| . |
. |
. |
|
A Model
for Developing Coherence and Authenticity in ESP Materials
|
|
|
This paper proposes a
framework for materials development. (see Footnote 1 ) It will set forth an example of a lesson unit for secretarial
students, as a starting point for discussing task authenticity and coherence between
tasks.
|
|
|
The lesson unit draws upon
the interaction of input, language, content, and task. Such interaction is depicted as
follows:
|
|
|
The main focus of the
lesson unit is the task. Thus, the whole framework is aimed at enabling the students to
carry out the task, with language and content drawn from the input and
selected according to what the learners need to complete the task. The task itself
constitutes a number of activities that train the students to deal with situations
relating to their future employment.
|
|
|
The input serves as
a starting point for the learners to use information-processing skills. It generates the
topic, language items, and stimulus material for subsequent activities. Figure 1 gives the order of the tasks
in the lesson unit.
|
|
|
The input text for the lesson unit
|
|
|
A considerable debate
revolves around the issue of whether to use authentic text or adapted text in an ESP
lesson unit. Philips and Shettlesworth (1988:105) maintain that adapted texts have two
major shortcomings: 1) they do not prepare students to deal with authentic materials, and
2) simplification distorts the text, making it potentially difficult to comprehend. They
argue that adapted, simplified texts fall short of maintaining the originality of the
subject matter, resulting in inaccurate content. On the other hand, Allen and Widdowson
(cited in McDonough, 1984:76) contend that specially-written texts can exclude
unnecessarily distracting, idiosyncratic style without losing the valuable communicative
features or concepts of the real texts. More importantly, there are some vital factors
that are more critical than just being unlike the target text. McDonough (1984:77) lists
three of them: available time; student interest and motivation; and the goals of the ESP
course. McDonough favors having "a fabricated text with a range of authentic
tasks."
|
|
|
These considerations put
constraints on text selection. Longer time periods might allow for special texts to serve
as stepping stones to target texts. Instead of using an actual recording from a real
office-which might contain abbreviated exchanges and little redundancy-a contrived text
might be used as input to accommodate the learners' present proficiency level. The
materials writer can design the input text herself/himself, building in redundancy and
known vocabulary items, then having a native speaker read the text for an audio recording.
|
|
|
In line with McDonough's
point above, the input text embodies in itself some tasks that a secretary normally
performs, i.e. listening to her boss's instructions and transferring some of the oral
information into some sort of diagrammatic forms (list, notes, agenda, etc.) The
transferred information later serves as a basis for completing other tasks, all
approximating real job tasks. Thus, though not authentic, the input text still yields some
authentic tasks for the students. This will appeal to students who look forward to having
class experiences simulate target situations.
|
|
|
Hutchinson and Waters
(1991:108) list several criteria for a satisfactory input text. To function effectively,
the input text should provide stimulus activities, new language items, correct models of
language use, a topic for communication, and opportunities for learners to use their
existing knowledge.
|
|
|
Task 1: Information
transfer
|
|
|
After listening to the
input text, the students have to transfer the oral information onto a list (See Figure 2 ). There are a number of
reasons why they are asked to do this.
|
|
|
First, one needs to
consider the target situation where the students would eventually use English. When our
students enter the work world, a part of their daily routine will be to attend to
information transmitted orally or written in memos or letters; later they must transfer
this information to another intelligible format. The information transfer task is,
therefore, authentic, since it approximates a real job demand.
|
|
|
Secondly, the task fosters
the development of new learning skills. Part of the content that the students have to
learn is vocabulary, and to some extent this requires a degree of repetition combined with
attention (Nation, 1990:67). This requirement is sufficiently met in the information
transfer task, because it incorporates repetition of certain structures (Palmer, 1982:29).
|
|
|
Another
advantage is that the task promotes an active process inside the
learner's mind. Clearly, when preoccupied with the listen and
transfer task, students proceed in a thinking fashion.
|
|
|
Finally, the information
transfer task carries potential for subsequent tasks. As Palmer (1982:30) notes, it forms
a kind of pivot around which any of the language skills may revolve.
|
|
|
Task 2: The language
focus
|
|
|
The next task after the
completion of the list is doing "accuracy work" in the area of vocabulary and
sentence construction. Such work is necessary to prepare for the subsequent task which
requires students to write out full letters. The language focus trains the students to
master specific sub-skills in writing letters to specific audiences. Accordingly, the
exercise in the language focus gets them to deal with sentence constructions and
vocabulary items that later will be used-with slight grammatical adjustments-in the
letters. This exercise puts emphasis on accuracy, and the rationale behind this is that
"all learners require such predictable and controlled workouts at times if their goal
is to achieve accuracy in language production" (Dubin and Ohlstain, 1988:96). It goes
without saying that accuracy is a vital element in writing business letters.
|
|
|
Also in line with this is
a view set forth by Hutchinson and Waters (1991:109) that good material should involve
opportunities for analysis and synthesis of the language. In order for learners to use
language, they should be given a chance to take the language apart, study its components,
and put them back together again in a meaningful, purposeful way.
|
|
|
The task following the
accuracy practice is writing letters to both the successful applicants and the
unsuccessful ones. In a real situation this is exactly what a secretary would do after
receiving the information from her supervisor. He might have to impart the message to
other external parties (government workers, travel agents, or other office sections)
orally or in writing. So, the writing task is nothing but a logical continuation of the
previous task of completing the list.
|
|
|
The students create their
own version of letters within the parameters of vocabulary and sentence structures they
have just practiced. They employ their previous knowledge about writing letters-obtained
from their basic business writing course taught in the previous semester-and exploit it to
help with a task at hand. The principle underlying this is that learning can only take
place effectively if the learners actively make use of their existing knowledge to solve
the problem they are dealing with.
|
|
|
Task 4: Simulation
in telephoning
|
|
|
The next task puts the
students in a situation where they have to clarify certain matters by ringing up the
university registrar. In this task, simulation is deemed suitable for a number of reasons.
First, such a framework brings the students closer to the real situation in terms of
roles, topics, and register. Secondly, the essential pedagogical feature of a simulation
is that it is based on problem-solving. Littlejohn and Windeatt (1989:164) state that
language learning is largely incidental and people can learn a language while thinking
about the solution to a problem which is not a language problem. What is important is that
the problem should make the learners use the language. Moreover, as McDonough (1984:97)
points out, ESP is a teaching/learning program whose foremost characteristic is
problem-solving.
|
|
|
Task 5: Writing
follow-up letters
|
|
|
The last task logically
follows the result of the telephone conversation: the students are to inform the applicant
of the exact dates of enrollment and arrival. This also represents target performance.
|
|
|
Like the previous writing
task, the students are given freedom to create their own letters, so long as they convey
the main idea outlined in the unit. This last task draws upon the learning principle that
the internalization of new materials is greatly fostered by the activation of the
learners' relevant background knowledge.
|
|
|
One criterion of coherence
in a task unit is the existence of recycling from one exercise to another (Hutchinson and
Waters 1991:124). Thus, one task should generate output or outcome that can be used for
the ensuing task(s). The unit being discussed has proceeded in this fashion. It starts
with listening to an input text which results in data processing (in list format) by the
students. These data become the basis for creating sentences using vocabulary and content
from the list. This output is then used in its actual context in the next task, i.e.
letters.
|
|
|
In the group work and
simulated telephone conversation, the students have to draw on specific information from
their previously completed list. This links the simulation to the first task. Finally, the
students turn to their last task of writing follow-up letters. In so doing, they have to
draw upon information obtained in their telephone conversations. Again, this exemplifies
the coherence between the last two tasks.
|
|
|
This paper has given a
model for the design of a lesson unit based upon the interaction between input, language,
content, and task. The input segment gives the topic, while the language and content
segments give the linguistic forms and meaning necessary to complete specific tasks. (See Figure 3 ). The information transfer
in the first task is particularly useful because it generates so many activities that are
coherently linked to one another. Each task turns out data which is then used for doing
the next tasks. This chained network characterizes the lesson unit.
|
|
|
Patrisius Djiwandono is a lecturer at Widya Karya Catholic
University in Malang, Indonesia. He recently finished his Master's program in Language
Education at the Post Graduate Program of IKIP Malang. |
|
|
Return |
|
|
- Dubin F. and E. Ohlstain. 1988. Course design. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
- Hutchinson, T. and A. Watters. 1987. English for specific
purposes: A learner-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kennedy, C. and R. Bolitho. 1984. English for specific purposes.
London: Macmillan Publishers, Ltd.
- Ladousse, G.P. 1987. Role play. Oxford UK: Oxford University
Press.
- Littlejohn, A. and S. Windeatt. 1989. Beyond language learning:
Perspectives on material design. In The second language curriculum, ed. R. K. Johnson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Madsen, H. S. and J. D. Bowen. 1985. Adaptation in language
teaching. Rowley MA: Newbury House Publishers.
- McDonough, J. 1984. ESP in prospective: A practical guide. Collins
Educational.
- Naterop, B. J. and R. Revell. 1990. Telephoning in English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nation, I. S. P. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley
MA: Newbury House Publishers.
- ------------.1992. Teaching listening and speaking. English
Language Institute, Victoria University of Wellington.
- Palmer, R. 1982. Information transfer for listening and reading.
English Teaching Forum, 20, 1, pp. 29-33.
- Phillips, M. K. and C. C. Shettlesworth. 1988. How to arm your
students: A consideration of two approaches to providing materials. In Episodes in ESP,
ed. J. Swales. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall International.
|
|
Figure 1
| TASK 1: Information Transfer |
|
|
| The
students complete a list according to recorded oral instructions from a New Zealand
government officer. Topic: admission of overseas students to New Zealand universities. |
|
INPUT |
|
|
|
| TASK 2:
Language Focus |
|
|
| The
students practice making sentence and using some vocabulary items for the INPUT. |
|
LANGUAGE |
|
|
|
| TASK 3:
Writing Letters |
|
|
| The
students write letters to the applicants. |
|
CONTENT |
|
|
|
| TASK 4: Telephone
Conversation |
|
|
| The students get
in groups to prepare a telephone conversation. Then, they perform a simulated telephone
conversation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| TASK 5: Writing Follow-up
Letter |
|
|
| The students write
a letter to a new applicant based on the previous telephone conversation. |
|
|
Figure 2
The list of overseas applicants for New Zealand Universities.
| No |
1 Name |
2 Country |
3 University |
4 Course |
5 Date of Enrol. |
6 Date of Arrival |
| 1 |
B. Santoso |
Indonesia |
Victoria, Univ. of Auckland |
|
|
|
| 2 |
Suyati |
Indonesia |
Univ. of Canterbury, Lincoln Univ. |
|
|
|
| 3 |
C. Liong |
China |
Massey Univ. |
|
|
|
| 4 |
M. Ahmad |
Malaysia |
Victoria |
|
|
|
| 5 |
Somaji |
Thailand |
Univ. of Auckland,
Univ. of Canterbury |
|
|
|
Figure 3
Footnote 1
A version of this paper was presented at the 40th
TEFLIN (Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia) Seminar on February 5,
1993 at Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia.
Back to Article
|
. |
. |