A helpful link for ESP teachers

It goes without saying that, if you're teaching ESP (English for Specific Purposes), you'll see the need to understand your students' profession, especially the job skills that involve oral and written communication. 

And that is where this wondrous website comes in: 

http://www10.hrsdc.gc.ca/English/all_profiles.aspx

From what I gather, the Canadian government listed the essential skills for a myriad of careers. Granted, this resource won't be all you need to fully apprehend your students' needs and aims, but it seems to be a great springboard for a needs analysis.

For instance, if you are teaching hairdressers, you'll see there that their main focus regarding language should be oral communication, so they can talk to their clients. However, there's also a need for reading manuals and labels. And the website doesn't stop there. It'll even list you the subskills and some of the typical tasks! 

Sweet as maple syrup, right?

 

(Update: It seems I'm not the only ESP practitioner to like this resource! Take a look at this and other tips by Kristin Ekken.)

On the brink

We teachers never rest our minds, do we? Just seen one of those "pics you can't miss" articles on Facebook, and here I am, thinking of classrooms applications. Granted, this would fit better in a more traditional PPP sort of lesson, but heck if it may help students in some way, who's judging?

So here it is: if you're teaching "going to" and "might/may" for predictions (based on evidence or speculation), these pics might help you illustrate/elicit/practice it. They were all taken from this article called "The 50 pictures in perfect timing." A general "What do you think is going to happen next?" should suffice, but I've added a couple of questions in case more guidance is needed. 

Photo Jörn Kessels

What is the man going to do? 

What is going to happen to the bird?

Photo RedditorJoker

What is going to happen to the lady in white?

What is the blond man going to do?

Photo Sindri Skúlason

What is going to happen to the bird?
Is its stomach big enough for that fruit?

Photo Frode Sandbech

What is going to happen to that man in the picture?

What about the photographer?

Photo Bored Panda

What is going to happen to the soldier who yawned?

What about the other soldiers?

Photo Kathy Keatley Garvey

What is going to happen to the man? How about the bee?

Photo STEPHANE DUCANDAS

Photo Bored Panda

What is going to happen to the cyclist?

What is the man in jeans going to do? 

How about the photographer?

Photo Michael Swaine @ AbovePhotograph.com.au

Speaking of the devil, I have a bee in my bonnet about how ESOL textbooks usually explain the future, that neat tripartite view I am partly reproducing here. But that's a topic for another post, when I have mulled over this a little bit more. For now, I'll leave you with this: could it be that this is one more of those language myths we teachers are helping to perpetuate?

ESP: English through, English for, or English with?

What's your take on ESP: are you teaching English through, for or with your students' field of work? 

Cambridge English teacher, one of the communities for ESOL teachers, has recently uploaded quite a few free resources on ESP. I was especially drawn to a document called "Approaches to ESP" by Jeremy Day.

To me, ESP is an approach, but let's not quibble over terminology. In this very interesting piece, the author lists 3 views of ESP, which he cleverly labels "English through", "English for" and "English with". 

Put simply, "English through" is teaching your regular General English syllabus, which Day reminds us is often a grammatical syllabus, with the specialized field acting as nothing more than a context. As a colleague of mine once said, you change the infamous "The book is on the table" into "The plane is on the apron" and voilá you have an ESP lesson (or so you think).

"English for" targets students' present and future professional needs, and by doing so may turn the traditional curriculum on its head or more commonly get rid of it completely.

"English with" is often called content-based instruction. You teach content, and English tags along as the medium. That is to say your main aim will be that students learn something in their field such as "fixing XYZ equipment" or "using ABC software". You may spare a few moments for language work, or perhaps you won't, and (modified) input alone will be all you do regarding language.

The author doesn't pass judgment on those views, but this is a personal blog, and it'd make very little sense if I were to keep my opinion to myself. Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the "English through" view. Mutatis mutanti, changing the terms whilst keeping the backbone of a General English course, is no approach to ESP course design. But it's a very pervasive view, ubiquitous even, as I've come to realize. 

And I'm not saying it won't be effective. It probably won't be an efficient use of resources, yet for some professions it might well do the trick (in the long run... with a motivated student... on a clear day...). Nonetheless, it's not ESP but for a lot of marketing spin. ESP has to stem from the professional needs of the students. It's English FOR Specific Purposes, is it not?

It may be harder to see it when you think of Business English, because that's where a lot of the big bucks of marketing lie. Several textbooks in this field seem to be in fact General English in disguise. But no amount of sales pitches will convince me that the linguistic needs of a nurse, an air traffic controller or a mechanic are nearly identical to the point that I can refer all three to the same "English".

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages - Too common for ESP?

You've all heard of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) or at least seen those A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 on the cover of language coursebooks and exam brochures, right? If you haven't, don't worry, the CEFR will get to you eventually. Unintentionally perhaps, it's little by little realizing Pinky and the Brain's lifelong dream: to take over the world.

 (Source: retro.mmgn.com)

We're all too aware of the advantages of CEFR: for one, it provides a common language for us to talk about language levels. I may not speak a word of German, but if a Fräulein says she's a B2 in the language of Goethe, I'll know what she means. I'll know what she's capable of in a General German context.

However,
(not enough, let me make it bigger)

HOWEVER, 
(now that's better)

what is the role of the CEFR in contexts of Language for Specific Purposes (LSP)? Should it have a role at all? 


My go-to response for anything in life (just ask my poor husband) is "NO". That's why the moment I heard Aviation English course sellers refer to the CEFR, my mind pretty much shut down as if they were Charlie Brown's teacher.

Seriously, you're talking gibberish.

Because, no matter how carefully designed the CEFR was, it still has a single purpose: "to explore the communicative needs of adult migrants and to guide the assessment of their proficiency in the language of their host community." (Council of Europe, a.k.a. horse's mouth) And you can't just cross the ocean on a state-of-the-art fighter.

Or that's what I thought until I attended the TESOL International Academy on ESP (BTW, I strongly recommend both the Academy and the Association itself). The speakers there represented the crème de la crème in terms of ESP practitioners, and they did it beautifully. It was serious, principled ESP they were reporting. And yet they'd still talk about the CEFR as a backbone of their courses. Whatever ESP they were in, whatever the background of the presenter, there they were: speaking of their A1-C2 levels.

One of the things we do when we carry out a needs analysis is, of course, list the tasks involving language in that domain. CEFR tasks are those of an adult migrant. May there be a considerable overlap? Well, there might be. In Aviation I seriously doubt it. But in tourism, business or other fields, it might perhaps be possible to map the domain you are working with onto the CEFR. Provided that you set out and do it, actually study how the construct behind the European framework relates to your specific domain, I'd be OK with it, if a bit suspicious at first (ok, very suspicious at first, but I'm a nobody, so don't worry about me). On the other hand, if you just assume the CEFR fits the bill no-questions-asked, aren't you paying lip service to the need of needs analysis?

(Yeah, I'm being controversial. Go ahead, shoot!)

Unreal TV

Hat tip: Upworthy

These ads, which have been recorded for a fundraising campaign for public TV in the U.S., mock reality TV and may serve as a springboard for debate in the English language classroom.

For more commercials like these, go to the campaign website. 

 If you want to use them in a conversation class, here are a few suggestions:

• Lead-in:
• Pair Ss up to talk about the questions:
  a) What are your favorite TV shows? Why do you like them? (If you don't like TV, why don't you?)
  b) How do you (or people you know) choose new TV shows to watch? 

Or... 

• Give each S 3 blank slips of paper. On each slip they will write a name of a TV show. One of the slips will have the name of their favorite TV show; the other will be the name of a TV show they can't stand and the last one the name of a TV show they like but can live without.
• Pair Ss up. Ss will have to read the 3 slips their partner wrote and find out which is which (which is their partner's favorite, which is the one they can't stand, etc). But they can't ask that straight ahead of course! They have to ask other questions to try and suss it out. 

Or...

• Ask Ss to write the names of their 2 favorite TV shows and 2 TV shows they can't stand.
• Ss mingle to find someone who is very similar to them and sit next to their "TV soulmates".

• Listening/Viewing for gist: 
• Tell Ss they are going to see two TV commercials to identify what they are advertising and what they have in common.
• Show two of the commercials and stop right before the white titles in the black background. Ask them to pair check and elicit their answers. (Key: Both advertise reality shows. There are a lot of things in common: both show recorded scenes of the program; both finish by saying the date and time of the show, etc.)
• Ss chat in pairs: Would you like to watch those shows? Why (not)? Do you think these shows would be successful in your country? Why (not)?"

• Reading/Viewing for inference: 
• Show the end of the commercials. With a new partner, Ss have to come up with what they think these commercials were used for.
• After you have collected a few ideas, tell Ss this is a fundraising campaign for public TV. Ask Ss if they think the campaign is going to be successful.

• Debate: 
• Preparation: Divide your class in 2 groups. Tell a group to list arguments in favor of reality shows, while the other group lists arguments against them. 
• 1st round: Get 2 students from each group, making groups of 4 to discuss the future of reality TV. (If you have a strong group, you can spice things up by asking Ss to argue for the opposite position, not the one they prepared for.)
• Collect and give feedback. 
• 2nd round: Change groups. Ss will have to discuss again, now standing up for what they believe in. (You may want to ask Ss to sort themselves into people who are actually pro and against reality TV so you can mix them for this stage.)

• Wrap-up:
• Show the end of the commercial again and draw attention to the tag #TVgonewrong. Ask them if they agree with it.

• Possible follow-ups:
• In groups Ss come up with another reality show spoof and sell their idea to their classmates.
• If they really got into the campaign, Ss can go online to find out how much money the campaign has raised so far and see the other ads.
• Ask Ss if they believe reality shows are "really real". Refer Ss to this On the Media podcast about the subject.

Would you use these ads in class? How? :D