- Email: [email protected]
Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes
96
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
community. More importantly, it illuminates what is entailed in becoming a fullyfledged member of such a community.
References Hargreaves, P. (1989). DES-IMPL-EVALU-IGN: An evaluator’s checklist. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 35–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, G. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rani Rubdy is Deputy Director at the Institute of English Language Education, Assumption University, Bangkok. She has taught for many years in India and Singapore.
Rani Rubdy National University of Singapore Department of English Language and Literature 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, 117570, Singapore E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00030-9
Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes John Flowerdew & Matthew Peacock (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp.xvi + 467. $30.00. ISBN 0-521-80518-X
‘‘Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes’’ (‘‘Research Perspectives’’) offers a comprehensive overview of research in EAP. The collection of 25 specially-commissioned articles all refer to research in some way: to specific studies, to findings from a range of studies, or to an overview of research into a particular area. Perhaps the greatest strength of ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ is its scope. A veritable ‘‘Who’s Who’’ of EAP researchers shed light on research practices, methodologies and findings of relevance to all EAP, and most ESP, practitioners. One result of this is a 55-page bibliography featuring significant milestones in EAP research. The 10 papers in section 1 discuss ‘‘Issues in EAP’’, while section 2 covers research into ‘‘The EAP Curriculum’’. Each section is introduced with a preview of the papers by the editors. This review is too short to do justice to the many high quality papers, but it will attempt to outline some of the main themes presented in ‘‘Research Perspectives’’. The best papers present high-quality research that advances theory. Brindley and Ross’ research methodology reveals a clearer comparison between international proficiency tests (which significantly affect the lives of millions each year but rarely demonstrate test validity) and achievement tests (which are designed to assess contextualised learning outcomes but rarely prove their reliability).
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
97
Coxhead and Nation want to provide EAP learners with the ‘‘best return for their effort’’ (p. 267). Learning the (approximately 2000) most frequent words in general English, and (about 600) words that are common in academic texts, enables students to understand about 95% of academic text—equivalent to one unknown word in 20—claim Coxhead and Nation through quantitative analysis and a range of previous studies. Cobb and Horst also look at the relationship between reading and high-frequency vocabulary, criticising skills-based approaches that equated L1 and L2 reading skills. The project described in this paper (see Cobb, 1997) demonstrates the gains made using learning software to develop reading proficiency. It is not surprising that ‘‘many EAP programmes . . . continue to endorse the discrete-skills paradigm that came into vogue in the 1970’s’’ (p. 213) after reviewing Stoller’s conditions for successful innovation, which read like a manifesto for efficient management: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
EAP faculty need to be involved. EAP curriculum change must be planned. Some failure should be expected. Innovations need to be shared. Innovation varies in scale. Innovators must work to alleviate the worries of those with a vested interest in the status quo.
Unfortunately this article is too short to analyse how these factors impede successful innovation, but Stoller’s research demonstrates the need to exploit permanent data-collection procedures for the development of EAP programmes. Robinson et al. not only tackle the under-researched practice of small-group discussion in academic seminars, they also research differences in pedagogies. Focusing on gaze as non-verbal communication, the researchers found no significant difference in performance between students after task-based or skills-based courses. The researchers had expected a positive evaluation for task-based pedagogy. There may, in fact, be no significant difference between the two approaches, but the results are accredited in part to ‘‘transfer of training and expectations from prior language learning experience.’’ (p. 357) Hamp-Lyons and Zhang investigate tolerance for deviation from accepted norms of writing. The rating practices of expatriate and local teachers of English were compared when evaluating academic writing with rhetorical patterns unfamiliar to expatriates. The paper demands further research, but in comments such as ‘‘So, of course, I’m looking at this argument and say ‘well she has put an argument forward well but it’s not persuasive and I don’t agree with it.’ So that would have an effect on how I rate the section and how I rate the persuasiveness.’’ [my emphasis] (p. 110) it is apparent that more training would help EAP teachers distinguish their ideological beliefs from evaluating writing; clearly this rater would have scored the student higher if their beliefs were more aligned. Canagarajah confronts hegemony in EAP, recommending that language learners ‘‘negotiate a place for their local discourse conventions, intellectual traditions, cultural practices and the vernacular.’’ (p. 117). In this case study, a student was able to
98
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
negotiate academic discourse creatively, still ensuring ‘‘meaningful communication and integrity.’’ (p. 131). Advancing a wider application of the concept of discourse community, Starfield concurs that ‘‘induction into an academic discipline would seem to involve processes more complex than the acquisition of discipline-specific language’’ (p. 145), without encouraging a critical engagement with those processes. The informed selection of the authors above enhances ‘‘Research Perspectives’’, as does the selection of Swales for the history of EAP, and Clapham for subject-specificity. Other selections, however (Kennedy on language planning, Paltridge on pedagogy, Lynch on learner autonomy) seem eccentric. Fortunately the gamble pays off. Although these leaders in EAP research would not routinely be considered synonymous with these areas, they make significant contributions. Lynch, for instance, reveals insight into the issues involved in learner autonomy, reporting on a long-term project at Edinburgh University to adapt Ellis and Sinclair’s (1989) learner-training materials to their EAP context. Perhaps worse than these ‘‘errors of commission’’, however, are ‘‘errors of omission’’. In their introduction the editors claim that a major factor in making EAP a distinct field is a critical perspective. However, although the editors, and Swales, acknowledge EAP’s debt to this development, none of the papers were commissioned to represent this perspective. Critical perspectives revitalized debate on language planning, discussed here by Kennedy. Kennedy’s perspective is certainly a legitimate one, but it is comments such as ‘‘English is closely associated with the hopes, aspirations and lifestyles of such [elite and influential] groups’’ (p. 27) that Pennycook and others critique in their studies. A critical perspective situates research and its object of study within its social and historical context. In the 1950s, behaviourist theories conveniently described human behaviour as a series of mechanical, conditioned responses. Recent psychological research has focused on the individual, while political and economic changes converge on individual choice and responsibility, resulting in theories of learner-centred pedagogy. Paltridges uncritical approach charts these intellectual developments in EAP as fact, despite evidence that these theories are transient products of their socio-historical moment. Situating EAP within its historical context provides opportunities to critically evaluate the effectiveness of different testing regimes, and to situate tests such as TOEFL in their socio-historical context—opportunities neglected in the article by Davidson and Cho’s account of the development of EAP testing at the University of Chicago. When engaging with critical perspectives, reliable research enables a more accurate analysis of EAP. Dudley-Evans engages with the critical position that context dictates the power vested in stakeholder groups, and so is able to analyse the key factors of success in the team-teaching project in his context. Where ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ disappoints the most is in the standard of research in some papers. Tauroza, Ferris, and Peacock may have made similar mistakes to the studies they critique. Tauroza criticises the inauthentic listening material in other studies for not reflecting the context of a lecture. This material is often scripted and then read by an actor, and does not include any reference to supporting visual materials. His research uses material, such as documentaries, from television.
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
99
Because these materials are scripted, read by an actor, and used to support visuals (not vice versa) his criticism that there are ‘‘doubts about the validity of the methodology’’ (p. 364) in these studies must also apply to his research. Some studies suffer from the problem of inadequate sample sizes. Hirvela investigates one of the most complex and ubiquitous tasks in EAP: synthesising, in writing, sources that have been read. Unfortunately he notes that ‘‘no firm conclusions or recommendations can be made on the limited sample of students’’ (p. 346) since only 37 participants were involved in a class-based project. The effects of the research methodology also mitigate against the results of some research. The texts chosen by Hirvela to demonstrate the advantages of one methodology are decidedly dissimilar, and the researcher-as-innovator-as-interviewer introduces opportunities for bias. Tauroza criticises ethnographical methods in previous studies. However, to explain why there was no significant difference in listening strategies, he returns to some participants to find that most successful students ignored the instructions in the research project. Ethnographic protocols would have revealed more about listening strategies than the quantitative research reported here. Wood presents a case for ‘‘International Scientific English’’ by proposing that publications are selected on the standards of scientific research rather than nativespeaker status. The ethnographical studies carried out by Flowerdew (1999, 2000), the role of discourse community in scientific networks (Swales, 1990), and Myers’ (1989) analysis of the social nature of scientific writing, not to mention the theories of Popper and Kuhn and debates regarding the ‘gate-keeping’ function of editors, are swept aside simply by judging someone’s ethnic status deduced from a survey of surnames in international scientific journals. Waters and Waters’ description of their skills-based approach to EAP, found in a number of successful resource books, seems misplaced in the EAP Curriculum section of ‘‘Research Perspectives’’. Their perspective is not directly supported by research; the research they cite is employed only to provide the theoretical background to their claim for a ‘‘study competence’’. ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ is a state-of-the-art review of research in EAP. Unfortunately it suggests that EAP research is in a state. If the work of Tauroza, Hirvela and others is typical, the criticism of these studies must be a criticism of the state of EAP research in general. While this review is ostensibly of a publication, one must question the context of poor research design, elementary statistics (cf. Lazaraton, 2000), and population sizes of one or two classes. The editors did not publish substandard work—the research reported here conforms to standards often accepted within EAP/ESP research. As an introduction to the area of research the reader would be better served by the editors with a discussion of research issues. Successful research does not have to be quantitative—and findings from small-scale studies may be generalisable (Holliday, 2001)—but all research must be designed to guard against researcher bias and to control for other variables. Critical research perspectives may reveal that the lack of financial support for EAP research is due to the lower status of EAP research activities in tertiary education. EAP is often seen as a necessary evil (not just by students) and as a preliminary to ‘‘real’’ research and the transmission of knowledge. Until EAP practitioners can justify significant funding,
100
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
the conclusion of many of these papers will remain that the results are difficult to generalise due to the nature of the research. ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ comes at an auspicious time. With the launch of a new journal and more research into EAP than ever before, this is an ideal opportunity to take stock of advances. The editors have selected for breadth, exhibiting the great variety of research in EAP today, rather than depth of research. One conclusion that can be drawn from this volume is that we all have a long way to go before we can say that we understand English for Academic Purposes.
References Cobb, T. (1989). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25 (pp. 301– 315. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1991). Learning to learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, J. (1990). Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong KongJournal of Second Language Writing82123145. Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the non-native English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150. Holliday, A. (2001). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage. Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 175–181. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nick Moore teaches EAP at Etisalat College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates. His MSc is from Aston University.
Nick Moore Etisalat College of Engineering PO Box 980, Sharjah United Arab Emirates doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00045-5
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
community. More importantly, it illuminates what is entailed in becoming a fullyfledged member of such a community.
References Hargreaves, P. (1989). DES-IMPL-EVALU-IGN: An evaluator’s checklist. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 35–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, G. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rani Rubdy is Deputy Director at the Institute of English Language Education, Assumption University, Bangkok. She has taught for many years in India and Singapore.
Rani Rubdy National University of Singapore Department of English Language and Literature 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, 117570, Singapore E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00030-9
Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes John Flowerdew & Matthew Peacock (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp.xvi + 467. $30.00. ISBN 0-521-80518-X
‘‘Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes’’ (‘‘Research Perspectives’’) offers a comprehensive overview of research in EAP. The collection of 25 specially-commissioned articles all refer to research in some way: to specific studies, to findings from a range of studies, or to an overview of research into a particular area. Perhaps the greatest strength of ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ is its scope. A veritable ‘‘Who’s Who’’ of EAP researchers shed light on research practices, methodologies and findings of relevance to all EAP, and most ESP, practitioners. One result of this is a 55-page bibliography featuring significant milestones in EAP research. The 10 papers in section 1 discuss ‘‘Issues in EAP’’, while section 2 covers research into ‘‘The EAP Curriculum’’. Each section is introduced with a preview of the papers by the editors. This review is too short to do justice to the many high quality papers, but it will attempt to outline some of the main themes presented in ‘‘Research Perspectives’’. The best papers present high-quality research that advances theory. Brindley and Ross’ research methodology reveals a clearer comparison between international proficiency tests (which significantly affect the lives of millions each year but rarely demonstrate test validity) and achievement tests (which are designed to assess contextualised learning outcomes but rarely prove their reliability).
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
97
Coxhead and Nation want to provide EAP learners with the ‘‘best return for their effort’’ (p. 267). Learning the (approximately 2000) most frequent words in general English, and (about 600) words that are common in academic texts, enables students to understand about 95% of academic text—equivalent to one unknown word in 20—claim Coxhead and Nation through quantitative analysis and a range of previous studies. Cobb and Horst also look at the relationship between reading and high-frequency vocabulary, criticising skills-based approaches that equated L1 and L2 reading skills. The project described in this paper (see Cobb, 1997) demonstrates the gains made using learning software to develop reading proficiency. It is not surprising that ‘‘many EAP programmes . . . continue to endorse the discrete-skills paradigm that came into vogue in the 1970’s’’ (p. 213) after reviewing Stoller’s conditions for successful innovation, which read like a manifesto for efficient management: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
EAP faculty need to be involved. EAP curriculum change must be planned. Some failure should be expected. Innovations need to be shared. Innovation varies in scale. Innovators must work to alleviate the worries of those with a vested interest in the status quo.
Unfortunately this article is too short to analyse how these factors impede successful innovation, but Stoller’s research demonstrates the need to exploit permanent data-collection procedures for the development of EAP programmes. Robinson et al. not only tackle the under-researched practice of small-group discussion in academic seminars, they also research differences in pedagogies. Focusing on gaze as non-verbal communication, the researchers found no significant difference in performance between students after task-based or skills-based courses. The researchers had expected a positive evaluation for task-based pedagogy. There may, in fact, be no significant difference between the two approaches, but the results are accredited in part to ‘‘transfer of training and expectations from prior language learning experience.’’ (p. 357) Hamp-Lyons and Zhang investigate tolerance for deviation from accepted norms of writing. The rating practices of expatriate and local teachers of English were compared when evaluating academic writing with rhetorical patterns unfamiliar to expatriates. The paper demands further research, but in comments such as ‘‘So, of course, I’m looking at this argument and say ‘well she has put an argument forward well but it’s not persuasive and I don’t agree with it.’ So that would have an effect on how I rate the section and how I rate the persuasiveness.’’ [my emphasis] (p. 110) it is apparent that more training would help EAP teachers distinguish their ideological beliefs from evaluating writing; clearly this rater would have scored the student higher if their beliefs were more aligned. Canagarajah confronts hegemony in EAP, recommending that language learners ‘‘negotiate a place for their local discourse conventions, intellectual traditions, cultural practices and the vernacular.’’ (p. 117). In this case study, a student was able to
98
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
negotiate academic discourse creatively, still ensuring ‘‘meaningful communication and integrity.’’ (p. 131). Advancing a wider application of the concept of discourse community, Starfield concurs that ‘‘induction into an academic discipline would seem to involve processes more complex than the acquisition of discipline-specific language’’ (p. 145), without encouraging a critical engagement with those processes. The informed selection of the authors above enhances ‘‘Research Perspectives’’, as does the selection of Swales for the history of EAP, and Clapham for subject-specificity. Other selections, however (Kennedy on language planning, Paltridge on pedagogy, Lynch on learner autonomy) seem eccentric. Fortunately the gamble pays off. Although these leaders in EAP research would not routinely be considered synonymous with these areas, they make significant contributions. Lynch, for instance, reveals insight into the issues involved in learner autonomy, reporting on a long-term project at Edinburgh University to adapt Ellis and Sinclair’s (1989) learner-training materials to their EAP context. Perhaps worse than these ‘‘errors of commission’’, however, are ‘‘errors of omission’’. In their introduction the editors claim that a major factor in making EAP a distinct field is a critical perspective. However, although the editors, and Swales, acknowledge EAP’s debt to this development, none of the papers were commissioned to represent this perspective. Critical perspectives revitalized debate on language planning, discussed here by Kennedy. Kennedy’s perspective is certainly a legitimate one, but it is comments such as ‘‘English is closely associated with the hopes, aspirations and lifestyles of such [elite and influential] groups’’ (p. 27) that Pennycook and others critique in their studies. A critical perspective situates research and its object of study within its social and historical context. In the 1950s, behaviourist theories conveniently described human behaviour as a series of mechanical, conditioned responses. Recent psychological research has focused on the individual, while political and economic changes converge on individual choice and responsibility, resulting in theories of learner-centred pedagogy. Paltridges uncritical approach charts these intellectual developments in EAP as fact, despite evidence that these theories are transient products of their socio-historical moment. Situating EAP within its historical context provides opportunities to critically evaluate the effectiveness of different testing regimes, and to situate tests such as TOEFL in their socio-historical context—opportunities neglected in the article by Davidson and Cho’s account of the development of EAP testing at the University of Chicago. When engaging with critical perspectives, reliable research enables a more accurate analysis of EAP. Dudley-Evans engages with the critical position that context dictates the power vested in stakeholder groups, and so is able to analyse the key factors of success in the team-teaching project in his context. Where ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ disappoints the most is in the standard of research in some papers. Tauroza, Ferris, and Peacock may have made similar mistakes to the studies they critique. Tauroza criticises the inauthentic listening material in other studies for not reflecting the context of a lecture. This material is often scripted and then read by an actor, and does not include any reference to supporting visual materials. His research uses material, such as documentaries, from television.
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
99
Because these materials are scripted, read by an actor, and used to support visuals (not vice versa) his criticism that there are ‘‘doubts about the validity of the methodology’’ (p. 364) in these studies must also apply to his research. Some studies suffer from the problem of inadequate sample sizes. Hirvela investigates one of the most complex and ubiquitous tasks in EAP: synthesising, in writing, sources that have been read. Unfortunately he notes that ‘‘no firm conclusions or recommendations can be made on the limited sample of students’’ (p. 346) since only 37 participants were involved in a class-based project. The effects of the research methodology also mitigate against the results of some research. The texts chosen by Hirvela to demonstrate the advantages of one methodology are decidedly dissimilar, and the researcher-as-innovator-as-interviewer introduces opportunities for bias. Tauroza criticises ethnographical methods in previous studies. However, to explain why there was no significant difference in listening strategies, he returns to some participants to find that most successful students ignored the instructions in the research project. Ethnographic protocols would have revealed more about listening strategies than the quantitative research reported here. Wood presents a case for ‘‘International Scientific English’’ by proposing that publications are selected on the standards of scientific research rather than nativespeaker status. The ethnographical studies carried out by Flowerdew (1999, 2000), the role of discourse community in scientific networks (Swales, 1990), and Myers’ (1989) analysis of the social nature of scientific writing, not to mention the theories of Popper and Kuhn and debates regarding the ‘gate-keeping’ function of editors, are swept aside simply by judging someone’s ethnic status deduced from a survey of surnames in international scientific journals. Waters and Waters’ description of their skills-based approach to EAP, found in a number of successful resource books, seems misplaced in the EAP Curriculum section of ‘‘Research Perspectives’’. Their perspective is not directly supported by research; the research they cite is employed only to provide the theoretical background to their claim for a ‘‘study competence’’. ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ is a state-of-the-art review of research in EAP. Unfortunately it suggests that EAP research is in a state. If the work of Tauroza, Hirvela and others is typical, the criticism of these studies must be a criticism of the state of EAP research in general. While this review is ostensibly of a publication, one must question the context of poor research design, elementary statistics (cf. Lazaraton, 2000), and population sizes of one or two classes. The editors did not publish substandard work—the research reported here conforms to standards often accepted within EAP/ESP research. As an introduction to the area of research the reader would be better served by the editors with a discussion of research issues. Successful research does not have to be quantitative—and findings from small-scale studies may be generalisable (Holliday, 2001)—but all research must be designed to guard against researcher bias and to control for other variables. Critical research perspectives may reveal that the lack of financial support for EAP research is due to the lower status of EAP research activities in tertiary education. EAP is often seen as a necessary evil (not just by students) and as a preliminary to ‘‘real’’ research and the transmission of knowledge. Until EAP practitioners can justify significant funding,
100
Book review / English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004) 85–100
the conclusion of many of these papers will remain that the results are difficult to generalise due to the nature of the research. ‘‘Research Perspectives’’ comes at an auspicious time. With the launch of a new journal and more research into EAP than ever before, this is an ideal opportunity to take stock of advances. The editors have selected for breadth, exhibiting the great variety of research in EAP today, rather than depth of research. One conclusion that can be drawn from this volume is that we all have a long way to go before we can say that we understand English for Academic Purposes.
References Cobb, T. (1989). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25 (pp. 301– 315. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1991). Learning to learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, J. (1990). Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong KongJournal of Second Language Writing82123145. Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the non-native English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150. Holliday, A. (2001). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage. Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 175–181. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nick Moore teaches EAP at Etisalat College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates. His MSc is from Aston University.
Nick Moore Etisalat College of Engineering PO Box 980, Sharjah United Arab Emirates doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00045-5