|
|
The Business English Magazine: an Evaluation |
The Business English Magazine(BEM) (Norman & L'Estrange: 1996) is a video based course in Business English consisting of videocassette, audio cassette, language guide and resource manual. The BEM differs from other English for Business Purposes (EBP) videos in that it has a magazine format and is published at regular intervals. This paper is an evaluation of the fourth and most recent issue of BEM.
| CONTENTS |
| INTRODUCTION |
A number of frameworks for evaluating ESP materials have been proposed, such as Hutchinson & Walters (1987), Breen & Candlin (1987) or Dougill (1987). A useful and very simple framework was suggested by Pilbeam (1987) which will be adopted and adapted here. He poses a number of questions for evaluating ESP materials, which include:
| INTRODUCTION |
Pilbeam (1987) refers to specific objectives that ESP material should have. Material is usually produced to meet some specific needs/purposes even if it is not produced as a result of a rigorous needs analysis. What are the objectives of BEM? The package claims rather vaguely that it is a course that will:
"improve your business English and management techniques" (Norman &L'Estrange 1996a:cover).
Taking a look at the materials it would appear that BEM is designed to improve comprehension skills, improve grammatical accuracy, extend vocabulary resources and contains work on a specific task (giving presentations).
But who is the material designed for? There is very little information contained anywhere in the package. The course is an EGBP course, in other words one that can be adapted to many situations. This approach is supported by the ELTDU survey of 1970 which concluded that since most categories of staff and types of industry share a common profile, EGBP rather than ESBP materials are sufficient for most situations.
The ELTDU needs analysis ranked twenty situations in which English is used. Those in the top 10 that perhaps could most usefully be exploited using video include:
Stempelski and Tomalin point out that:
"Teachers have observed how a video sequence used in class makes students more ready to communicate in the target language. " (1990:3)
Given the high priority for 'conversation with 1 person' an EGBP video should include work on this area, but the BEM contains only a minimal amount of pair work, most of which is of the "now check your answers together" type. An obvious use of video is as a stimulus for discussion but unfortunately this is not a feature of BEM.
| IS IT APPROPRIATE? |
Pilbeam (1987) asks whether the material at the right language, professional and cultural level. In terms of language level, EBP classes are often much less homogeneous than examination oriented EFL classes. Thus a useful feature of any EBP materials is being a multilevel course, something the BEM claims to be.
"Trainers can use it with groups from elementary to advanced level; in mixed ability classes learners can be working on different material. It is also designed for use by the self study learner from early intermediate level onwards. "
(Norman & L'Estrange 1996b:2)
There are two categories of material: The 'High Flyer' and the 'Quick Route'. The 'Quick Route' consists of tasks which can be done by those "with a basic knowledge of English". The 'High Flyer' tasks are designed to be "more demanding".
One might expect that this would mean that these tasks would be interchangeable, in other words learners could be given different tasks to work on using the same material. However a closer inspection reveals that the 'high flyer' tasks are generally extensions of the tasks that make up the 'quick route'; and the 'quick route' tasks are necessary for the completion of the 'high flyer' tasks.
It is questionable whether this is the most effective approach. If all the learners work on the same material and then some work on extensions to this material, what are the others expected to be doing during this time? Furthermore, as Prodromou (1984) points out, a better approach to mixed levels is to adopt one that encourages pair/group work and has tasks which are qualitative rather than focus on correct/incorrect answers.
In terms of professional level the BEM is in deep water from the very beginning. The perceived audience for this video package is people who require English in their jobs, indeed it is implied that the learners may be at management level since:
"to improve your business English and management techniques. "
(Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:cover)
and
"information which helps you learn more easily - and gives secrets for motivating your work force too! "
(Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:4)
As in all ESP courses there is the dilemma of content. What kind of materials should be included in a EGBP course? The learners work in business and will know considerably more about this than their language trainers. What they lack is language skills in the L2 which they need in order to conduct their business. If a course includes material about business then if it is to be at the appropriate professional level it is likely to be at too high a linguistic level. If the linguistic level is appropriate then the professional level is likely to be too low.
The BEM adopts the approach that learners will be interested in material that is connected with business. It is questionable whether the input contained in BEM would be of interest to learners. For example a glossary of very basic computer abbreviations would be known to most learners. Similarly some rather basic advice on giving presentations would be unlikely to appeal to anyone who has ever given a presentation. In this way the video falls into the trap of making the assumption that the learners are inadequate in L1 as well as L2.
In terms of cultural orientation it is not clear whether the material has been written with a particular geographical market in mind. The video is however very much oriented around England, as illustrated by cliché visuals such as punting on the Cam, or a preoccupation with idioms and puns. Given that most business people need to do business in English rather than to do business with the English, this orientation is open to criticism.
| IS IT VALID? |
Pilbeam (1987) refers to face validity, pointing out that the business transactions and problems discussed in ESP materials should be realistic. While the BEM appears to be authentic material (signalled by it's magazine format) it is in fact scripted. This brings with it the problems of authenticity usually associated with scripted material.
First of all there is the problem of authenticity of the material in televisual terms. Language learners are televisually literate and if the material is seen to be an imitation of authentic material they are likely to be demotivated. BEM adopts an authentic format, but the material is an obvious imitation of TV magazine programmes, something that is inevitable given the level of resources available to a small EFL publisher when compared with those of a TV station.
Secondly this approach also brings with it the problem of authenticity of content. Aside from the section dealing with a factory tour, the situations are clearly fictional and the business situations are not realistic. What is the purpose in having interviews with fictional advertising executives? Would it not be more motivating and interesting to have real interviews with real people, and indeed would someone not expect it?
And of course this approach also brings with it the problem of authenticity (or rather lack of) of discourse. As with a number of other scripted materials that adopt an authentic format there is something about the discourse that does not seem right. For example:-
"….Sold to the gentleman at the back for five thousand five hundred pounds. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. That concludes our sale for today. See you next week, same time, same place."
(Norman &L'Estrange 1996c)
This shift between the formal phrases associated with an auction to a much less formal register seems very unlikely. In addition the delivery of much of the dialogue, particularly that of the female presenter, is at a slower speed than would be expected in an authentic TV broadcast.
| IS IT FLEXIBLE? |
Pilbeam (1987) notes that EBP classes often operate under time pressure and that materials need to be flexible. BEM claims to be flexible both by being chunkable and by offering different routes through the material.
"The course with its unique 'Flexible Learning System' which allows you to choose what you learn and when and how you learn it."
(Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:3)
Unfortunately there is little indication of how this flexible learning system works. The only advice offered is that the learner should:
"Choose the task which looks most interesting from anywhere in the book."
(Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:3)
The claim that selecting material at random empowers the learner is a little surprising. Furthermore the implicit claim that this is a useful pedagogic approach is somewhat worrying. What is needed is some kind of mechanism that enables the learner to determine what it is they want to work on. A first step would obviously be a map of the video package that would enable them to see what there is and what it is for. A further useful step might be to provide a variety of routes through the material, routes which place emphasis on different areas, such as lexis, listening skills, structure and so on.
Indeed it would not be too difficult to provide a variety of alternative tasks for exploiting the video material - in other words the learner could first decide what it is they want to work on (developing comprehension skills, extending lexis, remedial grammar work, etc.) and could then find appropriate tasks with which to exploit the video material.
| IS THE APPROACH SUITABLE? |
Pilbeam (1987) is referring to the fact that different methodologies suit learners of different backgrounds and material should be chosen to maximise the learning rate. Aside from these cultural factors it is clear that materials should adopt a methodology that facilitates learning and in the area of video materials such a methodology would involve the inclusion of active viewing tasks. Lonergan provides a clear rationale for such tasks:
"Watching video films for language learning purposes should be an active process by the learners. Yet most language learners will be experienced in passive television viewing as domestic viewing tends to be passive. The support materials made by the teacher or supplied with the films should encourage positive viewing by the learners; they must participate so that the output from the video is not just one way, to an unresponsive audience. " (1984: 6)
Stempelski and Tomalin point out that:
"It is essential to engage students actively whenever they watch video material, and also introduce them to the content of each sequence before studying the language by giving them specific viewing tasks. " (1990: 6)
Stempelski & Arcario (Undated), Stempelski & Tomalin (1990) and Lonergan (1984) offer a range of basic techniques for exploiting video which include silent viewing, sound only, jumbled sequences and jigsaw viewing. The BEM does not make use of any of these techniques adopting instead a straightforward sound and picture approach.
The BEM makes little use of active viewing tasks aside from a brief introduction to prediction, in the context of learner training. Indeed the tasks are confusing since there appear to be three types of comprehension activity: Comprehension, Listening Comprehension and Reading Comprehension. Reading speaks for itself, but it is unclear exactly what is the difference between the other two. Closer examination reveals that the key verbs in the instructions are 'Watch' for comprehension and 'Listen' for listening comprehension. This might indicate that the listening comprehension activities are to be done using the audio cassette or from the video without picture. However there is no indication anywhere in the material whether this is the case, and it is unlikely that a teacher, let alone a student, would notice this fine distinction. Obviously greater clarity is required here.
One of the major advantages of video is that it combines sound and image, allowing the student to make use of context and paralinguistic features. One would expect a video course to make the maximum use of visuals but unfortunately the BEM is visually poor, depending to a large extent on studio presenters and talking heads. Indeed the only section which has a strong visual element is the section on jam-making. While watching people speak may be more rewarding than just listening, it is clearly a poor exploitation of video. And the lack of visual content will make it difficult for the teacher to devise the active viewing tasks that are needed to make use of this video.
Furthermore a methodology for video should include motivating and interesting tasks:
"ESP, as much as any good teaching, needs to be intrinsically motivating. It should satisfy their needs as learners as well as their needs as potential target users of the language."
(Hutchinson & Walters 1987: 48)
The extent to which the tasks in BEM are motivating is open to question. Many of the tasks are repetitive, with learners repeating the approach adopted in previous sections. For example the comprehension tasks for Sections B,C,D are all of the true/false type.
And indeed it would appear that many of the tasks are extremely mechanical and tedious. For example the True/False activities are followed up by mechanical transformations:
| Ask and answer questions about the auctions based on the statements in Task 4. Use the words below to start your questions. |
| 1 (a) How much.. (b) What.. (c) ..(no question word) |
e.g. (a) How much was the stripey picture sold for? £5,500 |
(b) What was sold for £5,500? The stripey picture. |
(c) Was the stripey picture sold for £5,500? No, it wasn't. (Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:9) |
OR
| Take your information about the things the assistant did badly from task 14 and from your answers to task 13. Use the expressions should have and shouldn't have (+past participle) to criticise him, like this: |
| He should have tried to make a good first impression. He shouldn't have been reading a magazine. (Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:14) |
In addition some tasks are undermined by tasks which precede them. For example in the jam-making sequence the learners are first required to add prepositions to gapped sentences in order to complete a description of the process. On the facing page they are then asked to put sentences in order to make a description of the same process. While the process is described in more detail, the second exercise is by and large redundant.
On a more positive note the BEP attempts to incorporate a learner training syllabus through the sections on 'The Brain', the 'Flexercises' and the 'Tips and Hints'. But in many cases the tasks are not very developed and are not integrated with the rest of the material. For example the value of prediction is explained but apart from one exercise prediction plays no part in the course. Some of the advice is of very limited value:
| Do It Yourself (DIY) |
| Think of a technique you could use for practising a language skill or learning some specific content (grammar or vocabulary) in English. Do it! (Norman & L'Estrange 1996a:27) |
The BEP includes a section called "Language Roundup" which:
"..can be used for presentation or consolidation and are ideal for homework".
(Norman & L'Estrange 1996b:2)
Indeed one wonders what they can not be used for. These tasks are confusing, appearing in the centre of the book and the fact that this is a separate section is signalled only by having pale pink pages rather than white. The numbering system used in the main body of the book is continued so that task 34 is part of the video course and tasks 35-54 are part of the Language Roundup and tasks 55 onwards are part of the video course once again. It would have been clearer to have put the Language Roundup section at the back of the book.
Overall the quality of the printed materials is poor - the books are thin and flimsy and poorly laid out. They have, in common with the video material itself, a feeling of disorganisation, with bits and pieces included here and there with no good reason. While the cover is glossy and colourful there has obviously been some economisation with what lies between these covers.
More worryingly, there is virtually no guidance for the teacher. The teacher is warned to watch out for a symbol in the teachers guide which is included when there are extra communicative activities that can be done. Unfortunately this symbol only crops up twice, and the activities in question are of little interest. The lack of guidance, when combined with the lack of sound methodology mean that this is not a particularly user friendly course. Teachers with no experience of using video in class are likely to encounter problems using these materials, problems that may well lead them to consider abandoning the use of video in class.
| IN CONCLUSION |
The Business English Magazine does little to rebut Robinson's claim that:
"Video is probably still not used as much or as inventively in ELT, let alone ESP, as it might be. " (1991:62)
The video material itself lacks authenticity, is visually poor and fails to exploit the fact that video combines sounds with images. The print-based materials are confusing, poorly thought out and fail to use any active viewing techniques. In addition there they contain minimal guidance for the teacher. While the video does contain sections which can be exploited successfully in the classroom, the materials will need considerable adaptation if this is to be successful.
| BIBLIOGRAPHY |
| Click here to go back to the Video page. |
