The Philosophical, Political, and the Practical Dimensions of English for Academic Purposes Education: A Focus on Critical Thinking

The Philosophical, Political, and the

Practical Dimensions of English for Academic Purposes Education: A Focus on Critical

Thinking

著者 TANAKA Keiko, 田中 桂子

journal or

publication title

明治学院大学国際学研究 = Meiji Gakuin review International & regional studies

volume 37

page range 67‑77

year 2010‑03‑25

その他のタイトル アカデミック英語教育の理念・イデオロギーと実践

における批判的思考力

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10723/1465

The Philosophical, Political, and the Practical Dimensions of English for Academic Purposes Education:

A Focus on Critical Thinking

Keiko Tanaka

Abstract

This paper focuses on the philosophical, political, and the practical dimensions of implementing an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) curriculum in the university.

First, the paper discusses issues surrounding its key concept, critical thinking from 1970s to the present. This review draws upon research conducted within and outside the field of Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) that addresses the definability of critical thinking, the arguments raised by researchers about the compatibility of critical thinking to “Asian” cultures, and the pedagogy of teaching critical thinking including its social and political implications. Then, the paper outlines how some institutions have incorporated the teaching of critical thinking into curriculum goals. Finally, to offer a perspective on the concerns often voiced by teachers about the teachability of critical thinking in the context of higher education in Japan, the paper reviews relevant studies conducted in Japan. The summation of the findings of these studies together with points for consideration including a critique of available commercial materials to teach EAP that follow should be relevant for university educators interested in curriculum development or program review.

Key Words:

EAP, academic literacy, critical thinking, university EFL

Introduction

Rapid globalization and societal changes, fresh research findings and instructional

innovation, and evolving technology are setting off dynamic changes in the how and what

of English language education in Japan and in the rest of Asia. Yet it is not always clear

whether these changes are guided by a serious consideration of issues involved, especially

in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) programs where teaching involves much more

than instruction in conversational English. The term EAP, used most commonly in English as a Foreign Language programs that teach students skills that are necessary to cope with the demands of classes taught in English, is synonymous with the term academic English, used in contexts where English is the mainstream language, and the instructional goal is academic literacy in English.

Should the teaching of English be focused primarily on providing students with linguistic skills associated with academic literacy or should it include teaching students to think critically and make meaning in the new language? And if critical thinking is to be one of the goals of teaching English, what philosophical underpinnings should the curriculum have? Should the idea of teaching as a political act be accepted and embraced?

Finally, are the students academically prepared and the teachers ready to pursue an EAP curriculum whose centerpiece is critical thinking? These are some of the key questions that require exploration.

To consider these questions, this article focuses on the philosophical, political, and practical concerns of implementing an EAP curriculum by first reviewing how its core concept, critical thinking, has been defined and debated by researchers in recent history and how these concepts have been translated into curriculum goals. To address the practical issues, the article offers a perspective on the concerns often voiced by teachers about the teachability of critical thinking in the context of higher education in Japan, and ends with a list of issues for consideration.

The Critical Thinking Controversy

Critical thinking has entered the realm of TESOL instigating heated debate among researchers world-wide. Some of the debate on critical thinking involves its definition (e.g.

Atkinson, 1997; Benesch, 1993; Ennis, 1992; McPeck, 1981; Nickerson, 1990; Siegel, 1997).

Others involve issues along pedagogical lines focusing on whether or not it can and should be taught, and how it should be taught. For example, Atkinson (1997) states that critical thinking is near impossible to teach because of its elusive nature, and also argues that by endorsing only logistic thinking it marginalizes alternative ways of knowing. Furthermore, Atkinson questions the teachability of critical thinking skills to Japanese and other Asian students by citing several cross-cultural studies that show non-native speakers having notions of the individual, self-expression, and language as a learning tool that are different from English speakers and therefore incompatible with critical thinking (e.g. Carson, 1992;

Clancy, 1986; Hamilton, et al., 1991; Scollon, 1991).

Kubota (1997) takes issue with Atkinson’s views and with studies that provide culture-based explanations of the behaviors of non-native speakers and writers (e.g. Carson, 1992; Carson and Nelson, 1994; Fox, 1994) which characterize the Japanese discourse style as indirect and implicit and explain its features as a reflection of home and school socialization practices which emphasize empathy and harmony over individualism and critical thinking. While acknowledging the existence of cultural differences and the contribution of these studies in understanding second language learning and teaching, Kubota asserts that these studies tend to dichotomize the Eastern and Western cultures and endorse cultural determinism. Kubota questions the idea that student behaviors are tightly bound by culture and hence, highly predictable by citing the works of scholars such as Spack (1997) which demonstrates student adaptability to novel academic writing expectations, and Raimes and Zamel (1997) which highlights the idiosyncrasy and multiplicity of L2 writing.

Hongladarom (2000) aptly concludes that although disagreement about the nature of critical thinking continues to exist, there is widespread consensus that critical thinking should be one of the principal goals of education, and refutes the claim that critical thinking is incompatible with Asian philosophy by describing the logical traditions of India and China. Hongladarom also states that even though Asian cultures have not prioritized critical thinking in the past, these cultures are flexible enough to makes critical thinking an important educational goal in order to enable their citizens to think independently and sort through a huge volume of information. The need to make critical thinking an educational goal is also underscored by Warschauer (2002) who contends that individuals will need complex literacy and communication skills in English, which involve critical thinking to succeed in the age of global informationalism.

The Pedagogy of Critical Thinking

The contrasting viewpoints about critical thinking have been translated to contrasting suggestions about pedagogy. Atkinson (1997) claims the influence of Vygotskian theory of social cognition as a basis of his position and endorses a cognitive apprentice model that recognizes that cognitive skills are best learned in motivating real-world contexts.

In this model, the teacher assumes the role of an expert who establishes real-world contexts

for writing and guides students to acquire skills through modeling and coaching. In the

university ESL context, this would mean a discipline based academic writing curriculum

where teachers and students work closely together in small groups to facilitate

communication.

Kubota rejects Atkinson’s approach stating that it is based on the acculturation model which assumes that learning a new language and culture involves overcoming the negative effects of the native language and culture and instead supports critical multiculturalism and critical literacy. This reformative approach recognizes and respects the different ways language learners express themselves. However, at the same time, the approach keenly advocates a demystification and explicit teaching of English discourse rules and conventions and encourages an exploration of how cultural differences are perpetuated and exploited by the dominant group to maintain unequal power relations.

The goal of this approach is the appropriation of the new language in order to challenge and transform the status quo. Kubota also objects to teaching English based on a pluralist model in which students are encouraged to use their own cultural conventions while teachers are expected to affirm and adapt their teaching to the differences. To Kubota, this latter approach “does not critically explore issues of construction of certain cultural representations, nor does it examine how power comes into play in the distinction between dominant and subordinate forms of rhetorical conventions” (p.27) and hence generate political complacency by not allowing students agency to shape the world outside the classroom.

Thompson (2002) takes a view similar to Kubota by arguing that language teaching is a political act and that the “pragmatic” approach of merely teaching academic language skills to students is akin to accepting the status quo and accommodating the current power relations in academia and in society. In Thompson’s EAP classroom then, critical thinking is taught as a social and political practice where students are given opportunities to openly examine the concept of critical thinking itself, analyze texts on a topic written from different perspectives by examining the authors’ assumptions, and explore the relationship between what the students themselves are studying to social and political realities outside the classroom.

Hence, while there now appears to be a general consensus that critical thinking should be taught, the philosophical orientation and the suggested approaches to pedagogy differ fundamentally.

Critical Thinking Translated

In 2001, to provide clarity to the issue of how to prepare students to successfully

meet the academic demands of a university education to all its constituents, a committee of

educators from California’s Community Colleges, California State Universities, and the University of California surveyed their faculty on the topic of academic literacy. In a position paper that summarizes the results of the survey, academic literacy is defined in terms of expectations faculty have of their students. What follows is an outline of the expectation:

• Habits of mind, the intellectual and practical dispositions that bring academic success, including intellectual curiosity, an ability to postpone judgment and tolerate ambiguity, intellectual endurance, and responsible learner behavior.

• Critical thinking skills that enable the learner to question, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate ideas recursively.

• Making the reading and writing connection that include the ability to read complex texts, relate the reading to prior knowledge, experience, and related topics, anticipate where an argument is heading, ask questions while reading, and summarize and synthesize information from the text into written assignment.

• Writing competencies that include the ability to write a clear thesis and use logical arguments, good reasons, and well-selected evidence to support or challenge the thesis, and direct attention to diction, syntax and organization.

• Reading competencies that include reading for literal comprehension and retention, for depth of understanding, and for analysis and interaction with a wide range of texts—news articles, essays, books, research articles, and textbooks.

• Listening and Speaking competencies that include the ability to listen and take notes while identifying key and subordinate ideas, retain information gained from listening, participate in discussions, ask for clarification, ask well-framed and articulate questions, and produce comprehensible speech.

• Technological competencies that include the ability to navigate the Internet, use search engines effectively, and communicate online and using email.

• Information literacy that includes the ability to find, evaluate, use, and communicate information in various formats.

(2002 Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senate)

To date, this is one of the most elaborate guideline that can be used for EAP

curriculum development. It is interesting to note that critical thinking is placed at the core

of reading and writing competencies and a dispositional component is included as shown

below:

“… a description of abilities necessary for success in college must reflect what educators recognize as intellectual and practical dispositions of their successful students. The inseparable skills of critical reading, and thinking depend upon students’

ability to postpone judgment and tolerate ambiguity as they honor the dance between passionate assertion and patient inquiry” (p.12).

Although the document does not articulate a philosophical orientation, it explicitly states that academic literacy “serves as the foundation of greater equity” (p.43) thereby indicating proximity to the position advocated by researchers in the critical literacy camp. Curriculum initiatives that have resulted from this document support this observation (e.g. Edlund et al., 2006).

Focus on the Teachability of Academic Literacy and Critical Thinking in Japan

Much of the research on critical thinking conducted by researchers connected to Japanese universities have focused on practical concerns though its findings have contributed to dispelling the idea that Asians, including Japanese, are lacking in the capacity to think critically. For example, an empirical study conducted by Stapleton (2001) that looked at the writing samples of 45 Japanese university students indicates that when students are asked to write about topics that are familiar to them, they display more critical thought. Stapleton (2002) acknowledges a persistent view that Asian learners of English lack an individual voice and critical thinking skills because of their collectivist and hierarchical social orientation but argues that these constructs are no longer valid.

Stapleton’s conclusion is based on a follow-up study of 70 Japanese students who were found not to be reticent to voice opinions against authority figures and in possession of critical thinking skills.

Some studies indicate that explicit instruction of critical thinking is helpful. For

example, a study by Davidson and Luckett (2005) which compares the critical thinking

skills of one group of students which received explicit instruction on critical thinking in

addition to writing instruction focusing on argumentative essay as opposed to another group

which received writing instruction focusing on argumentative essay only shows significant

gains in critical thinking skills as measured by the Ennis-Weir Test for the group that

received explicit instruction on critical thinking. Similarly, a study by Oi (2005) that uses

the Toulmin Model to develop the students’ ability to construct arguments shows the

positive effect of explicit instruction when the students’ essays before and after the

instruction were compared. The Toulmin Model as a teaching tool has been gaining popularity in college writing programs, especially in the United States.

Taken together, research on Japanese students indicates that the students can develop their critical thinking skills when the curriculum and instruction takes advantage of their existing skills, uses appropriate teaching materials and tools, and through explicit teaching, raises student awareness of the nature of critical thinking skills and the expectations of how the skills are to be displayed in writing or speaking.

Practical Considerations

Most university educators in Japan will agree that students should acquire English.

However, it is useful to remember that even among second language educators, there are those who assert that requiring students to become English language users could support the spread of English in ways that can be characterized as linguistic imperialism that contributes to the loss of indigenous languages around the world (Phillipson, 1992;

Skutabb-Kangas, 1999). Also, as Warschauer (2002) points out, English is accompanied by a set of ideologies, values, and norms that brings privilege to its users while harming others unless it is adopted as a tool to usher in social change. Hence, the curricular and instructional decisions in second language education must be made with a clear vision and justifiable purpose.

To this end, the discussion in TESOL on critical thinking is useful in rethinking the philosophical foundation of an EAP curriculum and in reshaping the goals and expectations for the students. It is conceivable for a university to avoid the issue by not including an academic literacy and critical thinking component in the curriculum, and instead, adopt an English for international communication model that enables students to use English for social interaction and basic transactions. Indeed, conversations with the principal ESL publishers in Japan regarding “best-seller” textbooks for university classes indicate that this is the route taken by a majority of universities for their general education courses.

In this model, the teaching of critical thinking required for making, taking, and negotiating of meaning will have to be delegated to the disciplines and general education subjects taught in Japanese. The model, however, assumes that when students encounter situations in English language contexts that require complex communication skills and critical thinking, such skills will be automatically transferred from their Japanese language base to realize the communicative goals.

Many universities, though, are starting to consider an EAP curriculum with an

idea that critical thinking, and academic reading and writing skills are core academic skills that can prepare students for courses offered in English, overseas study tours, and study abroad programs. For curriculum developers in these universities then, arriving at a working definition of critical thinking as well as the positioning of critical thinking as a tool for knowing in relation to other ways of knowing is crucial: Should critical thinking be defined as higher-order thinking or cognitive skills that enable individuals to think logically and perform logical operations? Or should the definition be expanded to include social awareness, tolerance, and questioning of social conventions? And deriving an answer will be a challenge. Consider, for instance, the task of teaching tolerance for homosexuality as Bensch (1998) illustrates as an example of a lesson on critical thinking. What about examining assumptions and promoting social change on topics such as: Should juveniles who commit serious crimes be tried and sentenced as adults? Or should companies be sued for hiring based on appearance?

It should be noted that most publishers avoid such controversial topics in their language textbooks in order to avoid offending its potential clients. Hence, the version of critical thinking that EAP textbooks focuses on are politically neutral using topics such as: Should we be honest all the time or are small lies that people tell to smooth social interactions be accepted? Or why should we practice philanthropy?

Once a working definition of critical thinking is established, the rest—articulation of expected competencies, selection of materials and instructional approach—will be more or less straightforward even though the task will be time consuming.

Conclusion

Returning to the three questions raised in this paper, it is suggested that students have the right to explore and know just why it is that they are being asked to study English and what it means to be users of the English language. Too, students have both the right and the responsibility to explore and know about English, in particular, the role it has historically played in shaping the social, economic and political landscape of the world, and how its role is evolving as a lingua franca of the world while traditional concepts such as Native Speakers and Non-Native Speakers are becoming obsolete. This is an acknowledgement that teaching is often a political act, and in teaching academic English, there is no way around it. But more importantly, this should be regarded as a pedagogical act that nurtures student motivation and neutralizes ambivalence or downright negativity toward learning English so often noted by many English teachers in the university.

Finally, as to the question of whether students are academically prepared and our

teachers professionally ready to pursue an EAP curriculum whose centerpiece is critical thinking, the answer comes in two parts. First, studies hitherto mentioned do offer some promise—Japanese students are likely to be academically ready to pursue an EAP curriculum. As for the teachers, there are huge hurdles, mostly having to do with faculty hiring practices and university structures that do not provide teachers with adequate time for materials development and individual consultation with students, and most importantly professional respect and in-service opportunities. However, talent is out there and hence, reason for optimism. Finally, I enumerate several curriculum issues for consideration:

(1) Skills students gain in EAP need to be enhanced and extended throughout the their academic career in order to be retained.

Successful ELP programs are likely to be ones that recognize this and have university-wide support mechanisms in place such as offering or requiring courses taught in English.

(2) Academic literacy needs to be taught through a multi-faceted approach that works on the four skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Ideally, these skills are taught connectedly.

(3) Some EAP textbooks present the English language, written and spoken, in a narrow, idealized form, ignoring linguistic and cultural diversity among English speakers and the nature of writing in the real world.

(4) Some EAP textbooks select topics and materials that are: (a) relevant largely for learners in North America; (b) reduced in content to such an extent that meaningful EAP lessons cannot be taught; or (c) over-tailored for local interests to be of use to those wishing to expand the students’ horizon.

(5) Institutions, by hiring only native speakers of certain varieties of English as instructors, may be inadvertently promoting a view of English that is no longer valid.

(6) Teacher training is the key to success of an EAP program because (a) teachers’

assumptions about the students may affect classroom interaction; and (b) successful teaching of academic literacy skills requires special skills that many TESOL programs have not focused on.

(7) Wherever possible, collaborative partnerships with high schools should be initiated for articulation work as well as faculty development endeavors in order to narrow the gaps between high-school – university education and to strive toward seamless education.

(8) Standards and expectations of an EAP program should be documented and made public

to all interested parties both within and outside the university.

This list is far from complete but it is hoped that these insights gained from teaching, investigating, and developing curriculum could be applied toward developing a quality EAP curriculum.

Notes

1 A comprehensive definition of academic literacy also includes numerical, and information technology literacy.

2 This observation is a result of my conversations with Ben Dyer, representative of Pearson-Longman and with Koichi Ariyoshi, ELT consultant for Oxford University Press. I thank them for supplying me with information useful for this paper.

3 These are topics that appear on sample syllabus for a 12

grade academic literacy suggested by California Task Force.

4 The California Academic Literacy document mentioned earlier emphasizes the importance of Writing Across the Disciplines and states that the acquisition of academic literacy is a responsibility of all faculty and disciplines, not just the English Department.

5 An example of a successful EAP program is the English Language Program of the International Christian University. See Tomiyama (2007) for details.

References

Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 71-94.

Benesch, S. (1993). Critical thinking: A learning process for democracy. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 545-547.

Benesch, S. (1999). Thinking critically, thinking dialogically. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 573-580.

Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming bi-literate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 37-60.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 17-30.

Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 213-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clinchy, B. M. (1994). On critical thinking and connected knowing. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives on critical thinking (pp. 33-42). Albany, New York: SUNY Press.

Davidson, B., &Luckett, J. (2003). Evaluating critical thinking progress in EFL composition. JACET Bulletin, 37, 17-29.

Edlund, R. H., &Flachmann, K. Meeting state standard through secondary/post secondary collaboration:

Developing a 12th grade expository reading and writing course. Retrieved 8/15, 2008, from http://www.csupomona.edu/~uwc/pdf/WPATennesseeWorkshopPacket.pdf.

Ennis, R. H. (1992). The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking (pp. 21-37). New York:

Teacher’s College Press.

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hamilton, V. L., Blumenfield, P. C., Akoh, H., & and Miura, K. (1991). Group and gender in Japanese and American elementary classrooms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 317-349.

Hongladarom, S. (1998). Asian philosophy and critical thinking: Divergence or convergence. Paper

presented at the Second APPEND Conference at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senate. (2002). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students entering California’s public colleges and universities. Sacramento, CA.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.

McDermott, R. P. (1987). The explanation of minority school failure again. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 361-364.

McPeck, F. (1991). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Nickerson, R. S. (1990). Dimensions of thinking: A critique. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 496-509). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oi, K. (2005). Teaching argumentative writing to Japanese EFL students using the Toulmin model. JACET Bulletin, 123-140.

Phillipson, R. (2001). English for globalization or for the world’s people? International Review of Education, 47(3/4), 185-200.

Raimes, A., &Zamel, V. (1997). Response to Ramanthan and Kaplan. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 79-81.

Scollon, R. Eight legs and one elbow: Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions. Paper Presented at the International Reading Association Second North American Conference on Adult and Adolescent Literacy, Banff, Canada.

Scollon, R., &Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ.:Ablex.

Siegel, H. (1997). Rationality reduced?. New York: Routledge.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1999). Linguistic human rights--are you naive or what? TESOL Journal, 8(3), 6-18.

Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written Communication, 18(4), 506-548.

Stapleton, P. (2002). Critical thinking in Japanese L2 writing: Rethinking tired constructs. ELT Journal, 56(3), 250-257.

Thompson, C. (2002). Critical thinking: What is it and how do we teach it in english for academic purposes (EAP) programs? TESOL Journal, 11(4), 5-20.

Vandermensbrugghe, J. (2004). The unbearable vagueness of critical thinking in the context of the Anglo-Saxionisation of education. International Educational Journal, 5(3), 417-422.

Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535.

Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturalization. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 231-252.

Zamel, V. and Spack, R. (1990). Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages

and cultures. Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.