This paper informs and responds to an influential, growing trend in higher education – the scientific reforms provoked by the “reproducibility crisis” and often termed “open science”. These practices and more are explored, to align with and further ongoing reforms for more open, reproducible science, benefitting both our students and the society they will impact in future. Implementing ELF norms in teaching and assessment, we should become more specific about which linguistic features truly influence intelligibility for global scientific audiences, so that EAP practice can catch up with what already happens in much of science (Rozycki & Johnson, 2013). Promoting transparency, learners would upload their dissertations and related data-sets to open repositories like Thesis Commons, and use such repositories for literature search, in addition to books and journals. Students would learn to avoid “spin” and overstatement (Gerritts et al., 2019) and focus instead on empirical and methodological detail. heat maps and directed acyclic graphs) increasingly features in scientific communication, and so should feature more in EAP, dual coding known to communicate more effectively than words alone (Clark & Paivio, 1991). Newly popular genres such as Registered Reports should be taught in EAP, alongside new scientific writing applications like Sci-Note and Writefull. This standardisation of vocabulary and discourse benefits both writing and literature search (Christensen et al., 2019).
Disciplinary “controlled vocabularies” can be taught, such as engineering’s IEEE Thesaurus, and discourse teaching can move on from IMRAD to more detailed formats such as APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards or the EQUATOR guidelines. This shift, from description of disciplinary pasts, to prescription inspired by disciplinary goals, implies many practical changes for EAP. These prescriptions should derive from principles valued in the scientific disciplines: classic Baconian and Mertonian norms, or 21st-century updates (e.g. While EAP is traditionally corpus-driven and descriptivist (Ding & Bruce, 2017), in a time of changing norms, when much literature has been exposed as likely false (Ioannidis, 2005) or involving “questionable research practices”, a more prescriptivist EAP is also needed. As science changes, this paper considers how EAP might also change in response. EAP and science are interdependent – most EAP students worldwide likely to be social or natural science students, and most scientists former or current EAP students. This “open science” paradigm shift promotes greater transparency and reproducibility, with changes to data collection, reporting, evaluation, and the rest of the scientific process (Munafo et al., 2017).
Science – natural, social, pure, and applied – is undergoing a Kuhnian revolution (Nosek et al., 2018 Christensen et al., 2020).
0 kommentar(er)
