fiction Talk” in the ESP Classroom Renata K. Kelly and Lakshmy A. Krishnan Introduction Many studies and publications have been devoted to the re-emergence of interest in the use of literature in the ESL classroom (Gadjusek 1988; Maley 1989; Robson 1989; Spack 1985). Recently, even the more specialized field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has claimed success from the introduction of literature into its curriculum (Hirvela 1990). Although it is generally true that the use of literature in EFLiESL teaching declined in the post-World-War-II era, giving way to the “ascendancy of methodologies based on linguistic theories” (Robson 1989: 25), writers as far back as Povey (1967) and Arthur (1968) have argued that literature can in fact enrich ESL learning. Widdowson (1975, 1982) has also long given support to the use of literature in ESL teaching. He contends that the study of literature can stimulate “a sharper awareness of the communicative resources of the language being learned” (Widdowson 1975: 83). Both Spack (1985) and Hafiz and Tudor (1989), in different ways, have pointed out that reading improves second language students’ linguistic skills and translates directly into better writing. However, the use of literature in the ESL classroom has also attracted criticism (Horowitz 1990; Robson 1989). Some of the most common objections to the use of literature in ESL classes - such as literature being too difficult, unnatural in language and content, unrelated to ESL students’ learning objectives - suggest that literature in language classes “does little or nothing to help students to become competent users of the target language” (Robson 1989: 25). It should be noted that Robson himself does not agree with the above sentiments, but Horowitz certainly does. Horowitz (1990) presents a strong argument against the three main claims made by advocates of using literature in teaching ESLIESP. He methodically questions what he names as: 1. The “training versus education” claim; 2. The “interpretive richness” claim;
Address correspondence to: Lakshmy A. Krishnan, School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, 2263 Singapore.
77
78
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
3. Claims related to the connection between reading and writing about literature (p. 161). In arguing against the first claim, Horowitz contends that education (rather than training) can be imparted not only through literature, but through the teaching of various other disciplines such as “philosophy, art, contemporary political issues, or other subjects on the humanist agenda” (p. 162). As for the “interpretive richness” claim, he suggests that there is little reason to believe “that the interpretive demands made by literature are in fact richer, or greater, than those of nonfiction” (p. 164). Finally, countering the third point - i.e., claims made by writers such as Spack (1985) and Gadjusek (1988) on the advantageous relationship between the reading of literature (fiction) and the development of writing skills - Horowitz queries “whether or not teaching our students to read and write about literature is the best reading/ writing combination” (p. 165). He points out that writing about literature does not transfer easily into the kind of academic writing that students must produce in their other courses. However, it is important to note that in his conclusion Horowitz stresses that his arguments against the main claims for teaching literature in the ESLi EFL classroom are not made to dissuade teachers completely from using literature in their teaching. Rather, his critical analysis is meant to encourage teachers to weigh the benefits of using literature in their particular EFL classes and “to think hard about how the actual activities performed in class fit in with their students’ needs and wants” (p. 167). Fiction “Talk” in ESP: Our Experience Background In 1991, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore initiated a first-year engineering programme common to the three engineering schools (Electrical, Mechanical, and Civil). All first-year engineering students are required to take, amongst other subjects, a course on Technical Report Writing (TRW). In addition, all foreign students and local students who do not possess a specific level of English proficiency, determined by the university, are required to sit an in-house Qualifying English Test (QET). Any student who fails the test has to attend an English Proficiency (EP) course. Drift Towards
ESP
After the first year of the English Proficiency programme (1991), which was structured as a general proficiency instrument, the Communication Skills lecturers involved in the teaching of EP decided to restructure the programme. It was felt that materials of a technical nature should be included in the course, answering to a common request voiced by EP students that their English
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
79
classes should reflect more closely the language and skills which they needed for their technical subjects, including Technical Report Writing. Therefore, the new curriculum incorporated units such as the writing of instructions and procedures to laboratory reports, describing mechanisms and mechanical processes, interpreting data, and integrating graphics into texts. These units closely resembled the type of materials found in the mandatory Technical Report Writing course; indeed, the function of these units was specifically calibrated to Technical Report Writing in order to help the English Proficiency students to perform better in their mainstream English course. Other units dealing with paragraph development, essay structure, and revision and proofreading incorporated technical subject matter. In this manner, our English Proficiency course moved from an emphasis on general English language proficiency to an emphasis on English for specific (academic) purposes (ESP), as it is generally understood. Widdowson in “English for Specific Purposes: Criteria for Course Design” describes this general understanding of ESP as follows: If a group of learners’ needs for the language can be accurately specified, then this specification can be used to determine the content of a language program that will meet these needs. (1981: 1)
Widdowson himself (1981) points out that the phase “learners’ needs” can in fact refer either to a “goal-oriented” or a “process-oriented” definition of needs (p. 2). In his later work on the same subject, Widdowson equates goal- and process-orientation respectively with training and education, conformity and creativity, competence and capacity (Widdowson 1983). Widdowson further augments his explanation of the “learner’s needs” dichotomy (goal-orientation/ training/conformity/competence, on the one hand, and process-orientation/ education/creativity/capacity on the other) by suggesting that “the purposes of ESP [can be] arranged along a scale of specificity with training at one end and education at the other” (Widdowson 1983: 10-11). In terms of ESP course design, Widdowson suggests that the two ends of the scale of specificity (training vs. education) lead to narrow-angled (goal-oriented) and wide-angled (process-oriented) approaches. On the basis of Widdowson’s definition, our restructured EP programme reflected a narrow-angled, goal-oriented approach to the design of our course materials. The Reading
Component
To counteract this obvious, but seemingly necessary, drift towards the narrower confines of ESP course design, it was decided that a reading unit, unrelated to technical concerns, be built into the English Proficiency course. This was done because we strongly believed that reading was one of the better ways to improve a student’s language proficiency. In this we were in agreement with a significant body of opinion (cf. Gadjusek 1988; Hafiz & Tudor 1989; Krashen & Terre11 1983; Povey 1967; Spack 1985; Widdowson 1975). For example, Spack (1985) specifically mentions the benefits of literature to stu-
80
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
dents of science and technology. As she claims, not only are such students often interested in literature (cf. Mullen 1984), but also “the focus of their college education should not be limited to vocational skills, for such a programme may impede the full development of the educated mind’ (1985: 720). In addition, Spack feels that the use of literature in ESL courses teaches students critical thinking which in turn “helps them in other courses which demand logical reasoning, independent thinking, and careful analysis of text” (1985: 721). Although Horowitz (1990), as mentioned in the Introduction, questions Spack’s humanist claims for the advantages of incorporating literature into EFL/ESP, we felt fully justified in our attempt to do so. Just as the adaptation of our EP programme to the technical language needs of the engineering students had its rationale, as explained above, we realized that the technical nature of the language materials confined our students even further to a narrow genre of communication. We felt that the introduction of literature/fiction into their programme would be useful not only for the purported advantages that literature might bring to the ESLiESP student, as discussed before, but also for the simple advantage of exposing students to other methods of communication and other bodies of knowledge. In addition, we had a plan to incorporate reading into our programme in a manner that would specifically provide our students with an activity that would complement their broader academic needs. In that way (unwittingly at the time), we satisfied one of Horowitz’s (1990) concluding caveats: More specifically, before teachers make the decision to use literature with their classes, they should think hard about how the actual activities performed in class fit in with their students’ needs and wants. (p. 167)
In our case, students are asked to select a book and then are expected to give an oral presentation - i.e., an oral book review - on their chosen text. The Oral Component
The importance of and emphasis on Oral Communication Skills in engineering/technical courses and in the industry itself has been reflected in many surveys (see Huckin & Olsen 1991). It can even be said that “in many fields of science and technology, the ability to communicate technical information orally is just as important as the ability to write well” (Huckin & Olsen 1991: 371). In fact, the Nanyang Technological University mandatory Technical Report Writing course includes a unit on Oral Presentations. This is done to prepare students for oral presentations, both group and individual, which are a part of their engineering curriculum. In view of the above, it was felt that the EP course should also incorporate an oral skills unit. Oral presentations as part of a technical writing course
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
81
certainly adhere to the narrow-angled, goal-oriented ends of ESP course design. However, it is exactly this oral presentation unit that, in our EP course, we decided to adapt to the more wide-angled (process-/education-oriented) reading component discussed in the previous section. The Novel Twist This marriage between the oral unit, originating from the narrow-angled oral presentation component of Technical Report Writing and the wide-angled literature/reading unit in English Proficiency, constitutes a slightly different approach to the usual handling of literature in course curricula and at the same time provides the students with an activity that relates to their mainstream technical coursework. It should be noted that Hirvela (1990), reporting on the successful use of science fiction stories in an EAPiEST context, mentions that “ . . . in addition to small group work involving interpretation of [a given] passage [from a science fiction story], students can be asked to write essays or to give presentations . . .“. Hirvela’s focus, however, is on small group discussions of a given set of questions related to “specific passages of the [science fiction] text” that can help to improve the students’ “language ability relative to science” (1990: 246). In our situation, the focus is on: a) the students’ access to a broad variety of literary works which they choose freely; b) each student reading a different text; and c) each student giving an oral, rather than a written, book review in front of the whole class. Because the TRW and EP courses at our university had never before included a reading component, we, as the English Proficiency course coordinators, were granted permission by the University to build a special collection of books earmarked for the first year engineering EP students. This was done with the help of the NTU library staff. The books we chose ranged from original unabridged texts (e.g., The Lord of the Flies by William Golding) to simplified readers (advanced level). This was done to accommodate a range of reading abilities amongst the English Proficiency students. Moreover, we tried to include local and commonwealth writers (e.g., Catherine Lim, Anita Desai, RK Narayan), whose works were originally written in English, and likewise some translations of Chinese literary classics. Oral Book Review
Component
In the pilot year (1992/93) of implementing the reading/oral component, students were only given broad guidelines for their oral book reviews. This approach left students on their own to negotiate the meaning of their texts and
82
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Kxishnan
the content of their book reviews. The resulting presentations of the book reviews were disappointing because the students found it difficult to identify the key elements and issues of a literary text (i.e., point-of-view, theme, characterization). Most of them could only recognize the plot (story-line) and they were generally unable to draw any broader inferences from it. In fact, it appears that the students were only “reading for information” (Gadjusek 1988: 233) and applying this basic technique (which they use to negotiate their academic texts) to the fictional realm. One might argue, following Horowitz’s line of thought, that reading for information is the most important skill for engineering students to acquire. However, few would dispute that the “information” content of a literary text is inextricably interwoven with elements such as character, symbolism, theme, etc.; indeed to ignore such elements would mean allowing students to emerge from the reading experience impoverished. In our own experience, it appears that the engineering students at NTU, by force of their choice of discipline, probably fall into the category of what Hudson (1966) calls “convergers” - i.e., students who prefer “precision and rational control” and therefore are more likely to follow scientific/technical disciplines. However, our initial approach to the reading component proved to favor a more “divergent” (creative) cognitive study - i.e., students who prefer “wider networks of association [and] imaginative excursions” and therefore are more likely to choose the arts and social sciences (Widdowson 1981: 8). Therefore, in the second year, we decided to provide the students with specific guidelines for their oral book reviews incorporating a methodology more familiar to our engineering (“converger”) students and yet one that would allow them to reap the greatest benefits from their reading experience. In formulating the new guidelines, the oral presentation techniques, taught in the students’ Technical Report Writing course, and the norms of written book reviews were merged. This formalized the aforesaid liik between the narrow (ESP) and wide (reading) angles of our English Proficiency Course. Book Review
Criteria
In the book review section of the guidelines, we decided that students should consider two main aspects of a given book: 1. information about the book, and 2. critique of the book. In the guidelines, under the first aspect (infomzatz’onabout the book), students are required to cover the following points: 1. Author 0 primary information about author (e.g., name, age, nationality, etc.) ?? additional information about the author (e.g., any awards, any best sellers, favourite genre, etc.)
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
2. Book ?? link between title and subject matter ?? type of book (e.g., science fiction, mystery, romance) ?? publication information (if relevant)
83
adventure, historical,
However, students are expected to give most of their attention to the second aspect of the book review criteria (critique of book). Here, the guidelines are quite specific, attempting to help students to recognize the key features that are common to most works of fiction: 1. Point-of-view (who is the narrator?) ?? author ?? omniscient observer ?? one of the main/minor characters 2. Plot/Story-line ?? setting (place and time of story) ?? sub-plots (parallel story-lines) ?? conflict (do events come to a high point and does a solution to the conflict/mystery emerge?) 3. Characterization ?? main/minor characters (hero/heroine) ?? physical features and/or personality traits ?? relationship to each other and to their setting (specific conflicts, divergent interests, etc.) 4. Theme ?? purpose of story (any special message about society, values, policies, etc.) ?? personal interpretation of message (what did the book mean to the reader?) 5. Language ?? formal/informal (conversational, dialect, etc.) ?? easy/difficult to understand (why?)
Oral Presentation
Techniques
The oral presentation section of the guidelines incorporates a brief description of what students should do in delivering any kind of presentation. These guidelines are based on the oral presentation format which the engineering students are expected to follow in their engineering curriculum. In our case, we took into account principles of organization and presentation which pertain to formal oral presentations and integrated them with the book review criteria:
84
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
1. Speaking from notes, not reading a prepared script (or written book review). 2. Proper introduction of the speaker and the topic [in introducing the topic, students should include points under information about the book]. 3. Proper delivery of speech, taking into account elements such as eyecontact, rapport with audience, appropriate and correct language use. 4. Correct use of visual aids [Suggested uses: ?? introduction of book 0 characterization (e.g., family tree, organization chart, tables, etc.) ?? sequence of events (e.g., story map, flow diagram)]. 5. Proper organization of content [in organizing the content, students should include points under critique of the book]. 6. Rehearsal before the actual presentation. Conclusion Although the oral book review guidelines were only implemented in the academic year (1993/94), results so far have been encouraging. Students have improved both in their presentation of the book review and in their ability to examine and talk about a literary text. It seems that the focused and guided approach to the task of reading and reviewing a fictional narrative are just what our students needed. In terms of course design, our students appeared to feel more at ease in the narrow-angled (vocation-oriented) confines of ESP and therefore achieved better in tasks that were guided towards recognizable goals. On the basis of the above observation, it is possible to suggest that the introduction of a literature/reading component into a basically ESP course environment, where students appear to appreciate the “narrow-angled” (vocational) focus of the course materials, must respect or take into account the students’ apparent “cognitive style.” Indeed, realising a student’s potential in the development of course materials might be another way of taking into account Horowitz’s (1990) warning that teachers must calibrate class activities with their students’ academic/professional “needs and wants.” Although the benefits of introducing literature/fiction to L2 students of science and technology are potentially considerable, it is important to realize that such an introduction needs to be couched in (so to speak) a familiar “language” - that is, in a familiar methodological environment. In our case, the combination of the training/goal-oriented oral presentation component with the education/process-oriented reading unit was the first step towards these objectives. But, as we came to realize, the combination alone of the two components did not yield satisfactory results. What was needed were more specific guidelines - in other words, a formalized union between the oral and reading components - to help students understand more clearly what was expected of
“Fiction Talk” in ESP
85
them and so derive greater benefit from the literature that they were reading in their English Proficiency course. (Received JU(Y 1994) REFERENCES
Arthur, B. (1968). Reading literature and learning a second language. Language Learning, 18, 199-210. Gadjusek, L. (1988). Toward wider use of literature in ESL: Why and how. Tesol Quarterly, 22, 227-255.
Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills. ELT Journal, 43, 4-13. Hirvela, A. (1990). ESP and literature: A reassessment. English for Specific Purposes,
9, 237-252.
Horowitz, D. (1990). Fiction and nonfiction in the ESLiEFL classroom: Does the difference make a difference? English for Specific Pzqboses, 9, 161-167. Huckin, T. N., & Olsen, L. A. (1991). Technical writingandprofessional communication for non-native speakers of English. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations. London: Penguin. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon/Alemany. Maley, A. (1989). A comeback for literature? Practical English Teaching, 10(l), 59. MulIen, J. S. (1984). Outsiders: American short stories for students (Teacher’s manual). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Povey, J. (1967). Literature in TESOL programs: The language and the culture. TESOL Quarterb, 1, 40-46. Robson, A. E. (1989). The use of literature in ESL and culture-learning courses in US Colleges. TESOL Newsletter, 23(4), 25-27. Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL: Bridging the gaps. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 703-725.
Widdowson, H. G. (1975). S(ylistics and the teaching of literature. London: Longman. Widdowson, H. G. (1981). English for specific purposes: Criteria for course design. In L. Selinker, E. Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for academic and technical purposes (pp. l-11). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Widdowson, H. G. (1982). The use of literature. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), ON TESOL ‘81 (pp. 203-214). Washington, DC: TESOL. Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learningpurpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renata K. Kelly has just returned to the UK after 2 years at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, where she taught and co-ordinated
86
R. K. Kelly and L. A. Krishnan
Technical Communication and English Proficiency programmes for engineering and business students. She has also taught English in Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and English literature at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lakshmy A. Krishnan teaches technical writing to engineering students at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, and also co-ordinates the English Proficiency programme. She has also worked with the RELC Language Teaching Institute and has designed and taught ESP courses for bankers, health officers, and general administrators. Her primary research interest is in writing.