Chapter 6 Empirical Experiences of academic literacy
6.4 Discourse that reduces academic literacies to English language proficiency
Overall, the data presented in this chapter so far highlights the dominance of the English language proficiency discourse in the teaching and learning of technical communication. This discourse is manifested in a number of events. One such event is related to the initial academic literacy course which was called English for Engineers. Although the English for Engineers course was not the focus of this study per se, its inclusion is important as it provides the context in which the Technical Communication course was introduced. Fairclough (1995 p. 11) advises that in studying discourses should focus on the ―historicity of discursive events by showing both their continuity with the past and involvement in making history‖. In other words, for Fairclough, historical background is important to understand the inner workings of current discourses. As the introductory academic literacy module in the School of
Engineering at UKZN, the English for Engineers course provides the basis for understanding the perceptions of academic literacy within the school.
The focus on English was not coincidental. Rather, it mirrored the widely held belief in academia that equates academic literacy with English language proficiency (see Boughey, 2000). This is also a common feature of the English for Specific Purposes perspective which is concerned with the teaching of the English language for whatever purposes maybe defined. In this approach, the teacher explicitly presents the discourse structure and linguistic forms needed for students to achieve the communicative purpose of the task (Hyland, 2003). While the key word for such an approach would be the notion of appropriacy (see Ivanic, 2004), the English for Engineering course failed to address this. As the data in section 6.2.1indicated, the focus of this course was general science. Grasso, Callahan and Doucett (2004 p.
412) argue that engineering is often classified together with science, mathematics and technology because it is believed that ―the pedagogy beneficial to these groups (Science, Maths and Technology) is beneficial to all‖.
While it is true that knowledge of science is essential in the engineering curricula, there is a crucial distinction between engineering and science. Perelman (1999) suggests that engineers do not produce abstract knowledge; rather they produce artefacts that are meant for consumption. He further states that it is this concern with production and consumption (i.e., the design process) that differentiates engineering from science. By logical extension, the rhetoric of engineering is more extended and needs to incorporate engineering design. This suggests that design process writing in the form of a technical report would have been the purpose which the course should have satisfied. Instead, the focus was on essay writing, feasibility reporting and poster design. The topics for these texts were, as already noted, general science topics (see section 6.1.1,on page 124). Thus, an assignment on general chemistry in the English for Engineers course was ‗inappropriate‘ for an engineering student. More problematically, the course professed to be operating within a
―literacies approach rather than a skill based or ESL approach‖ (Guide for teachers of Technical Communication, 2008 p.1), yet the skills dimension still seemed to be prioritised where one would expect the discourse to focus on socially embedded literacy practices (Street, 2005; Gee, 1996). From a realist point of view, this
demonstrates the disjuncture that can exist between espoused beliefs and enacted beliefs, thereby providing justification for a study that analyses both as levels of reality.
Another signifier of the discourse that conflates technical communication with the English language is found in the aims of the new course, Technical Communication for Engineers. The course outline explicitly notes that “a significant proportion of the students will not be EFL (English First Language) speakers” (Course outline, 2009- 2012). This suggests that students have already been administratively categorised as social subjects before they have even started learning. Inherent in this understanding is the acceptance of language proficiency as the major factor militating against academic literacy development. The stated aims of the Technical Communication course use similar phrasing: ―…while others despite having EFL may not have well developed critical and analytical skill”9 (2009-2012) Course outlines, making it clear that language is considered a major differentiating factor in learning. While it is true that discourses that distinguish students according to linguistic and or cultural backgrounds mirror the discourse related to identity categories applied to students in Historically White Universities (HWUs), (Moore et al., 1998), such labelling is not without its own problems. McKenna (2004a) suggests that such naming practices are used to depoliticise the issue of epistemological access by removing the apartheid mentality which attributes educational challenges to differences in cognition between black and white students. By doing so, true interests and injustices are concealed (Mckenna, 2010 p. 11) while the discourse lends itself to a narrow and racialised view that academic literacy is only a problem for the Africans (Thesen and van Pletzen, 2006). Such a view of students and of academic literacy is simplistic and, as the discussion in section 6.6 will reveal, has unfortunately helped to perpetuate the notion that solving surface language problems such as syntax will lead to improved academic performance in students (Jacobs, 2010a).
Having discussed the findings emerging from the analysis of documents, the next subsection focuses on another set of data located at the level of empirical reality, the interviews.
9Repeated in all course outlines from 2009 to 2012.