CHRIS DAVISON, JOHN TRENT * Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English in an English-Medium University in Asia Abstract. The closer alignment ofEnglish for Academic Purposes (EAP) and Faculty discipline-based programs in English-medium universities has long been advocated in applied linguistics and TESOL. However, many researchers have reported difficulties in the establishment of closer collaboration, difficulties which seem to go beyond practical issues such as workload, timetabling and resources to the underlying epistemological differences between language and 'content' teachers. However, few researchers have attempted to explore these differences, and even fewer have linked such differences to the broader institutional polices and practices. This paper draws on questionnaire, interview and observational data collected as part of a larger ethnographic study of Chinese-background freshmen in an English medium of instruction (EMI) university in Asia. Adopting LAYDER's (1993; 2006) theory of social domain analysis the paper begins with an examination of some of the underlying assumptions in current conceptualizations of learning in and through English among students and staff in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and Economics and Finance at the tertiary level, then explores the epistemological differences revealed by such perceptions and practices. Tue implications of this research for evaluating approaches to collaboration and for setting realistic goals for staff development and institutional change will also be explored. 1. Introduction Increasingly, many societies in which English has traditionally been regarded as a foreign language are adopting the language as a medium for post-secondary education (GNUTZ- MANNIINTEMANN 2005). In Europe both COLEMAN (2006) and PHILLIPSON (2006) refer to the Englishisation of higher education to describe the rapid advance of English as the medium of instruction. Within Asia there also appears to be a strong shift towards the use of English as the medium of instruction for tertiary education. In Japan rising numbers of universities are adopting English as a medium of instruction to establish a competitive edge in a declining market (TOLLEFSON 2006). In China, the Ministry of Education demands that 5-10% of courses at each higher education institution should be taught in a foreign language, with some suggestions that 30% of each university' s academic curricu- Korrespondenzadressen: Chris DAVISON, Faculty ofEducation, The University ofHong Kong, Pokfulam Rd, Pokfulam, HONGKONG, SAR, CHINA. E-Mail: cdavison@hkucc.hku.hk Arbeitsbereiche: English language development, curriculum and assessment, language policy. John TRENT, Faculty ofEducation, The University ofHong Kong, Pokfulam Rd, Pokfulam, HONGKONG, SAR, CHINA. E-Mail: jtrent@hkucc.hku.hk Arbeitsbereiche: Spoken discourse, sociocultural theory. lF'lLUIL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 201 lum could be provided in English (LAM 2005: 193). This Englishisation has been one of the factors underlying growing concern about the role and development of English as a medium of instruction amongst many post-colonial institutions in which English has lang been established as the language of instruction. The University of Hong Kong, an English medium of instruction (EMI) institution in the Special Administrative Region of the People' s Republic of China, has ~mbarked upon an ambitious program designed to strengthen the university's international profile. In support of this aim, a recent review of language education at the university recommended that measures be adopted to encourage much greater use of English in all courses as well as in professional and social Settings (UNIVERSITY OF HONGKONG 2004). Such recommendations are in line with moves internationally to encourage closer alignment of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and Faculty discipline-based programs in Englishmedium universities. However, many researchers have reported difficulties in the establishment of closer collaboration, difficulties which seem to go beyond practical issues such as workload, timetabling and resources to the underlying epistemological differences between the language and 'content' areas, although few researchers have attempted to explore these differences, and even less have linked such differences to the broader institutional and societal polices and practices. Drawing on questionnaire, interview and observational data collected as part of a ! arger ethnographic study of Chinese-background freshmen in an English-medium (EMI) university in Asia, this paper provides a multi-level analysis of some of the underlying assumptions in the views about learning in and through English as a second language which underlie the perceptions and practices of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and disciplinary/ content-area teachers at the university, specifically in the department of Economics and Finance, then discusses how such assumptions can create barriers to the provision of a systematic and coherent program of language support for all students. The implications of this research for evaluating approaches for collaboration and for setting realistic goals for staff development and institutional change will also be explored. 2. The Hong Kong context Hang Kong has an official policy of trilingualism (Putonghua, Cantonese and English) and biliteracy (Chinese and English). While English and Cantonese 1 have always been the two main languages of instruction in Hang Kong schools, Cantonese is the mother tongue of the majority of the ethnic Chinese who comprise more than 95% of the population. Only 13.9% of the Hang Kong population report knowing English either 'well' or 'very well' (BRUCE/ DAVISON/ POON 2006). Therefore, for the majority of the population English represents an auxiliary language, used only for specific purposes such as higher education or business (KEMBER 2000; LIILEUNG/ KEMBER 2001). This status of English has been When Hong Koog became a British colony in 1842, English was adopted as the official language but Cantonese remained the primary spoken language. lFLlllL 36 (2007) 202 Chris Davison, John Trent reinforced since the handover by the introduction of a mandatory policy of mother tongue education as the medium of instruction for 75% of government secondary schools at the junior secondary level, with the remaining 25% permitted to use English as the medium of instruction (TSUI 2007). In those schools using Chinese as the medium of instruction, this policy has raised community concerns over how English language learning can be accomplished to ensure English language standards in Hong Kong are not undermined (Tsm 2007: 137). At the same time those schools still using English as the medium of instruction need to ensure that subject content is made accessible to learners from Cantonese speaking backgrounds, so that student can enter the English-medium tertiary sector with strong English language skills and a solid foundation in their specialization. However, ongoing uncertainty and debate over the relationship between identity, language learning and educational achievement in Hong Kong continues to undermine the acceptance of the current language policy in the wider community (DA VISONILAI 2007). Within Hong Kong, difficulties in the relationship between language and content learning also exist at the tertiary level. LI/ LEUNG/ KEMBER (2001), for example, point to a series of mismatches between espoused language policy and policy in use. Amongst the gaps identified by the authors, a schism is believed to exist between the formal policy of most universities which endorses English as the official language of instruction and the relatively limited amount of instruction carried out in English within the classroom. LI [et al.] go on to argue that few of Hong Kong' s higher educational institutions admit to this mismatch and that "little has been done to remove the discrepancy" (2001: 306). lt is not surprising that doubts have been raised about whether some students entering the Englishmedium tertiary institutions possess the necessary language skills required for undergraduate study, and whether universities can maintain the requisite English language standards considered necessary for effective study in and through English. This is true even in long established EMI institutions such as the University of Hong Kong. Tue importance the University of Hong Kong attaches to the role of the language in education is reflected in the decision, taken in September 2003, to initiate areview of language education at the university. In its June 2004 report, the university's Review Panel on Centres and Units Offering Language Enhancement and Language Proficiency Courses affirmed the status of the university as "an international university with a multicultural and multilingual community" (UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG 2004: 8), which emphasizes problem-based and student-centered learning where "everyday problems or situations are used as a way of stimulating students to discover and explore the key concepts and skills of the discipline in class" (UNIVERSITY OF HONGKONG 2005: 14). To help enhance these aims, greater emphasis has been placed on language enhancement and proficiency. The Review Panel argued that achieving language proficiency is closely tied to language use: High levels of language can only be attained by means of a firm commitment on the part of all stakeholders to the substantive use of the language in all university courses as well as in all professional and social contexts, formal and informal (UNIVERSITY OF HONGKONG 2004: 8). lFLllllL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 203 At an EMI tertiary institution such as the University of Hong Kong, attention to "the substantive use of the language" implies attention to the use of English, "the lingua franca for all formal and informal communication throughout the university" (UNNERSITY OF HONG KONG 2004: 9). The Review Panel emphasized the need to "integrate English enhancement mote extensively in the curriculum" (ibid: 30) and to "help students with weaker language abilities to reach the threshold level for using English as the medium for leaming" (ibid: 28). This reflects a broader commitment on the part of the university to achieving "excellence in the use of English as an objective of the entire curriculum" (ibid: iv). This is also reflected in the views of the student body, with regular surveys finding that most students think English is very important. The Review Panel recommended.that greater "measures should be taken to encourage students to use English as a medium of spoken and written communication on campus" (ibid: 31) and to promote students' use of spoken English in all university courses (ibid: 8). However, the Panel recognized that designing and implementing measures to encourage the use of spoken English by students is challenging, especially when "the amount of time students spent on communicating in English in dass is T... ] very limited" (ibid: 10). A number of researchers have raised concerns about the participation of second and foreign language learners in oral interaction in both language and content dassrooms (HORWITz/ HORWITz/ COPE 1986; HORWITzNOUNG 1991; JACKSON 2002; 2005), especially leamers from Asian educational backgrounds (CORTAZZIIJIN 1996; FLOWERDEW/ MILLER 1995; KENNEDY 2002; LEE 1999; KIM 2006; MORITA 2000; 2004; TSU1 1996). JACKSON dedares that "the non-participation of students in English medium university dasses is a common source of frustration and bewilderment for lecturers in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia" (2002: 65-66). According to KIM, East Asian students are "typically known to be silent or reticent in dass" (2006: 480). A variety of factors have been identified to explain this supposed reticence, induding attitudinal, cultural, language, pedagogic and societal factors (KENNEDY 2002). Some researchers argue that students' English language proficiency is not sufficiently developed to deal with the increased language demands of constructivist pedagogy (e.g. JACKSON 2002; LIU/ LITTLE- WOOD 1997). Others suggest that it is the teachers who need more pedagogic flexibility and skill, to enable them to provide more opportunities for students to speak English, create a richer leaming environment and see the increasing diversity of language and cultural groups in the dassroom as a resource, rather than a problem, for leaming both language and content. If efforts by the university to promote students' use of spoken English in all university courses are tobe successful, it is imperative that such pedagogic challenges are acknowledged and explored. The investigation of language use by leamers in second and foreign language academic environments has traditionally been part of the agenda of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). EAP has been defined as "the teaching of English with the specific aim of helping leamers to study, conduct research or teach in that language" (FLOWERDEWIPEACOCK 2001a: 8). Yet EAP has devoted relatively little attention to the study of dassroom discourse; "the oral interaction that occurs between teachers and students and among students" (HALLNERPLAETSE 2000: 9). FLOWERDEW/ PEACOCK report that "there is a lFlLd 36 (2007) 204 Chris Davison, John Trent general consensus amongst ESL educators that oral language is very important, yet speaking in EAP remains a relatively neglected skill" (2001b: 188). To further complicate matters, it is widely argued that EAP has traditionally functionedfor, as opposed to with, subject specialists (HYLAND/ HAMP-LYONS 2002: 3), hence trying to encourage university, or even faculty-wide, collaboration between disciplinary areas and EAP is difficult, as will be elaborated in the next section. 3. Relationships between language and content teaching Tue development of greater alignment and collaboration between the teaching of English as a second/ additional language (ESL/ EAL) and the content-areas/ disciplines such as Econornics has been advocated by the English language teaching profession for many years (CREESE 2002; DA VISON 2006; GIBBONS 2002), and a framework for describing different models of alignment has been developed (DAVISONIWILLIAMS 2001). Perhaps most well known of these models in the tertiary sector is BRINTON/ SNOW/ WESCHE's (1989) adjunct model which pairs an ESL course with a university content course. More recently, BRINTON/ JENSEN (2002) have promoted a simulated adjunct model, in which authentic content from an existing university course is embedded in the ESL curriculum. Yet, despite "a global interest in integrating content and language teaching" (STOLLER 2004: 263), difficulties and challenges persist (ARKOUDIS 2007; CRANDALLIKAUFMAN 2002; DAVISON/ WILLIAMS 2001). These include not only the identification and selection of an appropriate EAP curriculum and methodology, but the provision of appropriate staff development and effective structures to support collaboration. More fundamental still is the change of attitudes needed to make collaboration between English language instructors and their colleagues in the disciplines a normalized part of everyday teaching, rather than EAP seen as a remedial or support function (JACKSON 2005). lt has long been recognized that merely placing students in English-medium contexts "cannot be assumed to provide optimal language learning opportunities as a matter of course" (MOHAN 2001: 108), and there is a "critical need for collaboration across disciplines (especially by language and content specialists)" (CRANDALLIKAUFMAN 2002: 1). However, surprisingly perhaps, most institutional efforts, andin fact most research at the tertiary level, have tended to focus on the analysis of the linguistic demands of the content areas (BRINTON/ MASTER 1997; BRINTON/ SNOW/ WESCHE 1989; CRANDALL 1987; CRAN- DALL [et al.] 1987; MOHAN 1986; MOHAN/ LOWE 1995) rather than the process of collaboration itself. Experience at the secondary school level suggests that for collaboration tobe most effective, planning, teaching and evaluating needs to focus on curriculum, not just methodology or materials (see DAVISON 2006; DAVISONIWILLIAMS 2001; HURST/ DAVI- SON 2005). An ideal collaboration between EAP and disciplinary teachers requires the planned systematic integration of content-based EAP and language-conscious content teaching (CRANDALL 1987; DAVISON/ WILLIAMS 2001; SNOWIMET/ GENESEE 1989). However, research shows that incorporating language objectives into the disciplines is difficult (ARKOUDIS 2003; SHORT/ ECHEV ARRIA 1999), because content specialists immersed in the lFLIIL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 205 discourse of their discipline do not find it easy to identify the language demands of curriculum, let alone the language learning needs and opportunities, whilst adjunct English language teachers can struggle to "cover the content" and easily lose direction and control. In fact, DAVISON (2006) has argued, describing the different roles and responsibilities of the content and English language specialists does not seem to resolve the tensions and misunderstandings that can occur in collaborative work. Different teaching philosophies and the priority of subject content over language needs also create difficulties within collaborative work that can at times be difficult to resolve. As ARKOUDIS (2007) notes, disciplinary specialists identify with their subject discipline and seem to form distinct discourse communities within their subject areas. Her research into collaboration between English language and content teachers in secondary schools, building on earlier work by Siskin (SISKIN 1994; SrsKIN/ LITTLE 1995) and Hargreaves (HARGREAVES 1994; HAR- GREAVESIMACMILLAN 1994), highlights the deep-seated links between teachers that belong to the same department or discipline, with sub-communities forming within each subject disciplines, and playing a critical role in shaping and supporting teachers' identities. ARKOUDIS argues that each community has distinct views about the canons of knowledge within the subject discipline, a sense of the importance of their discipline within the institution, and shared assumptions of what needs to be taught and when. This explains one of the main barriers to integrating language development into disciplinary areas at the tertiary level, that is, subject knowledge is viewed as belonging to the teachers in that discipline, thus most content specialists see teaching skills such as speaking as the work of EAP teachers, not their responsibility. ARKOUDIS (2007) also argues that the entrenched nature of epistemological assumptions within subject disciplines is often underestimated or not taken into account in proposals for greater alignment between EAP and the disciplines. She draws on the work of ROBERTS (1996) to argue that teachers' epistemological assumptions and pedagogic practices are structured by their beliefs about their students' learning, a critical issue which needs further elaboration. Until very recently, the dominant view of pedagogy in tertiary institutions in most western industrial societies was the so-called 'banking model' (FREIRE 1970), in which teachers are expected to deposit information and skills in students' memory banks. This traditional model of pedagogy can be contrasted with social constructivist models, which were first popularized in the progressive pedagogy of John DEWEY (1963), with its emphasis on the primacy of student experience and the need to encourage active student involvement in learning rather than the passive absorption of information. Dewey' s work has been extended further in the tertiary level by advocates of problem-based learning and dialogic inquiry (e.g. FOSNOT 2005; WELLS 1999), whose pedagogical focus has been strongly influenced by the rediscovered works of VYGOTSKY (1986), in particular bis notions of the zone of proximal development and mediated activity. Bach orientation transmission and constructivist incorporates a set of instructional assumptions about language, knowledge, and learning that underlie various forms of teaching. Transmission-oriented approaches to pedagogy tend to create a dichotomy between language (defined primarily in terms of forms and structures) and content (delFLIIL 36 (2007) 206 Chris Davison, John Trent fined as sets of information and skills). Such approaches result in English language programs which are heavily reliant of the structure and sequence of the textbook or predetermined lesson plans, with little emphasis on intemalization of meaning or active communicative use of the language. Tue format may be made more appealing to students by means of exercise and activities, but the basic aim is to ensure the acquisition of information and skills. In the disciplines other than English, content is taught as a fixed and relatively static body of knowledge, a code or set of rules. Language is assumed tobe neutral and foundational, a mere conduit or vehicle for leaming. Such metaphors are in turn institutionalized in curriculum and policy documents (see Table 1 for a summary of these points). Metaphor Disciplinary practices Language teachiug Rules, techniques Code of disciplinary/ Objective set of grammar rules, professional/ research practices generic conventions, vocabulary Foundation building, Cumulative and stratified know- Language a pre-requisite for pyrarnid ledge, assimilation before creation, advanced thinking, inadequate transmission before research foundation requires remediation Conduit, medium, vehicle Teacher transmitting knowledge Teacher transmitting knowledge about disciplinary subjects (lower about language; practical, low level than research); transparently level, teacher = technician encoded into language and communicated Representation Observation, naming and labeling Knowledge telling: what is this? Table 1: Different metaphors for teaching language and knowledge-based subjects in a transmissiön-oriented pedagogy (adapted from BRUCEIDAVISON/ POON 2006) In contrast, in social constructivist approaches, students are encouraged to become actively engaged in challenging projects and activities across the disciplines. Students' prior knowledge is systematically activated and they are encouraged to bring their existing experience and cognitive (and linguistic) schemata to ask questions and solve problems, to talk their way to understanding. A constructivist pedagogy promotes active, hands-on, eo-operative activities, which are seen to be particularly suitable for students who are learning through a second language, enabling them to leam both content and second language structures and functions concurrentlY: Although these different orientations are expressed as distinct categories, in practice it is more appropriate to see them as points on a continuum that merge into one another, or even altemating, depending on the teachers' own experiences and the commonsense beliefs about good teaching in their subject discipline. This raises the issue of what beliefs about language and leaming underpin teacher (and student) attitudes, interactions and institutional orientations in an EMI university in which English is not just the medium, but the means of leaming (SCHNEIDER 2006). lFLILIL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 207 4. The research study This paper reports on a study of the potential for greater alignment and collaboration between EAP and the disciplines in an English-medium university in Hong Kong. As part of a much ! arger doctoral study (TRENT 2007), the experiences of a group of eight Cantonese-speaking Economics and Finance students and their Economics and English language teachers in their disciplinary and English Academic Purposes (EAP) classrooms over one semester were observed, recorded and evaluated, and all participants interviewed, some a number of times. Once the data was collected, it was analyzed in a number of stages. In keeping with the ethnographic orientation of the study, this process was ongoing, recursive and iterative (SELIGERISHOHAMY 1989). As a first step in the process, the data was copied, organized and grouped into a preliminary categorization suggested by the themes arising during the course of data collection, as well by our own "tacit knowledge" and empiricised propositions (STAKE 1978: 6) about collaboration and its development, then a process of "systematic inquiry into the data" (MILES/ HUBERMAN 1984) was undertaken. These themes were initially represented using "indigenous concepts" (PATTON 2002: 454) or terminology used by the participants themselves. Gradually, as clearer pattems emerged as to what participants seemed to be saying and doing and why, we sought a more systematic analytical framework to describe their discourse. This meant we moved back and forth between the data and the related research literature, experimenting with and discarding different models of analysis and trialing different coding systems. In this sense, the analytical framework was not pre-determined nor imposed, it was grounded in the data (GLASER/ STRASS 1967). This iterative work led to the adoption ofLAYDER's (1993; 2006) theory of social domain analysis which identifies four overlapping social domains or layers: self, situated activity, setting and context. LAYDER' s framework helped provide a more systematic and comprehensive examination of the underlying assumptions in the conceptualizations of leaming in and through English among students and staff in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and Economics and Finance at the tertiary level, illuminating the individual, the interactional, and the institutional discourses and perspectives. 5. Findings As can be seen in Table 2 below (see next page), Layder's multidimensional framework allowed us to identify the often conflicting and complex pattems in the participants' attitudes and interactions, and to explore the forces that seemed to constrain and inhibit greater collaboration between English language and content teachers in the research setting. lFLl.llL 36 (2007) 208 Chris Davison, John Trent Levels of social Economics EAP process Self: Teachers • Language is seen as a barrier to • Language not a barrier to participastudents' learning of content tion, Ss are encouraged to make "as . Emphasis on accuracy of language many (linguistic) errors as they production want" . Strong focus on the need to trans- • Emphasis on fluency and content mit content knowledge due to limoverform ited time within the course • Emphasis on interplay of language . Tutors: feel need to give "miniand content; teacher stresses translecture" in each tutorial ferability of sk: ills back to Economics classes Self: Students (Ss) . Ss view purpose of Economics • Ss view oral participation as an tutorials as partly opportunity to important part of EAP discuss issues • Ss welcome the opportunities to . However, limited opportunity for use spoken English in the class this in 1 st year classes • Some Ss see a need for closer link between what they are doing in Economics class and EAP Situated Activity . Limited opportunity for interaction • Extensive opportunities for interin Economics class action in EAP with many student- . Student participation in classroom initiated questions and long turns discourse often limited to short • Students introduced Economics question and answer on content and Finance topics for discussion/ related matters presentation . Topics followed content of lec- • This content focus was not orchestures; teacher-initiated and contrated by the teachers (they were trolled not Economics trained), but teachers facilitated this interplay by allowing learners the freedom to control and shape to some extent the processes and products of classroom interaction Institutional Setting . Curriculum documents emphasize • EAP course emphasizes participa- (course level) content: e.g. set tutorial questions tion in spoken interaction each week designed to test content • 40% of assessment is based on oral understanding; assessment based participation/ presentations on content knowledge Institutional Context . Language policy documents emphasize English enhancement throughout (university level) the curriculum, collaborative efforts between language and content teachers, and the use of the English language in all university courses . Differing success in terms of implementation of some of these measures in the language and content (e.g. Economics) classrooms Table 2: Views of language and learning: EAP and Economics lFLllL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 209 At each level shown in Table 2, tension exists over the nature and extent of learners' participation in oral activities within content and language classrooms. Individual Economics teachers, for example, argued that they were able to provide very limited scope for learners to participate in oral interaction within the classroom. One instructor, Debbie, reported that "most of our tutorials are rather one-way, I wouldjust teach this, and then the students just sit there and absorb the thing, and that's all" (interview, 29/ 9/ 05). Some instructors explained this in terms of cultural-based reasons; Hong Kong students were reported to be shy (Kathy, interview, 29/ 9/ 05), embarrassed (Kenneth, interview, 12/ 9/ 05), afraid, and lacking in confidence (Debbie, interview, 29/ 9/ 05) when it came to speaking in class. Linguistic-based explanations were also offered by Economics instructors. Stephen characterized the oral English proficiency of his undergraduate students as bad (Stephen, interview, 26/ 9/ 05). Other instructors, such as Kenneth and Kathy, also indicated that their learners' oral English was not very good (Kenneth, interview, 12/ 9/ 05; Kathy, interview, 29/ 9/ 05). Debbie added that, in her tutorials, students frequently ': iust sit there and stare atme" (Debbie, interview, 29/ 9/ 05). However, rather than a lack of English language skills, she attributed this to her learners' limited ideas and knowledge. about the content of the tutorial: "They (students) don't even know the topic at all" (Debbie, interview, 29/ 9/ 05). In contrast, EAP teachers believed that spoken English should occupy centre stage in their classroom. As one EAP teacher explained: I would like them (students) to participate in dass; I would like them to raise questions. I think participating in dass is very important, and we are giving 20 per cent of their total marks to this. I would like them to share opinions and encourage other people. I would like them to feel they have contributions to make in dass. (Karen, interview, 8/ 9/ 05) In contrast to the view of Economics teachers, language specialists did not accept either cognitive or linguistic factors as constraints to achieving oral English based classroom goals. For instance, Karen announced to her students, that "you won't be saying anything smy here, there are no wrong answers, you're allowed to make mistakes" (Karen, classroom observation, 28/ 9/ 05). Another language teacher, Anne, discussed her navigation of potential linguistic constraints to learners' oral participation: I've never seen the fact that their (students) language use is not good as a bad thing. I say 'wow', the fact that they're out there saying it is a good thing. (Anne, interview, 27/ 9/ 05). The students who participated in this study appeared to both accept and welcome the importance attached to oral English in EAP. EAP was seen by some learners as primarily an oral class that offered opportunities to practice their spoken language skills, a competency that these learners believed would be vital to their future career success in Hong Kong's business community. This contrasts with some learners' disappointment as they recalled the lack of similar opportunities within their Economics classroom: Usually we have tutorial questions, the tutor just goes through all the answers and questions. The tutor just writes the answer on the blackboard and we write down the answers. Sometimes they will throw questions to you but I guess not that frequently. It's supposed to be more discussion in tutorials, but unfortunately there' s not. (Victor, interview, 21/ 10/ 05) lFLlllL 36 (2007) 210 Chris Davison, John Trent At the interactional level, the apparently limited scope for students' to develop and to deploy their spoken English language skills in the Economics classroom contrasts with the importance content material played in enabling learners to meet the oral demands ofEAP. For example, in the following small group discussion within the EAP classroom, Patrick outlines the reasons for his choice of 'investment' as the topic for an assessed individual oral presentation each student was required to make to the dass: Patrick: My topic is about value investment Student 1: Value investment. Patrick: Yeh. Student 2: So professional. LL: Laughter. Patrick: You know who is Warren Buffett? Student 2: The second riebest man in the world. Patrick: Yeh, yeh. Student 3: Oh really. Patrick: So what he is using is value investment. Student 2: What is value investment? Patrick: Value investment is that he chooses some share that the company is potential to grow in the future that means the company is really good but the value of the share price is understated. Student 2: Doesn't reflect their value? Student 4: Underestimated price? Patrick: Y eh. Student 3: Oh. Student 1: Do you have some shares that you describe? LL: Laughter. Patrick: Y eh Petro China. Student 1: Do you want to buy now? LL: Laughter. Patrick: Yeh. Student 2: How much have you invested? LL: Laughter. Patrick: A few thousand. Student 1: IPO or secondary market? Patrick: Yeh, secondary market. Student 1: What is the price that you paid lower than Warren Buffett? Patrick: Warren Buffett bought at two dollars per share I was three point something. Student 2: What's the price now? Patrick: Six point something. LL: Wah. Student 3: I see. Student 1: lt is a great profit. Student 4: 100 per cent. Student 2: What's his expectation on the price? Student 1: Unfortunately Petro China stock price falls to five point zero five point nine zero today. IFJLwL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... Student 2: Now? Student 1: Yes, because Hang Seng Index has fallen 200 points. Student 4: Yes, below 15,000. Student 3: Really? Patrick: Why I choose this topic is because my dream is to become [] Warren Buffett. LL: Oh. Student 3: Chinese Warren Buffett. LL: laughter. (19/ 10/ 05) 211 The way in which Patrick links his participation in EAP classroom discourse to the use of discipline specific language and knowledge provides his oral contribution with a degree of credibility; as one student noted, his topic appeared tobe "so professional". In addition, all members of the group were able to share in this credibility as each introduced and displayed knowledge in the use of specialized terminology. This included references to shares, the Hang Seng Index, underestimated price, buying and selling prices, IPO, and the secondary market. Furthermore, Patrick was able to establish his professional credibility with the group by reporting what was described as a "great profit" from his investment activities. By drawing upon their disciplinary expertise, learners, both as individuals and as a group, were able to create opportunities to shape the products and processes of classroom discourse in ways that did not appear to be available to them in the Economics classroom. At the same time language and content learning seemed to emerge "hand-inhand" (GIBBONS 2002) as a result of student topic choice and the freedom they were afforded to make such choices. At the institutional level, there seemed tobe differences in the take-up of the university' s aim to enhance English language learning opportunities across the curriculum. This aim did seem to shape the approach EAP teachers took to teaching and learning practices within their own classrooms: The aim of (EAP) is to get them (students) involved in academic studies [...] oral English is very important here because they need to make presentations in their Economics classes, give papers and defend their position (Karen, interview, 8/ 9/ 05). However, paradoxically perhaps, in the Economics curriculum documents English language development and use were not highlighted, nor was there much awareness among teachers about the need to promote the substantive use of the spoken language within these classrooms, not just as a way of enhancing English language outcomes for individual students but to move towards more constructive and student-centered learning environment. Such a focus at the institutional level is important to ensure that the disciplines fulfill the language policy aims of the university. In this regard, the EAP classroom might provide a successful case study of how this could be brought about, an issue discussed in greater detail below. FILuL 36 (2007) 212 Chris Davison, John Trent 6. Discussion The tensions identified at different levels above suggest that thinking about why and how collaboration between ESL and content teachers in higher education should occur needs to change if such a goal is to be successfully implemented. Collaboration can not be adequately conceptualized by focusing on a single domain. For example, viewing collaboration solely as an issue of material design and methods of teaching/ leaming, or in terms of linguistic and content demands, limits understanding and analysis to what happens in the situated activity of the classroom. In terms of LAYDER's model, this overlooks the importance of the individual, and of individual agency, in shaping how collaboration between language and content teacher is achieved. Similarly, looking only at the level of policy design omits concerns for the influence of actors at levels other than the institutional. In sum, addressing the tensions at any one level shown in the table is a necessary but in itself not sufficient condition for successful implementation of the university's language policy aims. As a result, the actual practices adopted in any collaborative/ partnership model (e.g. identifying content and materials, the type of professional development available to teachers) will also need to reflect the influence of different actors, both individual and institutional. Successful examples from the EAP classroom suggest that a form of bounded leamer control over the processes and products of oral classroom investment may be one of the best ways of attaining the university' s aims for oral language proficiency and enhancement amongst its undergraduate population. This could be accomplished by opening scope for student input into the choice of topics and materials covered within Economics and Finance tutorials. Students and instructors could, for instance, negotiate some of the topics and materials covered in each class. Economics students might then adopt specific oral roles in their content tutorials. Leamers would be producers of classroom discourse as well as directors, shaping the particular topics, materials and outcomes achieved. This is in line with GRAHAM, who argues that providing students with greater control over lessons "may foster feelings of ownership and agency, which may lead to greater participation" (2006: 27). The role of the teacher could be tailored to complement this student-centered oral production and direction. Instructors, for instance, might assist students in establishing connections between their unique and varied oral participation and established frameworks of economic theory and policy. This would ensure that students gain an adequate grounding in economic theory and practice and that the suggestions for teaching and leaming made here do not result in content being compromised or diluted (TEEMANT/ BERNHARDTIRODRIGUEZ-MUNOZ 1997). To achieve this, Economics instructors have available a long established body of research linking economic theory and policy to broader social issues such as 'immigration', 'school', 'families', 'sport', 'discrimination', and 'crime' (COYLE 2002). Working within such traditions, teachers would function as a bridge, both cognitively and linguistically, to assist leamers as they journey between the knowledge, skills, and experiences they bring with them to the classroom and the specialized techniques and language of economics. lFJL1.llL 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 213 7. Conclusions The results of this study reinforce the need to address the essential elements for effective collaboration between language and content area teachers that have been discussed elsewhere, including the need to establish a clear conceptualization of the task, the incorporation of explicit goals for language development into the disciplinary areas and assessment planning processes, the negotiation of a shared understanding oflanguage and discipline teachers' roles/ responsibilities, the development of articulated and flexible pathways for English language learning support, and the establishment of systematic mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and feedback. There are also implications for staff development and institutional support. The suggestions offered here involve a significant change not only in the role and practices adopted by students but also by teachers. However, content faculty, and even EAP teachers, may themselves be unaccustomed to these different pattems of classroom responsibilities and interaction. Therefore, it is necessary to provide staff with resources and training, in the form of workshops and sennnars, to assist them in preparing for their role within the very different classroom environment advocated in this study. Establishing these links between language and content staff may also go a long way towards addressing the need for EAP teachers to work with, rather than for subject specialists. However, the greatest challenge in English-medium universities such as Hong Kong is to ensure that EAP has appropriate status within the disciplinary hierarchy. So long as the institutional practices of universities, themselves a product of societal attitudes and govemment policies, position EAP as a support or remedial subject and fail to give EAP staff the same opportunities as their colleagues in the disciplines to undertake research and obtain promotion, collaboration across the curriculum will be extremely difficult. References ARK0UDIS, Sophie (2003): "Teaching English as a second Language in Science classes: Incomrnensurate epistemologies". In: Language and Education 17 (3), 161-173. ARK0UDIS, Sophie (2007): "Collaborative teaching". In: CUMMINS, Jim/ DAVIS0N, Chris (eds.): International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer, 365-378. BRINT0N, Donna / JENSEN, Linda (2002): "Appropriating the adjunct model: English for academic purposes at the university level". In: KAUFMAN, Dorit (ed.): Content-Based Instruction in Higher Education Settings, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 125-138. BRINT0N, Donna/ MASTER, Peter (eds.) (1997): New Ways in Content-Based Instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. BRINT0N, Donna/ SNOW, Marguerite / WESCHE, Marjorie (1989). Content-Based Language Instruction. Philadelphia: Newbury House. BRUCE, Nigel / DAVIS0N, Chris / P00N, Scarlett (2006): "Hong Kong". Paper presented at the Language Issues in English-medium Universities across Asia symposium. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http: / / www.hku.hk/ clear/ highlights.html C0RTAZZI, Martin/ JIN, Lixian (1996): "Cultures oflearning: language classrooms in China". In: C0LElFLl.llL 36 (2007) 214 Chris Davison, John Trent MAN, Hywel (ed.): Society and Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169-206. COLEMAN, James (2006): "English-medium teaching in European higher education". In: Language Teaching 39, 1-14. COYLE, Diane (2002): Sex, Drugs & Economics. An Unconventional lntroduction to Economics. New York: Texere. CRANDALL, JoAnn (1987): ESL through Content-Area Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. CRANDALL, JoAnn / KAUFMAN, Dorit (eds.) (2002): Case Studies in TESOL: Content-Based Instruction in Higher Education Setting. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. CRANDALL, JoAnn / SPANOS, George/ CHRISTIAN, Donna/ SIMICH-DUDGEON, Carmen / WILLETTS, Ken (1987): Integrating Language and Content Instructionfor Language Minority Students. Washington, DC: National Clearing House for Bilingual Education. CREESE, Angela (2002): "The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: language and subject specialists in mainstream schools". In: TESOL Quarterly 36.2, 597-616. DAVISON, Chris (2006): "Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: A developmental continuum". In: International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9.4, 454-475. DAVISON, Chris / LAI, Winnie (2007): "Competing identities, common issues: Teaching through Putonghua in Hang Kong schools". In: Language Policy 6.1, 119-134. DAVISON, Chris / WILLIAMS, Alan (2001): "Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues". In: MOHAN, Bernhard/ LEUNG, Constant / DAVISON, Chris (eds.): English as a Second Language in the Mainstream: Teaching, Learning and Identity. London: Longman Pearson, 51-70. DEWEY, John (1963 [1916]): Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan. FLOWERDEW, John/ MILLER, Lindsay (1995): "On the notion of culture in L2 lectures". In: TESOL Quarterly 29.2, 345-373. FLOWERDEW, John/ PEACOCK, Matthew (2001a): "Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective". In: FLOWERDEW, John / PEACOCK, Matthew (eds.): Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8-24. FLOWERDEW, John/ PEACOCK, Matthew (2001b): "The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods, and challenges". In: FLOWERDEW, John/ PEACOCK, Matthew (eds.): Research Perspectives on Englishfor Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177-194. FOSNOT, Catherine (ed.) (2005): Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. FREIRE, Paulo (1970): Pedagogy ofthe Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. GIBBONS, Pauline (2002): Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. GLASER, Barney / STRASS, Anselm (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategiesfor Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. GNUTZMANN, Claus / INTEMANN, Frauke (eds.) (2005): The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. GRAHAM, Jennifer (2006): "What does it mean when students don't participate? " In: Essential Teacher 3 (3), 26-29. HALL, Joan Kelly / VERPLAETSE, Lorrie (2000): "Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction". In: HALL, Joan Kelly / VERPLAETSE, Lorrie (eds.): Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-20. HARGREAVES, Andy (1994): "Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Cup of comfort or poisoned chalice? " In: HARGREAVES, Andy (ed.): Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell, 186-211. lFLd 36 (2007) Contradictory Discourses: Learning and Teaching In and Through English ... 215 HARGREAVES, Andy/ MACMILLAN, Bob (1994): "The balkanization of teaching: Collaboration that divides". In: HARGREAVES, Andy (ed.): Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London: Cassell, 212-240. HORWITZ, Elaine / H0RWITZ, Michael/ COPE, Jo Ann (1986): "Foreign language classroom anxiety". In: Modem Language Journal 70.l, 125-132. H0RWITZ, Elaine / YOUNG, Dolly (eds.) (1991): Language Anxiety. From Theory and Research to Classroom Implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. HURST, Donna/ DAVISON, Chris (2005): "Collaboration on the curriculum: Focus on secondary ESL". In: KAUFMAN, Dorit / CRANDALL, JoAnn (eds.): Case Studies in TESOL: Teacher Educationfor Language and Content Integration. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 41-56. HYLAND, Ken / HAMP-LYONS, Liz (2002): "EAP: Issues and directions". In: Journal of Englishfor Academic Purposes 1.1, 1-12. JACKSON, Jane (2002): "Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations". In: System 30, 65-.84. JACKSON, Jane (2005): "An inter-university, cross-disciplinary analysis of business education: Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong". In: English for Specific Purposes 24, 293-306. KEMBER, David (2000): "Misconceptions about the learning approaches, motivation and study practices of Asian students". In: Higher Education 40, 99-121. KENNEDY, Peter (2002): "Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners". In: International Journal of Lifelong Education 21.5, 430-445. KIM, Soonhyang (2006): "Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields". In: English for Specific Purposes 25, 479-489. LAM, Agnes (2005): Language Education in China. Policy and Experiencefrom 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. LAYDER, Derek (1993): New Strategies in Social Research: An Introduction and Guide. Cambridge: Polity Press. LAYDER, Derek (2006): Understanding Social Theory. (2nd ed.). London: Sage. LEE, Cynthia (1999): "Learning through tutorial discussion and learners' culture: Some preliminary observations from the views of Hong Kong Chinese tertiary students". In: Language, Culture and Curriculum 12.3, 255-264. LI, Natalia / LEUNG, Doris/ KEMBER, David (2001): "Medium of instruction in Hong Kong Universities: The mis-match between espoused theory and theory in use". In: Higher Education Policy 14, 293-312. Lm, Ngar-Fun / LITTLEW0OD, William (1997): "Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in classroom learning discourse? " In: System 25, 371-384. MILES, Matthew / HUBERMAN, Michael (1984): Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. MOHAN, Bernard (1986): Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. MoHAN, Bernard (2001 ): "The second language as a medium of learning". In: MOHAN, Bernard / LEUNG, Constant / DAVISON, Chris (eds.): English as a Second Language in the Mainstream. Teaching, Learning and Identity. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 107-126. MOHAN, Bernard / LOWE, Marylin (1995): "Collaborative teacher assessment ofESL writers: Conceptual and practical Issues". In: TESOL Journal 5.1, 28-31. MORITA, Naoko (2000): "Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate classroom". In: TESOL Quarterly 34.2, 279-310. MORITA, Naoko (2004): "Negotiating participation and identity in secondlanguage academic communities". In: TESOL Quarterly 38.4, 573-603. PATTON, Michael (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: JFLIIL 36 (2007) 216 Chris Davison, John Trent Sage. PHILLIPSON, Robert (2006): "English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages ? " In: European Journal of English Studies 10.1, 13-32. ROBERTS, Douglas (1996): "Epistemic authority for teacher knowledge: the potential role of teacher communities: A response to Robert Orton". In: Curriculum lnquiry 26.4, 417--431. SCHNEIDER, Jan (2006): "Language and mediality: On the medial status of 'everyday language"'. In: Language and Communication 26, 331-342. SELIGER, Herbert / SHOHAMY, Elana (1989): Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SHORT, Deborah / ECHEVARRIA, Jana (1999): The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Tool for Teacher-Researcher Collaboration and Professional Development. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. SISKIN, Leslie (1994): Realms of Knowledge: Academic Departments in Secondary Schools. London: Falmer. SISKIN, Leslie / LITTLE, Judith (1995): "Introduction. Tue subject department: continuities and critiques". In: LITTLE, Judith (ed.): The Subjects in Question. New York: Teachers College Columbia University, 1-22. SNOW, Marguerite / MET, Myriam / GENESEE, Fred (1989): "A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/ foreign language instruction". In: TESOL Quarterly 23.2, 201- 219. STAKE, Robert (1978): "The case study method in social inquiry". In: Educational Researcher (February), 5-8. STOLLER, Fredricka (2004): "Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning". In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 261-283. TEEMANT, Annela / BERNHARDT, Elizabeth / RODRIGUEZ-MUNOZ, Marisol (1997): "Collaborating with content-area teachers: What we need to share". In: SNOW, Marguerite / BRINTON, Donna (eds.): The Content-Based Classroom. Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content. White Plains, NY: Longman, 311-318. TOLLEFSON, James (2006): "Language Policy in Asian Tertiary Institutions". Paper presented at the Language Issues in English-medium Universities across Asia symposium. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http: / / www.hku.hk/ clear/ highlights.html Tsur, Amy (1996): "Reticence and anxiety in second language learning". In: BAILEY, Kathleen M. / NUNAN, David (eds.): Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145-167. Tsur, Amy (2007): "Language policy and the social construction of identity: The case ofHong Kong". In: Tsur, Amy / TOLLEFSON, James (eds.): Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 121-141. TRENT, John (2007): Second Language Learners' Investment in Classroom Discourse: Developing a Multi-Level Framework. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Hong Kong: University ofHong Kong. UNIVERSITY OF HONGKONG (2004): Review of Language Education in the University. Report of the Review Panel on Centres and Units Oftering Language Enhancement and Language Proficiency Courses. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. UNIVERSITY OF HONGKONG (2005): Undergraduate Prospectus 2005-2006. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. WELLS, Gordon (1999): Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VYGOTSKY, Lev (1986): Thought and Language. A. Kozulin (ed. and trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. JFLJ; U[, 36 (2007)