Marcin Kleban & Ewa Bandura

IFA UJ

English philology teachers' and students' awareness

of the epistemic and socio-symbolic functions of
academic language
Rationale for the study

 Foreign language education should aspire to

be more than ‘training for a job market’; it
ought to provide opportunity to acquire
transferable critical competences, which will
enable students to become active, critical
and autonomous citizens of a multilingual
world (Crosbie 2005: 296, 299).
University as centre for competences
development
Key competences for the 21st century
 Communication in the mother tongue;
 Communication in foreign languages;
 Mathematical competence and basic competences in
science and technology;
 Digital competence;
 Learning to learn;
 Social and civic competences;
 Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship;
 Cultural awareness and expression.
(Recommendation… 2006)
More reasons for rethinking (English)
language university education

 Language development courses - opportunity for

transversal skills development (Brumfit et al.
2005)
 Goal of university education: critical thinking,
self-reflection, action (Barnett 1997)
 Developing intercultural communicative
competence: ability to evaluate on the basis of
explicit criteria, postpone judgment, avoid
stereotyping, self-relection, sensitivity to cultural
context (Byram 2012)
Functions of academic language

Academic language can be understood in terms of a special

type of situated educational type of discourse (written and
spoken) which requires linguistic competences and appropriate
social orientation. Functions:
 Communicative (communication and knowledge
transmission)
 Epistemic (literacy skills, including critical literacy,
development)
 Socio-symbolic (‘a ticket’ allowing access to educational
institutions and social groupings & ‘a visiting card’ or a tool
for identity building and social positioning)
(Heller & Morek, 2015)
The Study Aims

Investigate:
 the teachers’ and students’ awareness of the
epistemic and socio-symbolic functions of the
language used at practical English classes;
 their perceptions of the functions of
academic language;
 the extent to which the groups’ visions of the
functions of English converge.
Research questions

 What are the students’ and teachers’

perceptions of the salience of the epistemic
and socio-symbolic functions of English?
 What are their visions of the aims of teaching
English at the English philology?
 Are these visions convergent or rather
divergent?
Description of the study

 Participants: over 130 students of all levels

and years of IFA UJ; 11 practical English
language teachers; 18 syllabi (BA & MA
levels)
 Method: mixed qualitative and quantitative
cross-sectional study design
 Research tools: questionnaires for teachers,
students, analysis of syllabi
Survey: goals of language education at
English philology (students’ views)
for self-
 Students communicate presentation
(BA & MA) easily as a tool purposes Other*
N
Valid 131 131 131 25

Mean 1.59 1.95 2.79 2.16

Median 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

Mode 1 2 3 1

*Other: professional skills development (teaching, translating),

getting to know culture, developing personal interests
Goals of language education at English
philology: students’ views

Ranks
  Mean Rank
communicate easily 1.51
as a tool 1.83
for self presentation purposes 2.66

Friedman test
N 131
Chi-Square 91.420
df 2
Asymp. Sig. .000
Survey: goals of language education at
English philology (teachers’ views)
for self-
communicate presentation
  easily as a tool purposes Other*
teacher   Valid 11 11 11 3
Mean 1.82 1.36 2.55 1.33
Median 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00
Mode 1 1 3 1

*Other: awareness of complexity of language, developing critical

thinking, gaining awareness of relationship between
language and culture
Goals of language education: BA, MA
students’ and teachers’ views
 
Ranks
Study level Mean Rank
BA level communicate easily 1.34
as a tool 1.99
for self-presentation 2.67
purposes
MA level communicate easily 1.69
as a tool 1.67
for self-presentation 2.64
purposes
teacher communicate easily 2.00
as a tool 1.44
for self-presentation 2.56
purposes
Important skills and abilities in
English
Ranks
Study level Mean Rank
BA level knowledge of advanced 4.61
vocabulary
use complex language 4.48
MA level opinion forming 4.18
argumentation 4.86
teacher opinion forming 2.42
argumentation 2.17
Goals of language education: BA, MA
syllabi analysis

Level of BA English (6)  BA English- BA German- MA English (4)

studies German (4) English (4)
Goals 1.Academic arguing, 1. 1. Academic
presentations, Communicative Communicative analytical
sources evaluation    social comp. reading,
2.Discourse 2.Academic culture  academic texts,
structure analysis, presentations, 2. Academic identifying and
stylistic dev. critical Select info, presenting
register, author’s listening, argue points of view,
strategies academic relevant
3.Communicative  writing, search sources,
for info  context
3. Discourse awareness, life
styles long learning
Visions of a successful philology
graduate
 

Comm. English
Study High level Academ. with Native Intercult. cult. Tool for
level lang. skills skills natives like level skills knowl. profession
BA level 51 14 19 4 4 9 14

MA level 52 13 5 7 5 4 19

teacher 6 10 0 0 1 1 0
Discussion

Relatively most important goals of English

language education for:
 BA level students: develop communicative
proficiency in English
 MA level students: English as a (study,
professional development) tool
 Teachers: English as a (study, professional
development) tool
Discussion

Relatively most important skills:

 BA level students: development of language skills
 MA level students: opinion forming and
argumentation skills
 Teachers: opinion forming and argumentation
skills
 For teachers academic skills important at both BA
and MA levels, as shown by the analysis of the
available syllabi.
Discussion

Visions of the successful graduate:

 BA and MA levels students: high level language
skills
 BA level students: interactions with native
speakers
 MA level students: English seen as professional
development and employability tool
 Teachers: graduates as individuals with high
level academic skills
Discussion
 Communicative function of AL important to all groups
 Epistemic function of academic language more pronounced
for teachers and MA level students, BA level students more
focused on communication in English.
 The awareness of the socio-symbolic function is less explicit;
it is implicit in the students' and teachers’ desire to position
themselves or their students as highly proficient English
language users.
 BA level students seek self-identification with the native
speakers, similarly to a number of MA level students,
however, the latter also perceive themselves as employees
with a high level command of English.
Conclusions

When teaching practical English at philologies,

it is worth considering:
 more explicit focus on the development of
the awareness and the understanding of the
epistemic function at the BA level education
 more explicit focus on developing the
awareness of the socio-symbolic function at
all levels.
Thank you!
References
 Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University
Press.
 Brumfit, C.. Myles. F., Mitchell. R., Johnston, B. & Ford. P. (2005) ‘Language Study in Higher
Education and the Development of Criticality’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
vol. 15. no. 2. pp. 145–168.
 Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness – relationships.
comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness. 21(1-2). pp. 5-13.
 Crosbie, V. (2005) ‘Future Directions for Modern Languages in the Higher Education
Landscape: An Interview with Alison Phipps and Mike Gonzalez’. Language and Intercultural
Communication. vol. 5. no. 3 & 4. pp. 294–303.
 Heller, V.. & Morek, M. (2015). Editorial. Academic discourse as a situated practice: An
introduction. Linguistics and Education. 31. 174-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.008
 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on
key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European
Union L394. (2006). Available online at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_394
l_39420061230en00100018.pdf