ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

1/10

Students and teachers ideals ofeffective Business English teaching

Ruth Trinder and Martin Herles

Learners and teachers evaluation of what constitutes useful, appropriate,and goal-relevant English may well shift in view of the globalization ofEnglish and its dominance in non-native contexts, business, and new media.

Against this background, this study explores the extent to which a specificBusiness English university programme meets teachers and learnersexpectations. We argue that students own experiences and goals, includingtheir past, present, and projected use of English, shape their expectationsand, consequently, their evaluations of the teaching reality. The results ofour study reveal that though learner and teacher beliefs tend to be aligned inmost areas, students judgements of effective teaching and learning practicesare highly dependent on personal motivations and specific language usepurposes, and this difference manifests itself most clearly in teachers andlearners divergent views on the value of grammatical accuracy and corrective

feedback.

Introduction Timmis (2002), referring to the debate about International English,stresses the importance of listening to students and classroomteachers voices. Investigating the attitudes of the main stakeholdersin the teaching process makes sense for other ELT areas, too. Learnerbeliefs are nowadays considered a critical influence on what students do(or refuse to do) in and out of the classroom (Yang 1999; Breen 2001;White 2008). Ideas about the nature and difficulty of language learninghave been shown to affect students evaluation of the effectiveness of

certain teaching methods and learning tasks (Horwitz 1988; Wenden1999). Studies that have widened the perspective to include teachersviewpoints (for example Brown 2009; Ranta 2010) were interestedin similarities and differences between the main players views,pointing out the potentially very negative consequences of mismatchesbetween beliefs and classroom reality (ranging from demotivation todiscontinuation of study).

Currently, the effects of beliefs on learner actions (or refusal to act)are quite well documented in the literature. Learners may refuse

or invest little effort in learning activities if these conflict withtheir views of how languages should be taught and what particular

The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.220 ELTJournal Volume 67/2 April 2013; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs080

Advance Access publication December 20, 2012

atUludagUniversityonMarch18,20

13

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Download

edfrom
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

2/10

language courses should offer. Less attention, however, has beenpaid to the factors shaping a particular teaching approach. Commonsense would suggest that instructors own beliefs about effectiveteaching, acquired during their teacher training courses or based ontheir own learning experiences, would translate directly into specificinstructional practices. However, such a view fails to take importantcontextual factors and outside pressures into account; in reality, many

practitioners have to adapt their instructional approaches if they areto cover an (externally dictated) syllabus despite, for instance, cuts incontact hours and increases in student numbers.

Purpose of the study In this study, we therefore attempt to present a more global picture ofhow teachers and students views compare against the backgroundof a given teaching context, detailing in the first part the factors thathave moulded it. The study was conducted at Vienna University ofEconomics and Business (WU) and adopted a qualitative approach(interviews and mini-essays), addressing the following aspects/facets of

language learning beliefs:

1 What do students and teachers at a business school consider good anduseful English?

2 What are students and teachers beliefs concerning the nature oflanguage learning?

3 How important are NS norms to students and how useful do theyfind communicating with NNSs as opposed to NSs?

4 Reactions to the learning environment: How do students andteachers notions of goal-relevant teaching and learning practices

compare? To what extent are these practices facilitated by the BusinessEnglish programme? How do they deal with mismatches between theirbeliefs and the actual learning situation?

Over a period of four semesters, we asked more than 200 advanced(third year or higher) students for their opinions, using open-endedquestions to give them the opportunity to think about and expand on agiven point. The entire departmental teaching staff (n = 28) was theninterviewed to provide an insight into the ramifications of context andbeliefs from the facultys perspective.

Factors that shapeand constrainthe teaching andlearning reality

Learner and teacher practices are determined not only by theirindividual beliefs and motivations but also by outside forces that maycurtail or extend their flexibility. Thus, before we analyse how the twogroups responded to the way English is taught at our university, itmakes sense to refer to developments shaping the learning context.Here we found it useful to distinguish between global, national, andlocal influences.

Global developments, for instance, include the predominance ofEnglish in international, non-native business contexts (as witnessed

by the emergence of acronyms such as BELF for Business Englishlingua franca) and the ubiquity of the internet and social media (suchas Skype and Facebook), where, again, much of the interaction takes

Ideals of effective Business English teaching 221


13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

3/10

place in English between NNSs. At the national level, constraints onthe teaching context in the narrower sense include open universityaccess (in contrast to neighbouring countries), the change from afour- to a three-year system, and budget cuts. Effectively, these factorshave meant highly unfavourable studentteacher ratios and reductionsin contact hours. The strongest local influence is departmental policyarising from the necessity to justify a separate language department

at a business university, which dictates a strong emphasis on contentand terminology. These conditions interact to produce substantialrestrictions on what is actually feasible in terms of instructionalapproaches and testing and have led to teaching situations that maybe at odds with teachers as well as students aims, motivations, andexpectations.

Thus, it could be argued that for this particular student community(and probably for many other university contexts, too), external factorshave conspired to produce enhanced learning and communicationopportunities in the real world, whilst effectively placing heavyconstraints on what happens in the classroom. Most of the openquestions we asked directly or indirectly tapped into students andteachers perceptions of this conundrum.

FindingsQuestion 1

Student responsesIn answer to the introductory question of what constituted, in theireyes, good and useful English, we found that the vast majority ofstudents assessed communicative competence, or at the very leastintelligibility, in a wide range of communicative encounters to be the

main benchmark. In particular, respondents mentioned being ableto express yourself, being able to talk about a variety of topics, andfluency. To give some examples:

Useful English means being able to communicate freely on an advancedrhetoric level, in a professional manner and about complex issues.

In my opinion good and useful English refers to the ability to expressyourself and be understood by the listeners.

Obviously, overlapping with communication skills, but separately

mentioned as signs of a good command of English were, in orderof frequency, extensive vocabulary, good pronunciation, goodknowledge of Business English, appropriacy, and, to a lesser extent,accurate grammar. Student comments included:

Good and useful English ... is the ability to speak fluently and with agood pronunciation and vocabulary.

... is correct English and also the English which is used in everydaylife as well as Business English.

In general, what they termed inferior pronunciation andpronunciation mistakes were seen as a greater impediment tointelligibility than grammatical errors:

222 Ruth Trinder and Martin Herles


13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

4/10

There are people who make grammar mistakes, but at least theyknow how to express themselves. However, the correct pronunciationis essential, since if a person mispronounces a word, he might bemisunderstood.

Despite their emphasis on oral communicative competence, moststudents also showed awareness that different situations requiredifferent skills, registers, and levels of accuracy:

Good English is the ability to communicate in a proper way, eitherwritten or oral. You have to be able to adapt your English to differentsituations, such as business talks, writing emails, talking to a friendand so on.

Written texts should be correct; in presentations you should speakcorrectly, but for informal communicationits not so important.

Question 2 Student responses

The strong emphasis on oral communication reflects students conceptionsof the nature of language learning. Many respondents considered exposureto the target language, as well as the readiness to exploit communicationopportunities, to be the prime drivers of language acquisition, at least ata more advanced level. This belief that speaking equals learning is quitecentral to the student cohort. Asked how they could improve their English,many students gave answers along the lines of:

The best solution is to go to an English speaking country for somemonths.

The best way to speak good and fluent English is to communicateregularly with a native speaker.

I am convinced that speaking would be much more helpful thansimply writing emails or communicating via a chatroom.

Question 3 Student responsesThough many students found it easier to communicate with NNSsas they often used simpler sentences and spoke more slowly, it wasfor these very reasons that interaction with NSs was preferred: only

from NSs, they reasoned, could they learn how to speak fluently and,as they saw it, correctly. Students notions of correctness seemed toinclude pragmatic, lexical, and structural aspects as well as correctpronunciation, with only few respondents referring to the peculiaritiesof particular regional NS accents. Despite a strong awareness of Englishas a Lingua Franca (ELF), most still aspired to NS norms:

I do communicate a lot with speakers of other languages but too littlewith English native speakers. Im fully aware that this is a problem,because you can learn a lot more from a native speaker (for example

pronunciation).I think I benefit more from native speakers because I can always askthem something. With a non-native speaker I will not enhance my



13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

5/10

English skills, but a native speaker can always correct me and tell mehow I could say something.

Although students universally insisted on the dominance of fluencyover grammatical accuracy, those respondents who particularly expectedto work in an environment where English is either the corporatelanguage or at least used regularly in international negotiations alsoconsidered good (ideally, in their view, native-like) pronunciation andgood grammatical competence indispensable for their future careers.Students thought that error-free language would give them morecredibility and status on formal (business) occasions:

You seem more competent when you speak correctly.

I put a lot of importance on a right pronunciation in order to soundless German to international business contacts, which might be asign of professionalism to them.

In modern business it is necessary to be able to write business letters

and to participate in conference calls in English. An inferior level ofEnglish is not only embarrassing for oneself but can even harm thewhole companys image.

I think that most business people should apply better grammaticalstructures and fluency in their expression, because that simplyconveys a more professional image of the speaker.

To sum up, students are aware of and use communicationopportunities with NNSs as a matter of course, whether in the formof social media to keep up with international friends, face-to-face at

university, or during travels. However, in view of their professionalaims, such NNS interactions are considered inferior learningopportunities as they cannot guarantee correctness of expression;NNSs thus cannot serve as models.

Chavez (2007) investigated four possible language use purposesthat potentially might motivate students towards accuracy in oralproduction:

deriving a personal sense of accomplishment; being comprehensible to a NS; sounding pleasant to a NS; getting an A in class.

The first three considerations were implied in a number of ourresponses, too; however, our students seemed to be motivated most bythe sense of getting a competitive edge in business encounters, at leastas far as phonological and lexical accuracy was concerned.

Teacher responses toQuestions 13

If anything, teachers were even more adamant in stressing theimportance of effective communication. In contrast to the majority of

students, they see individual features such as grammatical correctness,extensive vocabulary, and accurate pronunciation generally only asmeans to an end, namely getting the message across successfully,



13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

6/10

rather than as ends in themselves. As pointed out earlier, studentsquite in contrast to todays ELF ideastill seem to strive for NSpronunciation, as this, for them, signals competence. Teachers,however, show greater awareness that, in a global environment, mostcommunication actually takes place in NNS settings, which makes NSstandards less pertinent:

Decent pronunciation is nice, but less and less important today,I think.

Given that teachers, quite in line with students, assume that the latteruse or will use English for practically anything, from their studies toprivate life to their prospective jobs at international companies, thisseems conclusive. Thus, elements such as accuracy and an extensivevocabulary, though doubtlessly important, are only interpreted asrelevant in their contribution towards achieving the communicativegoals and avoiding ambiguities and misunderstanding.

Basically, you just have to make yourself understood and reactadequately.

This is clearly in some contradiction to what is expected of students inmost exams, which effectively shows the discrepancy between externallydetermined conditions and the teaching staffs own beliefs.

The teachers and students diverging ideas about the importance ofaccuracy also led to an interesting discrepancy between their attitudesconcerning overt error correction in class. Students mostly appreciate

having inaccuracies corrected, in particular when mispronouncing aword, choosing the wrong word, or using an expression inappropriately.They generally consider this the most effective way of improvingbeyond simply getting their meaning across. However, the majorityof teachers deliberately try to avoid individual error correction in mostcases, in order not to embarrass students in front of their peers. Makingteachers aware of this mismatch can thus eradicate this particularsource of dissatisfaction without great effort.

Question 4 Student responses

We have so far established that, corresponding to their languagelearning beliefs and their present and projected language use purposes,students strive for excellent communicative competence and a goodgrasp of General and Business English vocabulary. The question is nowto what extent the Business English programme, and the teaching realitywith all its constraints detailed above, can help them achieve those aims.

The views concerning learning and professional aims put forwardby the student sample obviously have ramifications on the type ofteaching they would value. Virtually all respondents agree that smallergroups, discussions (also of non-economic current topics), group work,

more lectures in English, conversation classes, and different types ofassessment (for example oral examinations not focusing on BusinessEnglish) would improve the quality of the WU offering.



13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

7/10

As far as goal relevance was concerned, there was some consensus thatthe emphasis on business topics was obvious and necessary in a businessschool. However, possibly depending on the level of General English theyhad already attained, individual students differed in their judgementsconcerning the usefulness of the strong business focus and on how muchGeneral English (ranging from grammar to small talk) should be taught:

Classes are too specialized in business topics. For me it is moreimportant to improve my every-day life English, for getting intocontact with people. Also within business life it is important to beable to talk about different topics, not only about business and work.If youre having lunch with your partner its important to be able todo small talk.

Yet though a large majority would welcome a more communicativeapproach to teaching that gets students to speak, we find two distinctschools of thought. The first group puts the responsibility for providingopportunities for improving speaking skills firmly in the teachers

court, criticizing the strong focus on business and the lack of oralinteraction:

Being prepared for the world of business does not necessarily meanholding presentations on business topics or writing memos, but alsomeans entering oral negotiations and going out to dinner with apartner. And we do not get trained for that.

Day-to-day speaking is neglected in class, I cant do it, I can onlydiscuss economic concepts.

This group suffers most from a mismatch of their expectations and theactual situation at university. The frustration these students experiencecauses them to adopt a surface, syllabus-bound, exam-orientedapproach to studying:

I concentrate strictly on studying business vocab by heart because theexam is like that; I then easily forget words learnt for exam.

The second group of students shows greater awareness of theconstraints teachers operate under. They have a more realistic outlookand a more autonomous approach to their learning, perceiving the

remit of Business English classes to be limited (i.e. to provide/transmitspecialized knowledge) and accepting responsibility for complementingtheir content-based classes by looking for communication opportunitiesin the real world.

WU classes are very much business oriented but as we are a businessschool it is all right.

Its the responsibility of the WU to teach business vocab; its thestudents responsibility to find opportunities to speak.

The second group in particular is adept at finding measures to makeup for the shortcomings of the WU setting. Strategies frequentlymentioned include:



13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

8/10

stay/study abroad; online media (news, American television shows) and old media

(books, films, and newspapers) for vocabulary development; social media to communicate (often ELF); NS assistance; strategy adaptation for WU programme (formal practice).

In view of the above, it is not surprising that it is particularly thosestudents who actively look for and exploit out-of-class learningopportunities who have very different expectations of the kind ofbenefits they are seeking from formal and informal learning: a firmgrounding in business language versus fluency and general vocabulary.This dual approach is also reflected in many students notions of errorcorrection; whilst in informal communication situations, respondentswould find it unbefitting to have incorrect grammar or pronunciationcorrected, they welcome it in classes, with some even claiming thatovert correction of mistakes was one of the main points of classes.

Teacher responsesInterestingly, in many respects teachers feel quite similarly about theshortcomings of the current situation. Almost unanimously, they feelthat there is clearly too little focus on communication, in particular onoral communication skills. They also consider the exams as too difficultand believe that they do not always test language skills but only content.Furthermore, given students often less-than-impressive level of GeneralEnglish, they broadly think that there is too much emphasis on BusinessEnglish, especially terminology, while the learners would actually needsupport in more basic language skills. In addition, they also feel that

they generally have very little room for creativity as they have virtuallyno choice regarding the textbooks used for the course. Moreover, theyconsider the non-compulsory attendance in first-semester classes ascounterproductive to effective learning. Finally, regarding the learners,teachers criticize the students rote-learning attitude. Of course, and incontrast to at least the first group of students discussed above, teachersare aware of the main reasons why the situation looks the way it does:the local (excessive content orientation and no legal limit on the numberof students) and global (shortened curricula and reduced funding)constraints on the learning/teaching environment. Potentially, theawareness of this substantial mismatch between pedagogical beliefs andreality makes their experience all the more frustrating.

Nevertheless, the teaching staff does try to make the best of anunsatisfactory situation. Some of the more commonly applied strategiesto make up for the shortcomings are:

including more interactive exercises, pair and team work,presentations, projects, and role play;

making modifications to coursebooks and other course material by,for example, making selected cuts and adding extra material;

focusing on explanations, feedback, and repetition; using a broad variety of media; trying to establish a rapport and encouraging more contact with

students (for example by offering more and extended office hours).



13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

9/10

Conclusion First, results indicate that in many relevant areas, students notionsconcerning parameters that hinder or promote effective learning andstudying are broadly in agreement with the teachers perspectives.For instance, the importance of both ELF and the need for goodcommunicative skills are universally acknowledged. There is alsooverall agreement on the flaws in the design of the classes and how thesituation, ideally, could be improved.

There are some aspects, though, where teachers and learnersopinions diverge, such as the role of accuracy, which teachers deemmuch less significant, and the usefulness of explicit error correction,where teachers apparently err on the side of caution. These findings,especially regarding the issue of corrective feedback, are of relevancefor teaching practice for two reasons. Very specifically, disappointingstudents expectations about error correction by erroneously assumingthat the students beliefs are in accordance with ones own could becounterproductive and have a demotivating effect. More generally,the question can be raised whether a specific group of students ina particular setting might have different assumptions, and henceneeds, to what research-driven pedagogy recommends. The findingsthus add to the body of research analysing whether specific teachingrecommendations from second language acquisition (SLA) researchcan universally be applied to particular, often very specific, contexts.

Second, what clearly transpires is that the main conflict studentsand teachers experience is due to top-down pressure and contextuallimitations, and in the case of some students, a lack of autonomy and,concomitantly, an overreliance on teacher-provided learning (and

speaking) opportunities. The major local constraining factors are, on theone hand, a strong focus on content-based teaching, born of traditionand the fact that language teaching constantly has to stress and justifyits integration into a business school environment, and on the other, thelegal situation that does not allow any restriction on student numberson the part of the university. Global constraints are, first, the ongoingtendency to unify European university systems and the accompanyingreduction in curricula and, second, budgetary pressures resulting in lessfunding for teaching programmes. Thus, contextual parameters caneasily render teachers ideals and insights from research impracticable.

The study uncovered how academic institutions may fall short offulfilling students (and teachers) needs, and, furthermore, howstudents studying orientations may be dysfunctional in a givencontext. The contextual limitations are unlikely to change and cannotrealistically be influenced by learners or teachers. One step towards atleast addressing a part of the problem, i.e. some students unrealisticexpectations and their teacher dependence, would be to draw upon theirmetacognitive knowledge and explicitly address curricular goals andconstraints, as well as discuss their restrictive beliefs and underusedstrategies; in short, to point students in the direction of autonomy andindependent learning.

Final revised version received October 2012



13


Download

edfrom

7/29/2019 ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

10/10

ReferencesBreen, M. (ed.). 2001. Learner Contributions toLanguage Learning. Harlow: Pearson EducationLimited.Brown, A. 2009. Students and teachersperceptions of effective foreign language teaching:a comparison of ideals. The Modern Language

Journal93/1: 4660.Chavez, M. 2007. Students and teachersassessments of the need for accuracy in the oralproduction of German as a foreign language. TheModern Language Journal91/4: 53763.Horwitz, E. 1988. The beliefs about languagelearning of beginning university foreign languagestudents. The Modern Language Journal72/3:28394.Ranta, E. 2010. English in the real world vs.English at school: Finnish English teachers and

students views. International Journal of AppliedLinguistics 20/2: 15677.Timmis, I. 2002. Native-speaker norms andinternational English: a classroom view. ELT

Journal56/3: 2409.

Wenden, A. 1999. An introduction tometacognitive knowledge and beliefs in languagelearning: beyond the basics. System27/4: 43541.White, C. 2008. Beliefs and good language learnersin C. Griffiths (ed.). Lessons from Good LanguageLearners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Yang, N. D. 1999. The relationship between EFL

learners beliefs and learning strategy use. System27/4: 51535.

The authorsRuth Trinderis Associate Professor at WU Wien,Vienna University of Economics and Business.Her main research interests include ICT inlanguage learning, learner beliefs, and SLA theory.Email: [email protected]

Martin Herles is Assistant Professor at WU Wien,

Vienna University of Economics and Business.His main research interests include BusinessEnglish terminology, discourse analysis, academicwriting, and British cultural studies.Email: [email protected]



13


Download

edfrom
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9

Documents

Transcript of ELT J-2013-Trinder-220-9