Frontiers in Educational Research, 2022, 5(1); doi: 10.25236/FER.2022.050120.
School of Languages, Linguistics, Queen Mary University of London, England, UK
This academic essay is an assessed coursework in Teaching English in Professional and Academic settings (TEPAS) for taught postgraduate in School of Languages, Linguistics, Queen Mary University of London (2018). In English for Academic Purposes (EAP) or English for Specific Purposes (ESP) settings, teaching reading and writing in integration is considered to encourage ‘authenticity’. To discuss above statements in a critical way, this essay first introduces the notion of discourse communities in EAP settings, illustrates the literacy support of the source texts in order to exemplify the advantages of integrated tasks. Then, the essay puts integrated task authenticity under detailed analysis by taking students’ literacy needs and communication features in academic and professional settings into consideration.
EAP, ESP, Reading-Writing Integrated Task, Task Authenticity
Nan Kang. A Close Investigation into Authenticity in Academic Read-To-Write Integrated Tasks. Frontiers in Educational Research (2022) Vol. 5, Issue 1: 108-112. https://doi.org/10.25236/FER.2022.050120.
 Barton, D. (1994). The social impact of literacy. Functional Literacy. Theoretical issues and educational implications, 1, pp.57.
 Chan, S., Inoue, C., & Taylor, L. (2015). Developing rubrics to assess the reading-into-writing skills: A case study. Assessing writing, 26, 20-37.
 Davies, A. (1984). Simple, simplified and simplification: what is authentic. Reading in a foreign language, 181-95.
 Flowerdew, L. (2003). An analysis of the problem-solution pattern in an apprentice and professional corpus of technical writing from a systemic-functional perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), pp.489–511.
 Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Longman.
 Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9-24.
 Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.
 Phillips, M. K. (1981). Toward a theory of LSP methodology. Languages for specific purposes: Program design and evaluation, pp.35.
 Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), pp.18-34.
 Royer, J. M., Bates, J. A., & Konold, C. E. (1984). Learning from text: Methods of affecting reader intent. Reading in a foreign language, pp.65-81.
 Shelyakina, O. K. (2010). Learner perceptions of their ESL training in preparation for university reading tasks (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://etd. byu. edu/collection. html).
 Stubbs, M. (1980). Language and literacy: the sociolinguistics of reading and writing. Routledge. pp.139
 Thaiss, C. J., & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
 Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-write tasks for the assessment of second language academic writing skills: Investigating text features and rater reactions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa).