SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Literacy Trek / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 1

Multimodality in EAP Objectives and Practice

Hatice Sezgin(Selçuk Üniversitesi)0000-0001-5438-495X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2023-06-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings are in agreement with the assumption that multimodality is considered a necessity for academic contexts and, therefore, EAP.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Academic discourse is complex and dense regarding the information it conveys by nature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For that purpose, target skills defined for academic English by the Global Scale of English (GSE) (Pearson, 2019) are analyzed to study the multimodal aspect of objectives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings are in agreement with the assumption that multimodality is considered a necessity for academic contexts and, therefore, EAP.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Academic literacy · EAP · GSE

Abstract

Academic discourse is complex and dense regarding the information it conveys by nature. This complexity requires more effective ways of communication, which is possible by utilizing different modes of meaning–in other words, multimodality. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) aims to prepare learners for the academic discourse that they will be exposed to during their studies. Accordingly, multimodality has become one of the skills learners require to develop during their EAP experiences. This study attempts to reveal how much multimodality is included in EAP objectives and practices. For that purpose, target skills defined for academic English by the Global Scale of English (GSE) (Pearson, 2019) are analyzed to study the multimodal aspect of objectives. For the practice aspect, the tasks in two EAP course books are analyzed using a qualitative approach. The results of the analyses revealed that the use of multiple modes is set as an objective skill for EAP learners within the descriptors of GSE, especially for academic speaking, and this expectation is reflected within the tasks designed in EAP coursebooks. These findings are in agreement with the assumption that multimodality is considered a necessity for academic contexts and, therefore, EAP.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sezgin, H. (2023). Multimodality in EAP Objectives and Practice. The Literacy Trek, Volume: 9 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.1279935

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Archer, A. (2022). A multimodal approach to English for academic purposes in contexts of diversity. World Englishes, 41, 545– 553. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12600
  2. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: an introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press.
  3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  4. Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., Luke, A., Luke, C., Michaels, S. & Nakata, M. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
  5. Cambridge University Press & Assessment (n.d.). Prism. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/english-academic-purposes/prism
  6. Chandler, D. (2022). Semiotics: The basics (4th ed.). Routledge.
  7. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction-a growing global phenomenon. British Council. Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.es/sites/default/files/british_council_english_as_a_medium_of_ instruction.pdf
  8. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2021). Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.02.003
  9. Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000048
  10. Duzan, C. & Yalcin, E. (2019). The Compass: Route to academic success. Nuans Publishing.
  11. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge University Press.
  12. Fontenelle, R. (2013). Engineering English: A multimodal case study of one Engineering and two EAP textbooks [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Carleton University.
  13. Gotti, M., Berkenkotter, C., & Bhatia, V. K. (2012). Introduction. In C. Berkenkotter, V. K. Bhatia & M. Gotti (Eds.) Insights into Academic Genres (pp. 9-28). Peter Lang.
  14. Hyland, K. (2006a). English for Academic Purposes: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
  15. Hyland, K. (2006b). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.) Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-45). Peter Lang.
  16. Hyland, K. (2016). General and specific EAP. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of EAP (pp. 17-29). Routledge.
  17. Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00002-4
  18. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O'Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge.
  19. Kashiha, H., & Heng, C. S. (2014). Discourse functions of formulaic sequences in academic speech across two disciplines. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-02 Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies everyday practices and social learning. Open University Press.
  20. Lea, M. R. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 739-756. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000287230
  21. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364
  22. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
  23. Marius, R. (1990). On academic discourse. Profession, 28-31. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25595450
  24. Parodi, G. (2015). Variation across university genres in seven disciplines: A corpus-based study on academic written Spanish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(4), 469-499. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.4.03par
  25. McWilliams, R., & Allan, Q. (2014). Embedding academic literacy skills: Towards a best practice model. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.53761/1.11.3.8
  26. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
  27. O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & Smith, B. A. (2016). Multimodal approaches to English for academic purposes. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of EAP (pp. 256-269). Routledge.
  28. Pearson. (2019). The Global Scale of English Learning Objectives for Academic English. Available at: https://www.pearson.com/english/about/gse/learning-objectives.html
  29. Pecorari, D., & Malmström, H. (2018). At the crossroads of TESOL and English medium instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 497-515. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587913
  30. Perry, K. H. (2012). What Is Literacy?- A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71.
  31. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Longman (Pearson Education).
  32. Rose, H., Curle, S., Aizawa, I., & Thompson, G. (2019). What drives success in English medium taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic skills, and motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2149-2161. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1590690
  33. Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 7(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005
  34. Simpson-Vlach, R. (2006). Academic speech across disciplines: lexical and phraseological distinctions. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.) Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 295-316). Peter Lang.
  35. Terraschke, A., & Wahid, R. (2011). The impact of EAP study on the academic experiences of international postgraduate students in Australia. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.003
  36. Turner, J. (2012). Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio-political dynamics of EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 17–-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.007
  37. UNESCO. (1979). Records of the General Conference Twentieth Session: Resolutions. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114032
  38. Williams, J. (2017). Prism Listening and Speaking 4. Cambridge University Press.
  39. Yang, W. (2014). Stance and engagement: A corpus-based analysis of academic spoken discourse across science domains. LSP Journal-Language for special purposes, professional communication, knowledge management and cognition, 5(1), 62-78. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230388614.pdf