Enlighten Publications

In this section

Impediments to the adoption of subject specific reading strategies in EAP – exploratory practice with Hohfeld’s Jural Relations

Allison, N. (2020) Impediments to the adoption of subject specific reading strategies in EAP – exploratory practice with Hohfeld’s Jural Relations. Language Scholar, 8, pp. 21-47.

Text
224563.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
623kB

Publisher's URL: https://languagescholar.leeds.ac.uk/impediments-to-the-adoption-of-subject-specific-reading-strategies-in-eap-exploratory-practice-with-hohfelds-jural-relations/

Abstract

English for Academic purposes (EAP) is increasingly being influenced by theories of literacy and reading to learn, with the EAP practitioner training students in reading skills and strategies that incorporate engagement with disciplinary specifics. However, little is known about EAP practitioners’ and EAP students’ attitudes to disciplinary or subject-specific reading strategies. This study involved a survey of 81 EAP practitioners, and mixed-methods with students on EAP for Law courses to explore the impediments to the adoption of subject-specific reading strategies. To provide tangible context, a reading strategy for law students known as Hohfeld’s Jural Relations is described in detail and employed and evaluated as part of exploratory practice. It is concluded that EAP teachers are sceptical on the importance of subject-specific reading strategies while students are more likely to adopt strategies once they are aware the strategy is a respected means to gain subject-specific understanding. This article will be of particular interest to teachers of EAP for law and law teachers unfamiliar with Hohfeld’s work.

Item Type:	Articles
Keywords:	Reading strategies, EAP, ESAP law, Hohfeld’s Jural Relations, teacher and student beliefs.
Status:	Published
Refereed:	Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:	Allison, Mr Neil
Authors:	Allison, N.
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General) L Education > L Education (General) P Language and Literature > P Philology. Linguistics
College/School:	College of Arts & Humanities > School of Modern Languages and Cultures
Journal Name:	Language Scholar
Journal Abbr.:	LLS
Publisher:	Leeds Centre for Excellence in Language Teaching
ISSN:	2398-8509
Published Online:	29 September 2020
Copyright Holders:	Copyright © 2020 The Author
First Published:	First published in Language Scholar 8:21-47
Publisher Policy:	Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

References

Abbott, R. 2013. Crossing thresholds in academic reading. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 50(2), pp.191–201. Alderson, J. C. 2000. Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alexander, P., Peterson, E., Dumas, D. and Hattan, C. 2018. A retrospective and prospective examination of cognitive strategies and academic development: where have we come in twenty-five years? In The Oxford handbook of educational psychology. Oxford University Press Allwright, D. 2003. Exploratory practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research. 7(2), pp.113–141. Alousque, I. N. 2016. Developments in ESP: from register analysis to a genre-based and CLIL-based approach. LFE: Revista de Lenguas Para Fines Específicos. 22(1), pp.190–212. Arzt, D. E. 1988. Too important to leave to the lawyers: undergraduate legal studies and Its challenge to professional legal education. Nova Law Review. 13, p.125. Avramidis, E. and Smith, B. 1999. An introduction to the major research paradigms and their methodological implications for special needs research. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. 4(3), pp.27–36. Barton, D., Hamilton, M., Ivaniúc, R. and Ivanič, R. 2000. Situated literacies: reading and writing in context. Psychology Press. Brown, V. 2005. Rights, liberties and duties: reformulating Hohfeld’s Scheme of Legal Relations? Current Legal Problems. 58(1), pp.343–367. Buehl, D. 2017. Developing readers in the academic disciplines. 2nd ed. Stenhouse Publishers. Carkin, S. 2005. English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. pp. 85-98. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Christensen, L. M. 2006. Legal reading and success in law school: an empirical study. Seattle University Law Review. 30 (3), p.603. Clark, C. E. 1922. Relations, legal and otherwise. Illinois Law Quarterly 5, p.26. Corbin, A. L. 1920. Jural relations and their classification. Yale Law Journal, 30, p.226. de Vaus, D. and de Vaus, D. 2013. Surveys in social research. 6th ed. London: Routledge. Deegan, D. H. 1995. Exploring individual differences among novices reading in a specific domain: the case of law. Reading Research Quarterly. vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 154-170. di Robilant, A. and Syed, T. 2018. The fundamental building blocks of social relations regarding resources: Hohfeld in Europe and beyond. In: S. Balganesh, T. Sichelman and H. E. Smith, eds. The legacy of Wesley Hohfeld: edited major works, select personal papers, and original commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming, pp.18–07. Fiorito, L., and Vatiero, M. 2011. Beyond legal relations: Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s influence on American institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues. 45(1), pp.199–222. Guthrie, J.T. and Wigfield, A. 1999. How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading. vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 199-205. Halsbury’s Laws of England 2019 vol 98, para 1 accessed 18th July 2020 <LexisLibrary> Hanson, S. 2009. Legal method, skills and reasoning. Routledge-Cavendish. Hamp-Lyons, L. 2011. English for academic purposes. In: Hinkel, E. ed. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Routledge, pp.89-105. Hohfeld, W. N. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal. vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 16-59. Honderich, T. 2005. The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hull, N. E. H. 1995. Vital schools of jurisprudence: Roscoe Pound, Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, and the promotion of an academic jurisprudential agenda, 1910-1919. Journal of Legal Education. 45(2), pp.235–281. Hunter, K. and Tse, H. 2013. Making disciplinary writing and thinking practices an integral part of academic content teaching. Active Learning in Higher Education. 14(3), pp.227–239. Hyland, K. 2002. Specificity revisited: how far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes. 21(4), pp.385–395. Hyland, K. and Shaw, P. 2016. The Routledge Handbook of English for academic purposes. London: Routledge. Kirschner, P. A. and van Merriënboer, J. J. 2013. Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist. 48(3), pp.169–183. Kozanecka, P., Trzaskawka, P. and Matulewska, A. 2018. Methodology for interlingual comparison of legal terminology. Towards general legilinguistic translatology. Comparative Legilinguistics. vol. 31, pp. 167-172. Lea, M. R. and Street, B. V. 2006. The ‘academic literacies’ model: theory and applications. Theory Into Practice. 45(4), pp.368–377. Lietz, P. 2010. Research into questionnaire design. International Journal of Market Research. 52(2), pp.249–272. Lillis, T. and Scott, M. 2007. Defining academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics. 4(1), pp.5–32. Lundmark, T. 2012. Charting the divide between common and civil law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maclellan, E. 1997. Reading to learn. Studies in Higher Education. 22(3), pp.277–288. McNeil, L. 2012. Extending the compensatory model of second language reading. System. 40(1), pp.64–76. Moje, E. B. 2007. Chapter 1 Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: a review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education. 31(1), pp.1–44. Moje, E. B. 2008. Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: a call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 52(2), pp.96–107. Nuttall, C. 1996. Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. MacMillan Education. Nyquist, C. 2002. Teaching Wesley Hohfeld’s theory of legal relations. Journal of Legal Education. vol. 52, no. 1/2, pp. 238-257. Ogiers 2016. The use of trusts in Jersey viewed 18th July 2020 < https://www.ogier.com/publications/the-use-of-trusts-in-jersey>. Rose, D. and Martin, J. R. 2012. Learning to write, reading to learn: genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield: Equinox. Sarcevic, S. 1997. New approach to legal translation. Kluwer Law International BV. Scott, J. R. 2019. Legal translation outsourced. New York: Oxford University Press, New York Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T. and Misischia, C. 2011. Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, Mathematics, and Chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research. 43(4), pp.393–429. Shanahan, T. and Shanahan, C. 2008. Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review. 78(1), pp.40–59. Simpson, M. L. and Rush, L. 2003. College students’ beliefs, strategy employment, transfer, and academic performance: an examination across three academic disciplines. Journal of College Reading and Learning. 33(2), pp.146–156. Smith, T. B. 1954. English influences on the law of Scotland. The American Journal of Comparative Law. vol. 3, no. 4, pp.522-542. Sucharitkul, S. 1986. Multi-dimensional concept of human rights in international law. Notre Dame Law Review. 62, 305. Vick, D. W. 2004. Interdisciplinarity and the discipline of law. Journal of Law and Society. 31(2), pp.163–193. Walker, D. M. 1992. The Scottish legal system: an introduction to the study of Scots law. 8th ed. Edinburgh: W. Green. Wingate, U. and Tribble, C. 2012. The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education. 37(4), pp.481–495.

Deposit and Record Details

ID Code:	224563
Depositing User:	Mr Neil Allison
Datestamp:	26 Oct 2020 09:18
Last Modified:	15 Dec 2020 14:04
Date of acceptance:	29 September 2020
Date of first online publication:	29 September 2020
Date Deposited:	23 October 2020
Data Availability Statement:	No