In Themes and Issues thread Sahar wrote on 03/19/09: 

 "I would like to give an example here: let's say a course for marketing managers who are keen on developing their language and comunication skills. This course may include report writing, presentation skills, meeting skills, etc... These skills would be presented in the form of case studies, simulations or language activities specially designed in a mraketing context. What would the teacher present here: just the language of meetings, presentations, or would he introduce the techniques and skills as well? should he be aware of the various Marketing snd Sales theories?

In my school, I am advised to present only the target language and not get involved in any further business discussion, as this is not fair on other teachers who have no business background. On the other hand, students often have important business queries which I can't turn a deaf ear to. What would you do?"

Dear Sahar, dear all! 

The above-pasted by me part of the message seems to be perfectly suitable for this thread, so please excuse my liberty of putting it here.

Sahar has raisen some crucial issues for designing and delivering the Business course. She has given us the perspective, to my mind, where we should aim at. That's why I would like to invite everybody to consider the mentioned points.

First of all, I entirely support Sahar with the idea that a course should not only include the language skills, but also communication skills. When I was the student at the Far-Eastern National University, Department for Foreign Languages, I was taught at the Methods of Teaching English classes, that a tutor should always proceed from the language skills to communication skills. That is, to teach the target language first, and then practice it as much as possible in communication. I believe it is useless and impossible to learn the language without getting involved in the further communicative activities. And it contradicts the communicative approach in TEFL as well. I know it must be not easy for you to face the pressure at your workplace, personally I have gone through this as well.

So, in any course, I would proceed the same way: teach the target language first, then practice it in communication, including the further business discussions. Concerning the business skills, I am sure that a perfect business course should include them. So I would make practicing them as the third stage of each module within the course.

Great ideas, thank you, Sahar!

And what do others think about all these ideas presented by Sahar and suppported by me? Would you like to suggest anything else to the Perfect Business Course Design and Output?

Looking forward to new suggestions,

Anastasia.

I tend to agree with Olwyn's thinking here, with a focus on business context, authentic business communication, and opportunistic just-in-time teaching, especially for in-company training.

For me the foundation of effective training must be a needs assessment based on the actual performance needs of the learner: the conference calls and meetings, etc. And then this NA must drive the syllabus, with actual "performance events" identified and prepared for (this is the JIT thing). Then post-event self-diagnosis by the learner, which then informs the NA. This is relatively straight-forward with individual classes and more challenging but certainly do-able in small groups.

To be honest for in-company training I think we need to move away from using the word "course"! It implies stuff that may be appropriate for an academic context (or BE in university, maybe) but not for onsite training.

Hi Anastasia and all,

 Thank you for posting my thread in here, and I think we all agree that the business component is a must in any Buisness English course, but the main issue is what perfect and effective mean.

I believe that they are synonymous. Some trainers would argue that perfect is ambigiuos: perfect in delivery does not necessarily mean perfect in reception as trainees have different learning styles and personalities, on the other hand perfect in course design means it would suit one group over the other and that would be considered time consuming. A leadership training for  middle managers would not be suitable for senior autocratic managers.  The trainer would face a lot of challenges trying to adapt the simulations, not to mention changing trainees perspectives. So what's perfect for one group might not be perfect for another.

Whether we deliver a course or an in house training, I strongly believe that the training room is a bridge. It should replicate the real world, develp the skills which can be easily transferred to real life situations, provide an environment in which skills will grow naturally and most importantly set a good foundation of  the language used. It's like a playground where control is shared between trainers and trainees, but this varies depending on the training programme and trainees objectives.

I can't agree more with Olwyn and Cleve about Needs Analysis and agreeing objectives. I often find it easy and simple to agree objectives on individual courses, but for group courses there has to be a compromise especially when delivering a course for a corporate client who wants to train employees with diffeent language levels: mixed ability courses. Thus, I believe assessing the entry level of trainees is crucial as it highlights the language level of participants and is one of the major prerequists for course design. This is why I make sure before delivering any training that I have speaking and written assessment of the trainees.

 Olwyn said "If we agree that people can learn from their mistakes, then we need to see what mistakes they make when they are trying to communicate authentically in a business context and help them to improve." I totally agree with that but what kind of mistakes are we talking about here: fluency or accuracy? How do you correct these mistakes? or are they errors?

Sahar