The overall structure and organisation of this Chapter includes the review of the literature and the theoretical perspectives on English and English for Academic Purposes (EAP), focusing more on the study of English in science education at tertiary level. Two approaches or methods relying on Structural Linguistics and the current Communicative Approach are referred to. The study of English has gone through a number of changes/phases overtime.
In the 19th century, the Grammar Translation Method was traditionally used to teach Latin and Greek to students by scholars. The same methods were also used to teach modern languages like German, French and English. “A language cannot be taught, it can only create conditions for learning to take place” (Celce-Murcia, 1991:2), and can only be taught in context (Hadley, 2003). In the early 20th Century, de Sauzè introduced the Direct Method to the USA (Celce-Murcia, 1991). This effort failed to yield the required result to a great extent as there were not enough skilled teachers who were fluent in English. During the course of the 20th century, various approaches and methods were used to teach English to non-mother tongue speakers (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Apart from the two methods mentioned above, various other approaches were introduced in an attempt to promote English language learning. These included The Reading Approach, the Audio-lingual Approach in the US, the Situational Approach in the UK, the Cognitive Approach, the Affective-Humanistic Approach, the Comprehension-Based Approach and the Communicative Approach. Celce- Murcia (1991) concludes that in most of these approaches a structural syllabus was used. Both teachers and text-book writers followed these trends and developed their materials around grammar points. Teachers of English were seen as having all the knowledge on the subject which was merely banked onto the students to withdraw and use. The focus was on
17 the grammar rules, phonology, phonetics, translation methods and the like (Chomsky, 1970; Ivanic, 2004). When teachers use the structural approach in language teaching and learning, the grand theory is favoured more than the grounded theory. In the grand theory, teachers seemingly know everything at the theoretical level and have to transfer their knowledge to the recipients (students). Students absorb and give back all the knowledge as received from their teacher during presentations, tests or assignments, and this has been seen as a sign of good performance. This approach is still characterised by lack of students‟ voice and identity in their own learning (Canagarajah, 2002, 2006; Kumaravadivelu, 2006), lack of agency and creativity (Sinclair, 1999) on the part of students and teachers of English, and less attention is given to students‟ knowledge of the discipline/field of study. Hyland (2002: 33) finds that “an important aspect of the positivist-empirical epistemology is that it characterises a great deal of scientific endeavour on the authority of the individual as subordinate to the authority of language scientific procedure.”
Although the study of EAP aims to help students to make sense/meaning out of the learning materials without academic knowledge and disciplinary grammar to be able to write it well in the science subjects (Hyland, 2000, 2006; Becher, 1989; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1996; Bruffee, 1986). Becher (1989:8) maintains that “each discipline must be seen as an academic tribe”. Also, a concern has been raised that the purpose, context and the situation in which students learn English language is unique and essential in the teaching and learning of English and EAP (Hyland, 2006; Mohan, 2007).
The reasons for the shift from the structural linguistic to the current approaches to language teaching and learning are varied but complement each other. In the 1960s, the deficiencies of the audio-lingual methods (traditional), which focus on the performance of forms and structures of language, were said to encourage repetition and memorisation on the part of ESL students (Richards and Rogers, 2001: 158; & Kilfoil and van der Walt (1997:10). These
18 scholars acknowledge that the audio-lingual method, one of the traditional approaches to English language teaching, fails to address the students‟ communicative needs. The structural methods/approach focuses on the different ways of learning the first language, and any theory and/or practice from this approach cannot be helpful to the teaching and learning of English as a second language (ESL)/ or English additional language (EAL). Another reason for the failure of the structural methods has also been because students are not given sufficient input by their mentors to allow for real communication in English (output). The above-mentioned authors suggest a shift from the patterns to communication practice and from repetition to creative language production. They argue that the monotony of patterns, drilling, substitutions and memorization cannot create competence. On the contrary, they create de- motivation on the part of the students. Furthermore, a question on the applicability of any particular method to the enormous diversity of students and their varied learning needs (Brown, 2001) emerges due to the importance practitioners give to needs analysis (Hyland and Hamp-Lyons, 2002). In the structural methods/approach, the specific teaching methods are prescriptive and inapplicable to divergent learning contexts. This is how the shift/change from structural to current approaches to language teaching and learning needs to come about.
It is argued that there is need for a shift from the traditional curricula to communication curricula and the resultant teaching methods that suits, promotes and implements appropriate, relevant and effective instruction for both classroom teachers and students (Hinkel, 2006). The EAP curricula that students at the tertiary level need, should allow them to develop their ability to use the medium of instruction in a multi-dimensional range of oral and written activities (North, 2000; Rosenfeld, Leung, & Oltman, 2001) and be able to access knowledge of English academic registers (Aschcroft, 2001). All these strategies are dependent on the context in which the learning and teaching of language takes place. Given that language education is to be seen differently in different contexts, Canagarajah (1999) suggests the
19 understanding of approaches to English and EAP teaching and learning in the perspective of Africa which has to be a different context on its own.
The era for communicative approach to English and EAP offers teachers of English and their students the power (Canagarajah, 1996; Hyland, 2000,), identity and power (Bourdieu, 1977; Cummins, 1996; West, 1992), voice (Norton, 1997; Thesen, 2006) and agency (Hyland, 2000) over their teaching and learning. It includes practice in which teachers basically build the grounded knowledge theory through which they give their students a voice and allow them to talk first about what they already know before they can incorporate the knowledge from the grand theory to deepen their existing knowledge (Kilfoil & van der Walt, 1997; Michael & Swain, 1980; Piaget, 1980; Richards and Rogers, 2001).
This approach also takes into account the fact that the practice required for students‟ academic success differs from one discipline to the other (Hairston, 1982; Hyland, 2006; Kuhn, 1970). Kuhn (1970) in his book, The structure of scientific revolution, reminds us that students who enter the discipline prepare for membership to its intellectual community by adherence to a paradigm shift that reinforces their learning. And yet, the EAP programmes do not always address this issue well enough. Hinkel (2006: 109) goes even further to suggest that “in view of the on-going development of L2 teaching as an expectation of what is current, innovative and central in L2, pedagogy today is likely to become a stepping-stone in the expansion and refinement of disciplinary knowledge”.
In the next sections I attempt to tackle issues regarding EAP as it is taught at the tertiary level. Driven by Canagarajah‟s (2006) insight about questioning and researching EAP, two questions need to be answered. What is EAP? What is its raison d‟être or rationale? For each question, I draw from but I am not limited to Hyland and Hamp-Lyons (2002) and Flowerdew and Peacock (2001) who provide insights on EAP as the major force in English
20 language teaching and research. I review the debates on EAP theories, methods and pedagogies that are likely to enhance the quality of EAP teaching and learning in science education.