The MA in EAP & ESP

Lynn Errey and Mary Anne Ansell, Oxford Brookes University

THE BACKGROUND: WHY DO WE NEED TO TRAIN TEACHERS FOR EAP/ESP?

EFL and EAP what is the difference?

• EAP is NOT specialist subject teaching.
• It is NOT ONLY about study skills like note-taking, summarising, argumentation, etc.
• It IS about the development of critical thinking capability and training the mind.
• It IS about teaching with flexibility to students and to the target HE and subject culture from a sound theoretical and methodological base and therefore also:
• Understanding the context in which EAP students have ESP needs.

Change and Challenge in EAP today

At Brookes and no doubt elsewhere in HE, we are faced with changes to which we need to adapt and which represent a challenge to our methodology

• EAP has a wider context which now includes not only postgraduate and undergraduate but also FE preparation
• The target content subjects for which we prepare are increasingly broad; teaching must be applicable to all and any target context, e.g. students may not need note-taking skills at all!
• Study skills which were the EAP preserve are now also taught as part of undergraduate courses
• Students need to have a clear awareness of transferable skills applicable to future employment

So our approach as EAP practitioners had to be:

student-centred and context-centred

and be based on assessment of need, informed by the wider appreciation of input from Applied Linguistics research and mediated through practical experience.

We needed teachers to work in our EAP classrooms

• Who are fully and explicitly conscious of what teaching in an EAP mode means.
• Whose practice is habitually reflective.
• Whose methodology is underpinned by appropriate theory.
• Who have been challenged to examine and question the applicability of their practice.

And who

• Situate their students in the target HE context and can analyse need in direct relation to that context.
• Can mediate the demand of special subject discourse and of the HE culture and adapt their methodology to those demands.

Q: How do we meet the challenge?

Need an approach which is

• flexible
• responsive to student need
• reflects the current research in applied linguistics

Q: What do we put in an EAP course?

• What theoretical knowledge?
• What pedagogic experience?

Q: What areas of theoretical knowledge should we cover?

• Do we work only with the literatures and research on EAP?
• Is EAP separate from or a part of ESP?

ESAP
EGAP

• Do we take current issues in EFL into account?

e.g. SLA research

affective factors
learning styles
cognitive learning research
task and syllabus design research?

Q: Do we provide pedagogic training?

Time versus input - difficulty.

We decided to predicate our course on the same principles as the MBA:

• An advanced vocational degree building on solid work experience in the field.
• Assumed practical knowledge of the ground, the how-to-do if not the why-we-do.
• A readiness to go further into professional development and to build on experiential knowledge by a deeper knowledge of current theory and practical applications.
• A critical stance on established knowledge in the light of new learning.

Therefore observations of EAP/ESP in practice.

Opportunities for observed teaching under review but not compulsory.

We predicated our MA course on the same principles as that of an MBA. Our students must have sufficient previous EFL training and experience as practitioners to be able to draw on this and develop professionally, as individuals, into the EAP mind set.

Q: What went into our course outline?

• Aims and objectives
• Our student profile
• Our choice of content

THE LIMITS OF REALITY: THE MANAGEMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION

• First: the Programme Development Team: questions about course coverage, structure and culture, and ...

• The lack of benchmarks in the area and a sense of feeling our way
• Relative wealth of theoretical material but paucity of work combining experiential focus and EAP practice

• Then: The Wall: reluctance, fear of challenge, uncertainty about innovation, withdrawal
• The Resourcing and Overload issues: how can we take on this additional burden given full workload already and no additional income to resource development?
• And Finally, the need for all full-time staff to be involved in teaching the MA for the sake of their own development as professionals.

EVALUATION: THE STAFF EXPERIENCE

One year on

• Staff fear of challenge, of overload and the demands of upskilling have not been realised.

It has not, however been easy!

• The initial concern of all those involved in teaching that they would not somehow be up to it have not been realised and in fact not only were they up to it but it has been an energising experience and generated research impetus.
• In addition, there has grown a culture of sharing ideas, of mutual support, of readiness to give and receive feedback on teaching at this level. The surprise factor of reality being better than expected has led to improved esprit de corps.

The management view is that it was worth the not inconsiderable effort of cajoling, and even occasional bullying!

We now feel we have a solid base from which to move forward and innovate further.

THE FINAL ANALYSIS

Question: Did it do what we wanted?

By the time you complete this MA you should be able to teach

• all areas of knowledge and skills required by international students to achieve communicative competence and academic proficiency in an English speaking environment (EAP)
• all areas of knowledge and skills required by non-native speakers of English to achieve communicative competence in pre- and post-experience professional contexts (ESP)

Answer: we are getting there!

We feel our students know what EAP means from exposure to the content of the MA course and from the experiential approach and reflective feedback cycles

Q: Evaluation: How well has it worked?

Review after year 1

The student experience: feedback:

• Innovations in student-focused links between assessment and learning

TASK TYPES ON PROGRAMME

MIX OF PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL

E.G.

• Design of language syllabus for a short pre-sessional programme
• Critical discourse analysis of text dealing with arguable issues
• Critical Evaluation of an EAP writing skills textbook in the light of readings on academic literacies
• Case study of an international student and their cultural background, preferred learning styles, attitudes, values, expectations to British HE, academic and affective needs
• Report on target language analysis of an EAP/ ESP spoken English context
• Essay focusing on one aspect of descriptive and pedagogic approaches to language, e.g. use of concordancing
• Essay focus on a specific intercultural issue and its implications for working in EAP learning environment

ASSESSMENT CYCLE:

FORMATIVE (training for dissertation)
SUMMATIVE (working towards the award)

1. Essay title(s) given
2. Emailed formative feedback between student and tutor: exploratory dialogue/scaffolding
3. Student may submit a first draft for feedback
4. Student submits final draft
5. Tutor gives detailed feedback plus grade: evaluation plus pointers for future action
6. Student submits formative evaluation form.
   Points read and noted by tutor.
   Placed in student assessment portfolio as reflection of overall teaching/learning process

Leads to

• further st. reflection for future learning
• further t./ st. dialogue on learning if necessary
• st. reflection on own learning style! needs! strengths and weaknesses
• critical student feedback to feed into programme evaluation cycle
• More balanced view of student’s grade at end of programme
• Rearrangement of programme
• Ambitions for the future

What are the implications of our experience for EAP/ESP teaching in HE?

Our main conclusion for this PIM is that our students needed the full year to develop their orientation to EAP as owners of the culture and to become practitioners of the quality we require.

We feel that a shorter period of exposure would not be adequate to achieve this result

We need to train EAP teachers not only to learn the practice but themselves to learn how to think and reflect on their learning. They have to go through the cycle of drawing on and testing previous experience mediated by trainer input to produce a new mind set. This demands a significant gestation period.

A Diploma could achieve this if it were delivered over time and possibly in part through DL and if it were embedded in a strong CPD framework.

Back