‘Critically examine the EAP debate. Argue for one position. You may also support your argument with evidence drawn from your own experience.’

This paper critically examines the varied approaches to teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP). In particular, it examines Critical Pedagogy, Pragmatic Pedagogy and Critical-Pragmatic Pedagogy in the context of teaching academic writing to university students. This is an important issue as there is widespread debate as to what constitutes effective EAP instruction within the academic sphere. The conflicting perspectives are that a critical approach to pedagogy, with its challenge of current ‘implicit and explicit standards’ (Cherryholmes: 1988) is most effective. Other academics argue the case of a vulgar pragmatic approach that relies on structure and ‘the notions of theory and practice’ (Williams: 1983). There is also support for a hybrid approach to EAP learning, known as critical pragmatism. This method encourages the characteristic critical pedagogical challenge of the status quo, while still requiring ideas to be translated and conveyed by means of structured ‘discourse practices’ (Cherryholmes: 1988). Finally, upon examining the aforementioned approaches to EAP by review of scholarly literature, I intend to argue affirmatively that vulgar-pragmatic based pedagogy is the best and most effective method of teaching EAP to university students.

The concept of critical pedagogical learning relies on the principle that ‘the classroom needs to be continually interrogated for the ideologies it fosters and reproduces’ (McLaren: 2011). This means that ‘criticalists’ (those who support a critical approach) prefer a system of education that challenges students to think beyond what is taught and form their own opinions; to broaden their thoughts and to construct their own voice (Palmer, Emmon: 2004). Burbules and Berk (1999) incite that by ‘urging teachers to help students become more skeptical toward commonly accepted truisms’ that they will not allow themselves to be ‘deceived’ by the widely accepted dogma proponed upon them by society and its authoritative figures. But at what point does challenging the known and accepted in search of ones personal ideals begin to negatively impact a students’ academic success? Is it not the goal of EAP programs to develop in a student their proficiency and articulation of the academic English language, including skills in research that will aid their participation at a tertiary level? Weimer (2009) addresses these issues plainly, stating that it is vastly difficult for students to ‘have a say about what they learn and what they can teach… when [the teacher] begins from a position of intellectual authority’ and ‘there is a discipline-specific body of knowledge [they] are expected to cover in the course’. The role of a teacher, as defined in the Oxford Online Dictionary is to ‘impart knowledge to or instruct (someone) as to how to do something’. This definition is accepted universally; therefore when a teacher expresses his own or a somewhat controversial opinion in the classroom in the spirit of eliciting a critical pedagogy including conversation and debate amongst his pupils, it is irrational to assume that all students will form their own stance on the given subject. It is irrational to assume that all students will either rebut or agree based on their own inclination because what is universally accepted is that the teacher is right and it is he who delivers the knowledge that is important and must be learned. True critical pedagogy thus begins to take on a ‘political agenda’ (Weimer: 2009), rendering EAP instruction far too complicated and too far fetched from its actual purpose; giving students the skills to develop their use of English language in their university studies.

On the contrary, vulgar pragmatic EAP instruction is based upon the premise of planned and structured discourse with the use of models, which ‘work by displaying basic principles’ (Macbeth: 2010). This approach is often chastised for ‘valuing functional efficiency’ (Chua: 1983) over exploring the ‘possibilities for challenge and change’ (Macbeth: 2010). Chua (1983) laments that ‘to reduce all human problems to the level of technical difficulties and solutions’ is to damage society’s ability to elicit a reevaluation or adjustment of it’s currently accepted norms. Evidently, the use of models in EAP is widely criticized by academics but as Macbeth (2010) wrote, ‘their usefulness to novices can easily go unnoticed by experts’. This is particularly true, especially when the sheer number of ESL students attempting to progress through tertiary level programs taught in the English language is taken into account. As a result or ‘consequence of the expansion, internationalization and marketization of higher education in the past two decades’ (Evans, Morrison: 2011) students, particularly those whose primary language is not English and those straight out of high school cannot be expected to navigate their way through new and challenging coursework without an outline of what is required. In these cases, a vulgar pragmatic approach to EAP learning becomes a most valuable tool to students. It allows them, not only to meet criteria and deliver necessary information in their assessments, but also outlines the proper means by which they can then express their own thoughts and stance without compromising academic and scholarly standard.

The third and final form of EAP pedagogy I wish to address in this paper is that of Critical Pragmatism. As its title suggests, the method is an amalgamation of both Critical EAP; a ‘critique of the dominant culture’ (Jay, Graff: 1995) and Pragmatic EAP; a reliance on form and structure to develop and present ideas. Harwood and Hadley (2004) argue that a critical pragmatic approach is the most successful course for practitioners of EAP to present. They reason that students should be taught disciplinary norms, in line with the principles of pragmatic EAP in order to excel in their academic courses. By the same token they profess that students should be free ‘to question and shape the education they are being offered’. In effect critical pragmatism allows students the opportunity to elaborate on thought provoking opinions that defy the status quo without neglecting the ‘operating procedures necessary for understanding and producing [them]’ (Brandt: 1990). As an example, Brandt assesses that students of critical pragmatism ‘can be taught the principles of critical review’ but at the same time ‘learn when and to what degree is appropriate to be critical within their own disciplinary communities’. Ultimately, this type of pedagogy seems ideal with its ‘best of both worlds’ approach but it could be argued that it is instead hypocritical. How can such contradictory ideals be paired and delivered to students without causing confusion?

In a world where individuals are so fervently encouraged to be just that, ‘individual’, a system of critical pedagogy in university seems ideal. Where better to foster change and upheaval of the norm than amongst youth? But while an arts degree promises a graduate who thinks ‘critically and creatively’ (Monash University: 2013) not every faculty’s aim is to produce graduates that are well versed in forming individualistic views about the culture and diversity of the world we live in. For example, a Bachelor of Commerce graduate is expected to thoroughly ‘understand the workings of the economy and business’ based on tried and tested methods and models that have resulted in previously successful commercial outcomes. An engineering graduate ‘converts scientific knowledge into technology and technology into innovations’ while a Scientist is expected to have a broad knowledge of general science and specialize in a specific area. This is not to say that critical thinking is unimportant; in fact it is the opposite and a firm grasp of critical thinking will only make each aforementioned graduate stronger in their field of expertise. But unfortunately, success at university is not based on ones ability to think outside the box. It is based on results. Success in tertiary coursework relies on sound knowledge and understanding of the discourse outlined and presented by lecturers and tutors to students. Gaining scope of a students’ knowledge of such discourse is largely reliant on their results in assessment tasks, many of which are written pieces of work. This is why I believe that a vulgar pragmatic approach to EAP is the most effective and successful method. Because while critical thinking is important, students who lack the tools to convey their thoughts and information will ultimately suffer when marks are distributed. I have a personal example I would like to put forth in support of my argument in favor of a vulgar pragmatic approach. I am a Science student, entering my second year of university study in 2013. During my first year studies in Biology, I was required to produce two scientific essays that presented a biological case by review of scholarly literature. Having quite literally no idea how to properly present my ideas together with those of the academics I read in peer-reviewed journals, I forfeited 20 marks in each semester. With proper knowledge of structured essay modeling and planning, those twenty marks could have made up the difference between a Credit and a High Distinction result at the end of the semester. While of course, I must take full responsibility for my negligence in seeking help to fix my problem, had I not completed a course in Critical Pedagogical EAP this summer I digress that I most likely would find myself in a very similar predicament as I did last year at some point in 2013; with many ideas in my head and no way in which to properly convey them to my lecturers and tutors.

This paper has examined the various approaches toward teaching English for Academic Purposes. It has done so by careful analysis of scholarly literature critiquing critical, vulgar-pragmatic and critical-pragmatic pedagogy coupled with personal experience. Of course there are varied scholarly opinions regarding this issue and my conclusion is based solely on my research and personal experience. Although ongoing research could examine this issue in more detail and perhaps solidify or change my stance on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that a Vulgar Pragmatic method of teaching English for Academic Purposes is most effective in helping students achieve their academic goals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Harwood, N, Hadley, G (2004) Demystifying Institutional Practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing, English for Specific Purposes, No. 23, pp. 355-377 2. Allison, D (1996) Pragmatist Discourse and English for Academic Purposes, English for Specific Purposes, Volume 15, No.2, pp. 85-103 3. Weimer, M (December 8, 2009) Critical Pedagogy Brings New Teaching and Learning Challenges, Faculty Focus (accessed 10/2/13) http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/critical-pedagogy-brings-new-teaching-and-learning-challenges/ 4. Hirvela, A (1997) ‘Disciplinary Portfolios’ and EAP Writing Instruction. English for Specific Purposes, Vol.16, No. 2 pp. 83-100 5. Pennycook, A (1997) Vulgar Pragmatism, Critical Pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 16, NO. 4 pp. 253-269 6. Thompson, C (2002) Teaching Critical Thinking in EAP Courses in Australia, TESOL Journal, Vol. 11, Issue No. 4, pp. 15-20 7. Burbules, N.C, Berk, R (1999) Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits. Critical Theories in Education 8. Cherryholmes, C.H (1988) Power and Criticism: Post cultural Investigations in Education, Teachers College Press 9. Macbeth, K (2010) Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing Vol. 19, pp. 33-48 10. Brandt, D (1990) Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 11. Chua, B.H (1983). Reopening ideological discussion in Singapore: A new theoretical direction. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 31-45 12. Evans, S, Morrison, B (2011) The First Term at University: Implications for EAP, ELT Journal, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp. 387-397 13. Palmer, J, Emmons, K (2004) Critical Pedagogy: An Overview, English 400 14. McLaren, P (2011) Critical Pedagogy, Teaching Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 37-38 15. Jay, G, Graff, G (1995) Critical Pedagogy: A reassessment, Higher Education Under Fire: Politics, Economics, and the Crisis of the Humanities. 16. Oxford Dictionaries Online (2013), http://oxforddictionaries.com 17. Monash University Course Handbook (2013): Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Science, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Business and Economics http://monash.edu/pubs/handbooks/courses/ (Accessed 11/2/13)

*
"Critical Pedagogy: A Reassessment". Co-authored with Gerald Graff. In Higher Education Under Fire: Politics, Economics, and the Crisis of the Humanities.