Exploring Reading English for Specific Purposes (ESP) via Communities of Practice

doi:10.65961/AJELT-2019-1-003

PDF(262 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (1) : 61-88. DOI: 10.65961/AJELT-2019-1-003

Articles

Exploring Reading English for Specific Purposes (ESP) via Communities of Practice

Beryl Chinghwa LEE

Author information +

History +

Abstract

This study aims to explore reading English for Specific Purposes (ESP). It was guided by (1) Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Communities of Practice (COP), and (2) Wenger’s (1998) conceptualization of non-participation and boundary. Six experienced Taiwanese adult ESP readers were invited to be interviewed on the basis of on narrative inquiry (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). During the interviews, the informants were asked to provide metaphors about their initial and recent ESP reading experiences. Ellis’s (2001) metaphor analysis was adopted to understand (1) whether ESP readers’ metaphorical usage varies along their long-term professional development, and (2) what the significance of the changes is, if there are any. The results indicated that the ESP readers’ metaphors about their early ESP reading experiences and those about the latest ones were remarkably different. While their recent experiences demonstrated full participation, their beginning ESP reading revolves around struggles resulting from boundary crossing. The findings verified the variation of ESP readers’ metaphorical usage along their professional development. As for the significance of the changes, three themes emerge: (1) The boundary is a critical site/stage for beginning ESP readers; (2) ESP reading is a social process of becoming, in which investment plays an important role; and (3) full participation of ESP reading manifests the features of familiarity, harmony, and agency. The results inform us of a social view of ESP reading.

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Beryl Chinghwa LEE. (2019). Exploring Reading English for Specific Purposes (ESP) via Communities of Practice.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching , 28(1): 61-88. https://doi.org/10.65961/AJELT-2019-1-003

References

Anderson, N. J. (2006). Crossing borders through reading. In Selected papers from the fifteenth international symposium and book fair on English teaching(pp. 1-9). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Barton D.,& Tusting, K. (Eds). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 23-34.
——— (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined future in worlds of work, study, and everyday life.TESOL Quarterly, 36, 207-213.
Belcher, D., & Connor, U. (Eds.). (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132-149.
Bruce, I. (2009). Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 105-124.
Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising “metaphor” for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3-28). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (2010) (Eds.). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Equinox.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). The fortunate traveler: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. In D. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 23-37). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matter.
Cotos, E. (2019). Articulating societal benefits in grant proposals: Move analysis of broader impacts. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 15-34.
Chang, Y. J. (2011). Picking one’s battles: NNES doctoral students’ imagined communities and selection of investment.Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10, 213-230.
Chang, Y. J., & Kanno Y.2010. NNES doctoral students in English-speaking academe: The nexus between language and discipline.Applied Linguistics, 31, 671-692.
Chia H. U., Johnson R., Chia H. L., & Olive F. (1999). English for college students in Taiwan: A study of perceptions of English needs in a medical context. English for Specific Purpose, 18, 107-119.
Chou, M. H. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and nontesting contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 175-197.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 35-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Croft W.,& Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cooke, M. (2006). “When I wake up I dream of electricity”: The lives, aspirations and “needs” of ADULT ESOL learners.Linguistics and Education, 17, 56-73.
Dhieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for reading research articles in an ESP context. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 387-417.
Ecclestone, K. (2007). An identity crisis? Using concepts of “identity”, “agency” and “structure” in the education of adults. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 121-131.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and act locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461-490.
Eskey, D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning(pp. 563-579). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2001). The metaphorical constructions of second language learners. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp.65-85). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Ellis R.,& Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Metaphor analysis. In R. Ellis & G. Barkhuizen (Eds.), Analyzing learner language (pp. 313-333). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962-1023.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Langue Journal, 81, 285-300.
Gardiner, C. M. (2016). Legitimizing processes: Barriers and facilitators for experienced newcomers’ entry transitions to knowledge practices.Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 11, 105-116.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Oxon, UK: Routledge Falmer.
——— (2000). The new literacy studies: From “socially situated” to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180-196). London: Routledge.
——— (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 714-725.
Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 195-213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Glaser B. J.,& Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Haneda, M. (1997). Second language learning in a “Community of Practice”: A case study of adult Japanese learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 11-27.
——— (2005). Investing in foreign-language writing: A study of two multicultural learners.Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4, 269-290.
He, M. F. (1998). Professional knowledge landscapes: Three Chinese women teachers’ enculturation and acculturation processes in China and Canada. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Toronto, University of Toronto.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Koch, S., & Deetz, S. (1981). Metaphor analysis of social reality in organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 9, 1-15.
Lakoff G.,& Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141-158). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Lave J.,& Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation New York: Cambridge University Press Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, B. C. (2012). Reader and reading in context: Narrative inquiry into a senior L2 learner in Taiwan. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching (AJELT), 22, 45-62.
Lee, B. C., & Chern, C. L. (2010). The journey toward English reading literacy for professional purposes.English Teaching and Learning, 34(2), 99-139.
——— (2011). ESP reading literacy and reader identity: A narrative inquiry into a learner in Taiwan. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 10, 346-360.
Li, L. J., & Ge, G. H. (2009). Genre analysis: structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985-2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28, 93-104.
Lieblich A., Tuval-Mashiach R., & Ziber T. (1998). Narrative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Malcolm, D. (2004). An Arabic-speaking English learner’s path to autonomy through reading. In P. Benson & D. Nunan (Eds.), Learner’s stories: Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 69-82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1993). Exploring your myth. In The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self (pp. 251-275). New York: William Morrow and Company.
Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39, 427-436.
Miller, E. R. (2010). Agency in the making: Adult immigrants’ accounts of language learning and work. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 465-487.
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573-603.
Nathan, P. (2016). Analysing options in pedagogical business case reports: Genre, process and language.English for Specific Purposes, 44, 1-15.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159-171). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). “The bleached bones of a story”: Learners’ construction of language teachers. In Breen, M. P.(Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Parkinson, J. (2017). The student laboratory report genre: A genre analysis.English for Specific Purposes, 45, 1-13.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulson, E. J., & Armstrong, S. L. (2011). “Mountains and pit bulls”: Students’ metaphors for college transitional reading and writing.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54, 494-503.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 277-302). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko A.,& Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155-177). Shanghai, China: Oxford University Press.
Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79-95). Shanghai, China: Oxford University Press.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13.
Taie, M. (2015). Critical thinking and discovering the meaning of unfamiliar terms through the word part analysis strategy: A study of Iranian medical students.English for Specific Purposes, 40, 1-10.
Taylor, C. (1985). Human agency and language. Philosophical papers 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, S. (1991). Metaphors we work by: EFL and its metaphors. ELT Journal, 45, 193-200.
Toohey, K. (1996). Learning English as a second language in kindergarten: A community of practice perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 549-576.
Toohey, K. (1998). “Breaking them up, taking them away”: ESL students in Grade 1. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 61-84.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA.The Modern Language Journal, 88, 331-350.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Xiao, J. (2014). Learner agency in language learning: The story of a distance learner of EFL in China.Journal of Distance Learning, 35, 4-17.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A Dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL Reading.TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320-353.