Educational Change Amongst English Language College Teachers in China

Front matter

Yulong Li

Educational Change Amongst English Language College Teachers in China

Transitioning from Teaching for General to Academic Purposes

Contents

2.2.1 Under Traditionalism: Language as a System and EAP as Academic Literacy <srsesrssssroessres 9 2.2.2 Under Progressivism: Language as Discourse 2.2.3 Under Criticalism: Language as Ideology and EAP as Critical Litefacy oc cage jaeng ah osiinsa 12 2.2.4 Under Digitalism: New Meanings of Language 23 BAP Teacher Development ..<445.0545c0¢50esse0arneebeus 16 BeIeenGes sirk Ge Re GHG ERR REED ERE ON HE a AOE A ERR 19 Sel. MONON 3.6 2446. 8h sob Seth CA GER IROL Se EAE ASS 25 33 Methodolisy 2ccs1ssu eesee eres e we deta P SERRE R OPES 27 Jal BUMIOCOPRY fi4 oh oe kGe8d he Pens Bobs bee Ree oes 27 3.3.2 Phenomenology e cc ic¢e 0940 tens bed ee eed dR R ES 27 34 Fieldwork Methods co: 242.8 a:.i¢e.09en4 a aa 31

4.4

4.6

Chapter 1 A) Introduction E

In today’s world, the ties of globalization increasingly connect people, and the communication networks between different countries and cultures that underpin these connections are largely reliant on English as a medium language. In the case of academic institutions, English has become a lingua franca of teaching and learning (Liddicoat, 2016); evaluations of research staff’s quality and reputations worldwide depend on their English publishing on international platforms, which is the so-called “publish or perish” academic survival system (Lee, 2014). In response to this demand, English for academic purposes (EAP) has gradually become an important subject for those working and studying in higher education institutions. Particularly in the recent two decades, “there has been a prolific increase in scholarly activity in the field of English for academic purposes” (Thompson & Diani, 2015, p. 1). In China, the first framework concerning the introduction of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) at Chinese tertiary institutes was published in 2013 by the Shanghai Education Bureau (Shanghai Education Bureau, 2013). Its advent marks several milestones; first, in relation to the revitalization of the previously unsatisfactory pedagogies practiced when delivering English for General Purposes (EGP) (Cai, 2012) at most universities; and second, as a pioneering program, implementing a large-scale hybrid EAP framework (integrating characteristics unique to the Chinese context) in China (Gao & Bartlett, 2014). Cai (2013, p. 11) claims the objective of the EAP course offered in Shanghai is, “the cultivation of professionals in various disciplines” through students learning English “to study their academic subjects.”

This monograph was an adapted version of the same author’s Ph.D. dissertation titled “A Phenomenological Ethnographic study of Chinese college English teachers’ transition from teaching English for General Purposes to teaching English for Academic Purposes’. The dissertation was submitted to The Education University of Hong Kong in 2017. The copyright of the dissertation belongs to the author (Li, 2017).

© The Author(s) 2020 1 Y. Li, Educational Change Amongst English Language College Teachers in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98 1- 15-3053-1_1

1.1 An EAP Reform Coming to China

Approximately 25 million students are enrolled at tertiary level (Bolton & Graddol, 2012) in China, and for the majority English is a compulsory course, meaning China has become a “major site of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages)” (Borg & Liu, 2013). Following general improvements in the English proficiency of university students, more scholars have begun to discuss the best pedagogy to adopt when teaching English to university students (Cheng, 2016). Some of the most robust arguments espouse the benefits of EAP. EAP is a pedagogy targeted at college English teachers who are responsible for teaching students from non-English majors. Cheng (2016) introduces that ELT (English language teaching) in Chinese universities are two kinds: the one for only English majors and the other for the non-English majors, which has more students’ population. The teachers responsible for educating non-English majors, namely college English teachers (CETs), have been accused of being disengaged in academic research (Borg & Liu, 2013), and many suffer from a relatively low professional status not enough for teaching EAP, as Cheng (2016) quotes.

Indisputably, EAP is completely new in China, as English for General Purposes (EGP) has long dominated EFL teaching (Cargill, O’Connor & Li, 2012). Since the 1980s, English language teaching for non-English majors in higher educational settings in China has taken place within the scope of the EGP curriculum (Gao & Bartlett, 2014), which focuses on the holistic and humanistic education of students in English. The EGP curriculum typically neglects disciplines; instead, covering topics relating to “campus life, personal growth, politeness, appreciation of music, health and hygiene, friendship and human emotions, paths to success, and cultural values” (Cheng, 2016, p. 213).

To elaborate further, the most recent version of national EGP language policy was the College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR), published before the Shanghai EAP reform, which was stipulated by the Higher Education Department of China’s Ministry of Education in 2007. In the CECR, the policymakers defined the teaching goal of college English courses for the non-English-majors as

[T]o develop students’ ability to use English in a well-rounded way, especially in listening and speaking, so that in their future studies and careers as well as social interactions they will be able to communicate effectively, and at the same time enhance their ability to study independently and improve their general cultural awareness so as to meet the needs of China’s social development and international exchanges. (CECR, 2007, p. 18)

It required colleges and universities across the country to design tailored 16 creditbearing CET courses, taking their students’ English proficiency into consideration, by matching the below ability requirements printed in CECR (taking intermediate level as an example, see Table 1.1). In most cases, the requirements depicted in the CET goals were generic language skills and daily communicative skills in English, with little emphasis on the learning genres of their disciplines and academic English.

Such was the prevalence of EGP, that until recently, EAP was not formally acknowledged in China (Cai, 2012). Except the direct transplantation of EAP courses

1.1 An EAP Reform Coming to China

Table 1.1 Intermediate level of CET requirements in CECR (adapted from college English curriculum requirements, 2007, pp. 19-20)

Intermediate requirements

Listening

Students should generally be able to follow talks and lectures in English, to understand longer English radio and TV programs on familiar topics spoken at a speed of around 150-180 wpm (words per minute), grasping the main ideas, key points and relevant details. They should be able to understand, by and large, courses in their areas of specialty taught in English

Speaking

Students should be able to hold conversations in fairly fluent English. They should, by and large, be able to express their personal opinions, feelings and views, to state facts and reasons, and to describe events with clear articulation and basically correct pronunciation and intonation

Reading

Students should generally be able to read essays on general topics in popular newspapers and magazines published in English-speaking countries at a speed of 70-90 wpm. With longer texts for fast reading, the reading speed should be 120 wpm. Students should be able to skim or scan reading materials. When reading summary literature in their areas of specialty, students should be able to get a correct understanding of the main ideas, major facts and relevant details

Writing

Translation

Recommended vocabulary

Students should be able to express, by and large, personal views on general topics, compose English abstracts for theses in their own specialization, and write short English papers on topics in their field. They should be able to describe charts and graphs, and to complete within 30 min a short composition of no less than 160 words. The composition should be complete in content, clear in idea, well-organized in presentation and coherent in discourse

With the help of dictionaries, students should be able to translate on a Selective basis English literature in their field, and to translate texts on familiar topics in popular newspapers and magazines published in English-speaking countries. The speed of translation from English into Chinese should be about 350 English words per hour, whereas the speed of translation from Chinese into English should be around 300 Chinese characters per hour. The translation should read smoothly, convey the original meaning and be, in the main, free from mistakes in understanding or expression. Students are expected to be able to use appropriate translation techniques

Students should acquire a total of 6,395 words and 1,200 phrases (including those that are covered in high school English courses and the Basic Requirements), among which 2,200 are active words (including the active words that have been covered in the Basic Requirements)

from the UK to universities such as the University of Nottingham’s China Campus, in Ningbo near Shanghai, the first official mention of EAP was in 2012 in A Framework of Reference for EFL Teaching at Tertiary Level in Shanghai (Cai, 2012). The framework was designed to target students needing to use English to study their subjects at the undergraduate level; and the suggested framework was as follows:

1. “An elective, remedial English enhancement course (0-2 credit hours) for those who need to improve their comprehensive general English skills”;

2. “A series of required English for general academic purposes (EGAP) courses (8 credit hours in total) to enhance students’ EAP listening, reading, writing, and speaking skills”;

3. “A series of elected English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) courses (2—4 credits hours in total), such as business English and legal English, based on the students’ subject areas” (Cheng, 2016, p. 101).

This pedagogy proposed by Cai (2012), would thoroughly overhaul the original EGP-based CET. However, due to the potentially large scale of the change, it has been the subject of much debate amongst researchers (e.g. Wang, 2013). The general opinions shared on both sides are evaluated below.

Arguments against EAP reform in China begin with reference to the extensive variation in students’ English proficiency, arising from regional differences in pedagogy and resources, and rural-urban disparities. This discrepancy in levels means that once enrolled at university, some students need EGP to enhance their English (You & Dérnyei, 2014). For this reason, EAP might prove not so relevant to first- and second-year students, who may not yet have narrowed their studies to a particular discipline (Wang & Yao, 2013). Others argue that the focus on skills in most EAP programmes diverges too far from the CET’s goal of nurturing humanistic students (Wang, 2013). Furthermore, the professional standard of CET teachers might not be sufficient to meet the requirements of teaching EAP (Borg & Liu, 2013).

However, supportive voices of the urgent demand for EAP reform in China are also many. The deficiencies in the current ELT Chinese higher education curriculum have been a source of grievance. Cai (2012) attributes this to Chinese university students’ lack of direction, and low motivation to learn English in EGP, which could be addressed through the promotion of EAP in Chinese higher education contexts. Some attention has also been drawn to the unsatisfactory academic output of Chinese scholars and students (Hamp-Lyons, 2011), as many scholars imply that the lack of familiarity with academic English among Chinese intellectuals explains their limited success in terms of publishing in international academic journals (Zhong, 1998; Cargill et al., 2012).

Academic misconduct of a number of professors and students is further raised as a serious issue (Douglass, 2012). Hamp-Lyons (2011) observes that teaching good practice through EAP has the potential to improve scholars’ academic moral fibre. A new intake of students requires knowledge of EAP and other academic skills. According to statistics, an increasing number of Chinese students plan to undertake further study after completing their initial degree in China (01/02/2015 URL: http:// www.eol.cn/html/lx/2014baogao/content.html). Hennebry, Lo and Macaro (2012)

1.1 An EAP Reform Coming to China 5 note that when Chinese students choose to study abroad, much like other international students studying in the UK, they consistently require additional EAP support despite having gained reasonable marks in their IELTS assessments.

Gao and Bartlett (2014) suggest that understanding of the content of EAP curricular remains unfamiliar, potentially leading to misunderstandings that adversely influence the attitudes of teachers and policy-makers. This has led to hesitancy from universities and other institutions in terms of adoption. EAP is referenced in new national guidelines for English teaching. The most up-to-date Guidelines on College English Teaching (GCET), were published by the Education Bureau of China in 2015, which highlights and recommends English for Specific Purposes (ESP). The Guidelines also suggest courses such as academic communication, academic writing, academic literature review, and academic translation should be taught.

Bolton, K., & Graddol, D. (2012). English in China today. English Today, 28(03), 3-9.

Borg, S., & Liu, Y. D. (2013). Chinese college English teachers’ research engagement. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 270-299.

Cai, J.-G. (2012). The design and illustration of the EAP-oriented guidelines for EFL teaching at tertiary level. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 4, 1-41.

Cai, J. (2013). Framework concerning the introduction of English for academic purposes. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press.

Cargill, M., O’Connor, P., & Li, Y. (2012). Educating Chinese scientists to write for international journals: Addressing the divide between science and technology education and English language teaching. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 60-69.

Cheng, A. (2016). EAP at the tertiary level in China: Challenges and possibilities. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of english for academic purposes (pp. 97-108). New York and London: Routledge.

College English Curriculum Requirements (CECR). (2007) Beijing: FLTRP.

Douglass, J. A. (2012). China futurisms: Research universities as leader or followers? Social Research, 79(3), 639-668.

Gao, Y., & Bartlett, B. (2014). Opportunities and challenges for negotiating appropriate EAP in China. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), English for academic purposes (EAP) in Asia: Negotiating appropriate practices in a global context (pp. 13-32). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). English for academic purposes: 2011 and beyond. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2011), 2—4.

Hennebry, M., Lo, Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). Differing perspectives of non-native speaker students’ linguistic experiences on higher degree courses. Oxford Review of Education, 38(2), 209-230. Lee, I. (2014). Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language Teaching,

47(02), 250-261.

Li, Y. (2017). A phenomenological ethnographic study of college English teachers’ transition from teaching English for General Purposes to teaching English for academic purposes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Education University of Hong Kong.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Language planning in universities: Teaching, research and administration. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(3-4), 231-241.

Shanghai Education Bureau. (2013). A framework of reference for EFL teaching at tertiary level in Shanghai (trial implementation). Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Thompson, P., & Diani, G. (2015). Introduction. In P. Thompson, & G. Diani (Eds.), English for academic purposes: Approaches and implications (pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Wang, S. (2013). Persisting a scientific college English course reform. Foreign Language World, 6(2), 9-22.

Wang, S., & Yao, H. (2013). Some reflection on EAP reform. Foreign Language Teaching in China: Chinese-English edition, 5, 4-10.

You, C. J., & Dérnyei, Z. (2014). Language learning motivation in China: Results of a large-scale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 46, 495-519.

Zhong, W. (1998). Chinese scholars and the world community. In M. Agelasto & B. Adamson (Eds.), Higher education in post-Mao China (pp. 59-78). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Chapter 2 A) EAP and EAP Teachers gag 2.1 The Concept of EAP

Since its development as a variant of ESP, EAP has been influenced by the theories of general language teaching and literacy movements. However, its concepts and approaches can, at times, appear too diverse for learners and practitioners to identify. This literature review aims to extract shared features of popular EAP approaches to then locate them into the broader context of EAP development, language teaching and literacy history, and the changing history of the educational landscape. It will also critically thematise current EAP theories and aims, in order to examine the nature of EAP’s multiple literacies, which include academic literacy, disciplinary cultural literacy, critical literacy and digital literacy.

Theories in the field of EAP are sometimes confusing, not only because there are quarrels over defining EAP, battles between schools, mixed use of jargon, and debate over instructions, but also because a wide range of concepts have been associated with EAP. In addition to ELT theories, it has, since its creation, been influenced by diverse theories, including: “linguistics, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, communicative language teaching, writing across the curriculum, learning theories” (Benesch, 2008, p. 4), register analysis, genre analysis, systematic functional linguistics, writing in discipline (WID), American second-language composition, critical theory, and new literacies.

In terms of the problems encountered when defining EAP, this literature review claims that the EAP definition is undergoing a constant change in the content and scope. Even those exemplified here is not an exhaustive menu of the EAP theoretical development.

Part of the section is a revised version of the same author’s publication (Li & Wang, 2016). Li and Wang (2016) was originally published in World Journal of English Language, Vol 6, No 2, 2016. Its original title was English for Academic Purposes A New Perspective from Multiple Literacies, which can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v6n2p10. The journal holds the license of CC BY 4.0, and the author retains the copyright.

© The Author(s) 2020 7 Y. Li, Educational Change Amongst English Language College Teachers in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98 1- 15-3053-1_2

Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 34) define EAP as “any English teaching that relates to a study purpose”. Meanwhile, (Gillett 2004, p. 11) describes EAP as “the language and associated skills that students need to undertake study in higher education through the medium of English”. It has also been defined as having “the aim of assisting learners’ study or research in that language” (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001, p. 8). Considering all these definitions inadequate, Hyland (2006, p. 2) characterises EAP as a “specialised English language teaching grounded in the social, cognitive and linguistics demands of academic target situations, providing focused instruction informed by an understanding of texts and constraints of academic contexts”. However, this interpretation seems to fail to satisfy Gunning’s (2009, p. 16) scope, which argues “all tertiary English education should fall under the rubric of ESP/EAP”. Hadley (2015, p. 23) then has his own EAP definition and he describes it as “tertiary level English instructional training that enables learners to improve their language proficiency within higher educational institutions, irrespective of the country within which that instruction takes place”.

What being even more confusing is that some EAP concepts completely contradict others. For example, Benesch (2008, p. 60) signposts critical EAP as the protection of the “interests of greater equity and democratic participation (of students) in and out of educational institutions”. She also argues that without criticality the EAP teachers’ practice would be diminished: “EAP is at the point in history where it is ready to consider its ethics... Are they (EAP teachers) to be trainers, carrying out target aims uncritically, or educators... imaging students a more just world?” (Benesch, 2008, p. 130). However, this view is later challenged by Deane and O’Neil (2011, p. 32), who tease that, “WID, from this perspective (of critical EAP), be critiqued as being naive, or even as complicit in disciplinary power and dominance and in silencing alternative voices and ways of doing... but we argue that they may be misplaced”.

Arising from the sometimes-mixed use of jargon associated with EAP, is the term academic literacies. The terminologies “EAP” and “academic literacies” have been used interchangeably, but sometimes to refer to different concepts. Such mixed use might be because of the plethora of contributions from researchers with different backgrounds and standpoints, as evidenced in the following examples. McWilliams and Allan (2014) use the term “embedding academic literacies”, rather than EAP, to refer to approaches towards training students in academic English. Wingate and Tribble (2012) and Lillis and Scott (2007) separate EAP and academic literacies, using the former in reference to text and the latter when describing the practice of teaching or learning. Lea and Street (1998) consider academic a broader concept, claiming it brings together all other elements of academic English including EAP. Hyland (2006) opines that EAP is an overall concept, and that academic literacies form only one of the approaches of teaching EAP, encapsulating disciplinary socialisation and study skills (Hyland, 2006). But as an approach of teaching EAP defined by Hyland (2006) has come under attack not only for its impracticality (Lillis, 2006) but also for its focus on the critical pedagogical ideology (Deane & O’Neil, 2011), which arises from its critical pedagogy orientation. However, these critiques have forgotten the very nature of Lea and Street’s (1999, 2000) academic literacies, which refer to an inclusive system comprising more than merely the critical pedagogy approaches.

2.1 The Concept of EAP 9

EAP instruction also incurs fierce and divergent debates. Dudley-Evans and St John (1998) define EAP as essential to teach the four macro skills of speaking, listening, interacting, and literacy (namely reading and writing) and macro skills (e.g. being able to use discourse markers when writing). The macro and micro skills are named by them as EGAP (e.g. generic skills transferrable through disciplines) and ESAP (the teaching of language related to a specific disciplinary discourse) (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998). Lea and Street (1999, 2000) introduce the critical approach and disciplinary cultural socialisation of EAP, in addition to generic skills. Deane and O’Neill (2011), as proponents of WID, confirm that the language related to disciplines is an appropriate skill of academic writing, similar to the view of ESAP held by Dudley-Evans and St John (1998). However, Deane and O’Neill (2011) dispute the affordance of generic skills and even academic literacies. Bearing in mind the conflicts inherent in approaches to EAP instruction, Wingate (2015) suggests an integrated model of EAP, one that would absorb all the advantages derived from previous approaches. However, with the development of ICT, Wingate’s (2015) integrated model appears to neglect the affordances and new meanings created by new digital ICT, which Chun (2015) further argues should be included in EAP instruction.

2.2 Redefinition of EAP as Multiple Literacies

In the absence of efforts to reach a conclusion of EAP concepts and instructions, it can be difficult for learners and practitioners to decide upon what course of action to follow. Stern (1983, p. 76) states that, “Knowing the historical context is helpful to an understanding of language teaching theories”. This study thus aims to organise different schools in EAP in order to have some conclusion. It, therefore, extracts the common features of popular EAP approaches, before placing them into the broader contexts of EAP development, language teaching and the changing history of the educational landscape. The following four subsections are listed under the educational trends of traditionalism, progressivism, criticalism and digitalism, aiming to demonstrate the landscape of EAP as combining multiple literacies.

2.2.1 Under Traditionalism: Language as a System and EAP as Academic Literacy

From Ranciere’s perspective, modern education undergoes three theoretical stages: traditionalism, progressivism and criticalism (cited in Bingham & Biesta, 2010). Traditionalism views education as the dissemination of the necessary common sense and knowledge required for people to live in society. However, this knowledge is generally regarded as structural, authoritative and objective information delivered by knowledge authorities like professors to students, and the knowledge are not usually associated directly with or produced by students’ experiences (Bingham & Biesta, 2010). In such circumstances, from the early twentieth century onwards, a structuralism influences linguistics, and language has been believed to be a system of structures, firstly as stated by Saussure (Stern, 1983) and later as defined by Chomsky (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Both of the structural linguists believe that “language is a highly integrated system” (Langacker, 1972, p. 18) with mutually connected and supportive structural components (Stern, 1983). By the following structure, people could “combine phonemes to form words, words to form phrases, phrases to form sentences, and sentences to form spoken or written texts” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 5). From this perspective, learning a language is viewed as mastering autonomous and objective knowledge structure and codes containing prior meaning (Stern, 1983; Hyland, 2012).

Such school of thought produces a belief with considerable similarity between language use across disciplines in ESP (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987), and it also advocates English language skills as generic and transferable (Hyland, 2006) in EAP. For example, EAP instruction like register analysis involves teaching sentence grammar through subjects (Halliday, McIntosh, & Streven, 1964); another EAP instruction rhetoric analysis analyses how sentences are connected into paragraphs to provide meaning (Allen & Widdowson, 1974); similarly, EGAP emphasises the need to learn EGP before moving on to learn ESP (Dudley-Evan & St John, 1998).

Such language as system in its application of EAP has been accompanied by an increase in the number of non-traditional and international students studying at universities in the UK and the US (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001; Hyland, 2006). These students reportedly encounter difficulties in universities not only with academic English but also with the short of common knowledge of academics, which, however, is generally familiar to students educated in a traditional grammar school background. Thus, requiring an EAP programme that delivers a range of academic skills in addition to linguistic systems.

Therefore, in general, in the context of EAP, under the guise of traditionalism, students not only learn English as a code and set of systems, but also practise generic academic skills likely to be required in order to complete assignments and dissertations at university. This description reflects Henderson and Hirst’s (2007, p. 26) traditional and neutral definition of academic literacy: “Academic literacy is just a set of skills that students must master in order to perform successfully as ‘scholar’... its norms and conventions are considered unitary and monolithic”. So EAP can be seen as academic literacy.

2.2 Redefinition of EAP as Multiple Literacies 11

2.2.2 Under Progressivism: Language as Discourse and EAP as Disciplinary Cultural Literacy

The second wave of the education model was defined by Ranciere and is cited by Bingham and Biesta (2010, p. 110) as progressivism: “the progressive orientation shares the desire to create a common body of knowledge that will enable the communication of citizens in the public sphere”. It is an approach concerning the legitimatization of individuals as entry ticket holders to a knowledge body recognised by in the society. In Foucault’s (1980) word, knowledge is the product of power discourse, and those who own the language of a recognized discourse possess the power; while those who do not own the language are marginalised and, thus, disempowered. Language is thus regarded as a discourse,

In applied linguistics, a large body of evidence has identified components of textual difference between the genres in a number of different disciplines (Bracken & Oughton, 2006; Hyland, 2008, 2009). Different disciplines have also developed their own professional discourse, making it challenging for those working outside the discipline to understand (Hyland, 2006), in another word, disempowering those not using the language of a disciplinary discourse. Wingate (2015) indicates that the use of different English by members from different disciplines is designed for the purposes of intra-disciplinary communication.

As with EAP, in order to let the students possess the discursive power, genuine immersion and interaction with peers in the discipline is necessary (Wingate, 2015). In other words, it is necessary to become a participant member (Norton, 2003). Moreover, proficiency in disciplinary discourse not only concerns whether new members are clear about the English language’s use of expert members, but also involves insight of disciplinary epistemology, context and conventions and norms (Wingate, 2015).

In practice, Hyland (2006) encourages the attainment of discourse membership by learning about specificity in relation to the targeting of individual disciplines in EAP. A representative of this school of thought is disciplinary socialisation, which encourages students to adopt roles as novice members of the discourse community to be guided, modelled and educated by some senior members (Lea & Street, 2000; Hyland, 2006). In addition to disciplinary socialisation, researchers also recommend WID (e.g. Deane & O’Neil, 2011), genre analysis (e.g. Swale, 1990; Thompson & Diani, 2015), and ESAP (e.g. Dudley-Evan & St John, 1998) to study disciplinary discourse. However, Benesch (2008) has criticised such approaches for assuming an unequal academic hierarchy in a discipline, in which the mature members having absolute authority over the novice.

Many scholars also advocate methods requiring that disciplinary membership be attained via pedagogic discourse and participation in EAP instruction. For instance, many EAP scholars insist on the authenticity of their disciplinary discourse; some having begun to use authentic research articles to teach EAP in a number of different disciplines, while others suggesting that subject teachers should join forces with language teachers to deliver specificity to the EAP class (Dudley-Evans, 2001; Deane & O’ Neill, 2011; Wingate, 2015).

A disciplinary discourse group, from the perspective of Giroux and McLaren (1994), could be a subculture group. As the members of the discourse might share similar norms and forms of behaviour valued by the discourse (Hyland 2009, 2012). Moll and Arnot-Hopffer (2005, p. 33) stated, “Culture provided particular rules for behaviours”. Thus, members of the same culture are expected to share genre, register, and language, which is just like the purposes of academic socialisation mentioned above. Furthermore, Hyland (2012) added that the identity of a person is not something that proceeds from him/herself, but is instead formulated in confirmation by others, and whether a person is established as a member of a disciplinary discourse community depends on whether he/she is recognised by other members of that community.