EAP Writing: Reflections on Divergent Perceptions and Expectations among Tutors and Students

doi:10.65961/AJELT-2010-1-009

PDF(131 KB)

Asian Journal of English Language Teaching ›› 2010, Vol. 20 ›› Issue (1) : 161-184. DOI: 10.65961/AJELT-2010-1-009

Articles

EAP Writing: Reflections on Divergent Perceptions and Expectations among Tutors and Students

Darryl HOCKING¹ and Glenn TOH²

Author information +

History +

Abstract

An atomistic and skills-based pedagogical tradition with a general focus on topic sentences, prescribed paragraph structures and rhetorical units has been seen in various quarters to dominate the instruction of English academic writing to L2 speakers in many English medium tertiary environments. While it would appear that students are for the most part acculturated to these codings and classifications, our student feedback provides evidence that initially the learners' own conceptualisation of written academic discourse actually lies closer to the linguistically complex and socially constituted understanding that is now firmly established in the literature. We suggest that such divergent perceptions may construct unnecessary in-between spaces of conflicting voices and thus contribute to the struggle of second language writers as they come to terms with the academic writing practices of their target disciplines. In addition, referring to social anthropological research, we explore how the perpetuation of an atom- istic and skills-based pedagogy in the teaching of writing in the L2 tertiary envi- ronment may in fact be inherently linked to visions of professionalism.

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Darryl HOCKING and Glenn TOH. (2010). EAP Writing: Reflections on Divergent Perceptions and Expectations among Tutors and Students.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching , 20(1): 161-184. https://doi.org/10.65961/AJELT-2010-1-009

References

Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Blanton, L. L. (1998). Discourse, artifacts and the Ozarks: Understanding academic literacy. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures(pp. 219-235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Braddock, R. (1974). The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose.Research in the teaching of English, 8(3), 287-302.
Brandt, D. (1990). Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers, readers and texts. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Casanave C. P.(2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Mich-igan Press.
Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors' conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 71-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Curry, M. J. (2006). Skills, access, and “basic writing”: A community college case study from the United States. In L. Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching academic writing in UK higher education: Theories, practices and models(pp. 180-195). Boston: Palgrave MacMillan.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduate students' thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institu-tions.English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 369-390.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision.American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Huckin, T. N., & Olsen, L. A. (1991). Technical writing and professional communication for nonnative speakers of English. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hyland, K. (2002). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now?English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jacoby S., Leech D., & Holten C. (1995). A genre-based developmental writing course for undergraduate ESL science majors. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 351-373). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Johns A. M.(1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, R. R. (2002). The growth of EAP in Britain.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 69-78.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach.Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.
Linell, P. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualisation and the blending of voices in professional discourse.TEXT, 18, 143-157.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Linguistic research and EAP pedagogy. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives in English for academic purposes (pp. 55-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pardoe, S. (2000). Respect and the pursuit of “symmetry” in researching literacy and student writing. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič(Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rose, M. (1998). The language of exclusion: Writing instruction at the university. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures(pp. 9-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, M., & Turner, J. (2004). Creativity, conformity, and complexity in academic writing: Tensions at the interface. In M. Baynham, A. Deignan, & G. White (Eds.), Applied linguistics at the interface: Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics(pp. 145-155). London: British Association for Applied Linguistics and Equinox.
Stern, A. (1976). When is a paragraph?College Composition and Communica-tion, 27, 253-257.
Swales J. M.(1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales J. M.,& Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Turner, J. (2004). Language as academic purpose.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 95-109.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse.Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58.