GELT vs EAP
General English language teaching (GELT) is the context in which I have honed, and to a large extent am still honing, my teaching skills. Like English for Academic Purposes (EAP) contexts, GELT comes with its own unique set of challenges and rewards. In this post, I look at some of the differences between these two contexts through the prism of my experience. Therefore, the reader should be aware of the anecdotal nature of my commentary.
Alexander, Argent, and Spencer (2018, pp. 11-13) outline
differences along three categories, namely context, people, and teaching
and learning content. I will now briefly explore each of these and their
sub-categories.
Context
What drives the syllabus?
In GELT contexts, the syllabus is level driven. These
are typically labelled Beginner, Elementary, Pre-intermediate, etc. Some
schools and institutions might also refer to these levels as A1, A2, B1, etc
[based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)].
New students are given a placement test/s and then placed in one of these
levels. These placement tests might be ready-made
ones obtained online, or they might be created by the particular school or
institution. Whatever the case might be, it seems a placement test at one
school might assess a student at one level while a test at another institution
could have a different result. Over the years, I have encountered quite a
number of students who have said: “But at X school I was Intermediate,
why am I Elementary here?” Admittedly, there are various factors that
could account for such discrepancies, not least of all the length of time
between tests.
After a computer-based test, students are usually
‘interviewed’ at the particular centre to get a more comprehensive view of
their level. These ‘speaking tests’ are often done by the Director of Studies
(DoS) and/or experienced teachers. In my experience, there is little if any
standardisation and, as a result, the level of subjectivity might not be as
reduced as it could be. Once placed in a level, students might be monitored by
their teacher during the first few days to see if they might need to be moved –
either up or down.
The EAP syllabus is goal or needs driven. Students’
target situation is taken into consideration when creating schemes of work. In
other words, what students will be expected to do on their degree course, graduate
attributes, the particular university culture as well as the culture of the
country in which they will be studying, all contribute to what is taught on an
EAP course. In my experience thus far, the International English Testing
System (IELTS) proficiency test is typically used by UK universities to
place students on an EAP course. This usually means that lower-level students
are put on a course of longer duration, e.g., 15 weeks instead of ten.
Time available
Students might book anywhere from a two-week to a
six-month course or longer in GELT contexts. Time is flexible and students may
join a course at any time. They may also take a break during their course to go
on a trip somewhere. This is because many students combine travel and study,
with the former sometimes being more significant.
EAP pre-sessional programmes are finite and closed. What this means is
that students are not usually allowed to join mid-way through a course. This
also means that in most cases a particular EAP course is ‘probably a “one-off”
endeavour for a student’ (Alexander et al., 2018, p. 11). There is also usually
no opportunity for students to take a break during a course.
What is at stake for the student?
For the most part, students in a GELT context get a
certificate and a personal sense of achievement out of the experience. This
means that it is generally not a high stakes environment. It seems that in many
instances the social aspect of the course is what matters, perhaps to both
students and teachers. That in itself is not “wrong or right” but serves to
illustrate the relatively low-stakes, low-intensity environment usually found
in GELT.
EAP pre-sessional courses are high stakes. Students do these courses
in order to start their degree courses and to be competent members of the
discourse community they hope to join. They have a lot invested, including
time, money, and career prospects. For many, undergraduates in particular, the
educational culture of the target situation might be significantly different
from what they are familiar with. This might add an extra sense of urgency and
pressure.
People
Student motivation
In GELT, students might have various (broad)
motivations, which might include wanting to improve their English for
“study/work/travel/personal reasons/just to meet people from other cultures,
etc.” All of these different motivations are expected to be met through a
coursebook. Naturally, a resourceful and motivated teacher might try to find a
way to meet these different needs, but that is no easy task. That said,
students are also often quite laid-back in terms of expectations and having
their needs met. This might be because these needs are often quite broad.
As mentioned before, EAP pre-sessional courses are high stakes and
students have a lot riding on them. This means that intrinsic motivation is
usually also quite high. In my experience, students are prepared to work hard
as it is clear how the EAP course relates to their target situation. Even
English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) courses, which might not address
subject specificity, present ways of learning and teaching that students will
encounter on their degree programmes.
Teachers
Alexander et
al. (2018, p. 11) state that General English language teachers are
‘predominantly graduates in the humanities, e.g., English (usually literature),
or other European languages.’ This might be true even in the South African
context, which is what I am most familiar with. However, in my experience,
teachers might not have any degree. Being seen as a “native speaker” and having
done a TEFL course, online or face-to-face, might often be enough to secure a
position at a private language school in Cape Town.
EAP “Attracts a
significant number of graduates in evidence-based academic disciplines”
(Alexander et al., 2018, p. 11). Many if not most EAP tutors have postgraduate
degrees, or are working towards one. They also usually have qualifications
relevant to teaching in a higher education context. Teachers who are serious
about furthering their career in EAP might also strive to be awarded a
fellowship with the Higher Education Academy (HEA) or The
British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP).
There also seems to be a substantial number of so-called non-native English
speaker teachers in EAP. On my last pre-sessional, I worked with teachers from
China, Russia, Greece, and Libya – each with at least a PhD in the field of
education. Also particular to EAP tutors is the fact that they might have to collaborate
with subject lecturers to ensure the EAP course remains relevant to students’ academic
contexts.
Teacher-student roles
According to Alexander
et al. (2018), an inherent imbalance exists in GELT contexts. They claim that
teachers are viewed as language authorities whereas students are seen as
neophytes. I am not sure I agree with that completely. I think it very much
depends on individual teachers. Those, in particular, with a diploma-level
qualification, are often also reflective teachers who are always evaluating
their teaching beliefs and practices. For some time, one of the more ubiquitous
‘buzzwords’ has been learner/student-centred. However, using a buzzword
is not the same as living it. Therefore, I tend to agree for the most
part that there is a thread of teacher-student inequality sewn into the fabric
of most GELT contexts.
In EAP
contexts, students might have more subject-specific knowledge than tutors. This
allows for an environment of sharing knowledge and meaningful interaction.
‘Both students and teachers learn about the academic community,’ (Alexander et
al., 2018, p. 12). Tutors are the language experts, but may also be learning
about the typical genre or communications within a specific discourse community
as they teach on the course. They may also be learning subject-specific
language as well as about concepts within a particular discipline.
Teaching and learning content
Language content
As mentioned
earlier, the syllabus is usually a coursebook in GELT contexts. Depending on
the particular coursebook, units might be topic/theme-based, and usually
include reading and listening texts that are ‘systems carriers’, i.e., texts
used to introduce and highlight certain grammatical structures and/or
vocabulary. The idea seems to be to draw from the ‘totality of the English
language,’ (Alexander et al., 2018, p. 12). Teachers might supplement
coursebook materials, but still follow the theme or grammatical point/s. There
are numerous websites that offer ready-made lessons, and teachers might have
one or two that they visit regularly.
Alexander et
al. (2018) state that in EAP, academic discourse determines content, and
helping students to navigate their way in academic contexts, i.e., helping them
improve task performance, is at the heart of the syllabus. These various
academic communications determine the language structures to be focused on.
There is a clear end-goal in EAP, and content, tasks, and activities are
purposeful.
Language-skills balance
Overall, the
speaking and listening skills are given more prominence in GELT contexts, while
it is reading and writing in EAP (Alexander et al., 2018). Coursebooks used in
GELT might typically have two types of reading texts: those that introduce a
grammar point and/or vocabulary, and those that are designed to develop reading
skills. Typically, neither type of reading text is particularly long, and apart
from a few discussion questions based on the topic, students are not expected
to engage with it in a more meaningful way.
‘Reading into
writing’ is a feature of EAP contexts. A large part of the research that
students are expected to do will involve reading texts. The main purpose is to
build arguments in response to a writing assignment question. Students need to
become familiar with how knowledge is built and communicated, as well as what
arguments are made and discussed within their discourse community. This is to
ensure that they become competent members of their discourse community,
initially, and potentially expert members later on.
Materials
As I mentioned
above, reading texts in coursebooks are relatively short. This is generally
true of all tasks and texts (Alexander et al., 2018). Alexander et al. also
state that ‘Texts and tasks are often chosen for self-expression...Personal
response and creativity are valued’ (2018, p. 12). Perhaps it can be said that
communication for its own sake is often the main purpose of the GELT classroom.
In EAP, texts
and tasks mirror the academic study environment. Materials are long and packed
with information, and the purpose is for students to learn how to communicate
this information. What is prized in student writing is that it is clear (and as
far as possible unambiguous) and objective (Alexander et al., 2018).
Text choice
Alexander et al. (2018, p. 12)
write that GELT texts are topic driven and ‘often chosen from engaging, easily
accessible genres’. Also, as mentioned earlier, receptive texts are often
simply carriers of a discrete grammar point or item/s of functional language.
This “target language" is then practised and repeated. However, given the
limitations of classroom time and coursebook space, this practice and
repetition might quite possibly be insufficient.
EAP texts are
concept driven and selected ‘from academic genres, which explore ideas and the
relationships between them.’ Students are helped to analyse these genres, and
are made aware of rhetorical functions and how information is structured and
presented. They are also guided to notice ‘purpose, audience and organization,’
(Alexander et al., 2018, p. 12).
Text exploitation
In a recent
professional development session on “creativity and pacing” teachers were given
a number of ideas for tasks aimed at keeping students engaged. It was suggested
that we choose from these ideas to create a lesson based on a coursebook spread
where the main aim was to introduce the past perfect. This particular spread
had been chosen as it was deemed dry and uninspiring. Quite a few of these
suggested tasks came from Luke Meddings and Scott Thornbury’s Teaching
Unplugged, and there were some interesting ideas. However, it was a bit
tricky (at least for my partner and I) to connect these ideas to the theme of
the coursebook spread, which was (rather arbitrarily, it seemed) animals. Seeking
to find cohesion did not seem to matter, though. The idea, it seemed to me, was
to keep it fun and interesting for students. This, Alexander et al.
corroborate, is typical of GELT contexts: ‘Variety and pace of activities are
important in delivery, leading to a tendency to move quickly from text to text
to maintain interest,’ (2018, p. 13). Perhaps it is not so much moving from
text to text, but rather from task to task. It would often seem that the task
is the end-goal – or rather, the student engagement it might generate. The
thought process behind choosing these tasks might be How can I make it fun
for my students?
In contrast,
EAP ‘Texts require more time for full exploitation. Each text may have a range
of learning focuses,’ (Alexander et al., 2018, p. 13). Students might be tasked
with reading a particular text/s on a specific topic to prepare for a seminar.
Another task might require them to analyse the elemental genres within a text,
e.g., the Introduction or Discussion section. “Texts” might also
refer to lectures on the same topic or theme as that of the reading texts;
there is clear cohesion and purpose.
Developmental aims for students
In GELT, write
Alexander et al. (2018), the focus is on helping students make language
learning progress. Therefore, study skills such as how to record and revise new
vocabulary, how to improve pronunciation, and how to practise speaking outside
of classroom hours are emphasised. While some coursebooks might have tasks to
develop critical thinking and learner autonomy, with teacher education and
experience ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other, it is not clear to
what extent these tasks are practised and developed.
On the other
hand, the writers stress that in EAP the primary focus is on study skills that
enhance the graduate attributes expected of students on degree courses. These
attributes include ‘critical reflection...an awareness of how knowledge is
advanced...a spirit of enquiry...and autonomy,’ (Alexander et al., 2018, p.
15).
Conclusion
Despite these
differences, I believe that for most teachers in either of the two broad
contexts, there is a common principle that underscores their professional
practice. This is the aspiration to help facilitate their students’ progress as
best they can.
Comments
Post a Comment