meanings
Igor’s text can be compared with another, more successful lab report, such as Walter’s. One striking difference between the two texts, is the difference in meaning clarity. Walter in the first example below, writes sentences that are very typical of scientific discourse as described by Halliday (2006):
1. However, other labelled peaks in the spectra of S3 suggest the presence of
more absorbing components such as pheotphytin-a ad pheophytin-b.
Walter’s sentence consists of clause simplex composed of a conjunction, a technical noun group followed by a verb that carries an interpersonal meaning (suggest), itself followed by another technical noun group.
In contrast, Igor writes a clause complex involving a circumstantial clause (upon extracting…), a short main clause with a verb carrying a hedging meaning and a limiter with an imprecise indication of measure ‘rather high’, which is then followed by a causal hypotactic clause. For a student who insists that Scientific writing is simple and
straightforward, he actually uses a range of expressions (‘upon’; ‘as per’) and makes syntactic choices that recall a more convoluted, and even narrative style.
2.Upon extracting the crude CuI from drying the diethyl ether, the purity of the
CuI appears to be rather high as its appearance is a white powdery solid as per
the literature description of CuI .
The disciplinary assignment analysis for the three students Yena, Igor and Jane and when available, the evaluation of a discipline expert, seem to indicate that perception of transfer is not necessarily related to performance. Yena (Extract 18) produces a text which is satisfactory for her lecturer. The lecturer comments solely on content, and when dealing with ‘language’, writes that the preference for the Methods section is to use the passive voice and past tense. This is very important of course as subject lecturers themselves may view language as unimportant until it interferes with the meaning- making experience they
are sharing with the students through the text. The level of tolerance may be very different across lecturers (as was found in Street & Lea, 1989).
Igor and Jane, however, present different texts. Igor produces a B+ report (according to the student) which indicates a performance which is not very highly evaluated by the lecturer. Text analysis reveals that Igor’s text seems to adopt a register that is somewhat different from the description of scientific discourse seen in Chapter 2, and different from Walter’s A+ lab report. This shows that Igor’s linguistic representation (in particular his management of interpersonal and logical meanings) may not be completely successful at delivering highly valued content to the lecturer. Igor was reluctant to divulge the subject lecturer’s feedback on the text, and so this data is not available beyond the letter grade. Jane’s text shows that she may struggle over control of several features expected in scientific register and in her case, the lack of relevance perceived for the EAP KAL, may also reflect a lack of ability to analyze her disciplinary context to produce a text that meets the requirements. These two students’ evolving repertoires, as exemplified in these two texts, do not seem yet to enable them fully to make the valued uncommonsense meanings typical of scientific discourse. How this relates to the ability to transfer will be discussed in Chapter 5.
4.3.3 Conclusion
Confirming James (2010)’s findings, the perception of context similarity and difference seems to be an important factor in whether transfer occurs. Dr Strange is able to abstract elements of textual meanings and use them in Maths proofing, a context which is arguably very far from the EAP module context. Igor and Walter perceive their
disciplinary contexts in different ways, with Igor making no connections, while Walter is able to use most of the EAP KAL toolkits. This confirms that it is perception of similarity which is important and not actual similarity. The literature reviewed in Chapter 1
explains this difference in perception though the concept of ‘motivation’ (James, 2012). However, in view of such a homogeneous group of participants, who have successfully secured a place at a leading University in Asia, motivation seems at best an ill- defined explanation. All participants in this study can be described as ‘motivated’ students. The grounded theory analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that students seemed to characterize their discipline, the EAP module and transfer, as well as themselves as members of a community quite differently according to whether they reported transfer or
not. The results of the analysis of dispositions to knowledge and of affiliation indications are reported in 4.4.
4.4 Dispositions to knowledge and affiliation
During the analysis of the interview data, it became apparent that participants were not only communicating the extent to which they had operated any transfer and their explanation for it. They were also expressing deeply held values and dispositions. This was seen in the way they were describing the EAP module and their own disciplines. As explained in the methodology chapter, an LCT Specialization analysis was conducted to explore the participants’ dispositions to knowledge in both their discipline and the EAP module. To do this, and drawing on Maton and Chen’s (2016b) as well as Weekes’ (2014) approaches, the realisations of epistemic relations were charted as follows (the translation device is provided in Chapter 3, section 3.2.4):
• Strong Epistemic relations (ER+) are realized as an emphasis on the content knowledge or the specialized knowledge needed. In the data, this was indicated through the use of technical terms, and the description of the processes (of the scientific activities in the discipline, for example) as well as positive evaluations of knowledge and ways of doing things.
• Weak epistemic relations (ER-) are realized as a lack of recognition of knowledge or a depreciating of the knowledge content. In the data, this was indicated by a lack of reference to concrete knowledge from the discipline, or negative evaluations of knowledge and ways of doing things.
It is important to note that, as Maton & Chen (2016a) state, the focus is on the
participant’s educational disposition, as realized in their description of the situation (the EAP module, the disciplinary text and transfer) and do not necessarily reflect an objective reality. Nevertheless, a disposition analysis of the interview data (and the EAP reflective task where relevant) shows a clear contrast between students who report transfer (even if limited) and those who report none. As will be seen, this contrast goes beyond the ability to name content knowledge from the EAP module, but encompasses the way students describe the EAP module, their own discipline and the way they express values about them.
4.4.1 EAP characterised as a knowledge code discipline
Participants who report transfer tend to characterise the EAP module as a knowledge code, or at least they tend to have perceived the boosting of the epistemic relations in the module. This is predictable since one way to measure transfer in this study is to both make KAL visible and to track whether students are consciously using this knowledge in their disciplinary text and talking about it in the interview.In his reflection task (see annotated Extract 21 below), Dr Strange emphasizes knowledge content for his discipline: the problem stated (the difficulty of writing proof) is explained in terms of lack of knowledge: I did not know to apply my thoughts into words that would be understandable by the readers. He exhibits a knowledge code orientation to his discipline.
In Dr Strange’s characterisation of the EAP module, however, there is a shift from a weak epistemic relation characterisation to a strengthening in epistemic relation. The EAP module is first characterised as ‘useless’; ‘I considered it as a burden’. However, after the critical incident (marked by ‘Things start changing’), the student’s characterisation turns to a knowledge code orientation. It is telling that the first mention of EAP after this incident mentions ‘course materials being taught [to] us’ and a specific knowledge item, all indications of strengthening epistemic relations. This ER+ characterization continues throughout the reflection with explicit reference to content knowledge in the EAP module. Dr Strange’s characterisation of the EAP curriculum therefore shifts to a knowledge oriented depiction, which is in sharp contrast to the second participant, Yena, as will be shown below.