Teaching Business English

TEACHING BUSINESS ENGLISH: DO ENGLISH TEACHERS NEED TRAINING?

By:

NOR AINI BINTI ABDUL RAHMAN, ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MALAYSIA
&
FATIMAH BINTI ALI, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE of ENGINEERING and TECHNOLOGY MALAYSIA

English language teachers have to upgrade themselves constantly in order to keep up with the latest development in teaching the language. For English for Specific Purposes (ESP) teachers, the demand is even more pressing. Bearing that in mind, this paper investigates how Business English teachers equip themselves to teach Business English since Malaysian graduates with Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) degree are not specifically trained to teach Business English. To see how Business English instructors prepare themselves to teach the course, a set of questionnaire was distributed to forty-five course instructors from five public higher learning institutions in Malaysia. Results showed that the respondents employed various ways to teach the course.

INTRODUCTION The ultimate goal of teacher training is to provide qualified personnel for a nation. Society places high demands upon educators so as to ensure professional and social competence of both individuals and society. Continued education and training in new trends can help meet a great variety of educational needs and promote excellence in education. Since teaching requires specific skills and an understanding of not only psychology but also human development, teacher training must be encouraged as it is an essential, continuous process. In line with that, Perraton (1993) and states that good education demands good teacher. This is because over the course of the twentieth century, as the teaching profession has grown, so have its standards risen....Society has steadily expected more of teachers in the variety of tasks they have to perform, the skills they need to master and in the imagination required of their work. Rising expectation has brought rising quality (p.1).

Hu (2005) contends that teacher education essentially concerns four areas: the knowledge base for teaching, pedagogical effectiveness in fostering knowledge acquisition and intellectual qualities that support continuing professional development, professional development in the community of practice and the coherence of professional development work. Solomon (1992) adds that there are four professional development models for teachers to consider : telecommunications networks to develop and conduct curriculum projects such as computer labs, distance learning, school district/university partnership and on-site camp. Many studies have been conducted to look into the importance of teacher training. Among them were Blasé and Blasé (1999), Roth et al (1999), Curtis and Szestay (2005), Sivell (2005) and Burton (2005), Jacob and Lefgren (2004), Borg (2005), Gebhard (2005), Farmer(2005), Etus (2005), Godfrey (2005), and Eken (2005). These studies confirmed the fact that training is important and teachers do need training to improve their profession. These authors reiterate the importance of continued teacher development in order to deliver and promote quality education.

Teacher Training and Education in Malaysia In Malaysia, the education policy sates that education in Malaysia is an on-going efforts towards further developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonic, based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such an effort is designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral standards and who are responsible and capable of achieving high level of personal well-being as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the society and the nation at large. Thus the Ministry of Education has specific teacher development programmes. They are:
1. Malaysian Teaching Diploma Course - provides training for pre-service primary school teachers. This diploma-level course is offered in Teachers Training colleges throughout Malaysia for a duration of three years or six semesters
2. Post-Degree Teacher Training Course - to give graduates with Bachelor’s degrees in various fields the opportunity to be involved in the teaching profession so as to accommodate the shortage of teachers in schools across the country. This course is carried out for a year in teachers’ training colleges throughout Malaysia.
3. Special Degree Programme for Non-graduate Teachers - a special programme for non-graduate Education Service officers serving in primary and secondary schools, polytechnics, community colleges and teacher training colleges. It is also extended to education officers serving in District Education Offices, State Education Departments, divisions in the Ministry of Education or other agencies. This is a three-year programme whereby the first year is spent at a teachers training college, the second and third years at a public university. The objectives of these programmes are to continuously enhance the level of professionalism of teachers through training and self-development programmes, to inculcate the value of lifelong learning in order to determine the career direction of teachers and to enhance knowledge and skills in the field of teaching and upgrade the expertise in each specialization

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM English for Specific Purposes courses fulfill the needs of learners who want to learn English in specific fields such as science, technology, medicine, leisure and business. Le Vasan (1994) states that

“teaching of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) are an understanding of the culture and the identification of target texts (spoken and written) within the community in which the learner wishes to participate. Only when there is awareness and first hand experience of both the community and community specific texts can organised learning of new members take place” (p.1).

Since Business English (BE) falls under English for Specific Purposes, teaching it needs careful preparation and consideration. Bowen (2005) contends that some EFL instructors may feel insecure to teach BE due to lack of experience and knowledge about the business world. He points out that essentially, a BE teacher’s role is not to present business concepts to the learners or tell them how to run their own business but more on enabling learners to develop their language skills within a business context. Applebome (1995) states that business schools are unable to equip learners with suitable competencies and skills the new workplace and Maes et al (1997) support the statement by stating many articles have been written on the issue. In line with that, Waner (1995) carried out a study to find out if business faculty and business professionals perceive business writing skills, oral/interpersonal skills, basic English skills, and other business communication abilities with the same degree of importance. It was found that there was no significant difference between 35 business professionals and 30 business faculty concerning the four areas. However, when the 50 competencies within the four areas were ranked, some visible differences occurred in using the telephone and intercom, asking questions, and applying confidentiality. She concluded that the increased emphasis toward total quality education, student and faculty accountability, and outcome-based education require evaluation and validation of the content of the undergraduate business courses. Therefore, the aims of this study are to find out:
1. whether or not English course instructors will be able to teach BE without possessing business background
2. which components of BE are difficult to teach
3. whether or not BE instructors willing to attend courses to improve their teaching Hence, the research questions are:
1. Will English course instructors be able to teach BE without having business background?
2. Which components of BE are difficult to teach?
3. Will BE instructors be willing to attend courses to improve their teaching?

METHODOLOGY
The study is mainly descriptive in nature as it attempts to investigate whether or not English instructors need training to teach BE. A set of questionnaire was distributed to forty-five Business English lecturers from five institutions of higher learning in Malaysia. Thirty-one questionnaires were returned giving 68% response rate. The respondents were given a set of questionnaire containing two parts. The first part contained demographic questions, preparation to teach BE and the difficulties they face in teaching BE.
The second part of the questionnaire contained twenty items asking whether or not they have difficulty in teaching the components of BE. A five point Likert-like scale was used to gauge their opinions on teaching BE- 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3 undecided, 4 disagree, 5 strongly disagree. The components of BE were analysed from books written by Knight and O’Neil (2001), Grant and McLarty (2004), Jones (2001), Barnard and Cady (2003), Taylor (1999), Taylor (1999) and Tullis and Trappe (2000).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The respondents consisted of 22 female and 9 male instructors. Twenty-six respondents obtained their first degree in education (TESL), two respondents obtained their degree in English, one respondent in TESP and the remaining three respondents obtained their first degree in mass communication, translation and interpretation and electrical engineering respectively. As for their master’s degree, twenty respondents obtained master’s degree in education (TESL) and English, four in other fields such as management, corporate communications, business administration and information management while the remaining seven respondents have not obtained their master’s degree yet. Moving on to the next item, number of years of teaching English, 5 respondents has taught between 1-5 years, 13 respondents has taught between 6-10 years, 5 respondents has taught between 11-15 years, 4 respondents has taught between 16-20 years, two respondents have taught for 21-25 years and the remaining two has taught for 26-30 years. As for teaching BE, 26 respondents has taught for 1-5 years, 4 respondents have taught between 6-10 years and 1 respondent has taught for 11-15 years. On the reasons why they taught BE, they gave reasons such as they were asked by the course coordinator (n=13), they volunteered (n=4), wanted to help students communicate well in business (n=1), looking for new experience (n=1), is a BE trainer (n=1), BE is part of the English syllabus (n=4), liked/enjoyed teaching BE (n=2), it was a first degree qualification and 4 respondents stated that it was within their job specification. On how the respondents prepare themselves to teach BE, 96% stated they read BE books, 87% stated they discuss with colleagues, 45% discussed with people in the industry, 32% attended BE course, 83% surfed the internet, 12% read business magazines and newspapers, 3.2% discussed with marketing/business lecturers and 9% referred to the course modules. The next item, difficulties encountered in teaching BE, majority of the respondents (64%) stated lack of exposure to the business world seemed to be the common difficulty in teaching BE.
The second part of the questionnaire asked respondents whether or not they have difficulty in teaching the components of BE. Item 1 showed that 64% of the respondents strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching e-mail. As for Item 2, 77% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching memoranda. For Item 3, 61% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching meeting and discussion skills while 58 % strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching meeting documentations as found in Item 4. Meanwhile for Item 5, 54% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching business correspondence and for Item 6, 71% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching presentation skills, 45% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching fax correspondence while another 45% agreed. The next item, Item 8, saw 61% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in recruitment correspondence, Item 9 saw 48% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching reports, while for item 10, 61% strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching visual presentations.
For Item 11, 61% respondents agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching telephone skills, 41% agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching corporate information as found in item 12 while , 38% agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching intercultural communication as found in Item13. As for Item 14, teaching welcoming visitors, 61% for Item 15, 38% strongly agreed strongly agreed that they have no difficulty in doing so and they have no difficulty in teaching entertaining. The next item, describing data, saw 45% agreed that they have no difficulty. 38% agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching business idioms, slang and idiomatic expressions while for Item 18, teaching negotiating, 48% agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching it. For Item 19, teaching students to use gender neutral language correctly, 48% agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching the component. The final item, teaching international business, saw 51% agreed that they have no difficulty in teaching the component.
To conclude the questionnaire, the respondents were asked whether or not they need to attend courses to improve their BE teaching. This question generated 93% yes and to another question, if they were given the opportunity to attend such courses, 96% answered yes again by citing reasons such to gain new knowledge (32%) , to update themselves on current trends in business (25%) and for self-improvement (16%).
From the responses obtained, it can be concluded that respondents have no difficulty in teaching the components of BE. This shows that although majority of them did not have BE background at either bachelor’s or master’s degree, they feel comfortable teaching the subject. Therefore, the answer to the first research question is yes, course instructors without business background can teach BE.
In answering the second research question, which components of BE were difficult to teach, the results showed that most respondents were comfortable teaching the different components of BE. However, there were a few who stated that they encountered problems when teaching International Business, Intercultural Communication and Corporate Information. From informal discussions with some of the respondents, the difficulties that they faced were providing and bringing real scenarios into the classroom as well as to share with students their working experience. Most respondents did not have any working experience in corporate organizations. It would be more meaningful to the students if the lecturers/language teachers have some kind of industrial exposure or business experience so that they can share their working experience in the industry or international companies with the students. To answer the final research question, would BE instructors attend courses to improve their teaching, majority would do so. This is evident in the high percentage (93%) of their responses, thus showing their positive attitude towards training. This means that the respondents were aware of the importance of training in their field of work. This is seen an important indication for their institutions to send BE instructors for refresher courses from time to time.

CONCLUSION From the results of the study, a few implications will be presented. Firstly, there is a need to update course instructors on BE. Refresher courses would be a good addition to an institution’s policy of upgrading its teaching staff. Secondly, teachers with basic degree in English and TESL have no problem in teaching BE. Although they were not trained specifically in BE and did not work in the industry, they can provide quality instructions for learners.

As for recommendations for future research, more studies should be carried out on teaching International Business, Intercultural Communication and Corporate Information. As indicated in the results of this study, instructors could be given more exposure in teaching the components. Also, the industry and teachers can work hand-in-hand in order to improve BE teaching. The industry can provide invaluable feedback so as to help course instructors understand and teach BE better and possibly offer training. As the demands for BE is increasing tremendously (St John, 1996), it is high time to conduct more research into training in BE.

REFERENCES
Applebome, P. (1995, February 20). “Employers Wary of School System: Survey Finds Broad Distrust of Younger Job Aspirants”. New York Times, pp. A1- A13.
Barnard, R & Cady, J (2003) Business Venture 1. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Blasé, J. and Blasé, J. (1999) ” Principals ' Instructional Leadership and Teacher Development: Teachers ' Perspectives”. Educational Administration Quarterly.35(3): 349-378.

Borg, M. (2005) “ A Case Study of Development in Pedagogic Thinking of a Pre-service Teacher” TESL-EJ 9(2): 1-30.
Bowen, T. (2005) “Aspects of Teaching Business English” retrieved from http://www.onestopenglish.com/Teacher_Support/Methodology/Archive/specific-purposes/teaching_businessEnglish.htm
Burton, J. (2005) “The Importance of Teachers Writing on TESOL” TESL-EJ 9(2): 1-18.

Curtis, A & Szesztay, M. “The Impact of Teacher Knowledge Seminars: Unpacking Reflective Practice” TESL-EJ 9(2): 1-16.

Edwards, A, Gilroy, P and Hartley, D. (2002) Rethinking Teacher Education: Collaborative Responses to Uncertainty. Routledge/Falmer: New York.

Eken, D.K. (2005) “Principles and Practice in Trainer Training and Supervision” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 181-182.

Etus, O. (2005) “Reflective Lersaning in a Teacher Training Programme: The Process of Task Design” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 172-174.
Farmer, F. (2005) “Conceptualising Professional in ELT” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 163-165.
Gebhard, J.G. (2005) “Teacher Development through Exploration: Principles, Ways, and Examples” TESL-EJ 9(2): 1-15
Grant, D & McLarty, R (2004) Business Focus. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Godfrey, T. (2005) “The Benefits of Teacher Training: The Participants’ Perspective” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 174-176.
Hu Guangwei (2005) “Professional Development of Secondary EFL Teachers: Lessons From China” Teachers College Record.107 (4): 654-705.
Jacob, B.A. & Lefgren, L. (2004) “The Impact of Teacher Training on Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from School Reform Efforts in Chicago” Journal of Human Resources, 39(1): 50-79.
Jones, L (2002) Working in English. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Knight, G & O’Neil, M (2001) Business Explorer 1. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Le Vasan, , M. (1994) “Teaching English for special purposes: A Case Study of a Malaysian Business Organization”. Issues in Educational Research, 4(1), 35-47.
Maes, J. D., Weldy, T.G. and Icenogle, M.L. (1997) “A Managerial Perspective: Oral Communication Competency is Most Important for Business Students in the Workplace”. The Journal of Business Communication 34(1): 67-81.
Ministry of Education Malaysia http://www.moe.gov.my
Perraton, H. (1993)(ed) Distance Education for Teacher Training. Routledge: New York. Roth W.-M.W.-M, Masciotra D.& Boyd, N. (1999) “Becoming-in-the-classroom: A Case Study of Teacher Development Through Coteaching” Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(7) :771-784.

Sivell, J. (2005) “Second Language Teacher Education in Canada: The Development of Professional Standards”. TESL-EJ 9(2):pp 1-7.

Solomon, G. (1992) Teacher Training- Reaching Out. Electronic Learning, September.

St John, M.J. (1996) “Business is Booming: Business English in the 1990s”. English for Specific Purposes. 15(1):3-18.
Taylor, L (1999) International Express. Oxford University Press:Oxford.
Taylor, S (1999) Communication for Business (3rd ed). Pearson Education Limited: Essex.
Tullis, G and Trappe, T (2000) New Insights Into Business. Longman: Essex.
Waner, K.K. (1995) “Business Communication Competencies Needed by Employees as Perceived by Business Faculty and Business Professionals”. Business Communication Quarterly. 58(4): 51-67.

References: Applebome, P. (1995, February 20). “Employers Wary of School System: Survey Finds Broad Distrust of Younger Job Aspirants”. New York Times, pp. A1- A13. Barnard, R & Cady, J (2003) Business Venture 1 Blasé, J. and Blasé, J. (1999) ” Principals ' Instructional Leadership and Teacher Development: Teachers ' Perspectives”. Educational Administration Quarterly.35(3): 349-378. Borg, M Bowen, T. (2005) “Aspects of Teaching Business English” retrieved from http://www.onestopenglish.com/Teacher_Support/Methodology/Archive/specific-purposes/teaching_businessEnglish.htm Burton, J Edwards, A, Gilroy, P and Hartley, D. (2002) Rethinking Teacher Education: Collaborative Responses to Uncertainty. Routledge/Falmer: New York. Eken, D.K. (2005) “Principles and Practice in Trainer Training and Supervision” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 181-182. Etus, O. (2005) “Reflective Lersaning in a Teacher Training Programme: The Process of Task Design” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 172-174. Farmer, F. (2005) “Conceptualising Professional in ELT” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 163-165. Gebhard, J.G. (2005) “Teacher Development through Exploration: Principles, Ways, and Examples” TESL-EJ 9(2): 1-15 Grant, D & McLarty, R (2004) Business Focus Godfrey, T. (2005) “The Benefits of Teacher Training: The Participants’ Perspective” in B.Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL Publications, 174-176. Hu Guangwei (2005) “Professional Development of Secondary EFL Teachers: Lessons From China” Teachers College Record.107 (4): 654-705. Jacob, B.A. & Lefgren, L. (2004) “The Impact of Teacher Training on Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from School Reform Efforts in Chicago” Journal of Human Resources, 39(1): 50-79. Jones, L (2002) Working in English. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Knight, G & O’Neil, M (2001) Business Explorer 1. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Le Vasan, , M. (1994) “Teaching English for special purposes: A Case Study of a Malaysian Business Organization”. Issues in Educational Research, 4(1), 35-47. Maes, J. D., Weldy, T.G. and Icenogle, M.L. (1997) “A Managerial Perspective: Oral Communication Competency is Most Important for Business Students in the Workplace”. The Journal of Business Communication 34(1): 67-81. Sivell, J. (2005) “Second Language Teacher Education in Canada: The Development of Professional Standards”. TESL-EJ 9(2):pp 1-7. Solomon, G. (1992) Teacher Training- Reaching Out. Electronic Learning, September. St John, M.J Taylor, L (1999) International Express. Oxford University Press:Oxford. Taylor, S (1999) Communication for Business (3rd ed). Pearson Education Limited: Essex. Tullis, G and Trappe, T (2000) New Insights Into Business. Longman: Essex. Waner, K.K. (1995) “Business Communication Competencies Needed by Employees as Perceived by Business Faculty and Business Professionals”. Business Communication Quarterly. 58(4): 51-67.