EAP characterised as a knower code discipline

characterization of the EAP module and of their own discipline. They employ various strategies that downplay the EAP module, mis-represent its content or dismiss its relevance and other types of characterizations that boost the technicality and knowledge of their own discipline while downplaying the EAP module’s.

Yena, for example uses a rich scientific vocabulary to explain the content of her lab report: ‘colonies, solution concentration, protein, DNA, standard curve, relative mobility, linear relationship’. Yena consistently emphasizes strong epistemic relations when talking about her disciplinary module, and in particular the assignment (lab report) being discussed. A large part of the interview focuses on scientific knowledge and scientific processes as shown when she begins talking about her lab report (indications of ER+ are highlighted in yellow) and which she progressively opposes to the EAP module, which is shown in her question to the researcher: ‘Is it really scientific?’.

Because this was actually we have to describe why is this protein important? So, must be as scientific as possible, so we actually use many scientific terms, […] you have to talk about the protein itself, so and then of course, there are some steps in the methods, right, that you’re required to synthesise the protein, […] in science, they will ask you about the number, why you need 3, why you need 2, what's the significance.

That's why the red ones, the black ones is mutation, then you have to explain why this mutation takes place and then does this mutation have further implication in protein folding, that’s now the discussion. Is it really scientific? (ER+ for the discipline)

I think it is unconsciously [structure] because in Science you have to explain how you derive stuff

Yena’s characterisation of the EAP module, on the other hand is completely different. She first highlights the lack of any perceived knowledge in the EAP module and the lack of usefulness of the EAP module. When prompted to recognize several hedging instances in the discussion segment of her lab report, Yena does not see this being transferred from the EAP module but from further back in her childhood. This is despite the fact that modality, and the language of interpretation is taught in the EAP module:

“mmm, it's more like generally [not from the EAP module], coz always writing essays as a child so unconsciously you think you'd better not make assumptions, so I put it [hedging] here”.

Yena also states that she learned a lot by consulting ‘senior reports and then we compare what is being written, what is not written and then we just mix and match’. However, when asked what she looks for in the seniors’ reports, she says: I don't read [the senior reports] for the grammar, I just go and get the gist for the content.

Yena associates the EAP module to ‘grammar’ by which she means grammatical complexity, and formal accuracy:

In terms of the grammar, I don’t really remember using it here, it’s very scientific so there’s not so much [hesitates]. We just use short sentences.

In the EAP module, the term ‘grammar’ is not mentioned. The functional grammar elements represented in the table of instantiation are referred to in class as ‘knowledge about academic language’, or ‘the four toolkits’ of academic writing. Therefore the researcher interprets Yena’s mention of ‘grammar’ as representative of a weak epistemic relation characterization where knowledge is downplayed and misrepresented. This last instance also shows how much of a distance Yena seems to see between the epistemic orientations of the two contexts. After describing her lab report and her discipline emphasizing strong epistemic relations, she marks an abrupt contrast with the EAP module ‘Here, it’s scientific’.

Despite the strong focus on and the visibility of the knowledge about language and meaning-making in the EAP module curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, it seems that Yena did not notice. When Yena characterises the EAP module as teaching ‘grammar’, the researcher/tutor does not recognise the EAP module which was delivered. Maton & Chen (2016a) explain that the way actors experience a context is always mediated by their dispositions: ‘they see the context through their own codes’ (p.13). In the study, the

Chinese students whose dispositions were knowledge oriented perceived the Australian online learning environment (knower oriented) as lacking knowledge content: ‘They teach us nothing’ explains Vivian (Maton & Chen 2016a, p.14). Moreover, the knower- code (stronger social relations) was not recognized as legitimate, and thus, was not actively addressed by the knowledge-oriented students.

In the current context, the EAP module seems to have been experienced by Yena as lacking any knowledge (what she means by grammar seems to refer to superfluous complexity). It feels like it is politeness alone that prevents her from exclaiming too: ‘The EAP module taught me nothing!

In the same way, Igor downplays the EAP content knowledge. He even shows a degree of

discomfort when discussing it as indicated by the giggles:

Researcher: When you wrote this, how much of the ES1103 knowledge came useful? What did you connect to if anything?

Igor: [giggles]

The participant also shows that he sees EAP taught content as superfluous:

As for the lab reports I would say I did not consciously engage much of the EAP knowledge as it would slow down my writing, and also to follow the guide questions given from my lab professor, I would try to answer the guide questions directly so as to minimise ambiguity and not sounding like beating about the bush (ER- for EAP).

For Igor, engaging the EAP knowledge would impede his writing, which relates to the difficulty of the student to make conscious, deliberate choices. He also characterizes EAP knowledge as ‘beating about the bush’, but as was seen in the extract from his writing, his style is actually quite convoluted and unclear, and so he may have benefited from using some toolkits more deliberately to adjust his register to the context.

The only concession to any knowledge in the EAP module, is ‘grammar’: I finish the writing but it's just the grammar is a bit bad.

The participant uses precise language to describe the stages of the text (Introduction, methods and procedures, results and discussion), but this is attributed to the Chemistry professor and the lab report guidelines. He also uses a range of technical terms and explains the procedure of centrifuge rather than paper filter for small particles.

coz I have to extract the crude product so this is the crude percentage which...either way we have to give a reasoning

Finally, the participant also seems to characterize the members of the EAP community. When offered to have his essay on Einstein and Relativity commented on, his response indicates his positioning away from people who are oriented to language as perhaps not cognitively capable of handling the vertical and dense knowledge structures exhibited in the Sciences.

“I will send it but there may be some parts that are difficult to understand.” “it’s difficult to explain”

“That’s just some Chemistry lingo”

This can be put into perspective with the rest of the data for Igor, and other quotes such as the following:

For me I have trouble bridging it across. […] For you when you critically analyse a text, you will notice…

There is a clear indication that this student is experiencing a code clash: while he sees himself as a knowledge-oriented person, member of vertical knowledge community, he also describes himself as unable to function in a language-based module which he characterizes as having a knower-oriented code. Through his opposition of each type of knowers in the quote above, he seems to characterize the two fields as incompatible. This code clash remains despite the intended knowledge orientation of the EAP intervention. Jane, the last of the three participants who report minimal transfer, starts with insisting on

the simplicity of the lab report she was asked to write: It's just a summary of what we did

It's just basically my.. what we observed during ...while conducting the experiment, what we observed and the summary of our data

So, while Jane is not emphasising her discipline are knowledge oriented, just like Igor, she downplays the need to pay attention to language, in doing so ignoring that the EAP content included writing about methods and results. She shows a conception of language in Engineering as simple.

I'm doing an Engineering mod now so I'll think more about the methods and science part, not of the language.

No I don’t think so, it's [Engineering lab report] quite basic, it's just answering the questions, I don't really need citations, don't need to do hedging and stuff, it's quite straightforward.”

EAP knowledge is called ‘hedging and stuff’ and described as irrelevant, and yet from Jane’s text, the need to use the EAP KAL to produce an academic text that shows appropriate level of abstraction may have been helpful.

There are similarities between Yena, Igor and Jane in the way they seem to experience a code clash: for them a language module is not supposed to provide verticality, and so they experience the curriculum as knower-code oriented. And while Yena seems to have acquired an ability to write lab reports according to the lecturer’s expectations, Igor and Jane do not seem to have. The fact that both Igor and Jane were reluctant to divulge more of the lecturer’s evaluation is perhaps telling. However, there is no doubt that these three students are motivated. They attended the EAP module and completed the assignments. It is a deeper disposition that may have prevented them from actually recognizing

knowledge and making it useful. The different ways these three participants expressed their alignments with certain communities also became salient during the analysis. This is reported below.