The number of international students who come from non-English speaking backgrounds to countries where English is the first language is on the rise, necessitating the provision of English for Academic Purpose (EAP) courses to prepare such students to study in English-speaking institutions. Because of the variety of academic backgrounds of students entering these courses, classes take the form of English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP), which mostly comprise study-skills based approaches. It is often difficult to relate such EGAP content to students' academic disciplines or to address their academic needs in classes which contain students from a range of academic backgrounds. In order to address this problem, discipline-specific tasks were integrated into an EGAP context and the effects evaluated. The following indicators were used to check how successfully the approach addressed the academic and linguistic needs of students: student needs analysis; feedback from questionnaires and student interviews; participant observation; and end-of-course evaluation. The findings indicated that the students had a strong preference for discipline-specific tasks and the discipline-specific approach was successful in relating the EGAP content to students' academic disciplines and in addressing their language difficulties.
Towards the close of the 20th century there were more than a million students in higher education worldwide who were studying outside their own countries (Huxur, Mansfield, Nnazor, Schuetze, & Segawa, 1996). The majority of these students were from non English speaking backgrounds (NESB) and they studied in English speaking countries such as the UK, USA, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. These numbers increase every year. Consequently, in recent years, there has been a worldwide increase in demand for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses varying in length and the mode of instruction (Jordan, 1997). EAP is needed not only for educational studies in countries where English is the mother tongue, but also in other countries where English is the medium of instruction in the higher education sector (Jordan, 1997). There is a clear difference between the needs of EAP students in these two contexts.
In countries where English is not the first language of the students, EAP classes are often attended and needed by almost all the students studying in any tertiary institution. These students are from a range of different academic disciplines. In such countries, EAP courses are usually conducted as English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) courses catering for the needs of individual academic departments and their students. However, in countries where English is the official first language, NESB students represent a small minority of students enrolled in each academic discipline. EAP courses established to cater for their needs are made up of students from a range of disciplines since rarely are the numbers sufficient from particular disciplines to allow for the formation of specific purpose classes. Instead, students are taught in classes properly designated English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP).
The problems and complexities of EGAP instruction in English-speaking contexts have been given little attention in EAP research. The issue needs to be addressed since most EGAP courses are little more than study-skills ESL courses which do not address the particular English language needs of students from specific disciplines. The following study was undertaken to examine ways in which NESB students' specific needs might be addressed in EGAP contexts, since because of the need to work with viable class sizes, most EAP courses are likely to continue to be of the EGAP rather than the ESAP variety.
The EAP curriculum usually builds on student awareness that there is a particular language of the academy, and certain ways of talking, reading and writing about ideas and texts. It aims at developing what Cummins (1979) calls Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). CALP builds on the students' acquisition of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) - the verbal fluency needed in a target language for everyday informal situations. As such, it can be seen that general English proficiency (BICS) is merely the basis for CALP and is not a promising indicator of success in academic study (Lewelling, 1991).
Various study skills require different levels of language proficiency. Study skills that require a comparatively large number of productive skills need relatively more language competence as opposed to those that require fewer productive skills. For example, a writing task may demand a more integrated language proficiency in listening, reading and writing on the part of the student than a task for library referencing. EGAP isolates the skills associated with study activities such as listening to lectures and participating in seminars and tutorials, and teaches the skills that are common to all disciplines. ESAP integrates the skills work of EG AP with help for students in their actual subject tasks. The difference is that ESAP courses focus on the actual tasks that students have to carry out while EGAP courses select more general contexts (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998).
Most of the short EAP courses can hardly accommodate anything other than the basic study skills. NESB students who face the dual responsibility of learning English and using English to learn need a great deal of spoken and written practice in the target language associated with study skills. Robinson (1980) states, 'A skill has to be mastered: it cannot simply be explained, but must also be extensively practised' (p. 32). Less or no practice at all invariably affects both native and NESB students and the effect may be even more serious for the non-native students, since the non-native students, in addition to the burden of the academic subject content, need guidance for language skills that underpin the task. The course convenors, especially in the case of short EGAP courses, confront a huge responsibility in improving the students' general study skills, relating them to the students' academic disciplines and teaching the students discipline-specific genres.
Relatively homogeneous needs and objectives of students in ESAP contexts make it easier to teach discipline-specific language and to design curricula based on language difficulties as opposed to EGAP contexts, in which an array of different disciplines are represented (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). Development of 'sheltered' or content-area curricula (Chamot & O'Malley, 1987; Mohan, 1986), which require collaboration between academic departments and EAP teaching, is explicitly recommended in current EAP research. (Allison, Corcos, & Lam, 1994; Benesch, 1988; Brooks, 1988; Dudley Evans, 1998; Snow & Brinton, 1988). Administrative practicalities (Hui & Leung, 1993), academic intricacies like co-ordinating two curricula (Brinton et al., 1989), together with the deficiency of the academic subject-specific knowledge of EAP teachers (Spack, 1988) can cause problems in the collaboration between academic departments and EGAP teachers.
The needs assessment can be done at various stages in EAP class contexts. It can be done at the curriculum planning stage to determine appropriate program types and course content. It can be done as a continuous process throughout the instructional program to determine whether the program's objectives and the learners' requirements are being achieved and can also allow for necessary program changes. It also can be done at the end of the course for planning the learners' and the program's future directions (Santopietro & Peyton, 1991).
The needs of ESAP students vary from those of EGAP students. ESAP classes comprise students whose academic disciplines are homogenous. In such contexts, the students require and the teachers can provide the specific skills and the awareness of the genre demanded by their particular academic discipline. The lack of academic discipline homogeneity in EGAP classes makes catering for the students' needs a complicated task as opposed to ESAP classes where students share the same academic background.
NESB students are expected to compete on an equal footing with their native English-speaking peers in academic discipline contexts. Mostly, academic competency is measured through the medium of writing. The process of English language writing development is similar for first and second language learners alike (Hudelson, 1988) although NESB students may take up to seven years to develop the level of language proficiency necessary to compete on an equal footing with the native speakers of English (Collier, 1987; Lewelling, 1991). NESB students often undertake academic studies long before they develop the degree of language proficiency required to compete with their native English speaking peers. In the case of such NESB students the EAP curriculum has to have a dual focus - that of providing them with the basic language proficiency and the context-specific language needed to perform academic tasks.
|1||Reading Skills (strategy training)|
|2||Reading Skills (academic reading)|
|3||Listening Skills (listening to lectures)|
|4||Note-taking (from lectures/print)|
|5||Essay Writing Skills (essay structure)|
|6||Oral Presentation Skills|
|7||Remedial Grammar (common errors)|
|8||Reference Skills (library/databases)|
For the experimental group, the integration of discipline-specific tasks into the EGAP course was done to achieve two objectives. The first objective was to relate the EGAP course content to the students' different academic disciplines. The second objective was to address the English language difficulties of the students in their academic disciplines.
The eight classes for the experimental group were divided into four units, each unit comprising two classes (weekly sessions) and dealing with four different task types: descr iptive, argumentative, analytical and narrative tasks. The first class of each unit dealt with a general introduction to what was expected from the students by the task for that unit. It also provided the students with the declarative knowledge that underpinned the tasks.
The last class in each unit dealt with students' task implementation. For example, in the first class of the first unit, it was explained to the students what descriptive tasks were in general and what and how they were expected to perform such tasks in academic contexts. Then, in the last class of that unit, the students were asked to make descriptive tasks discipline-specific by implementing them within their actual academic disciplines. The students were asked to find an actual assignment/presentation task that needed to be descriptively dealt with in their academic disciplines.
The students were expected to implement their chosen tasks by integrating the four-macro skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening) into the task. They were asked to present their chosen tasks in the form of an oral presentation and in addition to write a short summary of their oral presentation in about 150-200 words. The short summary was marked and returned to them in the first class of the next unit. During each student's presentation, the other students were asked to listen, paying attention to the structure of the presentation and if possible taking down notes of important features. After each presentation there was a short interaction followed by peer students' and teachers' evaluation of the tasks. The same approach was used in all three units.
Table 2 outlines the EGAP program for the experimental group. It can be seen that the focus and the structure are quite different from the comparison program (see table 1).
|2||Student Presentations (oral/written)|
|4||Student Presentations (oral/written)|
|6||Students Presentations (oral/written)|
|8||Students Presentations (oral/written)|
The Student Feedback Questionnaire had two parts. The first part used a five-point (1-5) Likert scale ('not useful' to 'extremely useful') under four headings: oral activities; writing activities; group activities; and relevance of each day's class to their academic discipline. In the second part, students were invited to indicate 'any ideas about today's class'. In the light of these comments, selected students were briefly interviewed the following week. Changes were made to the experimental group program according to the information/feedback received.
Student responses, motivation and participation in group work activities were observed each week in the class. These notes include not only what the researchers actually saw and heard but also their feelings, reactions and reflections.
An End-of-Course Evaluation Report (adapted from Jordan, 1997) was used to measure students' evaluation of the two courses. A five-point (1-5) Likert scale ('not useful' to 'extremely useful') was used under seven headings: listening activities; speaking activities; reading activities; writing activities; group activities; teaching; and relevance of course content to academic disciplines. The report form ended with an open-ended question inviting comment on their improvement and the course content and teaching.
On the Student Needs Analysis Questionnaire, speaking, reading and writing were selected as the first priority by six, one and three student(s) respectively in the comparison group. In the experimental group, nine students selected writing as their first priority and two of them selected reading as their first priority. Five, three and one student(s) in the comparison group marked reading, listening and writing respectively as the last priority. In the experimental group, listening was marked by seven students, speaking by three and reading by one as their last priority. These data are presented in table 3.
|Skills||Comparison Group||Experimental Group|
|First priority||Last priority||First priority||Last priority|
It was learned from the student feedback questionnaire, participant observation and student interviews that the students' priorities changed as the courses progressed. This was especially noticed in the case of the comparison group; those who marked speaking as their first priority had changed from speaking to writing after three weeks. In interviews, students expressed a strong preference to acquire the language ability to cope with the demands made by their academic subjects. In the case of both groups, the only need/interest that remained unchanged was the students' need to learn English grammar.
Participant numbers in the comparison group varied between five and twelve for each class throughout the course. After the fifth week the class did not exceed six students; also, six students had dropped out. On the other hand, participant numbers in the experimental group varied between ten and thirteen for each class throughout the course and only one student dropped out.
Students in both groups had a very low preference for group-work activities, expressing more interest in 'teacher talk' than in activities that involving peer interaction and assigning low ratings to group- work activities. However, students in the experimental group were more motivated and autonomous in carrying out their classroom tasks than students in the comparison group.
Marking of classroom exercises was found to be difficult in the case of the experimental group. Students' discipline-specific presentations (oral and written) posed a clear challenge to the teachers whose knowledge in these disciplines was limited. The students were constantly reminded of the fact that the feedback was only on the language with which they had produced their work and not the content involved. Students' limited acquaintance with their peers' academic backgrounds, on the other hand, sometimes resulted in few comments on their peers' work.
Lesson feedback and end-of-course evaluations showed higher ratings for relevance, teaching and lesson activities by the experimental group. Figures 1 and 2 show the results for end-of-course evaluations
Figure 1: End-of-course evaluation: comparison group
Figure 2: End-of-course evaluation: experimental group
It was observed that the students had a general awareness of most study skills, since they had been taught these in their home countries. Consequently, they had assigned a relatively low preference for learning study skills. The same finding was reached by Snow and Brinton (1988) in a study carried out by linking the ESL courses with content courses to better integrate the reading, writing and study skills required for academic success. In that study, the authors were extremely surprised at the relatively low ranking of study skills and the reading component of the course, which they had anticipated would have an extremely high priority. Discipline-specific activities chosen by the students themselves were assigned a very high preference compared to the study skills activities. Comparatively, the participants in the experimental group were motivated, perceiving their role to be more autonomous. The fact that the students could see immediate benefits in learning may have resulted in making the students more motivated in the class. This could be seen as one of the positive indicators of the usefulness of discipline-specific curriculum - students can retain the new language items best when the learners are actively engaged in the learning material and have some form of personal investment in the outcome (Lynch, 1996).
NESB students who have entered Western academia with an Eastern academic orientation find it difficult to become accustomed to the teaching methods involved in the former. The concept of peer interaction and peer mentoring is quite alien to them. They expect the teacher to assume an authoritative role and be teaching all the time. In Asian classrooms volunteering information is considered bold and learners from more traditional educational systems may expect teachers to behave in a more formal and authoritarian fashion during classes. They may be displeased if a teacher uses an informal instructional style such as allowing the learners to move freely around the room (McGroarty, 1993). Lynch (1996) is of the opinion that this reaction could be found among learners from East Asian countries influenced by Confucian education values.
The students' need to learn the grammar of the target language cannot be underestimated in EAP contexts. Generally, EAP curricula may expect their learners to demonstrate a certain familiarity with the syntax of the target language. However, this familiarity may vary according to the time and level of the students' pre-exposure to learning English as a second language. If the majority of them have had less exposure, it may be vital to address their need to learn 'grammar' despite the curriculum's assumed prerequisites.
One way of assessing the success of a course is to look at the attendance figures (Lynch, 1996). There was a marked difference between the attendance records of the two groups. If learners' needs are not met, they are likely to drop out (Brod, 1998). Comparatively, a high level of attendance and a low level of dropouts in the experimental group indicate that the course designed for them met their needs.
Two important limitations of the discipline-specific EGAP curriculum proved to be the teachers' lack of understanding of the students' academic disciplines and the students' lack of knowledge about their peers' academic backgrounds. Content-based EAP training presents a clear challenge to EAP instructors (Bell, 1996). The difficulties faced by the EAP teachers and the students can be placed at the opposing ends of a bipolar scale; the students struggle with the language of the content and the teachers struggle with the content of the language.
The needs of the participants changed as the course progressed and it was often difficult to negotiate the curriculum content with students who had diverse needs. It is important, therefore, that the course content and the learning experiences be negotiated between the teacher and the students at the beginning of the course. Apart from teaching such students English language skills, it is also important to create understandings of the skills and knowledge expected of students in their academic studies, the problems likely to be encountered in adjusting to teaching/learning styles in Western academia, and how to reconcile their own academic orientation with the academic expectations of the program/institution.
Student participation in the experimental group was higher for two reasons. One reason was that the students were asked to be involved in tasks in which they had a vested interest in the outcome. The other reason was that the students were given autonomy and independence in selecting their tasks. This made them responsible for their learning. Given that EAP learners are adults, it can be assumed that they are in a position to select what they want to learn; hence, learner autonomy is an important factor in EAP contexts.
Correction and feedback on both language and content are important for learners in EGAP contexts. The support and advice of the relevant academic departments may be necessary if the content issues are to be dealt with effectively.
The experimental approach adopted in this study was clearly superior to the conventional EAP approach which currently dominates the language preparation of students entering English language universities. While the number of participants involved here was relatively small, and the findings may not therefore be generalisable, they nevertheless point the way to further research which may improve our understanding of the most effective way to prepare NESB students for study in Australian universities.
Beard, R.M. & Hartley, J. (1984). Teaching and learning in higher education (4th ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Bell, T. (1996). Do EAP teachers require knowledge of their students' specialist academic subjects? The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. V ( No. 10). http://iteslj.org/Articles/Bell-EAPRequireKnowledge.html
Benesch, S. (1988). Ending remediation: Linking ESL and content in higher education. (EDRS: ED388098)
Blanton, L. (1990). Talking adult ESL students into writing: building on oral fluency to promote literacy. Washington, DC: Adjunct Clearinghouse on Literacy Education for Limited-English-Proficient Adults. (EDRS: ED321622)
Brinton, D., Snow, M.A. & Wesche, M.B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.
Brod, S. (1998). ABC's for tutors: 26 teaching tips. What Ridge, Colorado: Spring Institute for International Studies. (EDRS: ED425664)
Brooks, E. (1988). When there are no links between ESL and content courses. (EDRS: ED388098)
Chamot, A.U. & O'Malley, J.M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 227-249.
Collier, V.P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 617-641.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Bilingual Education Paper Series, 3(2). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Centre, California State University. (EDRS: ED257312)
Cummins, J. (1982). Tests, achievement, and bilingual students. Rosslyn, Vermont: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (EDRS: ED238907)
Dudley E.T. (1998). An overview of ESP in the 1990s. (EDRS: ED424775)
Dudley-Evans, T. & St John, M.J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grosse, C.U. (1988). The American evolution of English for specific purposes. (EDRS: ED304922)
Hudelson, S. (1988). Children's writing in ESL. Washington, DC: EDRS Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (EDRS: ED303046)
Hui, M. & Leung, L. (1993). Linking language and content instruction in the social sciences. (EDRS: ED365117)
Huxur, G., Mansfield, E., Nnazor, R., Schuetze, H. & Segawa, M. (1996). Learning needs and adaptation problems of foreign graduate students. Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education. (EDRS: ED421025)
Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for academic purposes : a guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Larklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2), 241-272.
Lewelling, V.W. (1991). Academic achievement in a second language. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (EDRS: ED329130)
Lynch, T. (1996). Basing discussion classes on learners' questions: An experiment in (non-)course design. Edinburgh-Working-Papers-in-Applied-Linguistics, 7, 72-84.
Lytle, S.L. (1988). From the inside out: Reinventing assessment. (EDRS: ED300638)
McDonough, J. (1984). ESP in perspective: A practical guide. London: Collins ELT.
McGroarty, M. (1993). Cross-cultural issues in adult ESL literacy classrooms. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Literacy and Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse on Literacy Education for Limited-English-Proficient Adults. (EDRS: ED358751)
Mohan, B.A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Robinson, P.C. (1980). ESP (English for specific purposes): The present position. Oxford: Pergamon.
Santopietro, K. & Peyton, J.K. (1991). Assessing the literacy needs of adult learners of ESL. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Literacy. (EDRS: ED334871)
Schleppegrell, M. & Bowman, B. (1986). ESP: Teaching English for Specific Purposes. Urbana, 32, 182-200.
Short, D.J. & Spanos, G. (1989). Teaching Mathematics to limited English proficient students. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (EDRS: ED248487)
Snow, M.A. & Brinton, D.M. (1988). The adjunct model of language instruction: Integrating language and content at the university. CLEAR Technical Report Series. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Language Education and Research. (EDRS: ED388098)
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), 29-51.
Steinhausen, P. (1993). From General English to ESP: Bridging the gap. (EDRS: ED368184).
|Author details: Indika Liyanage is a PhD candidate and Research Assistant in Applied Linguistics in the School of Cognition, Language and Special Education of Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland. His thesis is investigating the relationship between personality types and second language learning strategies for EAP students. (Email: firstname.lastname@example.org)
Gary Birch is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Cognition, Language and Special Education of Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland. He coordinates the masters degree in Applied Linguistics. His research interests include the role of learner strategies in second language learning, the relationship between temperament and second language learner strategies, and the use of the internet in developing collaborative language learning.
Please cite as: Liyanage, I. and Birch, G. (2001). English for general academic purposes: Catering to discipline-specific needs. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 17(1), 48-67. http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/qjer/qjer17/liyanage.html