A Study of the Role of English Language for General, Specific and Academic Purposes

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Author
L. Dobakhti
Associate Professor in English, Faculty of Multimedia, Islamic Art University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
10.29252/LRR.12.4.18
Abstract
The EAP students are not passive recipients who absorb subject-specific materials merely through exposure to the reading skill. The dominant misleading conception surrounding the EAP courses is that exposing learners to specialized texts creates a shortcut which contributes to enhancing their knowledge of the language. However, this article discusses that discipline-specific reading materials are like one-way street which hardly develop the learners’ grammatical and communicative competence. EAP learners need more general text types, tasks, activities, and exercises to learn and use the language. In the present study, the data were collected qualitatively through semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. The participants consisted of 60 students and 16 language instructors. Data analysis was based on the five curriculum structure proposed by Brown (1995): objectives, needs analysis, teaching, materials, and testing. This study attempts to shed some light on certain controversial issues and the findings can have significant implications for ESP and EAP teachers, graduate students, syllabus designers, material developers, and researchers in the field of ESP.



1. Introduction

Every year, many students enter Iranian universities and EAP courses are offered to them in the first or second semester. A great amount of money, resources, time, and energy are spent on these courses. However, the results of such programs are less than satisfactory. The present study attempts to shed some light on EAP programs and intends to study the virtues and weaknesses of EGP and ESP courses.

Research Questions

1- What are the former and current students’ overall perceptions about EGP AND ESP and ESP courses with regard to the curriculum constructs?

2- What are the instructors’ overall perceptions about EGP AND ESP and ESP courses with regard to the curriculum constructs?



2. Literature Review

2.1. English for General Purposes

On the whole, the EAP courses might be divided into two parts: EGP and ESP. EGP is almost the major trend and the mainstay of any EFL situation, which intends to equip the students with necessary communication skills and strategies to perform effectively at university and fulfill their study purposes. In fact, EGP course helps students study and research through English language.



2.2. Content-Based Instruction

ESP is a form of language rather than an independent language in itself, which is used by specialists in contexts similar or pertinent to EGP. One of the classroom realizations of ESP and its application is the content-based instruction (CBI). CBI is the teaching and learning of language through content in which the stress is on students’ subject matter rather than language forms and functions.

2.3. EGP and/or Common Core Hypothesis

EGP is not limited to a particular discipline. Basturkmen (2006) holds that ESP is not independent in itself and makes use of every part of EGP at any time. The most prominent issue in any EGP course is the common core hypothesis put forward by Bloor and Bloor (1986). This hypothesis asserts that there is a common core of grammar and vocabulary in any discipline. Therefore, EAP should concentrate on presenting and practicing common features rather than specific subject matter.



2.4. English for Academic Purposes

In most parts of the world, EAP teachers are seen as an increasing source of income to attract international students (Hadley, 2015). However, they often lack the required knowledge in a specific field (Brinton & Holten, 2001). An important point to consider is that “ESP learners expect materials that teach them about their real world objectives, otherwise they can easily get demotivated” (Marcu, 2020, p. 309). Unfortunately, in Iran, there is no coherent plan to implement teaching methods for educational purposes and English courses are either taught by language or field teacher, without any communication or agreement between them (Atai & Nejadghanbar, 2017).



3. Methodology

The data were collected qualitatively through semistructured interviews, classroom observations, and field notes. The participants consisted of 60 male and female BA students who were taking or had passed EGP AND ESP course at the University of Tabriz, at the time of data collection. There were also 16 male and female language instructors who were full-time or part-time staff of the Department of English Language and Literature, and held master’s or PhD degrees.



4. Results

The results were discussed under five curriculum constructs put forward by Brown (1995): Objectives, needs analysis, teaching, materials, and testing. According to the students’ and instructors’ perceptions and classroom observations, EGP AND ESP course cannot achieve its intended purposes and the reason that some of the students do not like this course is that they passively receive materials in the classroom. During the interview, most of the instructors believed that because of the shortage of class time they could not dedicate equal and adequate time for each activity and exercise. The findings also affirmed that students who attend private language institutes participate eagerly and positively in classroom activities. However, those who are weak only sit and listen. More importantly, it was found that since needs analysis has never been carried out at the University of Tabriz, some of the grammatical points and exercises do not correspond to the students’ needs.

Keywords

Subjects

• Afros, E. & Schryer, C. F. (2009). The genre of syllabus in higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 224-233.
• Alderson, J. C. & Scott, M. (1996). Insiders, outsiders and participatory evaluation. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 25-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bachman, L. F., Davidson, F., Ryne, K. & Choi, I. (1989). The Cambridge-TOEFL Comparability study: Final report. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate.
• Barbazette, J. (2006). Training needs assessment: Methods, tools and techniques. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
• Barnard, R. & Zemach, D. (2003). Materials for specific purposes. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 306-323. London: Continuum.
• Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
• Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
• Bloor, M & Bloor, T. (1986). Language for specific purpose: Practice & theory. CLCS Occasional Papers, 19.
• Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R. & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers principles and classroom practices. Applied linguistics, 22(4), 470-501.
• Brindley, G. P. & Ross, S. (2001). EAP assessment: Issues, models and outcomes. In Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (Eds.). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, pp. 148-166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brinton, D. M. & Holten, C. A. (2001). Does the emperor have no clothes? A re-examination of grammar in content-based instruction. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purpose. (239- 252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., Wesche, M. & Wesche, M. B. (2003). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
• Bunch, G. C. (2006). Academic English’’ in the 7th grade: Broadening the lens, expanding access. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 284–301.
• Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (ed.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.
• Cadman, K. (2005). Towards a ‘pedagogy of connection’ in critical research education: A real story. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(2), 353-367.
• Clapham, C. (2001). Discipline specifiticy and EAP. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (84-100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cobb, T. & Horst, M. (2001). Reading academic English: Carrying learners across the lexical threshold. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (315-329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cook, V. (2003). Materials for adult beginners from an L2 user perspective. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 275-290. London: Continuum.
• Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 54(2), 109–117.
• Cowling, J. D. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a series of intensive workplace courses at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 426-442.
• Coxhead, A. & Nation, P. (2001). The specialized vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (252-267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• De Beaugrande, R. (1989). Special purpose language as a complex system: The case of linguistics. In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines. (3-29). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
• Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (225-238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dudley-Evans, T & St John, M. J. (2000). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Farhady, H. (2005). Reflections on and directions for ESP materials development in SAMT. Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference. 3(1), 2-32.
• Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (EdS.). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, pp. 298-314. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (2001a). Issues in English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (8-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (2001b). The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods, and challenges. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (177-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Forsyth, I. (2001). Teaching and learning materials and the Internet. London: Routledge.
• Gatehouse, K. (2001). Key issues in English for specific purposes (ESP) curriculum development. TESL Journal online, 7(10). Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://iteslj.org/articles/gatehouse-ESP.html
• Hall, D. & Kenny, B. (1988). An approach to a truly communicative methodology: The AIT pre-sessional course. English for Specific Purposes. 7 (1), 19-32.
• Harwood, N. (2005). What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(2), 149-161.
• Hill, D. A. (2003). The visual element in EFL coursebooks. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 174-182. London: Continuum.
• Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
• Hirvela, A. (2001). Incorporating reading into EAP writing courses. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (330-346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Holme, R. & Chalauisaeng, B. (2006). The learner as needs analyst: The use of participatory appraisal in the EAP reading classroom. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 403-419.
• Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.
• Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaewpet, C. (2008). Communication needs of Thai civil engineering students. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 266-278.
• Karimkhanlui, G. (2005). EAP and the communicative use of language. Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference. 2(1), 51-69.
• Kennedy, C. J. (2001). Language use, language planning and EAP. In Flowerdew, J. & Peacock, M. (Eds.). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, pp. 25-41.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, M. H. (2001). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In C. N. Candlin & N. Mercer (Eds.). English language teaching in its social context, pp. 180-190. London: Routledge.
• Lynch, T. (2001). Promoting EAP learner autonomy in a second language university context. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 390–403).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mares, C. (2003). Writing a coursebook. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 130-140. London: Continuum.
• Masuhara, H. 2003. Materials for developing reading skills. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 340-363. London: Continuum.
• Mazdayasna, G. & Tahririan, M. H. (2008). Developing a profile of the ESP need of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 277-289.
• McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Mishan, F. 2005. Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol: Intellect.
• Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
• Moi, C. F. (2003). Materials for language through literature. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 406-421. London: Continuum.
• Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
• Peacock, M. (2001). Language learning strategies and EAP proficiency: Teacher views, student views, and test results. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (268-285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pulverness, A., Komorowska, E., Zareva, D., Szesztay, M., & Dascal, R. (2002). Resource materials for social, cultural and political issues. ELT Journal 51(1), 71-86.
• Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 180-190.
• Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. (2006). An evaluative checklist for self-access materials. ELT Journal 60(3), 272-278.
• Richards, J. C. (2007). Curriculum development in language teaching. Eighth printing. New York: Longman.
• Robinson, P. C. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Prentice Hall.
• Robinson, P. C., Strong, G., Whittle, J. & Nobe, S. (2001). The development of EAP oral discussion ability. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (347-459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rubdy, R. (2003). Selection of materials. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 37-57. London: Continuum.
• Sager, J. C., Dungworth, D. & McDonald, P.F. (1980). English special languages: Principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandtstetter Verlag.
• Spack, R. 1988. Initiating ESP students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly 22(1), 44-62.
• Stoller, F. L. (2001). The curriculum renewal process in English for academic purposes programmes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (208-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Stranks, J. (2003). Materials for the teaching of grammar. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 329-339. London: Continuum.
• Swales, J. M. (Ed.). (1985). Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Taillefer, G. F. (2007). The professional language needs of Economics graduates: Assessment and perspectives in the French context. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 135-155.
• Tajino, A., Jamesb, R. & Kijima, K. (2005). Beyond needs analysis: Soft systems methodology for meaningful collaboration in EAP course design. English for Academic Purposes, 4, 27–42.
• Tayebipour, F. (2005). The role of TEFL instructors vs. specific-field instructors in ESP/EAP teaching. In Kiany, G. R. & Khayamdar, M. (Ed.). Proceedings of the First National ESP/EAP Conference, Vol.1, pp.219-234. Tehran: SAMT.
• Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials evaluation. In Tomlinson, B. (Ed.). Developing materials for language teaching, pp. 15-36. London: Continuum.
• Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centeredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Watson Todd, R. (2006). Continuing change after the innovation. System 34, 1–14.
• Wesche, M. B. (1993). Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research issues & outcomes. In M. Krueger & F. Ryan (Eds.), Language and content: Discipline- and content-based approaches to language study. (57-82). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
• Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Communication and community: The pragmatics of ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 3-14.
• Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. (71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Yoo, Kee Fong. (2000). An evaluation of an ESP course at a polytechnic in Malaysia. MA thesis. University of Malaya.
• Zohrabi, M., Parilah M. Shah & Melor M. Yunus. (2010). The EAP courses: The boundary between General and Specific English. LSP and Professional Communication: Collaboration and Engagement. Malaysia: University of Malaya, 15-17 July
Language Related Research
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 64
September and October 2021
Pages 565-596