Controversies in Business English
Submitted by
Pete Sharma
on 23 April, 2009 - 14:25
I began teaching business English in 1980 and have observed over the years huge
differences in the way we teach. For one business English teacher, life is a
cold trudge through the snow to a remote factory on the outskirts of a mining
town. Over the year, she learns as much about mining as the students learn about
language. For another, the students answer all the questions on the needs
analysis in the same way: 'I don’t (phone) – I haven’t started working yet'.
This pre-service group are all 18 and have no business experience. Yet another
teacher works on writing skills in a purpose-built seminar centre. There are so
many different scenarios that perhaps it is not so surprising that we end up
teaching in wholly different ways, with different beliefs, methodologies and
practice. This article explores six controversial areas in teaching business
English.
The coursebook conundrum
'To use a course book on a business English course....or not'? Imagine a cline.
At one end is the course book ‘adoption’. All students receive a course book,
which is appropriately supplemented by the teacher. The choice today has never
been better: from Market Leader (Longman) to In Company (Macmillan) via Business
Basics (OUP), English 365 (CUP). Or a book from Summertown, Marshall Cavendish,
a local publisher... the list goes on and on.
Who chooses the course book? Why? Does the course book define the methodology,
or is it the methodology which influences the selection?
At the other end of this cline is the complete rejection of published materials
(see Scott Thornbury on dogme) and an espousal of framework materials,
epitomised by the (wonderful) Business English Teacher’s Resource Book.
Of course, there are pros and cons connected with both positions. There are many
arguments for the use of a course book. Two of the most powerful are:
The most powerful argument against using a course book is shown in this famous
lampoon, adapated here from Michael Lewis:
'You do an in-depth needs analysis… find out your students’ specific skills and
lexical needs… and then you say… "by the most unbelievable co-incidence, we have
JUST the book for you, written two years ago.”'
It was Lewis I believe who coined the term ‘confetti method’ for all those who
slave over a hot photocopier: if the student stands up quickly and their file
springs open, all the pages fall out, just like confetti. If you would like to
see my list of the best six best business English books ever, visit
Lindsay Clandfield’s blog.
Nowadays, I think the arguments are based on the wrong term – 'course book' - as
the so-called course book has now expanded to a include a raft of components
such as a DVD-ROM and a web-delivered e-lesson which helps ensure the ‘currency’
of materials.
The business skills conundrum
Imagine two training providers both delivering effective presentations courses.
Course A
Run by a ‘School of Languages’; the students are all non-native speakers.
Course B
Run by a ‘Corporate Training Centre’; the students are all native speakers.
Consider first which of the above teachers receives the highest salary. (Sorry –
the second person is not a teacher: he or she is, of course, a ‘trainer’).
Now try this short task. Decide which course would include the following
elements, a-f, writing down each letter only once.
Course A only:
Course B only:
Both Course A and Course B:
a. Using visuals aids
b. 'Firstly, secondly, thirdly… '
c. Body language
d. 'I’ve divided my presentation into 3 parts...'
e. Powerful PowerPoint presentations
f. Using prompt cards
When I wrote this exercise, I had a very precise answer in mind, which I add
below. First, here are a couple of the many variants I have received in teacher
training:
Answer 1
Course A:
Course B: a, b, c, d, e, f
Both Course A and Course B:
Answer 2
Course A:
Course B:
Both Course A and Course B: a, b, c, d, e, f
The person who wrote Answer 1 is 22, has just done a CELTA and never given a
presentation. From his perspective, he’s a language teacher. All the rest is the
domain of a management training organisation.
The person who wrote Answer 2 works at a long-established school of languages in
Vienna, has given innumerable seminars on presentation skills and feels
competent to deliver this kind of feedback.
This was my original answer:
Course A: b, d
Course B: a, f
Both Course A and Course B: c, e
I maintain many teachers offer feedback on c and e without having had the
necessary training themselves. A very real controversy! Just what to teach in
the area of business skills can pose a very real problem for teachers.
Cross-culture
Do you know the name the Dutch author of 'Riding the waves of culture'? Do you
know what the opposite of ‘monochronic’ is? What is ‘uncertainty avoidance?’
When I became a CAT trainer (CAT stands for ‘cultural awareness training’), I
was lucky enough to have specialist training. It is my contention that most
business English teachers do not have this input. Instead they find themselves
in a situation where they must include a cross cultural element in order to
deliver a successful Business English course.
A lot can go wrong. Anyone who has ever encountered the vitriolic resistance of
someone who feels they have just been ‘stereotyped’ knows that this is an area
which demands great sensitivity. Luckily, there is some excellent material out
there, including ‘The Culture pack’, CUP, originally created by York Associates.
On this site you can find articles
by Barry Tomalin
covering this area.
Lexis
Your students ask you: 'What does X mean?' Try this short task:
Which of the following do you feel you can happily explain to students?
If you are able to explain all of them then, to quote the Yardbirds: 'Mister
you’re a better man than I'. Of course, we cannot be expected to be experts in
every field. Luckily, the more jargonny a term is, the more likely it is that
the student not only knows the term but is able to explain it to you, the
teacher. Just what lexis we should teach is often debated.
Grammar/methodology
Try this task:
There are huge methodological differences in what we tell students about
language, and how we teach it. If you are lucky enough to be a Director of
Studies or teacher trainer, you get to observe many lessons, often involving
teachers saying totally different things.
For years course books had a syllabus which had the present continuous precede
the simple present. We know now that the latter is massively more frequent.
Linguists say there is no future tense; some CELTA course materials say there
is. Teachers in monolingual groups abroad often use translation; those on
multi-lingual groups tend not to. I come from the era where you never
translated, and indeed, almost had to lie on the floor in order to teach the
word ‘flounder’ (a flat fish). I believe there are easier ways of doing this
now…
Technology
Teacher A loves blogs, wikis, DVD-ROM and web-based materials. Teacher B does
not. Teacher A has Skype and Moodle. Teacher B does not. How different are their
courses? Significantly...
I believe a teacher’s attitude towards technology will massively influence their
approach to teaching business English. Indeed, there are a huge number of
reasons why we teach differently. The many factors involved in these differences
of approach include:
Conclusion
This article has touched on a number of areas in which I think teachers
particularly disagree. Controversies. In fact, when I reflect on how different
all our situations are, perhaps it is a surprise that our business English
courses are not, in fact, even more different than they already are!