towards a model for lecturing in a second language

Towards a model for lecturing in asecond language

Lindsay Miller

Department of English and Communication, City University of Hong Kong,

Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract

This paper presents a new model to account for lecturing in a second language. The lec-turing in a second language (LSL) model is based on extensive ethnographic research con-ducted by myself and with colleagues over the past 10 years at a university in Hong Kong, and

in particular of an ethnographic case study of engineering students [Miller, L. (2002). Aca-demic lecturing and listening in a second language: an ethnographic case study. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong]. There are four mainthemes to the model: the multi-dimensional context of lecturers in a second language; lecturer

intention and student interpretation; the negative cycle of expectation; and the establishmentof communities of learners and practice. The paper ends with some implications generatedfrom the LSL model for students, their lecturers and English for Academic Purposes (EAP)

teachers.# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research into second language (L2) listening comprehension has had a slow start.It was not until the early 1970s that research into this area obtained its own agenda.Prior to this time, much effort had been expended on researching listening in the firstlanguage (L1) and reading in the L2, but not on listening in the L2. There was anassumption that listening in the L2 was the same as in the learner’s native language,and that reading and listening were so similar, both being receptive skills, that whatwas true for reading must also be true for listening. The research into L1 listeningand L2 reading has been helpful in understanding some of the issues important to

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

1 (2002) 145–162

www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

S1475-1585/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S1475-1585(02 )00017 -6

E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Miller).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

L2 listening, but it has also highlighted the need for a research agenda that is specificto L2 listening (Faerch & Kasper, 1986).Although the amount of research into general L2 listening is increasing, we cannot

rely on this research for all our insights into academic listening. Lecturing is a well-established practice in the academic context and as it is something which occurs on adaily basis, it deserves its own research agenda. Academic discourse is different fromother more general listening events. It differs in that there is a special disciplinaryorientation, that it is delivered to an audience in particular ways, and that theunderlying rhetorical structures are different from English used in a more familiarconversational context (MacDonald, Badger, & White, 2000).In spite of its slow start to research into L2 academic listening, a research agenda

has developed over time. This research can be divided according to the researchorientation, namely (1) measurement, that is, psychometric studies measuring aspectsof speech or listening (cf. Derwing, 1990; Jackson & Bilton, 1994); (2) analysis, dis-course analyses of speech (cf. Flowerdew & Tauroza, 1995; Rost, 1994); (3) identifi-cation, the identification of strategies conducive to success in listening (cf.Vandergrift, 1997a, 1997b); and (4) perceptions, ethnographic investigationsdescribing and analyzing perceptions of academic speech (cf. Benson, 1989). It is thefourth of these research orientations that is referred to in this paper as the basis forsuggesting a model of academic listening.Over the past 10 years a series of ethnographic studies has been conducted at a

university in Hong Kong. These studies focus on how Chinese students cope withtheir lectures in English. The studies have three foci: students’ and lecturers’ per-ceptions, problems and strategies in second language lectures (Flowerdew & Miller,1992, 1996a; Flowerdew, Miller, & Li 2000), special issues of the lecture event(Flowerdew & Miller, 1995, 1996b), and an ethnographic case study of one group oflow-language proficiency students (Miller, 2002).

1.1. Perceptions, problems and strategies

In the first of a series of articles, Flowerdew and Miller (1992) report the results ofthe perceptions, problems and strategies of non-native students receiving lectures inEnglish. In a second article, Flowerdew and Miller (1996a) focus on how nativeEnglish-speaking lecturers deliver lectures in English to Cantonese-speaking stu-dents, and in a third article Flowerdew et al. (2000) look at the issue from the pointof view of Chinese lecturers lecturing in English to Chinese students.The main findings of the earlier studies are that students and lecturers do share

some similar perceptions about lectures in a second language. For instance, lecturesare considered important events in university education, and there are differentpurposes of lectures—sometimes to give facts, other times to offer opinions. Thestudents and lecturers agreed that the main problem in students successfully under-standing their lectures was their language proficiency. The main strategies studentsused to overcome their linguistic difficulties were reading outside of the lecture andpeer help. Their lecturers’ main strategies to help students comprehend the lectureswere to modify their language and use plenty of examples.

146 L. Miller / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1 (2002) 145–162

1.2. Special issues in lectures in a second language

The second group of articles by Flowerdew and Miller (1995, 1996b) deals withspecial issues which emerged from the grounded data of their ethnographic studies.For the success of second language lectures, lecturers need to be aware of culturalelements that may affect the students’ ability to understand the spoken text. Flow-erdew and Miller (1995) identify four cultural dimensions:

� Ethnic culture refers to the social-psychological features which may come intoeffect when a lecture from one cultural background is presented to studentsfrom a different cultural background.

� Local culture refers to aspects of the local setting with which the members ofa particular society are familiar. The way in which local culture often man-ifests itself in lectures is by the use of examples.

� Academic culture refers to cultural practices peculiar to educational institu-tions and can be identified at a number of levels, namely within a group ofcountries (e.g. Western countries), within an individual country, within agroup of institutions in a given country, and at the level of an individualinstitution.

� Disciplinary culture is realised by each discipline having a specialized voca-bulary and specific ways of presenting information, something students needto be made aware of.

In addition to the cultural dimensions to lectures, lecturers and students need tobe aware of the socio-cultural features of lectures. Flowerdew and Miller (1996b)identify six, namely (1) purpose of lectures, (2) roles of lectures, (3) styles of lectur-ing, (4) simplification, (5) listener behaviour, and (6) humour. They propose thatthese features be investigated further to see how much they affect lectures in a sec-ond language.

1.3. An ethnographic case study

In the ethnographic research cited earlier, the focus was on either English-lan-guage major students—a group which might be considered less representative of thegeneral abilities of second language users attending lectures in English—or the gen-eral student population. While such studies generate base-line data, Miller (2002)tested the findings with a group of engineering students, a specific group of studentswho might conceivably have problems in comprehending lectures in a second lan-guage (Vinke & Jochems, 1993).In Miller’s (2002) study an opportunistic group (Miles & Huberman, 1994) of

seventeen engineering students took part in a 3-year ethnographic case study. Thesestudents had low or very-low English language proficiency, as indicated by their HongKong public examination scores, yet had to attend up to 10 h of engineering lecturesdelivered in English per week in their first year of study. The following researchinstruments were used to collect the data from the students and their lecturers:

L. Miller / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1 (2002) 145–162 147

� focus groups;� student and lecturer journals;� questionnaires;� life histories;� participant observations;� participants’ verifications; and� in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

The main findings from Miller’s (2002) study support many of the features iden-tified by the previous ethnographic research. In addition to this, Miller also found anumber of other issues which were of concern to L2 engineering students in hisstudy:

1. Comprehension was effected when lecturers did not use standard local accentand pronunciation.

2. There was comprehension failure when scientific written text was delivered asspoken text.

3. Students requested detailed handouts and that the lecturer follow the hand-out in the lecture.

4. Any deviation from the lecture handout, for example, an aside, caused com-prehension failure.

5. Students’ appreciated the use of technology in lectures, for example, compu-ter simulations, but found it difficult to follow the spoken text at the sametime as attending to the visual artefact.

6. The lecture theatre environment was very important in helping studentsmaintain their concentration in the lecture, for instance, if the lights weredimmed concentration levels fell.

In addition to these points, Miller (2002) found that the students formed a veryclose community of learners (Rogoff, Matsusov, & White, 1996) in order to copewith their lectures, but did not see themselves as part of a community of engineeringpractice (Lave, 1993). Furthermore, it seems that both the engineering students andtheir lecturers had difficulty in identifying or constructing a specific engineering lec-ture genre in the students’ first year of study.Based on the etic perspective from previous studies (i.e. the universal categories

already uncovered) and the emic perspective from Miller’s ethnographic case study(i.e. the culturally specific categories of the particular group under investigation)(Pike, 1967), it is possible to develop a model to account for listening to lectures in asecond language.

2. The LSL model

The lectures in a second language (LSL) model can be seen in Fig. 1. The LSLmodel is based around the concept of a crystallized prism. There are three dimen-


sions at the base of the prism: the concept that lectures have a specific genre(s), thatstudents belong to a community of learners, and that lecturers are attempting toinitiate students into a community of practice in their lectures. Then, each point ofthe prism can be seen as a distinct feature of a lecture. For lectures in a second lan-guage to be comprehensible the type of language used must be accessible to the lis-teners, the pedagogy used by the lecturer needs to be clear, lecture artefacts, such ashandouts, have to be incorporated into the lecture in a systematic way, and thebehaviour of the lecturer needs to be interpreted and understood by the students, forexample, lecture’s use of gestures.In the LSL prism model, students and lecturers enter the lecture with certain

shared previous learning and teaching experiences, and with certain expectations ofwhat will occur in the lecture. Then, as a result of the interaction of features anddimensions present in the model, the students exit the lecture with certain different

levels of comprehension about the lecture. The prism needs to be seen in a crystallizedform as the features and dimensions are dynamic and can change from course tocourse, subject to subject, or even within the same lecture. This all depends on howskilfully the lecturer handles the presentation of the content taking account of thedimensions, and features, and the ways in which students react to the lecture.In order to explain the LSL model we need to consider the general themes which

arise from the literature into academic listening and, more recently, from Miller’s(2002) ethnographic case study. Four main themes are integrated into the LSLmodel, these themes relate to different aspects of the model:

Theme 1. The multi-dimensional context of lecturers in a second language. Thisdeals with language, pedagogy, lecture artefact and lecturer and student beha-viour.

Fig. 1. The LSL prism model.


Theme 2. Lecturer intention and student interpretation. Based on an under-standing on how the features in Theme 1 are interpreted, lecturers and studentsare able to conceptualize the lecture event as having specific generic orientations.Theme 3. The negative cycle of expectation. Lecturers need to understand theirstudents’ previous experiences and tailor their teaching to suit each group oflearners.Theme 4. The establishment of communities of learners and practice. Lecturersand their students have positions in two distinct communities in lectures, that of acommunity of learners, and of a community of professional practice.

2.1. Theme 1: the multi-dimensional context of lecturers in a second language

Any model of listening in a second language needs to have a multi-dimensionalcontext to it. That is, we need to view the listening process from a number of anglesand from different perspectives: of the students, lecturers, and researchers. Thismulti-dimensional perspective needs to take into account the previous work doneinto measurement, analysis, interpretation and perceptions.It is no longer appropriate to state that all problems in L2 lectures can be attrib-

uted to the weak language skills of the students, and that the only answer to theproblem is to help students improve their second language listening comprehension,a position that underpinned some of the earlier research into listening. In order todevelop the LSL model for academic listening we need to examine language fea-tures, language and pedagogical interaction, and pedagogical features themselves.When all the previous investigations into academic listening is taken into con-sideration it is clear that language, pedagogy, lecture artefacts and participants’behaviour in a lecture have a profound effect on the students’ ability to follow alecture in English. Each of these dimensions can be studied on its own, but they allinteract in the lecture event to make it a complex environment for second-languageusers to negotiate. Our better understanding of what the features of lectures are willhelp to advise students, lecturers, and English language tutors in meeting the chal-lenges of lectures in a second language.

2.2. Theme 2: lecturer intention and student interpretation

If we are to improve the quality of listening comprehension in second languagelectures we need to not only examine the features of lectures, as suggested in Theme1, but also examine these features within the specific genres that constitute lectures.Genre is one of the base lines of the LSL model in Fig. 1. All lectures may be definedas having a specific spoken textual genre, the characteristics of which allow them tobe identified as ‘academic lectures’. Specific genres can be seen as being realizedthrough registers, and these registers are, in turn, realized through language (Martin,1985). Previously, Levinson (1979, p. 368) identified lectures as a genre in which theactivities are ‘‘constituted entirely by talk’’. However, genres are often con-textualized in settings where more than just language is present (Gee, 1990). As Gee,Michaels, and O’Conner (1992, p. 233) state, ‘‘While linguists are primarily interested


in language, they cannot safely ignore the rest of what is going on around language,and this other stuff—actions, objects in the environment, gestures, glances, attitudes,thoughts, values—can determine what a text means.’’ Therefore, the idea that alecture can be identified within the specific genre simply by its linguistic features, isopen to challenge.As a way of investigating how effective lectures are in the L2 context, we need to

look not only at linguistic features but also at the perceptions teachers and studentshave of their teaching/learning context (Prosser & Trigwell, 1997), as it is these per-ceptions which help the stakeholders identify and construct the genre of lectures.Research into language teaching has shown that there are considerable discrepanciesof opinion between what teachers think students want, and what the students’actually want to do in the classroom (Brindley, 1984; Nunan, 1988; Peacock, 1998).In addition to this research, there is a growing area of investigation into the per-ceptions lecturers have of their teaching, and their behaviour and strategies in theclassroom (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996). By combining the ideas behind these areas ofresearch the second theme of the LSL model emerges.Very little research has been conducted into the effects of lecturer intention and

behaviour (but see, Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994) or into lecturer behaviour andstudents’ perceptions of that behaviour (see, Willcoxson, 1998), and, as far as I amaware, there has been no research into the mismatches of lecturer’s intentions,behaviours, and students’ interpretations of their lecturer’s behaviour in lecturesgiven in a second language contexts.The following are three examples from Miller (2002) which illustrate the type of

mismatches that can occur between lecturers and students in a lecture:

Linguistic: Limited syntactic, semantic and pragmatic knowledge of English causeproblems for L2 language users in academic lectures, and these linguistic elementscontribute to a lack of comprehension and misunderstanding. From Miller’s datait was found that the lecturers are highly sensitive to this issue and adopt a varietyof linguistic strategies in order to cope with it. However, the lecturers also seemedto be unaware of the specific aspects of their use of English that enhance or hindercomprehension in the students, and hence allowed the students to follow the lec-ture within its specific genre. Students had little experience of attending lecturesbefore joining their courses and their ‘language barriers’ prevented many of themfrom understanding the concepts or the ways in which they were presented.Pedagogic: There are many instances in Miller’s data which illustrate a mismatchof pedagogical behaviour and student perceptions, the main one being the use oftechnology and the lecture environment. Although some lecturers planned theirlecture presentations carefully, they seemed to be unable to change their teachingpractice when something went wrong with their computer generated presentation.Students, on the other hand, became frustrated when their lecturers were unableto use the computer equipment well and often did not pay attention when thelecturer did eventually manage to get the computer to work.Strategic: An important issue with L2 students attending lectures in English is thedegree to which they are prepared for learning via lectures, and how effectively


they can employ metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-effective learning strategies(Oxford, 1990). Although most lectures plan and make use of certain lecturingstrategies they also need to be aware of the types of strategies students make useof most and (1) try to cater to their preferred ways of learning, and (2) attempt toexplicitly introduce new listening strategies to the students in the lectures. There-fore, the way in which a lecture is presented and attended to has, to some extent,be negotiated between the lecturers and their students.

Linguistic, pedagogic, and strategic behaviours are only three examples of how alecturer’s behaviour in a lecture can be misinterpreted by students attending thelecture. If students are unable to interpret the lecturer’s language and/or behaviourthen they will not be able to situate their lecture within the specific genre that thelecturer is using. And, as can be seen in the LSL model, understanding the lecturegenre is a foundation for comprehending the spoken text of any lecture.

2.3. Theme 3: the negative cycle of expectation

The concept that motivates the third theme is that in order to understand what isinvolved in lectures in a second language, lecturers and students need to be aware ofthe historical context of their teaching and learning. This is represented as the inputdimension to the LSL model in Fig. 1. There are three aspects to this: language,content and lecturing styles. Any degree of ignorance in how students and/or lec-turers perceive these areas of competence leads to what may be called the negativecycles of expectation (Willcoxson, 1998). There are many cycles of expectation inlectures depending on the amount of knowledge lecturers and students have of howlectures work and the achievements expected. At the level of language and contentan example of a negative cycle works like this:

Lecturers know that the students have weak linguistic skills and knowledge bases! Lecturers prepare detailed notes to assist students to follow their lectures !

Students have detailed notes so do not listen carefully to the lectures ! Studentsloose concentration easily in the lecture for a variety of reasons, (including havingdetailed handouts) and engage in non-lecture activities (tune out, do not askquestions when they do not understand, engage in other activities like chattingwith friends) ! Lecturers perceive students non-lecture activities and loss ofconcentration as a result of their weak linguistic skills and knowledge bases !

Lecturers prepare more detailed notes for next lecture.

Many of the lecturers in Miller’s (2002) study had low opinions of the engineeringstudents they were teaching. These opinions were formed on the basis that they wereteaching students’ whose examination results from secondary school were not verygood, and that the students’ behaviour in their lectures was below their expectations.However, the findings of how test scores relate to performance do not always cor-relate well. Vinte and Jochems (1993) found that it was age and motivation level thatwere better indicators of performance of their L2 learners rather than TOEFL


scores. As most of the engineering students exposure to English was in their lectureseach week, with the rest of their classes begin conducted in Cantonese or a mixtureof Cantonese and English, it is little wonder that the students in Miller’s (2002)study had difficulty in following lengthy monologues in English. It appears that theirlecturers were unable to fully appreciate the linguistic difficulties these students werefaced with.Given the struggles many L2 students undergo in order to gain a place in an

English-medium university we have to bear in mind what more help they might needin order to benefit from their tertiary education. We can look to the literature forsome advice here. Some researchers call for more preparation of second-languagelearners prior to attending university, others for training while at university. Chap-man, Yuan, and Xu (1988), for instance, recommend that some preparation needs tobe given to L2 learners prior to attending the university. Students need to be givenas much information as possible about the course they will study and what they willbe expected to do, in addition to which they need to be aware of what is involved instudying in a second language before enrolling on the course. Samuelowics (1987)calls for more preparation by means of pre-sessional courses offered by the uni-versities before students undertake a course of study in English. This training wouldinclude not only language courses but also guidance in how to approach learning.Benson (1989) and Flowerdew and Miller (1992) agree with this and go further insuggesting integrating language and study skills training into the academic lecturesthemselves. If more training, of the type suggested here, was available to studentsthen they may be better prepared for attending their lectures in English, and if theengineering lecturers were aware of the type of training courses their students hadundergone prior to beginning their studies, then they may be able to capitalize onthis in their courses.‘‘In many cases learners’ alternative frameworks, misconceptions or deficient skills

can cause learning difficulties or negative learning outcomes.’’ (Dirver, Guesne, &Tiberghien, 1985, p. 38). By taking account of the students’ previous learningexperiences, their English language level, and their background knowledge lecturerscan orient their lecture material to suit the students they are teaching better, and bystudents becoming more aware of the level of language proficiency required and howthere are going to be taught in lectures, they may be able to prepare themselves morefor listening to lectures in a second language. When these things happen then thenegative cycles of expectations will be reduced and learning enhanced.

2.4. Theme 4: the establishment of communities of learners and practice

Theme 4 takes as its focus the construction of identities in lectures; this is illu-strated in the LSL model by the community of learners and community of practicebase-line dimensions. We need to consider how both the students and the lecturersconstrue their participation in the lecture event as being a part of a social commu-nity. In Miller’s (2002) study students and lecturers saw themselves as part of dif-ferent communities. The students aligned themselves more as being part of acommunity of learners, with what Hodges (1998) terms ‘‘The Community of Coop-


erative Learners’’, while the lecturers saw one of their roles as inducting the studentsinto the community of engineering practice. Of course, each party has roles to playin both of the communities—it is the degree to which they assume their roles whichseems to be at issue here, in Theme 4.

2.4.1. Communities of practiceA community of practice is similar to what Swales (1990) calls ‘discourse com-

munities’. The lecturers are often easily able to align themselves with a particulardiscourse community. In Miller’s study, in addition to carrying the name of ‘engi-neering lecturer’ the lecturers talked about undergoing a period of apprenticeship, orapprenticeships, in varies ways: worked in factories; conducted engineering research;attended international conferences; acted as consultants to community projects; andso on. These lecturers gradually become members of the engineering communityover many years of participation and by slowly learning about how to be part of thecommunity. It is no wonder then that Miller’s students were not able to identifywith, or integrate themselves into the engineering community within their first yearof studying engineering.Lave and Wenger (1991) talk about ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ as part of

the process of being part of a community of practice. They consider that to be partof any community the individual often has to take on a peripheral role to begin with(an apprenticeship). Then, as the person becomes more familiar with the practice, hecan move from a peripheral to an empowering position. Students attending engi-neering lectures may be considered to be legitimate peripheral participants. Whetherthey know this or not is another matter, and perhaps it is something that the engi-neering lecturers need to be more explicit about.In post-study interviews with four of the lecturers Miller asked them how they

became interested in engineering. Each of them was able to recount stories ofgrowing up with a curiosity about how things worked, and initiation into the worldof engineering through family or friends who worked in factories. All the lecturersentered into their university courses with a strong desire to become engineers. Noneof the students in Miller’s (2002) study were able to recount such stories, or desires.In reply to why they had chosen to study engineering at university the most commonreply was ‘I just had enough marks to get onto the course’. The lack of intrinsicmotivation to become part of the engineering community must undoubtedly play apart in the students’ lack of identity with the community, or perhaps exclusion fromit (Greeno, 1988).

2.4.2. Communities of learningThe students in Miller’s (2002) study associated themselves most with being part

of a community of learners. ‘Learning’ is often closely associated with being part ofa community of practice. However, Lave and Wenger (1991) warn about construingcommunities of learning within the communities of practice metaphor. They arguefor a separation of the concepts and that ‘‘. . .learning must be understood withrespect to a practice as a whole, with its multiplicity of relations—both within thecommunity and with the world at large.’’ (p. 114). Lave (1993) talks about learning


as ‘situated activity’ and points out how researchers have previously attempted toinvestigate the learning process as an activity that exists in the learners mind. Theworld in which the learning takes place is often ignored, in our case, the lectureevent, and when this happens we deviate from the perceptions we have of learningand learners: ‘‘Without a theoretical conception of the social world one cannotanalyze activity in situ’’ (Lave, 1993, p. 7).Viewing the students as participants in a community of learners, as opposed to

a community of practice, allows us to situate their learning process within thesocial context most familiar to the students. After all, the students had manyyears of socialization within an educational context, and so it is a context thatthey can all relate to easily. If we view the students’ participation in lectures aspart of their community of learning then it helps to analyse the learning as pro-cess, and the learners’ identities as always in a constant state of being formed.This introduces a multi-layered perspective of teaching and learning. Lectureshave to be located in a variety of ‘‘field’’ contexts (Bourdieu, 1977) such astutorials, workshops, and laboratory sessions, all of which aid in ideologicallysustaining the practices of engineering. For the students in this study, in order to bepart of the community of learners they must understand and participate in two maindimensions to their learning: they must be able to conceptualize their learning inlectures within the different other sources of learning, all of which contain someelements of induction into the field of studying engineering; and secondly, they needto see themselves as belonging to a peer group of learners, who share similarexperiences, emotions, successes and failures. The degree to which students perceivethemselves as part of a community of learners will affect the ways in which theyorganize their learning, and perhaps their performance at lectures (a part of thatlearning).Rogoff et al. (1996) maintain that we must view learning as a developmental pro-

cess where both teacher and learners are active participants within their community.Learning is not a one-way flow of information from external to internal (Prior,1998). When we start viewing students as active participants in their lectures weconstrue academic listening as an active process and one in which the students havea legitimate right to be a part of. How lecturers and students perceive their roleswithin their communities of learning and practice affects the lecture event at one ofits most fundamental levels, as shown in the LSL model in Fig. 1.

3. Implications and conclusion

Although the LSL model (Fig. 1) is a theoretical concept, it is grounded in theextensive ethnographic research reported on in the introduction to this paper. Theimplications of ethnographic work are local in that it is the participants who takepart in the study who may benefit the most from the findings. However, we areable to widen the scope of our interpretations and suggest possible other implica-tions for a general audience. These implications are for L2 students and theirteachers.


3.1. Implication for students

It would be easy to generate a list of ‘dos and don’ts’ for L2 students when theyattend their lectures given in English. Indeed, this is the type of information con-tained in textbooks on academic listening (cf. Adkins & McKean, 1983; James,Jordan, & Matthews, 1979; Rogoski & Palmberg, 1990). As Flowerdew and Miller(1997) demonstrated, though, such lists are only of limited help when we comparethe textbook practice situations with the real-life contexts of lectures in a secondlanguage. The real benefit to the students in Miller’s (2002) ethnographic case studywas not in helping them develop specific academic listening strategies, but to involvethem in reflecting on and talking about their experiences in attending their engi-neering lectures. Near the end of the data collection part of the study, and after thestudents had been writing in their diaries for a while, they were asked to talk aboutbeing part of the research project. Some of their representative comments were:

Terry (Focus Group): . . .maybe I more understand about the lectures nowbecause I have to think about the lecture to write something in the journal, so Ihave to revise what I know about the lecture. If I not write anything then I justforget about it.

Nelson (Focus Group): . . .we can examine the presentation style of the lecturerand they have their own style and we can learn a little about how they areteaching us.

Ernie (Focus Group): We can write the English more fluently because before weonly write something like a report in English, but in the journal it is anothertype of essay, so it can help us to express our ideas more easy.

The students portrayed positive comments on the process of reflecting on andwriting about their lectures. They identified a better understanding of their lecturecontent, the ways in which they were being taught, and an increase in their Englishproficiency skills as a result of taking part in this study. These students wereinvolved in thinking about their lectures perhaps for the first time. Their commentscertainly indicated that this was a different experience for them, and one theyappeared to enjoy, and learn from.L2 students need to be given opportunities to talk about their learning. This can

be done by the content lecturer or by the EAP teacher. Lectures are often supple-mented with tutorial classes. In these classes, the lecturer can encourage the studentsto talk about their learning in the lectures. This would not simply be a question/answer session on problems the students have with the content of a lecture, but areflective session in which the wider dimensions to the students’ learning is explored.Students would be encouraged to stop and think about what they are learning, howthey are learning, and perhaps ask why they are learning certain things. Not onlywould the students benefit, but their lecturers would also benefit by receiving on thespot feedback on their lectures, rather than wait for an end-of-semester questionnaire


survey by which time it is too late to make any changes to the lectures. Some of thesame procedures and research instruments as used in Miller’s ethnographic casestudy may be found useful for lecture discussion sessions. An alternative to contentlecturers developing activities to allow their students to reflect on their learningwould be to conduct such activities in the language support classes.Students need to become aware not only of how to improve their English profi-

ciency level and develop strategies which they might use to become more effectivelisteners in their lecture, but also of the way the lecture is used as a means to conveyinformation, from the language, pedagogical, content and wider social dimensions.Furthermore, L2 students need to become aware that they have active parts to playin the process of the lecture, and that their roles as members of the community oflearners can be expanded to take account of how they wish to construct theirlearning at university.

3.2. Implications for content lecturers

In order for content lecturers to become more familiar with the challenges ofteaching L2 students some lecturer training may be required (Lynch, 1994). As mostEAP teachers hold teaching qualifications and are often already familiar with someof the issues involved in teaching academic listening, they may be considered usefulin helping to provide some of this training.

3.2.1. Team-teachingTeam teaching is not new in EAP contexts (see British Council, 1980). However, it

is also something which is not widely used in universities. This may be because offactors outside the control of the teaching staff, for example, budgetary or time-tabling factors. But when it is used, team teaching is a useful strategy which yieldsgood results (cf. Graham & Beardsley, 1986). Team teaching can be done in severalways, for instance, an English support teacher can teach alongside a content lecturerduring the same period and explain points of grammar and vocabulary as they ariseduring the lecture, or, the English teacher can organize classes in conjunction withthe content lecturer so as to present the type of language the content lecturer will usein the lectures. In this way, the language support classes may better focus on thestudents’ real academic needs, and in the process, the content lecturers may becomemore sensitive to how they are teaching their disciplines.

3.2.2. Teach the language of the discipline as well as the disciplineLectures teaching L2 students need to be aware of the linguistic difficulties their

students face when attempting to understand the concepts presented in a secondlanguage, especially when these learners have low-proficiency language abilities.Lecturers need to become aware of how they, themselves, use language to talk abouttheir discipline, and then integrate a high level of meta-language into their lectures,that is, they need to talk not only about the content but also explain how they aretalking about the content. Greater planning of how to introduce the students to thegenre of lectures in the specific discipline—both from the descriptive, codified per-


spective, and from the socially constructed point of view, is required. There areseveral ways this may be achieved two of which are, professional lecturer training inorder to sensitise the lectures to how they talk about their discipline, and teamteaching (see earlier).

3.2.3. Encourage interaction in lecturesIf lectures continue to be used as the main conduit for teaching at universities then

serious consideration needs to be given to how the teaching is conducted, and anattempt made to move away from a monolog format. More student interaction withthe lecturer during lectures needs to be encouraged. One way to find out if L2 stu-dents are comprehending and understanding the lecture is to engage them in thelecture, this means that lecturers need to spend some time talking with the studentsabout the content, rather than always talking to them in a lecture. Although thelecture theatre environment may not appear to encourage any kind of interaction,lectures can be introduced to techniques for teaching large classes. Some examples ofways to encourage interaction in lectures are: buzz group discussions—the teacherstops talking and sets a question for the students to talk about with those sittingnear them, after a few minutes, the teacher stops the discussion and asks for ananswer; linking work done in tutorial classes closely with the lecture—the lecturerasks students to consider a problem/example/equation in a tutorial then in the lec-ture asks for the known answers as a way for students to participate.

3.2.4. Make use of the community of learnersLineham and McCarthy (2001, p. 130) maintain that we often overlook what is

happening in communities as ‘we already know what the community is.’ Perhapslecturers and students need to talk more about their roles in the community of lear-ners. In this way, both will gain a perspective of what is expected of them, and howthe other stakeholders view them. Lectures may attempt this by clearly stating at theonset of a series of lectures the topics, the format of the lectures, what will happen inthe lectures, and what is expected of the students. This may even become the way ofbeginning each lecture. In response to this, students may be given opportunities totell the lecturer what their problems are in the lectures, and how they would like theinformation to be presented so as to make it more accessible to them. In order forthis to happen, lecturers may need some guidance on how to prepare detailed lectureplans so that they are able to articulate clearly to the students what they are tryingto do in each lecture.More negotiation of the roles and expectations of each of the stakeholders in

lectures will go some way to cater for the diversity of learners and help themestablish their unique identity as active participants in learning via lectures. It willalso allow for a socially constructed perspective on the creation of the genre ofeach lecture. In this way, genre then can be seen as ‘‘. . .a way to ensure the pro-duction of what could be called ‘community-based’ discourse, a discourse whosemeaning is created by and for the collective or group.’’ (Pare & Smart, 2000, p. 146).This will then, perhaps, allow for a shift in motivation and goal setting—from sur-face to deep learning (Biggs, 1993), and from performance to mastery goal setting


(Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000) and allow for a more complete development of thecommunity of learners.

3.2.5. Induct student into the community of practiceThe students in Miller’s (2002) study only saw themselves as belonging to a com-

munity of learners, and seemed to have little notion of the fact that they may enterthe wider community of engineering practice. It is easier for these students to see thecontextualization of the learning as situated in the university, and more difficult tocomprehend the decontexualized apprentiship of an engineer their university edu-cation leads them towards. This is partly because the engineering industry, whichwas once so prevalent in Hong Kong, has now been relocated across the border inmainland China. As a result of this, students growing up in Hong Kong have littlepractice or everyday contact with engineers or factory life. In order to enable thefirst-year students to more closely associate themselves with what they are studying,lecturers need to front-up the concept of the community they are preparing theirstudents for. This can be done is several ways: provide more practical examples inlectures about real-life practice; use rhetorical devices to include students in thecommunity of practice—use ‘we as engineers/lawyers/sociologists’ when talkingabout concepts; set up visits/internships to outside sites; invite practitioners to givetalks; give the first-year students a wider perspective on the courses they will do intheir second and third year and how the first year courses prepare them for theirfurther studies.

3.3. Implications for EAP teachers

3.3.1. Review of language support classesIf the English language teachers of first-year university L2 students become

involved in team-teaching with the content lecturer, as suggested above, then theymay be able to address many of the language issues that cause the students theirimmediate comprehension problems in lectures (see Graham & Beardsley, 1986).However, if this practice is difficult to implement, then other ways to aid L2 studentsattending lectures in English need to be found. One obvious solution is to conduct alarge-scale needs analysis so as to identify the specific areas that cause the mostproblems for students. Such a needs analysis may focus on the specific languageneeds of students, their general language requirements, and their study skill needs.Then the existing language courses offered to such students can be re-designed tosuit their contemporary requirements.

3.3.2. Offer more ESP type coursesThe students in Miller’s study were very clear that they preferred the English for

Science and Technology (EST) courses they took at university rather than the moregeneral EAP courses. With the limited amount of time that can be spent on supportlanguage classes the university departments need to consider the degree to which thistime may best be spent. Two options are to offer content-area English languagecourses (Mohan, 1986), or specially focussed EST courses (Robinson, 1991). In both


cases the students’ time will be focussed specifically on the type of English they needto follow their courses, and which will eventually allow them to join their commu-nity of practice.The preceding implications are derived from the LSL model presented in this

paper, which is based on ethnographic work carried out with Hong Kong Chinesestudents, and they are open for discussion. Other researchers need to interpret themodel in their own cultural contexts, and when this happens we will have a betterunderstanding of lectures in a second language, and will be in a better position tohelp our students learn more effectively.

References

Adkins, A., & McKean, I. (1983). Text to note. London: Edward Arnold.

Benson, M. J. (1989). The academic listening task: a case study. TESOL Quarterly. 23 (3), 421–445.

Biggs, J. (1993). The quality of teaching and learning in an expanding tertiary system. New Horizons in

Education, 42, 102–106.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Brindley, G. P. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education program. Aus-

tralia: AMES.

British Council. (1980). Team teaching in ESP. English language teaching documents 106. London: The

British Council.

Chapman, D. W., Yuan, W. T., & Xu, M. (1988). Academic adjustment of international students in

American universities. Education & Society Journal, 6(1), 96–103.

Derwing, T. M. (1990). Speaker role is no simple matter. SSLA, 12.

Dirver, R., Guesne, E., Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second-language learning. Applied Lin-

guistics, 7(3), 155–274.

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1992). Student perceptions, problems and strategies in second language lec-

ture comprehension. RELC Journal, 23(2), 60–80.

Flowerdew, J., &Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 345–373.

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1996a). Lecturer perceptions, problems and strategies in second language

lectures. RELC Journal, 21(1), 23–60.

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1996b). Lectures in a second language: notes towards a cultural grammar.

English for Specific Purposes, 5(2), 121–140.

Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1997). The teaching of academic listening comprehension and the question of

authenticity. English for Specific Purposes, 16(1), 27–46.

Flowerdew, J., Miller, L., & Li, D. (2000). Chinese lectures’ perceptions, problems and strategies in lec-

turing in English to Chinese-speaking students. RELC Journal, 31(1), 116–137.

Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture com-

prehension. Discourse Markers in L2 Lecture Comprehension, 17, 435–458.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourse. London: Falmer Press.

Gee, J. P., Michaels, S., & O’Conner, M. C. (1992). Discourse analysis. In M. D. LeCompte,

W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 227–284). New

York: Academic Press.

Greeno, J. G., Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group (1988). The situativity

of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.

Graham, J. G., & Beardsley, R. S. (1986). English for specific purposes: content, language, and

communication in a pharmacy course model. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 227–241.


Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st

century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179.

Hodges, D. C. (1998). Participation as dis-identification with/in a community of practice. Mind, Culture,

and Activity, 5(4), 272–290.

Jackson, J., & Bilton, L. (1994). Stylish variables in science lectures: teaching vocabulary. ESP Journal,

13(1), 61–80.

James, K., Jordan, R. R., & Matthews, A. J. (1979). Listening comprehension and note-taking course.

London and Glasgow: Collins.

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: per-

spectives on activity and context (pp. 388–415). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity-types and language. Linguistics, 17(5-6), 369–399.

Linehan, C., & McCarthy, J. (2001). Reviewing the ‘‘Community of Practice’’ metaphor: an analysis of

control relations in a primary school classroom. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(2), 129–147.

Lynch, T. (1994). Training lecturers for international audience. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening:

research perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacDonald, M., Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). The real thing?: authenticity and academic listening.

English for Specific Purposes, 19, 253–267.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis. In J. Benson, & W. S. Greaves

(Eds.), Systemic perspectives on discourse 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Miller, L. (2002). Academic lecturing and listening in a second language: an ethnographic case study.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle

and Heinle.

Pare, A., & Smart, G. (2000). Observing genre in action: towards a research methodology. In

A. Freedman, & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor and Francis.

Peacock, M. (1998). Exploring the gap between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about ‘‘useful’’ activities for

EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 233–250.

Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of human behaviour. The Hague: Mouton.

Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: a sociohistoric account of literature activity in the academy.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and

approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 27–35.

Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: a practitioner’s guide. Hemel Hemstead: Prentice Hall.

Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning: participation in a

community of learners. In D. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and

human development: new models of learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 388–415). Cambridge:

Blackwell.

Rogoski, C., & Palmberg, E. (1990). Academic mini-lectures. New York: Maxwell Macmillan.

Rost, M. (1994). Introducing listening. London: Penguin English Applied Linguistics.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: two sides of a story. Higher Education

Research and Development, 6(2), 121–133.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science tea-

chers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year

university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84.


Vandergrift, L. (1997a). The Cinderella of communication strategies: reception strategies in interactive

listening. Modern Language Journal, 81(iv), 494–505.

Vandergrift, L. (1997b). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: a descriptive

study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409.

Vinke, A. A., & Jochems, W. M. G. (1993). English proficiency and academic success in international

postgraduate education. Higher Education, 26, 275–285.

Willcoxson, L. (1998). The impact of academics’ learning and teaching preferences on their teaching

practices: a pilot study. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 59–70.


towards a model for lecturing in a second language

Documents