Working Papers
in Language Education and Research
http://eliworkingpapers.org/
ISSN 2187­4972

ACCESSING ACADEMIC ENGLISH
LITERACY AT AN INTERNATIONAL
BRANCH CAMPUS: AN EXPLORATORYSTUDY IN VIETNAM
Name: Nick Canning
Corresponding Author:

canning­n@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Year of Publication: 2015

To cite this article​: Canning, N. (2015). Accessing academic
English literacy at an international branch campus: An exploratory
study in Vietnam. ​Working Papers in Language Education andResearch​, 3, 52­76.

Scroll down for article

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

ACCESSING ACADEMIC ENGLISH LITERACY AT AN INTERNATIONAL
BRANCH CAMPUS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY IN VIETNAM

Nick Canning
Kanda University of International Studies

ABSTRACTThis paper reports on research into the dilemma of how best to facilitate the access ofacademic English literacy among adult learners at an international branch campus in
Vietnam. This focus was chosen as it was observed to be the area that caused students themost difficulties. A case study approach was used to examine the students’ previous
literacy practices as well as the areas that they felt were most problematic in accessing
written academic English literacy. Finally, students that had successfully completed theuniversity’s EAP course were consulted on what difficulties they faced as course
participants and what strategies they used to overcome them. The findings suggest that
useful pedagogical approaches may include: fostering greater learner autonomy,
integrating more vocabulary input in speaking tasks, (Nation, 2008), utilizing the corpus
in the classroom, and providing explicit instruction in and of the language ofcollaboration to foster reasoning skills.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the changing climate of a more globalized higher education, the international
branch campus (IBC) has become more prevalent as a means of offering undergraduate orpost­graduate degrees from a higher educational institution from outside a student’s countryof residence. Lane (2011) defines an IBC as an entity, which is at least part­owned by aforeign educational institution of the same name and which offers some face­to­faceteaching leading to a complete academic course or program that is then awarded by theforeign educational institution. These programs have been gaining significant popularity

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

among prospective students, and the production large pools of graduates able to function in
English­medium workplaces is also seen as highly desirable by countries wishing to rapidly
develop their economies or maintain positions of economic prominence (Hyland &Hamp­Lyons, 2002). There are currently 188 such campuses worldwide (C­BERT, 2013).
As English is the language of instruction for the majority of IBCs (Lane, 2011),
prospective students will have to pass certain standardised tests to show evidence ofsufficient academic English proficiency to access these courses, which has presented achallenge in some contexts. For instance, Chambers and Cummings (1990) found that oneof the main reasons all but one IBC failed in Japan, was the lack of students who could
attain sufficient English levels to access the courses. Thus, entry into an IBC degree
program is no mere formality. Pre­sessional courses can be of great benefit in improving
student preparedness, but these too require considerable investment by both the operator andstudents for both to succeed, as demonstrated by experience in a Vietnamese IBC context,
described as follows.

2. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

The study took place at an IBC in Vietnam, where the age of learners on thepre­sessional course ranged from eighteen to thirty with the majority having joined directly
after graduation from High School. The students were predominantly Vietnamese, withsome Korean and Japanese students also participating. The course consisted of five levels,from Pre­Intermediate to Advanced, with students testing in at a particular level,
progressing to Advanced­level, and, upon successful completion of the pre­sessional

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

English course, entering a degree program. Each of the five courses lasted ten weeks witheach week containing twenty hours of study time devoted equally to the skills of reading,writing, listening and speaking with grammar and vocabulary covered explicitly in the
curriculum. Each of the four skills was assessed individually and students had to receive apassing grade in each individual skill to progress to the next level of study. Learners
produced two written texts on the topic of study in a given week, which both received
feedback before requiring redrafting. Based upon lecturer’s observations, the area which
proved to be most consistently problematic for students in progressing to the next level ofstudy was writing. As such, the focus of the present study was on the acquisition of written
academic literacy.

3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The current discourse surrounding literacy no longer views it as merely an ability toread and write. Street (2003) contrasts the ‘autonomous’ view of literacy, a view of reading
and writing to be learned as an end in itself, with a multi­faceted ‘ideological’ view, inwhich each type of literacy incorporates the sociocultural context in which it exists. Thisprevailing perspective within the discourse of language and literacy means that literacy ismade up of numerous literacy practices, or literacies, drawn from the individual’ssociocultural context. In an academic context Turner (2012) states that a course within an
academic literacies framework can include different literacy practices (such as text orpractice dimensions) that would be associated with reading and writing in a tertiary or
higher education context. Although this study will focus on one particular set of academic

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

literacy practices, it is not intended to be viewed as isolated from the other practices foundin this academic context.
In higher education, written literacy in the EAP context is typically characterised as
requiring a linear and sequentially organized text that contributes to a perception in thereader of the order, symmetry and logical thinking that was used to construct it (Ha, 2009).
Students also have to become familiar with different essay structures and styles in their L2(Asaoka & Usui 2003). Institutions in this context also normally require students to be able
to show critical thinking, questioning, and analytical and evaluative skills, as well as accessto the ‘written code’ of grammar, lexis and spelling (Ha, 2009). As such the literacy
practices associated with a university­level EAP course may differ markedly from thoseundertaken during study in secondary schools.
Looking at literacy in this way, and bearing in mind the academic expectations that
institutions have of students, we see that if practitioners lack sufficient knowledge of thesocio­cultural background of students’ previous literacy practices, they may be unable toappropriately, meaningfully scaffold and facilitate development of academic English
literacy. Previous studies in this area have focused on the problems student face in academic
writing (Asaoka & Usui, 2003; Lee, 2008; and Raims, 1985), the process that writers go
through (Cumming, 1990 and Stapleton, 2010), the problems of fostering critical literacy in
ESL and EAP (Hammond & Macken­Horarik, 1999; Kiely, 2004), as well as learnerstrategies to overcome problems (Baker, 2004; Oxford, 1990). Research focused on English
writing pedagogy in IBC contexts is scant, however.
In addition, the participants in the above studies were mainly required to choose a
topic on which to research and write. Students at the IBC engage in in­class writing on the

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

subject matter of the course. Due to such differences in nature of the tasks, some of the
difficulties highlighted in the studies investigating student problems (Asaoka & Usui, 2003;
Lee, 2008; and Raims, 1985) such as finding a topic to write about will not be relevant inthis context. It may also be that as a pre­sessional course differs from undergraduate
language study, some of the problems students face maybe context­specific. The writing
process investigated by Stapleton (2010) was that of a post­graduate student’s electronic
writing, and the author stated that there were differences in the cognitive resources used forelectronic writing and writing with a pen and paper, the latter being used by students on the
IBC pre­sessional course. As such there is further scope for research in an IBC context. The
studies by Hammond and Macken­Horarik (1999) and Kiely (2004) may be of benefit topractitioners in this context but it is first pertinent to determine if students found theacquisition of critical literacy to be problematic. Finally, the strategies outlined in bothBaker (2004) and Oxford (1990) may be of value, but there may also be strategies adopted
by students to deal with context specific problems (assuming they exist), which are of equalvalue.
4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

As the researcher had previously observed students’ difficulty with negotiating thewritten aspects of academic literacy in their pre­sessional courses, the study set out toanswer two research questions:
1. What problems did students feel they faced when writing academic English?
2. Did students who had successfully completed the course have the same problems
and if so how did they overcome these problems?

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

The project was designed as an action research study, wherein it was hoped that theanswers to these questions would inform and improve the practice of the researcher
through better facilitation of the access of this particular literacy practice in this context.
As each level of the course was ten weeks long, and progression to the next level
was determined by an examination, the research had to be carried out in a short space oftime. A longitudinal study would not be possible as students from one class after aten­week­course may disperse into different classes at different time slots or possibly
leave the program. Thus, just as with Asaoka & Usui, 2003; Cummings, 1990; Stapleton,
2010 and Raims, 1985, a case study approach was used to examine this area of writing.
However, as the writing process was not the focus of the research, the think­aloudprotocols used by Cummings, 1990; Stapleton; 2010 and Raims, 1985 did not form part ofthe data collection. Similar to Asaoka and Usui (2003), surveys and interviews wereconducted, but students were not asked to keep writing journals, which were deemed
intrusive. The subjects were recruited from two of the teacher­researcher’s classes (N=20).
The initial data collection was a survey of previous L1 literacy practices and thestudents’ perceived problems with academic writing in English since their entry into theinstitution. The questionnaires consisted of a mixture of multiple choice and open­ended
questions to gain a greater response rate than if all questions were open­ended(Hammersley et al. 2001). The multiple choice answers were also deemed to aid student
comprehension of the questions by offering example answers, and as the questionnaires
were given ​in situ​, any student comprehension problems could be addressed by the
researcher.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

The questionnaires were followed by interviews with two small groups of students
one from each class selected according to their willingness to participate. It was decided
that the first group would be asked about previous literacy practices and the second would
be asked about perceived problems rather than conducting two lengthy interviews. The
final stage was to survey students who had successfully completed the course on theperceived problems they encountered and the strategies adopted to overcome them.
Although surveys were the initial data collection tools, the study was
predominantly carried out qualitatively in that data analysis occurred concurrently withdata collection (Hammersley et al. 2001). The multiple­choice answers and lack of
responses to several open­ended questions meant that the need for coding was limited,thus the inclusion of a second rater was deemed unnecessary for the survey results. The
analysis model followed the three stages of qualitative analysis, initial analysis,
formulation of categories and concepts followed by the generation of theory as outlined by
Hammersley et al. (2001). This method was adopted to shape the further stages of datacollection in the study and allow the researcher to conduct concurrent triangulation of thedata through the subsequent interview stages and investigate emergent categories of dataand concepts

5. FINDINGSIn the surveys students were able to select more than one answer for certain
questions meaning that the number of responses exceeded twenty.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

5.1 ​Previous Literacy Practices
The students that were surveyed had experienced a wide variety of different
educational contexts (some students had studied at international schools) and somestudents had been schooled in different countries. The initial findings (see Appendix A)
showed that the students had engaged in rich and varied previous L1 literacy practices invarious different subjects and many had had written essays as formal assessment tasks.
The most common forms of L1 literacy practice were found to be a response to abook or article, a geographical description and an historical account. In the subsequentinterview the subject of the response was actually found to usually be a poem. It was also
felt pertinent to enquire about the nature of how students were previously taught in theacquisition of written literacies prior to entry into the IBC program and the method of
preparation was largely through textbook exercises, direct instruction or the presentationof models. The writing took place largely in Literature, History, Geography and Social
studies classes, with most students also having written an essay as part of an exam. Thisessay based examination was most commonly undertaken for literature classes.
The results show that students had undertaken a written component in a wide
variety of different subjects, writing essays similar in style to those commonly used in
EAP program, or producing other texts according to previously determined structures. In
the first interview the students elaborated on the nature of written tasks in literatureclasses.
Student A: ​Yes it’s similar for us, we had to explain the meaning of the whole poem
and especially some special words in the poem.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

Interviewer:​Okay, and then did you have to write an essay?
Student A: ​Yes with an introduction body and conclusion.”

As such, IBC students actually may not require the same level of familiarity with
L2 writing tasks commonly found at university level, as stated by Asaoka & Usui (2003).
The results also show that students were prepared for written tasks mainly throughtextbook exercises and direct instruction. This on the surface would appear similar to how
students would be prepared in an EAP classroom. However, in the same interview,
participants mentioned as well that some of the literacy practices specifically in literature
involved the use of decoding vocabulary that was no longer in use, writing a biography of
the author, and that this practice often involved a great deal of memorization.
Student A:​
Actually in Vietnam the students don’t prepare too much. The teacher justgive us the information to memorise, we don’t have to research or anything. We justhave to memorise it, the paper, the worksheet.
Student E:​
It’s very teacher centred, yeah.
Student A: ​We were kind of passive when we were in High School in Vietnam
because the teachers also give us everything and all the information.
Student E: ​Yeah, just memorise, memorise, memorise….
Student C:​
Just memorise, blah, blah, blah
Student E: ​And then we get a score.
The students here show that the written literacy practice did not necessarily require
individual or collective analysis. In addition, both student E and C appear to show some
disdain for the practice, as when they state above that the task simply required

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

memorization to achieve a grade. The students all agreed that they were simply told what
to write and then to memorise it. This type of literacy practice would not take place in an
EAP setting, which typically aim to foster critical thinking, analysis and inquiry (Ha,2009).
Moreover the method of preparation and the absence of some of the more common
EAP essay types such as the cause and effect essay or an essay requiring external researchwould further support the idea that many students will engage in very different literacy
practices than those undertaken in High School (Asaoka & Usui 2003). A reliance on
memorization may even call into question whether intercultural rhetoric (the idea that
previous literacy practices in a particular educational cultural context may affect theacquisition of new ones) may have been a factor within this particular academic context(see Belcher, 2014, for discussion). At the very least it would seem that a lack offamiliarity with a particular discourse practice will make access less straightforward(McKinley, 2013).

5.2 ​The Problems Students Faced
The students were asked questions in the same survey about the problems they
faced with grammar or ‘surface level’ problems , structural issues or ‘macro level’
problems (Asaoka & Usui, 2003), and which areas they found most difficult. In terms of
the specific surface­level problems, the respondents most often cited sentence structure,
prepositions and articles. In terms of the macro­level difficulties, four main areas
appeared; choosing academic words; generating ideas, thinking of examples, and writing
quickly. The latter could be seen as an external factor as this simply may have been

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

attributable to handwriting speed, and as such may not have been a barrier to accessing theliteracy practice itself. When asked to identify the area that they found most difficult, themajority of respondents answered that generating ideas and supporting them with
examples was the most problematic.
In response to the question of why an area was found to be difficult, the only
reason given for a grammatical difficulty was remembering when to apply certain rules.
Writing on unfamiliar topics, i.e. generating ideas, appeared to be the most difficult area.
It is also interesting to note that a limited vocabulary was seen as an area of difficulty in
explaining ideas, indicating perhaps that the surface and macro­level problems wereinterlinked and maybe should not be seen as separate factors.
In the second interview the students mentioned that idea generation was one of, if
not the most difficult part of the essay writing process, owing perhaps to the particularchallenge of evaluating ideas and determining whether ideas could be used or not in the
essay.
Interviewer:​
What areas of writing were most difficult?
Student A1:​
(inaudible) Ideas was difficult for us.
Interviewer:​Was that getting ideas about new topics?
Student A1:​
We didn’t know what is good idea and what idea is not good.
As a way of circumventing the problem of idea generation the students mentioned
independent research, asking others for help, and group discussions, which took place inclass as a means of helping students generate and evaluate ideas on certain topics. They
also stated that it was easier to write about familiar topics as they already had ideas toevaluate on these topics.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

A possible reason offered for grammar being problematic was that certain grammaticalareas, such as prepositions, were easy to forget and that they had trouble with word formand subject­verb agreement, with careful proof­reading being cited as a method of
avoiding such errors
Vocabulary, in particular choosing academic words, was seen as an area ofdifficulty by 70% of students. The interviewees also concurred that the academic
discourse required for EAP essays was difficult, as Student A1 explains:
Interviewer:​Okay, what about vocabulary, was that difficult or easy or…?
Student A1​: Sometimes we used the wrong word to talk about a cause or effect.
…..it was very difficult.
Interviewer: ​Did you find it easy to learn new vocabulary?
(Several students laugh and shake their heads)
Interviewer:​
What did you find difficult about learning new vocabulary? Did you find
it difficult to remember new vocabulary? Did you find it difficult to use new
vocabulary?
Students: ​All of them.

The use of academic English vocabulary has been shown to be problematic fornative speakers of non­Indo­European languages (Corson, 1997; Mizumoto & Takeuchi,2009). Corson (1997) states that many of the academic words used in higher education are
Greco­Latin in origin and, while native speakers may begin encountering them late on inPrimary School and in Secondary School, non­native speakers may not encounter nor use

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

them in the same way. Corson also explains that gaining access to the ‘meaning systems’of academic words is connected to what he terms a ‘culture of literacy’ and stresses theimportance of participation in this practice, whereby people use these words in context, asa prerequisite of accessing their meaning and usage. This lack of exposure to academic
vocabulary and access to a previous ‘culture of literacy’ may be at the root of the student
difficulties in using academic English discourse.

5.3 The Results from Students That Had Completed the Course
The results of the surveys and two interviews provided some further areas toinvestigate. Namely whether students who had successfully completed the program had
the same problems and, as the more advanced levels of the course featured a greater
emphasis on critical literacy, whether critical literacy was deemed by the respondents tobe problematic. In the second interview the use of discussion with classmates or peers ingenerating ideas was mentioned.
Interviewer: ​Let’s look at ideas, how did you get ideas for your essays for something
you hadn’t studied before?
Student B1​: Discuss with our group.
Interviewer: ​When you discussed with a group, did you come up with your ideas or
did you remember what other people had told you?
Student A1:​
Both.
Moreover, the response from students that they would not simply remember what had
previously been explained to them in discussions, as might be expected from a learning

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

environment that may have involved significant memorization, was deemed to warrant
further investigation.
The respondents (n=4) were unavailable for interview however the responses given
to an online questionnaire were detailed and candid. As such the decision was taken to use
the raw data collected in table form and qualitatively analyse the answers to open­ended
questions rather than coding different responses for statistical analysis.
The students that had already completed the course had also engaged in a variety
of previous literacy practices. Among these, the opinion essay was the most common; andalthough the students had engaged in the similarly common previous practices of narrativeand creative writing or a response to a book or article, one student had written a cause andeffect essay in their L1. Among these students it could be argued that the previous L1
literacy practices engaged in may not have differ so greatly from those in a typical EAP
context.
In terms of the problems these particular students encountered, the surface levelproblems were not dissimilar to those faced by other students but only one area
(prepositions) received more than one response. With regard to the macro­level difficulties
the previous problems of generating ideas, examples and supporting details featured
strongly. The emergence of vocabulary being an area of great difficulty for all subjects
was also interesting to note. This is in contrast to the number of students that deemed it aparticularly difficult area in the previous survey, where only four out of the twenty
students deemed it significantly problematic. However, fourteen acknowledged that this
aspect of writing had provided them with difficulties. It could be that as the topics on thecourse became more academic then the discourse required in written tasks did also.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

Perhaps this is why vocabulary was seen as an area of significant difficulty in the latterstages of the English preparatory program, which is worthy of particular attention.

5.4 Student solutions
Although difficulties existed in accessing this particular literacy practice, thestudents who had successfully negotiated the course adopted a variety of methods toovercome these problems. The most striking of these was the adoption of particular
strategies on the basis of what they perceived as an area of weakness. Each student
selected a particular strategy to improve an area of their learning, be it vocabularyacquisition or remedying a particular grammar problem; two students even recommended
the use of L1 in grammar explanations and vocabulary recollection.
Student C2:​
I often watch news on BBC, CNBC; write down new words and try to
make sentences. Another way I use to improve my vocabulary which is do some
IELTS reading practice tests.
Student A2:​
I use the Oxford Advance Dictionary. Try to remember the phrases andidiom I see. Then I use another dictionary to translate it into Vietnamese idiom. It
will be much more easier to memorize”
Student D2:​
In my opinion, students who have low level of English, they should buy
grammar books in both English and Vietnamese.
therefore, they can understand more deeply.”
In short, to improve surface level problems such as grammar and vocabulary acquisition,
students made conscious decisions with regard to the improvement of their own learning

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

in terms of what they perceived as necessary actions, decided on their learning objectives,
and took charge of their learning. In effect, they all displayed characteristics ofautonomous learners (Thanasoulas, 2000; Chan, 2001; Sakai et al, 2010).
In terms of idea generation and support, the students were asked how valuable thein class pre­writing discussion time was. The reason behind enquiring about thepre­writing discussion in particular was that its benefit was alluded to in the second
interview with students currently on the course.​
Most students found the in­class​pre­writing brainstorming sessions valuable, although one student did seem to preferworking alone. In the same survey, students elaborated on what helped them generate
ideas on an unfamiliar topic like globalization.
Student B2:​
Discussing with partners and trying to link to the reality.
Student A2:​
After I understand the meaning of the word, I try to connect it with all of
the related aspect such as atmosphere, forest, sea, etc. Then I will note some ideas
and write the essay”
Student D2:​
Brainstorming the main ideas and supporting ideas...Remember of “E” infinding supporting ideas­ expand, extend, explain, example.”

Street (2003) suggests the process of idea generation is a social one. The students
from the same survey all highlighted the importance of dialogue and discussion in
generating and evaluating ideas for use in an essay. Street (2003) claims that the ways wesocially interact shape our language and that, naturally, without this level of social
interaction we would be unable to expand our variety of literacies or in fact ever become
truly literate. Mercer (2000) also found that dialogue and language are the basis of ourWorking Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

learning and reasoning; he outlines the idea of ‘exploratory talk’, which he describes asnecessary to the development of reasoning skills. The attitudes of IBC students surveyed
seem to allude to the intrinsic relationship between the different literacy practices ofwritten an spoken discourse in reasoning, supporting Street and Mercer by showing theimportance of collaborative work as one of the most valuable ways to generate ideas.
A further area of difficulty highlighted in both the second interview and areas ofwriting students found difficult was choosing and learning academic words. According to
the survey of students that had completed the program the respondents often chose to learn
what they thought were either useful or high frequency words and to not only makeexample sentences to internalize them but also to then use the words when possible intheir academic writing.
Student A2:​
I often learn formal words which are common and will be used frequently
for my essays. Whenever I write an essay, (or now it is my assignment), I try toutilize these words. The more frequently I use the words, the longer I canremember them.”
Students from the same survey recommended learning between five and ten new words aday, personalizing them and looking for word associations to build up the vocabulary basearound the word.
Student D2:​
When you learn a new word, try to find synonym and antonym of thatword. Learn 10 academic words each day”
Student D2’s comments here describe a method of developing ‘vocabulary depth’ throughthe accumulation of other word forms, word associations and collocations, which leads toan increase in the size of vocabulary knowledge (Akbarian, 2010).

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

From the results of the study a number of recommendations can be made. As thestudents that had successfully completed the program had developed their own
tailor­made strategies to overcome difficulties and exhibited aspects of learner autonomy,
it would seem prudent to foster this in the IBC classroom.
One method of achieving this is though clear goal setting (Sakai et al, 2010). This
could include measurable targets, such as the ten academic words a day mentioned by
student D2. Sakai and colleagues state that students attain a greater focus to adopt theirown strategies to improve their learning and to consider their own individual learning
differences in choosing learning material as this increases their motivation. Students alsocome to view the concept positively and to a certain extent see themselves as autonomous
learners, thus raising awareness of the concept will help students see the their own roleand the teacher’s role in their learning (Chan, 2001). The fostering of learner autonomy
seems both important and feasible despite students’ ‘authoritative’ educational
backgrounds (Chan, 2001) or those which prioritized memorization (Wong, 2004).
Students found the area of academic vocabulary difficult with one student evenlinking the problems of vocabulary with expression of supporting ideas. Improving theacquisition of academic vocabulary may be better facilitated during supplementary or core
speaking activities through using the four design features (Nation, 2008) as a means ofaddressing the problems of familiarization with academic words. As using the corpus in
the classroom has been shown to improve student command of lexicogrammar (Biber etal, 1996; Liu & Jiang, 2009; Romer, 2011), this approach may benefit students inWorking Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

analyzing authentic uses of target vocabulary to assist students with collocations andusage which will aid them in developing their own corpus, leading to further vocabularyacquisition (Charles, 2012). Through these steps and through greater recycling andrepetition of these words it may be possible to develop a class ‘culture of literacy’(Corson, 1997) thus improving student access to the words’ meanings and usage.
The final area that students found problematic was that of idea generation andfinding suitable supporting reasons. In this area students found the pre­writing idea
generation discussion particularly useful. Possibly one of the reasons that they did not findcritical literacy a significant hurdle, which might be expected due to the previous literacy
practices of memorization, was the time given to discussing and evaluating ideas.
According to Hammond and Macken­Horik (1999) critical literacy will allow students tochallenge the existing status quo, and foster the abilities to read a text resistantly andcritically respond to the text in written or spoken form. In fact, according to Olsen (2003)
reasoning and written literacy are inextricably linked; thus, the ability to form reasonedarguments would perhaps facilitate the access of academic literacy. This type of literacy isfostered more at higher levels of language programs, but the necessary scaffolding is
introduced much earlier. With the language of discussion checking and clarifying built
into the curriculum and assessment, students have opportunities to analyze and evaluate
ideas critically, in a similar way to ‘exploratory talk’ Mercer (2000) where participantsco­construct meaning in their learning environment. Therefore, to improve the reasoning
skills and access of written academic literacy, the literacy practice of group discussions,involving checking, clarifying, analysis and evaluation, should be part of the curriculum,as it was at this particular IBC, and sufficient focus should be given to discussion of topics
related to the writing task.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

7. LIMITATIONSThe study itself cannot offer generalisable data from which to draw recommendations for
all IBCs. The students are largely from one linguistic background, although others are
represented. As such, the linguistic problems they may have had may not be the same as
those from another linguistic background. The fact that the research was carried out by theclass teacher may also have complicate the analysis, as students may have been unwillingto write what they truly felt even though all responses were anonymous. However, as oneof the features of action research is that it is undertaken by the practitioner to investigate aparticular question in their own context with the purpose of bringing about an
improvement in that practice (Brydon­Miller et al, 2003), such an approach may bejustified.
The research also generated further questions which the study was not designed toanswer, namely the notion of identity in academic discourse. One set of questions
revolved around the idea of utilizing key vocabulary until the students remember them anduse them in their writing. Ha (2009) states that an issue all to common in second language
writing is how the writer identifies with the style of academic discourse and the required
vocabulary. What the students here could be doing by using the vocabulary in examples orwhen possible in their writing is attempting to take on these words belonging to authors ofacademic texts, which maybe harder to recognize (Corson, 1997), and making them theirown.
The idea of student identity or of students not identifying with the style ofacademic written discourse is not an area that was considered (incorrectly perhaps) priorWorking Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

to the research being undertaken, nor was it addressed with participants. Ha (2009) statesthat in an EAP context, writers may have difficulty in connecting their own voices andidentities within the style of academic discourse required for higher education. This may
also be an issue also affecting L1 learners and those in other contexts; and although thenotion of connecting the writer’s identity to the style of academic discourse was notconsidered previously, it is a legitimate, significant avenue for further research.
The approach to data collection was to offer students multiple­choice questions
based on what the practitioner deemed possible answers rather than asking open­ended
questions. This approach could be criticized for ‘loading’ the questions according to theresearcher’s agenda. However, the option of others was always available and the answers
given might not have been as comprehensive if extensive written feedback to open­ended
questions had been required, due to the time needed to complete such a task. This was infact shown by the limited responses given to open­ended questions in the survey.
Finally, it must be also acknowledged that the number of respondents for either
survey n=20 and n=4 is certainly not representative of the various learning backgrounds ofall students who may have studied at international schools or who may have lived abroad
and thus experienced a very different educational background.

8. CONCLUSION

This study was designed to answer two research questions as part of an action
research project with a view to improving the practice in the particular context of thepractitioner­researcher. The educational backgrounds of the students were more varied

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

than first thought and the students had engaged in a wide variety of literacy practices
previously. However the emphasis on memorization for some students opens up a further
avenue of research into the idea of intercultural rhetoric (Belcher, 2014).
All students experienced both surface and macro­level problems. In terms of thesurface level problems all students experienced difficulty with particular grammar points
yet not necessarily the same ones. All students also experienced difficulties with choosing
academic vocabulary. In terms of macro level problems all students experienced difficultywith idea generation and support. Although the analysis cannot be generalizable, theproblems have also previously been identified in other contexts such as (Asaoka & Usui,2003). Yet, the difficulties students have with writing may go beyond the surface or macrolevel, and the difficulty of incorporating their own voices in academic discourse is afurther area to investigate.
However, the recommendations based on student strategies to overcome thesurface and macro level problems may be of use in this and other contexts. Fosteringlearner autonomy to allow students to prioritize their own learning needs may be of use inovercoming individual linguistic problems with either grammar or vocabulary.
Likewise, using the four features of vocabulary task design according to Nation(2008) to facilitate academic vocabulary acquisition and the use of the corpus in theclassroom may be helpful to some practitioners and students in the acquisition and use ofacademic vocabulary.
The use and explicit instruction of the language of collaboration, which was built
into the curriculum and assessment at the institution in question, was viewed positively by
students and the use of dialogue and collaboration in fostering reasoning skills is widely

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

supported (Mercer, 2000; Street 2003). The combination of the final two suggestions may
even allow the students to develop a ‘culture of literacy’ in which to use the academic
words required for academic discourse in higher education and to further identify withthese terms.

9. REFERENCES

Akbarian, I. (2010). The relationship between vocabulary size and depth for ESP/EAP
learners. ​System​,​38​(1), 391­ 401.
Asaoka, C., & Usui, Y. (2003). Students’ Perceived Problems in an EAP Writing Course,
JALT Journal​,​
25​(2), 173­172.
Baker, W. (2004). Learning Strategies in Reading and Writing EAP Contexts. ​RELC
Journal​,​35​(3), 299­328.
Belcher, D. (2014) What we need and don’t need intercultural rhetoric for: A
retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area, ​Journal of Second
Language Writing, 25​, 59­67.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1996). Corpus Investigations of Language Use,
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, ​115­136.
Brydon­Miller, M., Greenwood, D., and Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? ​ActionResearch​,​
1​(1), 9–28.
C­BERT. (2013). ​Branch Campus Listing​. Retrieved from ​www.globalhighered.org/
branchcampuses.php​.
Chambers, G. S., & Cummings W. K. (1990). ​Profiting from Education: Japan­Unitedst​States International Educational Ventures in the 1980s ​
(1​
Ed.)​
.​
New York, USA:
Institute for International Education.
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for Learner Autonomy: what do our learners tell us?
Teaching in higher education​,​
6​(1), 505 – 518.
Charles, M. (2012). Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations: EAP students evaluate
do­it­yourself corpus­building. ​English for Specific Purposes​,​
31​(2), 93­102.

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. ​Language Learning– A Journal of Research in Language Studies​,​
47 ​(4), 671­718.
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language
composing​. Written Communication​,​
7​(4), 482­511.
Ha, P. L. (2009). Strategic, Passionate but academic: Am I allowed in my writing?
Journal of English for Academic Purposes​,​
8​(3), 134­146.
Hammersley, M., Gomm, R., Woods, P., Faulkner, D., Swann, J., Baker, S., Bird, M.,
Carty, J., Mercer, N & Perrott, M. (2001). ​Research Methods in Education​,​
The
Open University​. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books Limited.
Hammond, J. & Macken­Horarik, M. (1999). Critical Literacy: Challenges and questions
for ESL Classrooms. ​TESOL Quarterly​,​
33​(3), 528­524.
Hyland, K. & Hamp­Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and Directions. ​Journal of English
for Academic Purposes​,​
1​(1), 1­12.
Kiely, R. (2004). Learning to Critique in EAP. ​Journal of English for Academic
purposes​,​
3​(3), 211­227.
Lane, J. E. (2011). Global Expansion of International Branch Campuses: Managerial andLeadership Challenges. ​New Directions for Higher Education, 2011 ​(155), 5­17.
Lee, H. K. (2008). The relationship between writers’ perceptions and their performanceon a field­specific writing test. ​Assessing Writing​,​13​(2), 93­110.
Liu, D. & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a Corpus­Based Lexicogrammatical Approach toGrammar Instruction in EFL and ESL Contexts. ​The Modern Language Journal. 93(1)​,​
61­78.
McKinley, J. (2013) Displaying Critical Thinking in EFL Academic Writng: A
Discussion of Japanese to English Contrastive Rhetoric, ​RELC Journal, 44​(2),
195­208.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How we use Language to think together, London,
UK: Routledge.
Mizumoto, A. & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instructionof vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. ​Languageteaching research​,​
13​(4), 425­449.
Nation, I. S. P. (2008). ​Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques​. Boston, USA,
Heinle­Cengage ELT.
Olsen, D. R. (2003). Literate mentalities: literacy, consciousness of language, and modesof thought. In S. Goodman, T. Lillis, J. Maybin, N. Mercer. (Eds), ​Language

Working Papers in Language Education and Research 2015, 52­76

Literacy and Education​(pp 67­76). The​
Open University, Stoke on Trent, UK:​
Trentham Books Limited.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
New York, USA: Newbury House.
Raims, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study ofcomposing ​TESOL Quarterly​,​
19​(2), 229­258
Romer, U. (2011) Corpus Research Applications in Second Language Teaching. ​AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics​,​
31​, 205­225.
Sakai, S., Takaki, A. & Chu, M. P. (2010). Promoting Learner Autonomy: Student
Perceptions of Responsibilities in a Language Classroom in East Asia. ​Educational
Perspectives​,​3​(1­2), 12 – 27.
Stapleton, P. (2010). Writing in an electronic age: a case study of L2 composing
processes. ​Journal of English for Academic purposes, 9​(4), 295­307.
Street, B. (2003). The implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for literacy education. .
In S. Goodman, T. Lillis, J. Maybin, N. Mercer. (Eds), ​Language Literacy and
Education​(pp77­87). The​
Open University, Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books​
Limited.
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? ​TheInternet TESL Journal, 6​(11), 1­13. Retrieved from ​http://iteslj.org/Articles/
Thanasoulas­Autonomy.html
Turner, J. (2012). Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio­political dynamics
of EAP. ​Journal of English for Academic Purposes​,​
11​(1), 17­25.
Wong, J. K. K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally
or contextually based? ​International Education Journal​,​
4​(4), 158­ 166.