and through written assignments. A major challenge for EAP teachers is to make learning not just relevant but engaging and motivating.
Myth 5: EAP is basically IELTS
Again, there are, arguably, as many differences as similarities between the two. IELTS involves a flavour of academic tasks, and to a degree some of the language, but without the rigour of academic cognitive activities such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. In IELTS Writing Task 1 for instance, candidates have to describe a graphic, or more recently, more than one graphic. In EAP, such graphics would be used as part of a wider purpose, such as to provide support in written work or in a presentation. The student would search for, select, interpret, and evaluate the material. This would lead to the incorporation of parts of the referenced material into an original piece of written or spoken work. It would be synthesized with material from other sources. Simply describing a given graphic is by comparison quite a basic activity. Similarly, the IELTS speaking examination does not aim to replicate the kind of speaking done in academic settings.
Myth 6: EAP involves proofreading students’ written work
Proofreading refers to the practice of correcting the errors and ensuring clarity in a text; this can be done either by the writer of the text or another person, such as a language teacher, peer, or editor working for a publisher. The main aims in proofreading a text or manuscript are: to eliminate language errors (by identifying and correcting them) including errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation; to ensure clarity, by rephrasing any language which is hard to understand or ambiguous; to harmonize style, for example by rephrasing language which appears too informal or formal for the purpose; and to ensure accuracy in non-language areas, particularly with regard to in-text references, bibliographies, and any tables and graphics. Since the main aim of proofreading is to arrive at a high-quality text, the proofreader may not offer explanations and alternatives for their corrections, and so the process is not primarily developmental and pedagogical; however, for the reflective writer receiving their proofread text can be a very instructive experience.
Proofreading is not generally considered to be a core activity for EAP teachers. EAP teachers periodically raise and discuss issues surrounding proofreading, such as who should do it, whether it should be a paid-for service, and how it should be carried out. A key question in proofreading is the remit of the proofreader, and how far they should cover non-language aspects of the text such as quality of the argument and use of sources. While a major role of an EAP teacher is to read and give feedback on their students’ written work, there are typically three main focuses: content, organization, and language. When giving feedback on content and organization, the focus is on aspects such as the strength of the ideas, how they are presented, the coherence of the argument, and use of academic sources. The work on language may involve identifying typical errors and giving an indication of the type of error and perhaps how to correct it. Students will then work on these errors themselves, rather than relying on their teacher to correct them, and the students’ revised texts can then be checked for accuracy. Ultimately, then, EAP teaching aims to foster students’ proofreading skills as far as possible, rather than the teacher providing a proofreading service for their students.
Myth 7: EAP is objective rather than subjective
Academic texts have been described as ‘objective’ rather than ‘subjective’ (for example Clanchy and Ballard (1981: 74, and 1992; also cited in Jordan 1997: 244), but this statement is overgeneralized and highly misleading. The academic world is both objective and subjective. It is objective in the sense that it searches for and transfers knowledge, and this knowledge needs to be in some sense validated. Research needs to be replicated in different contexts in order to yield similar results. However, different interpretations and evaluative responses are highly valued and essential to the dissemination of ideas and research. Such interpretations may be responses to objective evidence, but by their nature they are subjective: one person’s interpretation or evaluation of the same evidence may differ from another’s. A significant part of critical thinking is subjective and carried out by ‘subjects’ or people. None of the following examples of academic thought is an objective ‘fact’: a theory of learning; the assessment of the impact of a historical event or medical trauma; a policy response to a crisis. There is subjectivity in all of these. Academic practice is concerned with relations between objective phenomena, such as the findings of a piece of research, and subjective responses, such as interpretation and evaluation. It is important to bear in mind that these responses need to be grounded in evidence rather than seemingly plucked out of the air.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
