Jake started with a quiz. Apparently he had used it at previous InForm conferences too:

______________________ is the holy grail of learning.

_____________________ is predictive of higher grades.

Engagement is the answer and absolutely crucial when we are considering materials and assessments for EAP students.

He started teaching EAP 15 years ago in Tokyo, using EAP Now book. There was an activity comparing an academic paragraph with noun phrases, passivevoice, lack of personal language with an informal spoken paragraph. He had to check the answer in the teachers notes. So looking back it was quite bad he was put into EAP teaching with so little awareness of academic style.

He learned the rules: avoid personal language, anecdotal evidence, emotion, much creativity. And guided students to remove them. However, in the last 2-3 years, he has come to the conclusion that teaching these rules might actually be detrimental to what we are trying to do as teachers.

Why does EAP need to change focus?

3 main reasons.

1, AI/Technology. The truth is, students now can have a lot more help with writing and academic style. So that isn’t the best place we can add value.

2. A lot of students still really struggle with spoken commnication. However, to play an active role at university they needt o be able to share ideas, speak in seminars, connect with people and make friends with them. If you have a lot of C1/C2 students they can already speak well, but can they deliver a 20 minute engaging, persuasive, academic-backed talk? No. Even WE find that difficult. But we should be helping them to become better communicators. How often do we think “this is a brilliant presentation!”?: not often. If they are brilliant conversationally, how do we push them to deliver such talks?

3. Academia is changing. There is an increasingly transactional relationship between students and universities. They pay high tuition fees and they want to know what they are getting for it. In a 2025 survey, only 37% said they were getting good value for learning. The language is changing. Graduate attributes are commonly talked about. Students want assessments and sessions that feel useful and relevant, practical and connected to the real world. Universities are beginning to respond to this. Paltridge and Starfield (2023) have found that doctorates and academic genres are evolving, often include practical/creative components.

Next we were shown a B2 level student example video project: we had to watch and consider two questions –

1. What skills does this student demonstrate?
2. Does the student seem to care about what they are saying?

What we saw: An engaging hook to get you interested, presents some evidence, uses stress, intonation and pacing, also gestures and facial expressions. Also uses visuals, music and editing to enhance his message. He gives his opinion. He has a strong sense of ownership and is clearly trying to get people to listen. If we wanted to be critical, we could ask where his evidence comes from, he will be more receptive because he is more invested in the task and wants people to listen.

At Birmingham, they have brought in this video project as an assessment:

• 8 minute video and 15 minute viva. Replaced previous take-home assignment.
• students still assessed on argument and critical thinking, research and use of sources, organisation and coherence, spoken communication.
• Writing was assessed in a separate timed writing exam.

Jake feels this project responded to the issues. It is harder to outsource to AI, as you have to appear on screen and present your message. It would be clear if you didn’t understand what you were saying. The project uses relevant, transferable, real-world skills. It reflects the changing nature of undergraduate study.

Video project prompts:

It is important what topics students can choose form. Jake et al wanted accessible topics that students could relate to but also were weighty enough that they had to go out and do research, think critically etc.

Some examples of ones they have used:

1. Is it advisable for young people to invest in cryptocurrencies?
2. Should phones be banned in schools?
3. Does social media do more harm than good to offline friendships?
4. Was life better in the 1990s for teenagers than today?
5. Should energy drinks be banned for under18s?
6. Should comptetitive esports be included in the olympics?
7. Do influencers have too much influence over young people?
8. Is it better for university students to specialise in one subject or study different ones?

Student feedback: 77% rated it highly for helping them develop academic skills. 63% rated it hghly for engagement.

Some comments from students:

• “Video research project is very time-consuming”
• “Don’t do the video research it was hard”

= suggestive that they had to do it themselves rather than just rely on AI?

Teachers liked the opportunity to practice spoken communication, audience awareness, creativity and ownership. Concerns still existed around Academic rigour, AI misuse and difficulty standardising.

Jake reckons this is a step in the direction of co-authoring but retaining a voice. It maintains academic rigour as students have to be critical and provide evidence. Marking was more interesting, of the videos and the vivas where students talked about the choices they had made.

Conclusion: change is happening. Technology is changing. How students learn is changing. For EAP to remain relevant it needs to adapt. Jake thinks it needs to move away from the old academic style rules and move towards engaging activities that develop the necessary skills. EAP doesn’t NEED to be boring.

Question about whether AI was used. Jake doesn’t mind it being used skilfully (much like our coursework essay criteria – poor use of AI is reflected by a poor score in the criteria. Good use or good non-use = good score.)

Question about vivas: any anecdotal evidence to share about students doing the viva? It was a viva tutorial which didn’t feel so far removed from regular tutorials, just speaking to class teacher. It was fun to push and challenge them on their arguments a bit. The vivas of the video project pointed to much more indepth knowledge and understanding compared to the essay vivas that used to be. The viva was worth 5% of overall module score, the video was worth 20%.

Question about marking: how much per student for outline, 3 minute, 8 minute etc. The video project isn’t marked as such, it is used to prepare for the viva. (Unsure how this relates to 20% of score). Agreement that everything we try to put in place add up to more workload!

My thoughts

It was interesting to see an example of what those who have control over their assessment are doing. Our assessments are decided by Studygroup so it isn’t like we can decide, “right, this time we will use video project and see how it goes”. I wonder if our pre-sessional programmes (who do have control over assessment) might at some point though! Then again, is it feasible within the time constraints and workloads of a pre-sessional programme? Not my area of speciality to be able to answer! We’ve used recorded presentations before, but that was during Covid and in place of live presentations rather than in place of a written piece of work. One thing we found, and a reason we were glad to go back to live presentations, is that live presentations are generally done and marked in class time, while the latter is all a drain on time outside of class. (Note: we still had coursework essays to mark as well at that stage, as it wasn’t a replacement for that.)

I liked what Jake said about it being a viva tutorial, that for students had a similar feel to regular tutorials. Also interesting that when related to the video project they were better in terms of depth etc. compared to the vivas that had been attached to the essays. We used to do vivas in relation to an essay when we had a synoptic assessment for pre-masters students. The students did attend individually but they had to stand in front of a panel (AES tutor, module tutor) for the duration so that is a very different feel.

As a teacher, I think I would find video projects quite hard to mark, especially if there were a lot of visual/audio special effects type stuff involved (“visuals, music, editing”), as part of being autistic for me is really struggling with that type of sensory input. I’d also question whether the assessment would disadvantage students who haven’t already got video editing type skills to do the “visuals, music, editing” as it would seem to involve more than just pressing record on yourself (which is what students had to do for our pandemic-time presentations). For sure there wouldn’t be time to teach them such skills in addition to everything else! Who would be disadvantaged and how? How would that compare to standard assessments? Be interesting to know a year down the line how the video projects are working out for these guys – will they manage to deal with/mitigate the concerns? Will AI developments push them to change things further? Also be interesting to know if they come up with/trial any other kinds of potentially more engaging assessment.