A Task-Based Approach to Corporate Professional English Courses

7/27/2019 A Task-Based Approach to Corporate Professional English Courses

1/26


2/26

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3

Summary of Literature ....................................................................................... 4

Concept definition .......................................................................................... 4

Types of tasks: target vs pedagogic tasks ............. ............. ............. ............. .. 4

Task sequencing ............................................................................................ 5

Task-based vs task-supported ....................................................................... 6

Analytical vs synthetic teaching approach ............. ............. ............. ............. .. 6

Rationale for a TB syllabus ............................................................................ 7Genre ............................................................................................................. 7

Elements of a TB approach in my teaching ....................................................... 8

The teaching context ...................................................................................... 8

Rationale for my teaching approach ............. ............. ............. ............. ......... 10

TB teaching elements in my approach ......................................................... 11

Differences from existing TB teaching approaches .............. ............. ............ ... 13

Task / lesson sequencing ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ........... 13

Lesson structure ........................................................................................... 15

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 17

Appendix ............ .............. ............ ............. ............. .............. ............. ............ ... 21


3/26

Introduction

In this paper I will discuss my teaching approach to Professional English

corporate courses from the perspective of task-based teaching. My analysis will first

identify typical elements of task-based (TB) teaching that are present in my

framework, and will then explain how the latter deviates from theoretical and

empirical positions on TB teaching as reflected in the research literature I have

consulted.

The teaching approach I am discussing is fundamentally task-based (Long &

Crookes 1992), firstly because it follows a syllabus made up of target tasks, such as

report on progress . My syllabus design process also matches that described by the

two authors: needs analysis > target tasks > pedagogic tasks. Finally, progress is

seen as a measure of improvement in performing the target tasks.

Moreover, my teaching approach reflects Long and Crookes (1992) support for

analytical syllabuses. Unlike the common pedagogical use of tasks in standard

course books, my teaching deploys tasks holistically, as an actualization of the

professional genre. The language agenda is derived from the genre requirements

and predictably includes more than one element per task.

A significant difference in my teaching approach, both from most theoretical

work and from standard Business English and TB pedagogy, regards task and

lesson sequencing. Long and Crookes (1992), while supporting a TB syllabus, do not

pronounce themselves on the issue of task sequencing within and between lessons.

A great deal of research, whose concerns are taken over in the teaching practice,

focuses on the cognitive prerequisites of effective task sequencing; by contrast, my

syllabus is mapped on the business process o f the trainees profession, which will

dictate the succession of the target tasks.

It is, finally, necessary to specify that the teaching approach I am going to

discuss is not an exclusive one. I usually choose to apply this teaching framework

consistently only at above-intermediate levels, with trainees in middle or top

management positions. Such trainees are directly exposed to, and are more aware

of, the professional genres they need to master.


4/26

Summary of Literature

Concept definition

Ellis (2009, p.223) summarises key features of tasks discussed in academicliterature and offers a definition of a task as a language-teaching activity with a

primary focus on meaning, centred on a gap that the learners will need to fill by

using their own resources, and finalised with an outcome beyond language use in

itself.

Skehan (2003) refers to the communicative activity as a precursor of tasks in

the history of language pedagogy and points out the historical shift from pure focus

on meaning to a balanced focus on form within the task, as a necessary condition for language acquisition (p. 2).

Tavakoli and Foster (2008) offer a concise and intuitive definition of tasks as

being what the learners do in class when focusing mainly on the message they

receive or wish to communicate; this calls up the frequent arguments for tasks as

tools to build procedural knowledge. Moreover, they add, the learne rs doing

becomes, in practising tasks, similar to what they do in their first language (p. 441).

It is Samuda and Bygate (2008) that speak about the holistic character of tasks.

This means that in performing the task, the learner deals with different aspects of

language simultaneously, just as they do in their L1 (p.7). This characteristic of tasks

is particularly relevant to my paper, as the holistic character of tasks represents a

significant reason for my choice of a task-based approach.

Types of tasks: target vs pedagogic tasks

Tasks have been classified from various angles, whether they are input-providing or output-prompting (Ellis, 2009), resource-dispersing or resource-directing

(Robinson, 2011), knowledge-constructing or knowledge-activating (Samuda, 2001

as cited in Skehan, 2003, p.9).

The classification most relevant to my paper, however, comes from Long and

Crookes (1992). According to them, there are target tasks and pedagogical tasks.

The former are the communicative tasks that learners will be expected to perform

outside class, which for pedagogical purposes are split into smaller blocks, or


5/26

pedagogical tasks, to be practiced through classroom. The course design process

will start from a detailed needs analysis and proceed to identify the pedagogical

tools, materialised in classroom activities, which will lead learners to their ultimate

communicative competence goals.

Task sequencing

One of the significant areas related to task research is principled task

sequencing. Research into this matter has come, to the best of my knowledge,

mostly from the cognitive angle, in a first step setting out to establish correlations

between task design and features of elicited output. Sequencing would essentially

need to be made from lower to higher task complexity, but complexity is in itself a

concept which is defined in different ways. The main theoreticians here are Skehan

and Robinson, with their Limited Capacity Hypothesis and respectively the Cognitive

Hypothesis (Robinson, 2011).

Skehan postulates the trade-off between fluency, complexity and accuracy due

to our limited attention resources. When attention limits are reached, content tends

to take priority over language (Revesz, 2011). In his view, more cognitively

demanding tasks will redirect attention from language to content, so sequencing

tasks from lower to higher cognitive demand would optimize the allocation of

resources to language (Robinson, 2011). Task complexity is for him closely related

to the availability of planning time.

Robinson, by contrast, proposes a distinction between resource-directing tasks,

driving the allocation of cognitive resources to specific language elements, opposed

to resource-dispersing tasks, which do not do this. He proposes that sequencing

should be made by increasing cognitive complexity (e.g. reasoning) , more

specifically raising resource-dispersing demands first (e.g. minimizing planning time)

and then raising resource-directing ones (Robinson, 2011).

As I will explain later in this paper, my teaching approach maps the target tasks

on the flow of the business process relevant to the trainees, which places my

pedagogy outside the cognitive research stream.


6/26

Task-based vs task-supported

Moving on to broader issues, beyond the individual task, let us now look at

syllabus design and the weight of tasks. Samuda andBygate (2008) refer to a

distinction between task-based approaches, where tasks compose the syllabus, andtask-supported approaches, where tasks are used in classroom along other

pedagogical tools to support learning.

According to the two authors, a task-based approach is defined by several

characteristics. The syllabus, instead of being centred on individual language points,

as in traditional approaches, is structured by tasks. The focus on form will be derived

from the performance of the task itself, which ties in with Long and Crookes

proposed process. Also, a significant feature of a task-based course is the

assessment being carried out with reference to task performance, i.e. learners are

tested not on knowledge about the language but on how well they can perform the

tasks selected in the syllabus (p.196).

Analytical vs synthetic teaching approach

Long and Crookes (1992) set out from a distinction of two main options in

syllabus design, based on the choice of the unit of analysis. Syllabuses that set outto teach language units, mostly by assigning one language unit to one syllabus unit,

are called synthetic, as the learner will have, in the end, to put all the pieces of the

puzzle together in order to use the L2 in their real-life communicative contexts. For

instance, learning the discrete items past tense, figures, words for trends will need to

be synthesized by the learner when presenting company performance.

On the contrary, syllabuses that rely on tasks as the unit of analysis are called

analytic, as the learner sets out from the communicative task, arriving by a top-downprocess to the language units required in the performance of that task. Keeping the

same example as above, a lesson aims to practice the task present company

performance, which it analyses and breaks down into sub -tasks and eventually

language items. Thus, analytic syllabuses are those which present the target

language whole chunks at a time (Long & Crookes, 1992, p. 29). The two authors

support this latter approach to syllabus design, referring to it as non-interventionist

and integrative; one of the arguments most relevant to my paper is that SLA


7/26

progress does not, according to studies, take place by learning one language

structure after another, as synthetic syllabuses assume.

Within the analytic type, Long and Crookes outline three subcategories. The

procedural syllabus relies on cognitively demanding pedagogic tasks, and is linkedwith the first documented pedagogical project with a focus on task completion rather

than on the language used (the Bangalore project). Secondly, the process

syllabuses are designed to incorporate ongoing teacher-learner negotiation as to the

content of the syllabus. Finally, the two authors refer to, and advocate for, the task-

based approach, outlined above.

Rationale for a TB syllabus

There are several strong arguments in favour of a TB approach, from various

angles. Cognitively, Robinson (2011) mentions the opportunity provided by tasks for

noticing the gap, for focusing on form, for promoting automatization, or, given the

suitable task sequence, for consolidating memories of previous learning efforts.

Tasks, he adds, embed form into meaningful situations that foster form-function-

meaning mapping (p. 2). From the learnability perspective, tasks represent the more

natural learning path, since they mirror L1 learning processes (Long & Crookes,

1992).

Tasks are also viewed from more social-oriented perspectives. They provide

natural opportunity for interaction and negotiation of meaning, replicating real-life

interaction patterns in the classroom (Skehan, 2003). Use of tasks in practising

interaction stimulates, or sheds light on, different aspects of interaction (e.g.

collaboration, symmetry of interaction, negotiation of agenda).

Finally, Nunan (1991) points out the fact that a task-based approach attemptsto link language learning in the classroom with the activation of language knowledge

in real life. Also, and very importantly for my paper, Nunan refers to the greater face

validity of a task-based programme in relation to the learners (Brindley, 1984, as

cited by Nunan, 1991).

Genre

Genre, according to Hyland (2002), is an abstract and socially-accepted pattern

of language use (p. 114). Therefore, the concept of genre views language as


8/26

embedded in a social context, as well as agreed on by its users. Among the

theoretical approaches to genre, Hyland distinguishes the New Rhetoric group

(mostly ethnography-oriented), the Systemic Functional Linguistic direction (genre is

explored by linking the staged discourse with its social purposes), and the ESP

approach (genre seen as categories of text structured by a discourse community for

a communicative purpose). The ESP approach relies a great deal on the SFL

fundamentals and is also concerned with pedagogical applications.

In terms of genre pedagogy, Flowerdew (1993) argues for an educational,

rather than training, approach (Widdowson, 1983, Larsen-Freeman, 1983, as cited in

Flowerdew, 1993). As genres are used creatively, and as users are exposed to, and

expected to deal with, a great variety of genres, the optimal teaching approachshould focus not on a finite number of genres which it should regard as products; the

genre pedagogy should rather be process-oriented, aiming to equip learners with an

understanding of genres in terms of their parameters and variability of such

parameter configurations.

Elements of a TB approach in my teaching

The teaching context

As specified in the Introduction, the teaching approach discussed in this paper

refers to corporate courses of Professional English. In particular, the trainees are

mostly middle to top managers at an intermediate+ level, usually working in

Marketing, Human Resources, or Production. In some cases, they may have double

qualifications, as their expertise lies originally in the industrial field of the company

(e.g. electronics), later on enhanced by a functional know-how (e.g. sales).

Thanks to this level and complexity of professional experience, their English is

usually more than just adequate, at least in their immediate communication contexts.

What makes their communicative competence in English particularly effective is the

familiarity with certain chunks ( agree completely, lets move on to ... etc), as well as

relevant vocabulary.

They enrol for courses, however, because they mainly feel the need to gain a

systematic overview of language use in their communicative situations. This means


9/26

to them an understanding of what type of language is used in which situation, which

would enable them to make autonomous and competent choices in their

communication. Here issues such as formality, set phrases, but also verb tenses

frequently top their agenda. Also, they often require more systematic training of the

typical business language for presentations, meetings or reports.

The main aspects of performance, therefore, which are to be improved by

courses, are accuracy, appropriateness and very often range of expression. At the

same time, trainees expect to gain the confidence that they are making the best

choices in real communication. The desired outcome of such courses is the

awareness of what makes a language or strategy choice better than the alternative,

and the ability to resort to a holistic picture where the individual cases fit together.The typical objections they raise to common courses and teaching

methodologies relate to the relevance of content (i.e. topics, skills, language). Most

courses are comfortably based on textbooks, which include the typical ballast

characteristic of a teaching material aimed at a large audience. Another objection

points to the focus of the teaching on language itself; t is the primary language

agenda of the courses that poses two great challenges to their effectiveness. First, it

involves a cognitive effort for the learners to understand a knowledge field that isforeign to themselves, an effort which may simply fail, or demotivate the students.

Secondly, the trainees may reach the ability to deploy the language items accurately

in class, but will not transfer it in the real use outside the classroom. Such an

objection is also testified by a study cited by Newton and Kusmierczyk (2011), which

revealed that companies were dissatisfied with the English courses teaching

decontextualised language, which fails to address t he specific needs of the

workplace (p. 77).

Companies have long identified these problems with language training and

have put pressures on training providers to act on this. Typical solutions to irrelevant

content has been the adjustment of the topics choice, with little concern for the skills

involved. This way, a group of engineers may be required in a seminar to read a

news report from the automobile industry, simply on account of the topic being

technical.


10/26

A solution commonly implemented against the pitfall of the language agenda is

to practise presentations or meetings, usually by means of role-plays or simulations,

where the attention to form (language) is neglected for fear of the trainer being

labelled as language-oriented. In such cases, learners will feel that they are handling

the communicative tasks by deploying the language resources they already

possessed, with little or no learning effect.

My teaching approach, therefore, developed as a result of experimentation with

the various solutions provided by common teaching practice.

Rationale for my teaching approach

Empirically, my rationale lay in the disappointing experience first with existing

teaching materials, and later with my self-designed materials, which attempted to

tailor the teaching in terms of topics and skills, but would still be anchored in the

language-agenda mainstream.

Theoretically, the rationale for my new teaching approach, which I have

developed in the last five years, can be related to several themes in the research

literature.

First, the choice of tasks as a unit of the syllabus came as a means to givelearners quicker access to automatization, or to procedural knowledge (Robinson,

2011). Also, tasks were preferred due to the opportunity they provide for meaning-

form mappings in a framework that resembles that of natural L1 acquisition (Long &

Crookes, 1992). A balanced focus on form within the meaning-oriented task resolves

the drawbacks of a language-based syllabus that I mentioned above.

Secondly, output-generating tasks became my structural syllabus unit so as to

facilitate reflection on form while producing meaningful output (see the Output

Hypothesis summarised by Robinson, 2011). Since all my corporate clients insisted

on the primary necessity to speak competently, it was speech production that lay at

the heart of my teaching.

Not least, face validity (Brindley 1984, as cited in Nunan, 1991) was a rationale

as well. In many cases my services were booked after several disappointing training

courses with other, often reputable, language schools. There was, as a result, a high

pressure on my performance as a trainer in terms of the training outcomes.


11/26

Regarding the incorporation of genre analysis, namely treating the final target

task as an actualization of an underlying genre, this originates in a concern similar to

that expressed by Yates (2010, as cited in Newton & Kusmierczyk, 2011), when he

argued that the teaching of language for work purposes needs to equip learners

with the analytic tools to research interactive practices for themselves.

TB teaching elements in my approach

In this section I will explain why my pedagogical use of tasks falls under the

denomination of task- based teaching. The term task -based is understood from two

perspectives; first, as contrasted to task-supported teaching (Samuda & Bygate,

2008) ; second, as contrasted to Prabhus procedural syllabus and to Candlins

process syllabus (Long & Crookes, 1992).

Starting from the weight and role of tasks in teaching, Samuda and Bygate

(2008) define a task- based approach as one where tasks define and drive the

syllabus (p. 196). The syllabus of my courses is also made up of tasks and is built

so as to cover the significant communication tasks that the learners are expected to

perform in their profession. A course for marketing professionals, for example, will

consist of seminars devoted to tasks such as present your product, present market

trends, or report trends. Using Long and Crookes (1992) terminology, the syllabus

units are the target tasks of the trainees.

If tasks, and not language points, are the driving element of the syllabus, the

individual lessons provide input or practice of those language elements that are

required for task performance. A task such as present market trends will require the

deployment of language items like lexical verbs for trends, adverbs and adjectives of

degree, figures, verb tenses, or prepositions. Of these items only a selection will be

foregrounded and practised, depending on the trainees needs and deficiencies. The

task of presenting market trends will also include non-language areas of practice,

such as processing information to summarize a trend, providing comments and

interpretations of the trends, attaining various communicative goals (inform,

persuade, make forecasts etc). This proves that the task is selected not solely for its

language component, which would only mean a disguised language-based, or

synthetic, approach (Long & Crookes, 1992).


12/26

The syllabus design process matches the one proposed by Long and Crookes

(1992). This process starts in my teaching from a detailed needs analysis, which

integrates the institutional, as well as the individual agendas. Such an analysis

explores the communication events where English is required, including information

on subject matter, communication partners (suppliers?, clients?, own management?,

colleagues from sister overseas companies?), event patterns (formal, informal?,

structured? if yes, meetings? negotiations? presentations?), media (telephone,

email, face-to-face), and perceived deficiencies, or improvement goals.

The syllabus design process continues with the identification of the target tasks,

which are then broken down into smaller tasks, to be practised in class by means of

pedagogic tasks. For instance, if the target task was presenting trends , it could bebroken down into tasks like present upwards or downwards trend, indicate values,

describe how big the variation is. These sub-tasks will be practised in class by

means of information gap, mini-presentations, telephone role-plays etc.

The syllabus design process is only complete, however, in response to the

classroom reality. Prioritising the various sub-tasks, as well as choosing the time to

move on to the next target task, are decisions that are often made online. Such a

process resembles Long and Crookes (1992) process syllabuses, where teacher -learner negotiation is an integral part, and the complete syllabus emerges as a finite

product at the end of the course.

The pedagogic task selection aims to be as diverse as possible. Classroom

tasks are a mix of first, second and third generation tasks (Ribe and Vidal, 1993, as

cited in Samuda & Bygate, 2008), with the first two types at the forefront. Such tasks

may combine, or integrate, skills, as for example listening or reading tasks may

serve as input to the following speaking task. Post-tasks (Foster & Skehan, 1997)are sometimes used as well, in producing, for example, a short follow-up report on

the trends presented. Such post-tasks may be announced from the beginning, if the

lesson is to involve project work (Legutke & Thomas, 1991, as cited in Samuda

&Bygate, 2008); for instance, the central target task of pitching for a new product will

be followed by a post-task providing short feedback in writing. Announcing this post-

task from the beginning of the project will stimulate attention to the detail of both

ones own presentation and that of ones partners.


13/26

Fundamentally, my TB teaching framework is analytic (Long & Crookes, 1992).

The syllabus and the individual lessons set out from the real communication tasks

and break them down to the smaller components. In this way, the learning process

mirrors the natural L1 acquisition process (from reality to language development).

Also, since the lessons are not focused on the teaching of individual, discrete

language points, the learners will not be required to piece up the puzzle again when

faced, outside the classroom, with their communication tasks.

Differences from existing TB teaching approaches

In this section I will point out key differences in my TB pedagogy from the

academic and empirical approaches to tasks.

Task / lesson sequencing

Research in task sequencing mainly comes from the cognitive angle, working

with criteria such as task complexity (Robinson, 2011; Skehan, 2003), task difficulty,

cognitive demands, or processing demands (Robinson, 2011). Such considerations

usually regard task sequencing within a lesson.

By contrast, my TB teaching framework is mainly concerned with tasksequencing in designing the syllabus. Target tasks, in my syllabus, are ordered to

match the generic business process of the trainees field, e.g. Human Resources. A

generic flow of the HR process can be represented as:

Recruit

Train

Appraise

Develop


14/26

This means that an HR course will start with target tasks related to recruitment,

and conclude with those related to staff development. A more detailed syllabus, or

course map, as I like to call it, is here:

This map provides first of all transparency to the learners. They know where

the course starts and where it takes them. They also know in advance what a suite

of seminars will be dealing with. As a result, they may also negotiate the various

blocks in the syllabus with the teacher, in case they may wish to give more or less

weight to a particular task or sub-process. Essentially, this enables the trainees to

understand the teaching rationale of each session, implicitly building motivation, as

well as trust in the trainer.

Such a concept of syllabus design is also an efficient solution for the teacher. If

they plan the syllabus in advance, they have in this way a template, or a mould in

which they can fit in their selected content, instead of grappling with the dilemma of

how to order the seminars. If they prefer not to plan in advance, such a template is

the more valuable, since it spares them the ongoing effort of deciding what to teach

in the next lesson.

Cognitively, a business-process syllabus provides a workable alternative to

considerations such as processing demands or task complexity. As business

processes are typically structured in the way of one step building on the outcomes of

the preceding one, it can be expected that the communication tasks involved will

Identify staffingneed

Design / adjust jobdescriptions Advertise job

Shortlist andselect candidates

Design / adjustemployment

contract

Carry outinduction

Analyse trainingneeds and select

programmesEvaluate training

Analysemacroeconomic

conditions

Analyse companyfigures

Reviewperformance Give feedback

Select motivationtools

Decide on careerdevelopment


15/26

also reflect such interdependences. While there is no direct, apparent hierarchy of

complexity among the target tasks, examining the HR map above one can see that

the business process requires the deeper specialist expertise, matched by finer

communication skills, the further one goes into its stages. It is not by chance,

incidentally, that the higher one advances through the ranks of the HR department,

the further one comes within the HR business process: while the lower-rank office

workers may take care of work contracts or publicising job descriptions, it is only the

top HR managers that will be responsible for staff development. A language teacher

can therefore safely assume that if their trainees are office workers, the course may

not need to cover the last two blocks, as the content, including the communication

skills themselves, may not be relevant to the learners.

Lesson structure

While Willis (1996, as cited in Samuda & Bygate, 2008) places the task just

after a teachers lead -in, with the language focus towards the end of the lesson, as a

post-task activity, my lessons unfold in a reversed pattern.

My seminars approach the target task as an actualization of a professional

communication genre. The concepts of task and genre are not, to the best of my

knowledge, linked in research, as they are apparently claimed mostly by

theoreticians in different strands: tasks seem to be mostly explored from a cognitive

and psycholinguistic angle, while genre is explored with a sociocultural perspective

on language in mind. I am using the word genre here along with the word task for

two reasons.

First, the target task heading my lessons indicates the desired learning

outcome, while the genre is the pattern that the target task relies on; in other words,

my syllabus selects the target tasks from the needs analysis, but develops them with

the genre background view in mind. Secondly, and as a consequence of the former

point, the task is seen as one finite variant of the genre; the outcome of the lesson

will be the performance of the task; the genre however will represent the starting

point of our analysis. Between the first and the last step of the lesson, the learners

will have become aware of the genre structure and choices available, which they will

select in accordance with their specific reality.

Below I am showing a typical lesson structure:


16/26

Examining the marketing lesson on Product Presentation in the Appendix , it is

easy to notice that the mind map at the beginning provides an overview of what is

possible to say within this genre, as a typified response to a recurring social context

(Freedman, 1999). It is accompanied by questions meant to enable learners to work

with this overview, by analysing the meanings included in it. The mind map will be

Mind map:

focus on genre

to illustrate possible genre, or discourse, moves to discuss and understand the genre moves represented

graphically to elicit some of the language that will be required

Words:

focus on meaning

and form

to activate some of the concepts involved in the genreproduction, or the task performance

sets out from the lead-in discussion and may add relevantlexical items

Structures:

focus on form

to integrate the conceptual material of the last sections intocoherent and full-fledged discourse

structures include the lexical items in the section "Words" may explore syntax, functional language, discourse markers

Task performance:

integrate

to integrate genre moves with language, meaning with form to perform the task, selecting from the genre the relevant

elements

Help

page

re-inserts the mind map, including the language chunks undereach genre move - integrates genre with language, meaningwith form

to provide additional rules or wordlists, "offline"


17/26


18/26

organises learning setting out from the real-world communication tasks of the

students, with language being one of the spin-off elements resulting from the

analysis. The primary goal is here not the teaching of declarative knowledge about

English, neither language competence for its own sake. Seeing that the students

availability for learning, both in terms of physical time and of cognitive resources, are

limited, this teaching approach seeks to build strategic and discourse communicative

competences instead (Canale & Swain, 1980).

An integral part of this concept is genre awareness-building and analysis. The

strategic and discourse communicative competences mentioned above are thus

developed by equipping the learners with a holistic understanding of the patterned

communicative situations they are exposed to, in what Flowerdew (1993) describesas an educational, process-oriented approach.

This underlies the choice regarding task sequencing across the syllabus, as

well as lesson structure. Since a systematic and holistic understanding of

communication patterns is aimed at, the lessons are sequenced on the generic

mo del of the trainees work process , so as to enable them to permanently relate, and

transfer, the classroom learning to the real language use; secondly, the lesson sets

out from genre awareness and concludes with the performance of the task seen asan actualization of the genre within the terms of reference of the trainees real -life

professional context.

Overall, such a teaching framework can be related to the intercultural and

critical language awareness strand in pedagogic research on language for specific

purposes (Newton & Kusmierczyk , 2011). However, the concept of culture

underlying that of intercultural competence stands in my teaching for both national

and corporate, culture.


19/26

References

Bhatia, V. K. (1997), The Power and Politics of Genre. World Englishes, 16: 359 371.

doi: 10.1111/1467-971X.00070

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to secondlanguage teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics , 1(1). doi:10.1093/applin/I.1.1

Ellis, R. (2009). Task based language teaching: sorting out the

misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 19 (3), 221-246.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x

Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional

genres. ELT journal , 47 (4), 305-316. doi:10.1093/elt/47.4.305

Freedman, A. (1999). Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of

genres. TESOL quarterly , 33 (4), 764-767. doi: 10.2307/3587890

Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: language, context, and literacy. Annual review of applied

linguistics , 22 , 113-135. doi : 10.1017/S0267190502000065

Newton, J., & Kusmierczyk, E. (2011). Teaching second languages for the

workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 31 (1), 74-92.

Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL

quarterly , 25 (2), 279-295. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000080

Revesz, A. (2011). Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences:

A Classroom Based Study. The Modern Language Journal , 95 (s1), 162-181. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x

Robinson, P. (2011). Task Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues. Language

Learning , 61 (s1), 1-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning . Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching , 36 (1), 1-14. doi:

10.1017/S026144480200188X

Skehan, P. A., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on

accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research , 1(3),

185-211. doi:10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249


20/26

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The

Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning , 58 (2), 439-473. doi :

10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x


21/26

Appendix


22/26

Features

Unique Selling Proposition (USP),comparison with competitorsUse, benefits

Target customer

Range

Present YOUR PRODUCT

Which of the types of info in the mind map do these words or patterns relate to?

Which types of information in the mind map do you have to explain most often?

it is used for

it helps you to

it enables you to

reliable

market segment

wide (choice)

we are the only company who

the most effective

we deliver faster

competent

pragmatic

customer-oriented


23/26

WORDS

1. Match these product features to their definitions:

1. reliable a. it is adapted to the specific needs of one customer 2. effective b. it works quickly3. efficient c. it has the results you want4. economical d. it always functions without mistakes5. prompt e. it is based on know-how6. competent f. practical, for real-life needs7. pragmatic g. it works well with few resources (time, etc)8. customised / tailored h. it is cheap to use

2. What are the names of these features?

The product / service is... The ... of the product / service

reliable reliability

effective

efficient

prompt

competentprecise

professional

3. Tick the words below that can describe your products or services.

effective

efficient

prompt

flexible

accurate

valuable

tailored / customised to

(in)expensive

high / low / average (qualityetc)

competent

professional

easy to use

innovative

reliable

responsive

precise

popular


24/26

STRUCTURES

Check the Help Page ( Comparing things ), then do the following.

1. Compare the following things:

a. market statistics, quarterly sales figures (useful to you)

b. computer-based learning, presentations, class discussion (effective)

c. nuclear power, solar power (reliable, safe)

d. Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce (economical, fast, comfortable)

e. communication via email, telephoning, letters (prompt, cheap)f. work by hand, work done by robots (precise, valuable, high quality)

g. services of large companies, services of small companies (professional, efficient, flexible)

2. Choose 3 products or services in your industry and compare them. You can use the

words on page 2.

3. What is important to your company when developing a new product? Rank these items

in their order of importance for your context. Then explain your choices.

Customer complaints about your existing products

Market information on consumer trends

CompetitionThe need to bring out original, innovative ideas


25/26

SPEAK

1. Which is your...

Most profitable product?

Most competent competitor?

Most reliable service or product?

2. Think of 5 features describe your products / services (you can choose from page 2).Add one reason for your choice.

Then add a contrast to a competing product.

Our products are high-quality, because..., unlike other products, which

dont ... / while the competing products are more / less ....

Our products are high- quality, because In contrast , the other products...

3. How can you describe your product / services in terms of:

Price

Customer orientation

Speed

Overall quality

4. Why should customers choose your products / services rather than your competitors?Select the areas that are relevant to your business and discuss your ideas.

Customer relations. Staff attitude and helpfulness

Processes and procedures. Filling in forms; establishing needs; advice; follow-up

Ordering . Filling in forms, order confirmation; procedure if conditions have to bechanged

Information. Detailed product info; clear instructions for use

Product quality. Composition / ingredients; active life; running costs; environmentallyfriendly

Customization. Ability to customize your products to the customers specificrequirements

Additional services. Guarantees; service contracts; training in how to use and maintainthe product

Customer service . After-sales access; telephone help; maintenance and servicing

Financial. Payment; flexibility of terms

Other ?


26/26

Help Page Lesson 2

1. Comparing things

A is B is than A C is the (of all) slow slow er

less quickslowest least quick

reliable more reliableless risky

most reliablemost risky

BUT : good better the best

bad worse the worst

much / many more the most

little less the least

2. Presenting a product

Features

USP,comparison with competitorsUse, benefits

Target customer

Range

OUR PRODUCT

We offer high-quality services.

flexible, effective, economical, prompt etc

We are the only our product is t he most .. .Our competitors provide., while we deliver...Our products / s ervices are more... than...

We deliver on-site, unlike / in contrast to our competitors.

Our product enables our customer toIt is most eff ective forIt helps to...

It is used for -ing

Our product etc is mainly targeted at.Our products / s ervices are mostly us eful for.We target a population aged...

We offer a (wide) range of...

Our product comes in .. colours / sizes etc

product mixproduct portfolioproduct lineproduct lifecycle

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	simona-petrescu
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

A Task-Based Approach to Corporate Professional English Courses

Documents