English@ SpscificPwpaws, Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 17-25. 1986 0889406/86 $3.00 + .

oo
PergamonJounudsLtd. Printedin the USA. copyright 0 1986 The AmericanUniversity

English for Academic Purposes:

A Research Base?
Jo McDonough

Abstract-Courses in English for Academic Purposes, aimed at learners who

require English to study their own specialisms, have been successfully organized
for several years in many parts of the world. Such courses, however, are often
regarded as self-contained entities, and insufficient attention is paid either to
interrelations with other aspects of language teaching or to relevant sources of
research. The paper argues that more emphasis should be given to such research
sources and suggests areas for investigation. Comment is also made on the nature
of the relationship between teaching and research.

Introduction

Despite its title, this paper is not directly concerned with the design of pro-
grams in English for Academic Purposes as such. EAP programs represent, of
course, an increasingly familiar pedagogical construct and are to be found in
successful operation in many diverse parts of the world, at least if published
descriptions are anything to go by. They have stimulated investigation into
learners’ needs, the nature of academic discourse, team teaching, and the role of
the ESP teacher, to quote just four areas among many. In themselves, however,
these programs and their directly related research are self-contained products,
easily inserted into a ready-made slot in one of the neat classifications of ESP
available in the literature such as Report Writing, Study Skills and so on. Such
classifications are undeniably useful, providing as they do a convenient signpost-
ing, but they have also led to course planning where ~s~cient attention is paid
to the research sources from which pedagogical decisions-about materials,
methodology and so on- either are drawn or might profitably be so. These
sources are not only themselves broadening, but are becoming increasingly
available to language teaching as more and more teachers acquire further profes-
sional qualifications and higher degrees and as the number of ESP-related or
relatable publications continue to increase. They include ~lu~ating work in
such areas as the nature of comprehension of text (Sanford and Garrod,
1981; Blanton, 1984); possible definitions of what constitutes a “good language
learner” (Stern, 1983); the role and functioning of memory in language learning
(S. McDonough, 1981); and, from the perspective of language description,
models for the analysis of language as discourse (surveyed in Brown and Yule,
1983). These and many other areas, if well-selected and applied, are potentially
relevant across the whole language teaching spectrum including ESP.
The matter is not as straightforward as this, of course, and underlying the
issue of the application of research findings is the deeper and more general
question of the relationship between teaching and research-or perhaps, more
17
18 J. MCDONOUGH

accurately, between teachers and researchers. I shall return to this point

towards the end.

Problems in the Research Base

The focus of this paper, to which we shall now turn, is to suggest areas where
as yet little research help is to be gleaned, rather than to review what is currently
available: It is in this sense that the paper is ‘about’ EAP courses. Concern about
these areas derives directly from experience in organizing and teaching pro-
grams for intending postgraduates with a range of specialist disciplines and from
differing backgrounds, though with a majority from the Middle East, Japan, and
Latin America. It is necessary to be briefly anecdotal. One of the main responsi-
bilities of the EFL Unit at the University of Essex is to run an intensive year-long
course in English for Academic Purposes. Regular planning meetings with teach-
ing staff are held, usually twice a term, to evaluate ongoing activities and to set up
the next stage in the program. The components for the middle term, where
increasing attention is given to the use of language in academic contexts, typi-
cally include:
l Study Skills (~clu~ng a lecture given by ~~~du~ students on their own
subjects)
l Academic Writing
l Listening and Note-Taking
l Study Reading
l Interview Practice
as well as continuing work in more general language skills. The teachers’ meet-
ings at which such decisions are taken usually have a brisk and purposeful air. The
course director is able subsequently to set up working timetables, and (more
significantly for this paper) the agreed program allows students to be informed
and their queries met with apparent confidence. For instance, a student intend-
ing to read for a PhD in an Arts subject was advised to concentrate first on basic
language skills rather than attend a class on thesis-writing, on the argument that
his language level was as yet inadequate to cope with the demands of the latter
class.
However, this example at the same time illustrates a problem. The advice,
although sincerely given, was based on a bundle of unquestioned premises and
ass~ptions. It was not based on an ~derst~d~g of how a particular compe-
tence acquired in any one class might or might not transfer to another, nor on any
clear picture of either the multiplicity of different skills which go to make up a
general competence or of their rates of acquisition. It also ignored the possibility
that the student’s depth of knowledge in his own specialism, and his ability to
organize that knowledge, might feed positively into his language proficiency.
Moreover, it paid scant attention to the role of motivation in learning. In other
words, it was a piece of “framework” advice; in this sense it is comparable to the
planning meeting described above which was concerned with establishing a
program framework, an externalized document enshrinable on paper and on
noticeboards. Such a framework is, I would argue, necessary but not sufficient,
and I shall come back to the concept of “framework” syllabuses a little later.
 Engksh for Academic Purposes: A Research Base? 19

The Case for Research: Some Examples

There are, then, a number of as yet shadowy issues in learning and teaching
which seem to underpin courses in English for Academic Purposes. Many of the
issues are certainly generalizable beyond the boundaries of EAP. However, in
common with much ESP work, EAP courses demand pedagogic specificity, and
thus tend to set the issues in sharper focus (Widdowson, 1983). I shall restrict
myself here to citing four examples of areas where fruitful research might be
undertaken. The first three can be grouped together conceptually in the sense
that they range on a spectrum, from the outwardly observable at one end, to
speculation about the limits of language processing mechanisms at the other.
The first example concerns the role of an English language teaching operation
in an academic environment. One of its main functions, clearly, is to act as a
“service industry,” providing language support for students from all depart-
ments in the institution. As such, it is also frequently expected to deal with
enquiries from those departments relating to the language proficiency of non-na-
tive speakers, whether already on a course or intending to register there. The
most typical query directed to the language specialists hopes to elicit a comment
on the level and/or suitability of an individual’s English proficiency for studying
his own specialism. A simple answer is to provide a measure of a student’s
progress in English based on standard and reliable tests. This course of action,
however, is circular: One merely comments on performance on a language
course and a language test, and the predictive validity of such standard tests for
future academic performance is still a matter of debate. (See, for example, James,
1980.) It would, therefore, be preferable to measure actual achievement on the
language program, assuming that the latter had been designed according to some
notion of learners’ needs in relation to a specific target situation. This would then
obey the rule of three-way “congruence” (of language course to language test to
target) set out by Carroll (1980) in his proposals for communicative testing in
ESP, and the post-course reference point would mean that circularity could be
avoided. Unfortunately, case law proves that this is still a “framework” proce-
dure, and statements of level derived from such testing mechanisms often fail to
match language proficiency with a concept of linguistic adequacy for the study of
another discipline. What practitioners do not yet have, then, is a reliable appa-
ratus for mapping an individual’s competencies on to the language-related study
demands of other Departments. It might be that we need a more delicate concept
of “micro-skills” -the subcomponents of competence-which would have the
potential to describe and match both proficiency itself and the nature of the
demands made on that proficiency. Certainly the descriptive instruments we
have so far are relatively crude and open to misinterpretation.
The second example is closely related to the first, and introduces the parame-
ter of subject-knowledge. Many academic institutions, in the case of failure in
end-of-year examinations, have a committee structure to investigate the reasons
for failure. (In my own institution these are agreeably entitled “Progress Com-
mittees.“) Where non-native speakers are involved, the question is inevitably
asked as to whether any tests results in English language are available, and
failure is typically put down to a deficiency in language competence. It is not
unusual, however, on closer scrutiny of examination and other scripts, to find
20 J. MCDONOUGH

that the student has a reasonably comprehensible level of English albeit with
some lack of clarity of expression. It is very alit in such cases to decide
whether a language barrier is operating seriously enough to prevent the student
exhibiting his knowledge, or conversely, whether it is subject-knowledge itself
that is defective. No reliable tool yet exists for um-avelling this knot of language
and knowledge. The problem is compounded by variations in the perception of,
and attitudes to, language error: what is irritating to a language teacher may be
grave for a student’s depar~ental supervisor and altogether trivial for yet
another subject area.
Thirdly, there is a further interface with which practitioners are constantly
confronted, but are not yet able to delineate adequately. This concerns the ability
or otherwise of a student to grasp concepts. In the following situation, for
example, the problem can be diagnosed as a straigh~o~ard one of auditory
dis~rim~ation and lack of familiarity with certain items of language. A cassette
containing a news item on “postal ballots” for British Trade Union members in
Union elections was played to a class. A student heard, and noted, “plastic
bullets.” There are, however, at least two other possible causes for less trivial
instances of students’ misinterpretations of language. One is clearly lack of
knowledge of subject-matter, though this could be expected to manifest itself in
gaps in understanding (omission) rather than in errors of comprehension (com-
mission). One might enquire why an undergraduate student, taking notes in a
lecture on telecommunications, wrote “Fish and Chips” as part of his notes
rather than a blank or a question mark, to be followed up later with tutors or
peers. (Actual example.) It might be, then, that in some cases we are witnessing a
problem not primarily of language or subject-matter, but in grasping concepts
per se. (Here we are obviously on the edge of the delicate issue of language and
intelligence, and although there is some psychological research in this area
(Oiler, 1979), it does not yet help us to deal with pressing and concrete enquiries
and problems.) There is yet a further parameter to this issue, as any tutor who
has read work with the feeling that she “understands the words, but not the
meaning” will testify: It seems that some students are unable to deal with the
westernized concepts of academic investigation. In other words, students from a
dierent “concept world” may be under more pressure than is realized. (This is
most interestingly documented in Ballard, 1984.)
James (1984), in a fascinating language-based case study of a Brazilian student
writing a PhD, throws another kind of light on these issues in a discussion of
tutors’ mis~terpretations of students’ language. In his detailed breakdo~ of
error types, James proposes that problems in comprehension of this kind stem
from attempts by students to “transcribe” conceptual units directly into sen-
tences. He writes:

When the conceptual unitwasinternally complex and contained a large number of

co~tituent components, then transcription did not work. That is to say, it worked
only in the sense that the thought was transferred to the page, without conveying
its intended meaning to the reader. What seemed to be needed in such cases was an
attempt to ‘translate’ rather than transcribe: an attempt in other words to find the
correspondence between the syntax that characterises a piece of writing and the
syntax of the writing needed to convey it. (p. 101)
 English for Academic Purposes: A Research Base? 21

To date, then, with the currently available research basis, a language teacher
can only make a progression of adoptions when faced with “incorrect” lan-
guage, whether receptive or productive:

0?
(a) What are the components (b) How do they interact with (c) What is the nature of the
of language competence in subject-knowledge? interaction of both of these
an academic context? with concept-formation?

Swaleg (1985), commenting on one paper on EST included in his edited and
annotated collection, remarks that the writer seems to confuse “t~m~g itself,
and the organized expression of that thinking in English” (p. 36). We are not yet
able to isolate such specific problems.
A final illustration of a grey area in the theoretical underpinnings of EAP
courses can be stated briefly. It will be recollected that the first example con-
cerned the nature of queries received from subject departments and from the
whole institution. They demand, quite reasonably, to know whether a student’s
English isgoing to be adequate; in other words, they require a predictive instru-
ment which would measure the rate of progress to be expected from a particular
individual. Currently, however, we are only able to give post hoc information, by
specifying how that individual has already actually performed. At best we can
very appro~ately measure progress over a period of time by using the same or
a similar test. Thus, for instance, on the basis of the British Conncil’s ELTS test
there was no way of knowing at the outset that a student who scored only 1.5 (on
a scale from 0 to 9) would nevertheless make rapid progress, whereas another
student who initially scored a promising 4.5 would give little measurable evi-
dence of progress at the end of a six-month period.

Syllabus Implications
We can now go back to the dilemma in syllabus construction described at the
beginning of this paper, where it was argued that typically, syllabuses are frame-
works, external constructs which do not fully or even adequately reflect the
mechanisms of language learning. Bloor (1984) touches precisely on the prob-
lem:
More investigation is needed into the relationship between the informally acquired
language shills and the skills which are taught. If the former ‘feed’ the latter in any
respect . . . there are serious implications for the course designer who chooses
to ignore them. It is certain that these processes are very complex. . . . Such
issues need to be discussed in the light of pedagogic, optic and ~y~o~~stic
understaudmg. The matter is one of some urgency since practice is overtaking us.
@. 23)

In the context of general syllabus design, there have been in recent years a
number of insights which have potential signiticance for EAP situations. A partic-
22 J. MCDONOUGH

ularly useful paper (Breen, 1984) puts forward the notion of “Process Sylla-
buses.” He makes a distinction between “content” syllabuses, in other words
those which are “oriented towards repertoires of the target language” (p. 51)
and “process” syllabuses, the latter being oriented towards means rather than
ends, and taking as their basis the in~~du~s learning processes (what has been
called elsewhere (Cam-km, 1984) the learner’s “inner route map”). The distinc-
tion, then, is as follows:
Syllabuses
y \
outer/external inner
(or framework) based on processes
based on product (i.e., Mets-oriented)
deceptions
(i.e., ends-oriented)

The actual implementation of a program which binds these two is obviously a

very complex matter which will require considerably more research and experi-
mentation. However useful the “good language learner” research for the
“inner” syllabus, it has less to say about its interface with teaching and the need
to construct external syllabuses.
Even within the concept of the “outer” syllabus, a further distinction could be
made between process and product, between “enabling” goals and ‘target’ goals:
outer syllabuses
/ \
process (enabling) product (target)
goals goals
e.g. focus on the e.g. correctness of target
nature of situation discourse
comprehension

ESP has tended to stress the importance of the latter by concentrating on the
primacy of needs analysis in program construction. What practitioners in fact
require is a three-way match, between framework syllabuses based on targets
and those based on learning stages, and between both of these and learners’ own
“route maps.” It is to these last that this paper has principally addressed itself, or,
more precisely, to the gaps in our ~derst~~g of them. The points put forward
are based on a view of learning as akin to a tidal stream, which is not regular, but
runs at different speeds, has differing depths, and even has eddies which move in
the opposite direction to the main stream.

Conclusion: The Research Base

The kinds of issues I have raised suggest that ESP is not best viewed as a
separate or distinct activity within ESL. In particular, it shares a number of
research questions with general language learning and teaching; these questions
 English for Academic Purposes: A Research Base? 23

may be stimulated by EAP practice, and indeed may be most easily studied in a
~onstra~ed ESP context, but are not exclusive to it. In this sense they impinge
on issues of more general principle concerning the relationship, not only between
EAP and research, but indeed between language teaching and “applied linguis-
tics” altogether.
Much applied linguistic research relating to language teaching is theoretical: It
talks about classroom-based issues without any direct involvement in
classrooms. Much of what goes on in classrooms is effective but ~systematic: It
is simply good practice. The result has been an unfortunate polarization, where
academics and researchers pay insufficient attention to the “bridge-building”
(Corder, 1973) function of their discipline, and teachers likewise pay insufficient
attention to research insights. If research is taken into consideration, it is often
assumed that the teacher is at the end of a one-way process, a passive recipient of
academic work. This is just as nnproductive as the traditional view of reading and
listening as “passive” skills.
In conclusion, then, I wish to make a plea for language teaching research to be
seen as a two-way process. Researchers and applied linguists need to be more
sensitive to the hunches and hypotheses of classroom practitioners, in order to
broaden the basis of cla~r~rn-~~~~~~~~ research. (This is to be ~st~~sh~
from classroom-based research, which usually originated with outside re-
searchers rather than teachers.) Mitchell (1985) has referred to this as “craft
knowledge.” She quotes a case “where teachers’ accumulated ‘craft knowledge’
is in apparent contradiction with current L2 acquisition theory” and goes on to
say: “Such ‘craft knowledge’ may itself be a source of useful hypotheses for
empirical research ~vesti~tion. . . . In any case, advocates of ~ovation need
to take it into account when proposing changes in classroom practice, however
well-founded in psycholinguistic theory these may be” (1985, p. 61). In a paper
given at the same conference, Meara writes in the same vein:

. . * most of the research we do tends to be rather theoretical in nature, and

rather unresponsive to demands made by consnmers in as much as they are
articulated. . . . Certainly, the dominant model of research in the UKis a hierar-
chical one, where expert researchers produce ideas and pass them on to language
teachers whose job is to implement them as they see fit. There is, however, very
little trafiic in the other direction. (Meara, 1985, p. 15)

This is a perspective which emerges in dBerent ways from all the conference
papers, given by both teachers and academic applied linguists.
The “fault,” if fault there is, is not only on one side, of conrse, since there are
relatively few trained and experienced teachers who also have adequate training
in research techniques. After all, if our car develops a defect, most of us take it to
a garage rather than try to fix it ourselves. What teachers for their part can do is
to learn to synthesize more effectively the outcome of relevant research for the
solution of empirical classroom-related issues. It is only with an integrated view
of research that the kinds of pedagogical considerations outlined in this paper can
fruitfully be addressed.
(Receiued March 1986)
24 J. MCDONOUGH

REFERENCES

Ballard, B. (1984). Improving student writing: An integrated approach to cul-

tural adjustment. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), Commonground: Shared interests in
ESP and communication studies (pp. 43 - 53). ELT Documents 117. Ox-
ford: Pergamon Press in association with the British Council.
Blanton, L. L. (1984). Using a hierarchical model to teach academic reading to
advanced level ESL students: How to make a long story short. The ESP
Journal, 3,37 - 46.
Bloor, M. (1984). Identifying the components of a language syllabus: A problem
for designers of courses in ESP or communication studies. In C. J. Brumfit
(Ed.), Commonground: Shared interests in ESF and communication stud-
ies(pp. 14 - 25). ELT Documents 117. Oxford: Pergamon Press in association
with the British Council.
Breen, M. P. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. J.
Brumfit (Ed.), General English @abus design (47 - 60). ELT Documents
118. Oxford: Pergamon Press in association with the British Council.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.),
General English syllabus design. ELT Documents 118. Oxford: Pergamon
Press in association with the British Council.
Carroll, B. J. (1980). Testing communicative performance. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Corder, S. P. (1973). ~ntyoduciug appiied linguistics Ha~ondswor~ Pen-
guin
James, K. (1980). Survey of University of Manchester overseas postgraduate
students’ initial level of competence in English and their subsequent academic
performance. In Study modes and academic development of overseas stu-
dents (126- 133). ELT Documents 109. London: The British Council.
James, K. (1984). The writing of theses by speakers of English as a foreign
language: The results of a case study. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), Commonground:
Shared interests in ESP and communication studies (pp. 99 - 113). ELT
Documents 117. Oxford: Pergamon Press in association with the British
council.
McDonough, S. (1981). Pqchologv in foreign language teaching. London:
George Allen and Unwin.
Meara, P. (1985). Some priorities for research in second language learning. In
C. J, Brumfit, H. Lunt, &J. Trim (Eds.), Second language learning: Research
problems and perspectives. (12 - 19). Reports and papers No. 23. London:
Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Mitchell, R. (1985). Language learning in education: What research should be
done to help improve learning? In C. J. Brumfit, H. Lunt, & J. Trim (Eds.),
Second language learning: Research probEems and perspectives (58 - 68).
Reports and papers No. 23. London: Centre for Information on Language
Teaching and Research.
Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.
 English for AcademicPurposes: A Research Base? 25

Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. New

York: John Wiley.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. (1985). Episodes in ESP. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learningpurpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Jo McDonough is a lecturer in the Department of Language and Linguistics

at the University of Essex. There she has been concerned with both EAP
programs and ESP teacher education. She has written several articles on ESP,
teacher-training and Applied Linguistics topics. Her ESP in Perspectiue-A
Practical Guide was published by Collins London in 1984.
Jo MCDONOUGH
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park, Colchester
Essex CO4 3SQ
England