Simona Petrescu

A Task-Based Approach to Professional English In-Company Courses

Simona Petrescu, 4996 words 10/6/2013

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3 Summary of Literature ....................................................................................... 4 Concept definition .......................................................................................... 4 Types of tasks: target vs pedagogic tasks...................................................... 4 Task sequencing ............................................................................................ 5 Task-based vs task-supported ....................................................................... 6 Analytical vs synthetic teaching approach ...................................................... 6 Rationale for a TB syllabus ............................................................................ 7 Genre ............................................................................................................. 7 Elements of a TB approach in my teaching ....................................................... 8 The teaching context ...................................................................................... 8 Rationale for my teaching approach ............................................................. 10 TB teaching elements in my approach ......................................................... 11 Differences from existing TB teaching approaches .......................................... 13 Task / lesson sequencing ............................................................................ 13 Lesson structure ........................................................................................... 15 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 17 Appendix .......................................................................................................... 21

Introduction
In this paper I will discuss my teaching approach to Professional English corporate courses from the perspective of task-based teaching. My analysis will first identify typical elements of task-based (TB) teaching that are present in my framework, and will then explain how the latter deviates from theoretical and empirical positions on TB teaching as reflected in the research literature I have consulted. The teaching approach I am discussing is fundamentally task-based (Long & Crookes 1992), firstly because it follows a syllabus made up of target tasks, such as report on progress. My syllabus design process also matches that described by the two authors: needs analysis > target tasks > pedagogic tasks. Finally, progress is seen as a measure of improvement in performing the target tasks. Moreover, my teaching approach reflects Long and Crookes (1992) support for analytical syllabuses. Unlike the common pedagogical use of tasks in standard course books, my teaching deploys tasks holistically, as an actualization of the professional genre. The language agenda is derived from the genre requirements and predictably includes more than one element per task. A significant difference in my teaching approach, both from most theoretical work and from standard Business English and TB pedagogy, regards task and lesson sequencing. Long and Crookes (1992), while supporting a TB syllabus, do not pronounce themselves on the issue of task sequencing within and between lessons. A great deal of research, whose concerns are taken over in the teaching practice, focuses on the cognitive prerequisites of effective task sequencing; by contrast, my syllabus is mapped on the business process of the trainees profession, which will dictate the succession of the target tasks. It is, finally, necessary to specify that the teaching approach I am going to discuss is not an exclusive one. I usually choose to apply this teaching framework consistently only at above-intermediate levels, with trainees in middle or top management positions. Such trainees are directly exposed to, and are more aware of, the professional genres they need to master.

Summary of Literature
Concept definition
Ellis (2009, p.223) summarises key features of tasks discussed in academic literature and offers a definition of a task as a language-teaching activity with a primary focus on meaning, centred on a gap that the learners will need to fill by using their own resources, and finalised with an outcome beyond language use in itself. Skehan (2003) refers to the communicative activity as a precursor of tasks in the history of language pedagogy and points out the historical shift from pure focus on meaning to a balanced focus on form within the task, as a necessary condition for language acquisition (p. 2). Tavakoli and Foster (2008) offer a concise and intuitive definition of tasks as being what the learners do in class when focusing mainly on the message they receive or wish to communicate; this calls up the frequent arguments for tasks as tools to build procedural knowledge. Moreover, they add, the learners doing becomes, in practising tasks, similar to what they do in their first language (p. 441). It is Samuda and Bygate (2008) that speak about the holistic character of tasks. This means that in performing the task, the learner deals with different aspects of language simultaneously, just as they do in their L1 (p.7). This characteristic of tasks is particularly relevant to my paper, as the holistic character of tasks represents a significant reason for my choice of a task-based approach.

Types of tasks: target vs pedagogic tasks

Tasks have been classified from various angles, whether they are inputproviding or output-prompting (Ellis, 2009), resource-dispersing or resource-directing (Robinson, 2011), knowledge-constructing or knowledge-activating (Samuda, 2001 as cited in Skehan, 2003, p.9). The classification most relevant to my paper, however, comes from Long and Crookes (1992). According to them, there are target tasks and pedagogical tasks. The former are the communicative tasks that learners will be expected to perform outside class, which for pedagogical purposes are split into smaller blocks, or

pedagogical tasks, to be practiced through classroom. The course design process will start from a detailed needs analysis and proceed to identify the pedagogical tools, materialised in classroom activities, which will lead learners to their ultimate communicative competence goals.

Task sequencing
One of the significant areas related to task research is principled task sequencing. Research into this matter has come, to the best of my knowledge, mostly from the cognitive angle, in a first step setting out to establish correlations between task design and features of elicited output. Sequencing would essentially need to be made from lower to higher task complexity, but complexity is in itself a concept which is defined in different ways. The main theoreticians here are Skehan and Robinson, with their Limited Capacity Hypothesis and respectively the Cognitive Hypothesis (Robinson, 2011). Skehan postulates the trade-off between fluency, complexity and accuracy due to our limited attention resources. When attention limits are reached, content tends to take priority over language (Revesz, 2011). In his view, more cognitively demanding tasks will redirect attention from language to content, so sequencing tasks from lower to higher cognitive demand would optimize the allocation of resources to language (Robinson, 2011). Task complexity is for him closely related to the availability of planning time. Robinson, by contrast, proposes a distinction between resource-directing tasks, driving the allocation of cognitive resources to specific language elements, opposed to resource-dispersing tasks, which do not do this. He proposes that sequencing should be made by increasing cognitive complexity (e.g. reasoning) , more specifically raising resource-dispersing demands first (e.g. minimizing planning time) and then raising resource-directing ones (Robinson, 2011). As I will explain later in this paper, my teaching approach maps the target tasks on the flow of the business process relevant to the trainees, which places my pedagogy outside the cognitive research stream.

Task-based vs task-supported
Moving on to broader issues, beyond the individual task, let us now look at syllabus design and the weight of tasks. Samuda andBygate (2008) refer to a distinction between task-based approaches, where tasks compose the syllabus, and task-supported approaches, where tasks are used in classroom along other pedagogical tools to support learning. According to the two authors, a task-based approach is defined by several characteristics. The syllabus, instead of being centred on individual language points, as in traditional approaches, is structured by tasks. The focus on form will be derived from the performance of the task itself, which ties in with Long and Crookes proposed process. Also, a significant feature of a task-based course is the assessment being carried out with reference to task performance, i.e. learners are tested not on knowledge about the language but on how well they can perform the tasks selected in the syllabus (p.196).

Analytical vs synthetic teaching approach

Long and Crookes (1992) set out from a distinction of two main options in syllabus design, based on the choice of the unit of analysis. Syllabuses that set out to teach language units, mostly by assigning one language unit to one syllabus unit, are called synthetic, as the learner will have, in the end, to put all the pieces of the puzzle together in order to use the L2 in their real-life communicative contexts. For instance, learning the discrete items past tense, figures, words for trends will need to be synthesized by the learner when presenting company performance. On the contrary, syllabuses that rely on tasks as the unit of analysis are called analytic, as the learner sets out from the communicative task, arriving by a top-down process to the language units required in the performance of that task. Keeping the same example as above, a lesson aims to practice the task present company performance, which it analyses and breaks down into sub-tasks and eventually language items. Thus, analytic syllabuses are those which present the target language whole chunks at a time (Long & Crookes, 1992, p. 29). The two authors support this latter approach to syllabus design, referring to it as non-interventionist and integrative; one of the arguments most relevant to my paper is that SLA

progress does not, according to studies, take place by learning one language structure after another, as synthetic syllabuses assume. Within the analytic type, Long and Crookes outline three subcategories. The procedural syllabus relies on cognitively demanding pedagogic tasks, and is linked with the first documented pedagogical project with a focus on task completion rather than on the language used (the Bangalore project). Secondly, the process syllabuses are designed to incorporate ongoing teacher-learner negotiation as to the content of the syllabus. Finally, the two authors refer to, and advocate for, the taskbased approach, outlined above.

Rationale for a TB syllabus

There are several strong arguments in favour of a TB approach, from various angles. Cognitively, Robinson (2011) mentions the opportunity provided by tasks for noticing the gap, for focusing on form, for promoting automatization, or, given the suitable task sequence, for consolidating memories of previous learning efforts. Tasks, he adds, embed form into meaningful situations that foster form-functionmeaning mapping (p. 2). From the learnability perspective, tasks represent the more natural learning path, since they mirror L1 learning processes (Long & Crookes, 1992). Tasks are also viewed from more social-oriented perspectives. They provide natural opportunity for interaction and negotiation of meaning, replicating real-life interaction patterns in the classroom (Skehan, 2003). Use of tasks in practising interaction stimulates, or sheds light on, different aspects of interaction (e.g. collaboration, symmetry of interaction, negotiation of agenda). Finally, Nunan (1991) points out the fact that a task-based approach attempts to link language learning in the classroom with the activation of language knowledge in real life. Also, and very importantly for my paper, Nunan refers to the greater face validity of a task-based programme in relation to the learners (Brindley, 1984, as cited by Nunan, 1991).

Genre
Genre, according to Hyland (2002), is an abstract and socially-accepted pattern of language use (p. 114). Therefore, the concept of genre views language as

embedded in a social context, as well as agreed on by its users. Among the theoretical approaches to genre, Hyland distinguishes the New Rhetoric group (mostly ethnography-oriented), the Systemic Functional Linguistic direction (genre is explored by linking the staged discourse with its social purposes), and the ESP approach (genre seen as categories of text structured by a discourse community for a communicative purpose). The ESP approach relies a great deal on the SFL fundamentals and is also concerned with pedagogical applications. In terms of genre pedagogy, Flowerdew (1993) argues for an educational, rather than training, approach (Widdowson, 1983, Larsen-Freeman, 1983, as cited in Flowerdew, 1993). As genres are used creatively, and as users are exposed to, and expected to deal with, a great variety of genres, the optimal teaching approach should focus not on a finite number of genres which it should regard as products; the genre pedagogy should rather be process-oriented, aiming to equip learners with an understanding of genres in terms of their parameters and variability of such parameter configurations.

Elements of a TB approach in my teaching

The teaching context
As specified in the Introduction, the teaching approach discussed in this paper refers to corporate courses of Professional English. In particular, the trainees are mostly middle to top managers at an intermediate+ level, usually working in Marketing, Human Resources, or Production. In some cases, they may have double qualifications, as their expertise lies originally in the industrial field of the company (e.g. electronics), later on enhanced by a functional know-how (e.g. sales). Thanks to this level and complexity of professional experience, their English is usually more than just adequate, at least in their immediate communication contexts. What makes their communicative competence in English particularly effective is the familiarity with certain chunks (agree completely, lets move on to ... etc), as well as relevant vocabulary. They enrol for courses, however, because they mainly feel the need to gain a systematic overview of language use in their communicative situations. This means

to them an understanding of what type of language is used in which situation, which would enable them to make autonomous and competent choices in their communication. Here issues such as formality, set phrases, but also verb tenses frequently top their agenda. Also, they often require more systematic training of the typical business language for presentations, meetings or reports. The main aspects of performance, therefore, which are to be improved by courses, are accuracy, appropriateness and very often range of expression. At the same time, trainees expect to gain the confidence that they are making the best choices in real communication. The desired outcome of such courses is the awareness of what makes a language or strategy choice better than the alternative, and the ability to resort to a holistic picture where the individual cases fit together. The typical objections they raise to common courses and teaching methodologies relate to the relevance of content (i.e. topics, skills, language). Most courses are comfortably based on textbooks, which include the typical ballast characteristic of a teaching material aimed at a large audience. Another objection points to the focus of the teaching on language itself; t is the primary language agenda of the courses that poses two great challenges to their effectiveness. First, it involves a cognitive effort for the learners to understand a knowledge field that is foreign to themselves, an effort which may simply fail, or demotivate the students. Secondly, the trainees may reach the ability to deploy the language items accurately in class, but will not transfer it in the real use outside the classroom. Such an objection is also testified by a study cited by Newton and Kusmierczyk (2011), which revealed that companies were dissatisfied with the English courses teaching decontextualised language, which fails to address the specific needs of the workplace (p. 77). Companies have long identified these problems with language training and have put pressures on training providers to act on this. Typical solutions to irrelevant content has been the adjustment of the topics choice, with little concern for the skills involved. This way, a group of engineers may be required in a seminar to read a news report from the automobile industry, simply on account of the topic being technical.

A solution commonly implemented against the pitfall of the language agenda is to practise presentations or meetings, usually by means of role-plays or simulations, where the attention to form (language) is neglected for fear of the trainer being labelled as language-oriented. In such cases, learners will feel that they are handling the communicative tasks by deploying the language resources they already possessed, with little or no learning effect. My teaching approach, therefore, developed as a result of experimentation with the various solutions provided by common teaching practice.

Rationale for my teaching approach

Empirically, my rationale lay in the disappointing experience first with existing teaching materials, and later with my self-designed materials, which attempted to tailor the teaching in terms of topics and skills, but would still be anchored in the language-agenda mainstream. Theoretically, the rationale for my new teaching approach, which I have developed in the last five years, can be related to several themes in the research literature. First, the choice of tasks as a unit of the syllabus came as a means to give learners quicker access to automatization, or to procedural knowledge (Robinson, 2011). Also, tasks were preferred due to the opportunity they provide for meaningform mappings in a framework that resembles that of natural L1 acquisition (Long & Crookes, 1992). A balanced focus on form within the meaning-oriented task resolves the drawbacks of a language-based syllabus that I mentioned above. Secondly, output-generating tasks became my structural syllabus unit so as to facilitate reflection on form while producing meaningful output (see the Output Hypothesis summarised by Robinson, 2011). Since all my corporate clients insisted on the primary necessity to speak competently, it was speech production that lay at the heart of my teaching. Not least, face validity (Brindley 1984, as cited in Nunan, 1991) was a rationale as well. In many cases my services were booked after several disappointing training courses with other, often reputable, language schools. There was, as a result, a high pressure on my performance as a trainer in terms of the training outcomes.

Regarding the incorporation of genre analysis, namely treating the final target task as an actualization of an underlying genre, this originates in a concern similar to that expressed by Yates (2010, as cited in Newton & Kusmierczyk, 2011), when he argued that the teaching of language for work purposes needs to equip learners with the analytic tools to research interactive practices for themselves.

TB teaching elements in my approach

In this section I will explain why my pedagogical use of tasks falls under the denomination of task-based teaching. The term task-based is understood from two perspectives; first, as contrasted to task-supported teaching (Samuda & Bygate, 2008); second, as contrasted to Prabhus procedural syllabus and to Candlins process syllabus (Long & Crookes, 1992). Starting from the weight and role of tasks in teaching, Samuda and Bygate (2008) define a task-based approach as one where tasks define and drive the syllabus (p. 196). The syllabus of my courses is also made up of tasks and is built so as to cover the significant communication tasks that the learners are expected to perform in their profession. A course for marketing professionals, for example, will consist of seminars devoted to tasks such as present your product, present market trends, or report trends. Using Long and Crookes (1992) terminology, the syllabus units are the target tasks of the trainees. If tasks, and not language points, are the driving element of the syllabus, the individual lessons provide input or practice of those language elements that are required for task performance. A task such as present market trends will require the deployment of language items like lexical verbs for trends, adverbs and adjectives of degree, figures, verb tenses, or prepositions. Of these items only a selection will be foregrounded and practised, depending on the trainees needs and deficiencies. The task of presenting market trends will also include non-language areas of practice, such as processing information to summarize a trend, providing comments and interpretations of the trends, attaining various communicative goals (inform, persuade, make forecasts etc). This proves that the task is selected not solely for its language component, which would only mean a disguised language-based, or synthetic, approach (Long & Crookes, 1992).

The syllabus design process matches the one proposed by Long and Crookes (1992). This process starts in my teaching from a detailed needs analysis, which integrates the institutional, as well as the individual agendas. Such an analysis explores the communication events where English is required, including information on subject matter, communication partners (suppliers?, clients?, own management?, colleagues from sister overseas companies?), event patterns (formal, informal?, structured? if yes, meetings? negotiations? presentations?), media (telephone, email, face-to-face), and perceived deficiencies, or improvement goals. The syllabus design process continues with the identification of the target tasks, which are then broken down into smaller tasks, to be practised in class by means of pedagogic tasks. For instance, if the target task was presenting trends, it could be broken down into tasks like present upwards or downwards trend, indicate values, describe how big the variation is. These sub-tasks will be practised in class by means of information gap, mini-presentations, telephone role-plays etc. The syllabus design process is only complete, however, in response to the classroom reality. Prioritising the various sub-tasks, as well as choosing the time to move on to the next target task, are decisions that are often made online. Such a process resembles Long and Crookes (1992) process syllabuses, where teacherlearner negotiation is an integral part, and the complete syllabus emerges as a finite product at the end of the course. The pedagogic task selection aims to be as diverse as possible. Classroom tasks are a mix of first, second and third generation tasks (Ribe and Vidal, 1993, as cited in Samuda & Bygate, 2008), with the first two types at the forefront. Such tasks may combine, or integrate, skills, as for example listening or reading tasks may serve as input to the following speaking task. Post-tasks (Foster & Skehan, 1997) are sometimes used as well, in producing, for example, a short follow-up report on the trends presented. Such post-tasks may be announced from the beginning, if the lesson is to involve project work (Legutke & Thomas, 1991, as cited in Samuda &Bygate, 2008); for instance, the central target task of pitching for a new product will be followed by a post-task providing short feedback in writing. Announcing this posttask from the beginning of the project will stimulate attention to the detail of both ones own presentation and that of ones partners.

Fundamentally, my TB teaching framework is analytic (Long & Crookes, 1992). The syllabus and the individual lessons set out from the real communication tasks and break them down to the smaller components. In this way, the learning process mirrors the natural L1 acquisition process (from reality to language development). Also, since the lessons are not focused on the teaching of individual, discrete language points, the learners will not be required to piece up the puzzle again when faced, outside the classroom, with their communication tasks.

Differences from existing TB teaching approaches

In this section I will point out key differences in my TB pedagogy from the academic and empirical approaches to tasks.

Task / lesson sequencing

Research in task sequencing mainly comes from the cognitive angle, working with criteria such as task complexity (Robinson, 2011; Skehan, 2003), task difficulty, cognitive demands, or processing demands (Robinson, 2011). Such considerations usually regard task sequencing within a lesson. By contrast, my TB teaching framework is mainly concerned with task sequencing in designing the syllabus. Target tasks, in my syllabus, are ordered to match the generic business process of the trainees field, e.g. Human Resources. A generic flow of the HR process can be represented as:

Recruit

Develop

Train

Appraise

This means that an HR course will start with target tasks related to recruitment, and conclude with those related to staff development. A more detailed syllabus, or course map, as I like to call it, is here:

Identify staffing need

Design / adjust job descriptions

Advertise job

Shortlist and select candidates

Design / adjust employment contract

Analyse company figures

Analyse macroeconomic conditions

Evaluate training

Analyse training needs and select programmes

Carry out induction

Review performance

Give feedback

Select motivation tools

Decide on career development

This map provides first of all transparency to the learners. They know where the course starts and where it takes them. They also know in advance what a suite of seminars will be dealing with. As a result, they may also negotiate the various blocks in the syllabus with the teacher, in case they may wish to give more or less weight to a particular task or sub-process. Essentially, this enables the trainees to understand the teaching rationale of each session, implicitly building motivation, as well as trust in the trainer. Such a concept of syllabus design is also an efficient solution for the teacher. If they plan the syllabus in advance, they have in this way a template, or a mould in which they can fit in their selected content, instead of grappling with the dilemma of how to order the seminars. If they prefer not to plan in advance, such a template is the more valuable, since it spares them the ongoing effort of deciding what to teach in the next lesson. Cognitively, a business-process syllabus provides a workable alternative to considerations such as processing demands or task complexity. As business processes are typically structured in the way of one step building on the outcomes of the preceding one, it can be expected that the communication tasks involved will

also reflect such interdependences. While there is no direct, apparent hierarchy of complexity among the target tasks, examining the HR map above one can see that the business process requires the deeper specialist expertise, matched by finer communication skills, the further one goes into its stages. It is not by chance, incidentally, that the higher one advances through the ranks of the HR department, the further one comes within the HR business process: while the lower-rank office workers may take care of work contracts or publicising job descriptions, it is only the top HR managers that will be responsible for staff development. A language teacher can therefore safely assume that if their trainees are office workers, the course may not need to cover the last two blocks, as the content, including the communication skills themselves, may not be relevant to the learners.

Lesson structure
While Willis (1996, as cited in Samuda & Bygate, 2008) places the task just after a teachers lead-in, with the language focus towards the end of the lesson, as a post-task activity, my lessons unfold in a reversed pattern. My seminars approach the target task as an actualization of a professional communication genre. The concepts of task and genre are not, to the best of my knowledge, linked in research, as they are apparently claimed mostly by theoreticians in different strands: tasks seem to be mostly explored from a cognitive and psycholinguistic angle, while genre is explored with a sociocultural perspective on language in mind. I am using the word genre here along with the word task for two reasons. First, the target task heading my lessons indicates the desired learning outcome, while the genre is the pattern that the target task relies on; in other words, my syllabus selects the target tasks from the needs analysis, but develops them with the genre background view in mind. Secondly, and as a consequence of the former point, the task is seen as one finite variant of the genre; the outcome of the lesson will be the performance of the task; the genre however will represent the starting point of our analysis. Between the first and the last step of the lesson, the learners will have become aware of the genre structure and choices available, which they will select in accordance with their specific reality. Below I am showing a typical lesson structure:

Mind map: focus on genre

to illustrate possible genre, or discourse, moves to discuss and understand the genre moves represented graphically to elicit some of the language that will be required

Words: focus on meaning and form

to activate some of the concepts involved in the genre production, or the task performance sets out from the lead-in discussion and may add relevant lexical items

Structures: focus on form

to integrate the conceptual material of the last sections into coherent and full-fledged discourse structures include the lexical items in the section "Words" may explore syntax, functional language, discourse markers

Task performance: integrate

to integrate genre moves with language, meaning with form to perform the task, selecting from the genre the relevant elements

Help page

re-inserts the mind map, including the language chunks under each genre move - integrates genre with language, meaning with form to provide additional rules or wordlists, "offline"

Examining the marketing lesson on Product Presentation in the Appendix, it is easy to notice that the mind map at the beginning provides an overview of what is possible to say within this genre, as a typified response to a recurring social context (Freedman, 1999). It is accompanied by questions meant to enable learners to work with this overview, by analysing the meanings included in it. The mind map will be

shown again on the last page of the lesson (Help Page), where it will be enriched with the language chunks practised in the lesson, inserted under the corresponding branch. The focus on form is kept under tight control by constantly reinforcing the link to the meaning to be communicated in the final task. The choice of words in the section Words derives from the mind map itself, while the language structures in Structures will be practised using the words in the previous section. This way, learners have the feeling of having started from a communication reality (the genre) and of building their message and their task performance block by block, step by step. Finally, if the lesson set out from what is possible to say within the genre, it will be concluded by performing the task, i.e. by actual use of the meanings and language analysed all along. This type of process, relying on what Flowerdew (1993) calls online genre analysis (p. 312), equips the learners with a holistic understanding of what elements can make up their communicative situations. It also helps them link discourse moves with language and rest assured that they are not learning language for its own sake. It will moreover enable them to reconfigure their message within the boundaries of the genre, adjusting structural or formal components to the specific communicative situation. Bhatias (2001) two schools of genre teaching aim to do just that. But most of all, by being consistently exposed to such a lesson process, trainees learn to think of their communicative situations analytically, in terms of both steps and underlying language elements. Apart from the educational effect (Flowerdew, 1993) of understanding rather than replicating genre, there is the other educational outcome, of learning to assign each communicative act a particular set of language items, therefore of predicting and preparing for such communicative events more effectively.

Conclusions
In this paper I have outlined a Business English teaching approach that is centred on Long and Crookes definition of TB teaching, in particular on the syllabus design process involved. The syllabus is essentially an analytic type, which

organises learning setting out from the real-world communication tasks of the students, with language being one of the spin-off elements resulting from the analysis. The primary goal is here not the teaching of declarative knowledge about English, neither language competence for its own sake. Seeing that the students availability for learning, both in terms of physical time and of cognitive resources, are limited, this teaching approach seeks to build strategic and discourse communicative competences instead (Canale & Swain, 1980). An integral part of this concept is genre awareness-building and analysis. The strategic and discourse communicative competences mentioned above are thus developed by equipping the learners with a holistic understanding of the patterned communicative situations they are exposed to, in what Flowerdew (1993) describes as an educational, process-oriented approach. This underlies the choice regarding task sequencing across the syllabus, as well as lesson structure. Since a systematic and holistic understanding of communication patterns is aimed at, the lessons are sequenced on the generic model of the trainees work process, so as to enable them to permanently relate, and transfer, the classroom learning to the real language use; secondly, the lesson sets out from genre awareness and concludes with the performance of the task seen as an actualization of the genre within the terms of reference of the trainees real-life professional context. Overall, such a teaching framework can be related to the intercultural and critical language awareness strand in pedagogic research on language for specific purposes (Newton & Kusmierczyk, 2011). However, the concept of culture underlying that of intercultural competence stands in my teaching for both national and corporate, culture.

References
Bhatia, V. K. (1997), The Power and Politics of Genre. World Englishes, 16: 359371. doi: 10.1111/1467-971X.00070 Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1). doi:10.1093/applin/I.1.1 Ellis, R. (2009). Taskbased language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246. DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT journal, 47(4), 305-316. doi:10.1093/elt/47.4.305 Freedman, A. (1999). Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres. TESOL quarterly, 33(4), 764-767. doi: 10.2307/3587890 Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: language, context, and literacy. Annual review of applied linguistics, 22, 113-135. doi: 10.1017/S0267190502000065 Newton, J., & Kusmierczyk, E. (2011). Teaching second languages for the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 74-92. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL quarterly, 25(2), 279-295. doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000080 Revesz, A. (2011). Task Complexity, Focus on L2 Constructions, and Individual Differences: A ClassroomBased Study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(s1), 162-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x Robinson, P. (2011). TaskBased Language Learning: A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 61(s1), 1-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1017/S026144480200188X Skehan, P. A., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. doi:10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249

Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task Design and Second Language Performance: The Effect of Narrative Type on Learner Output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x

Appendix

Range

Features

Target customer

Present YOUR PRODUCT

Unique Selling Proposition (USP), comparison with competitors

Use, benefits

Which of the types of info in the mind map do these words or patterns relate to?

it is used for it helps you to it enables you to reliable market segment wide (choice) we are the only company who

the most effective we deliver faster competent pragmatic customer-oriented tailored

Which types of information in the mind map do you have to explain most often?

WORDS 1. Match these product features to their definitions:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

reliable effective efficient economical prompt competent pragmatic customised / tailored

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

it is adapted to the specific needs of one customer it works quickly it has the results you want it always functions without mistakes it is based on know-how practical, for real-life needs it works well with few resources (time, etc) it is cheap to use

2. What are the names of these features? The product / service is... reliable effective efficient prompt competent precise professional The ... of the product / service reliability

3. Tick the words below that can describe your products or services.

effective efficient prompt flexible accurate valuable

tailored / customised to (in)expensive high / low / average (quality etc) competent professional easy to use

innovative reliable responsive precise popular

STRUCTURES Check the Help Page (Comparing things), then do the following.

1. Compare the following things:

a. market statistics, quarterly sales figures (useful to you) b. computer-based learning, presentations, class discussion (effective) c. nuclear power, solar power (reliable, safe) d. Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce (economical, fast, comfortable) e. communication via email, telephoning, letters (prompt, cheap) f. work by hand, work done by robots (precise, valuable, high quality) g. services of large companies, services of small companies (professional, efficient, flexible)

2. Choose 3 products or services in your industry and compare them. You can use the words on page 2.

3. What is important to your company when developing a new product? Rank these items in their order of importance for your context. Then explain your choices.

Customer complaints about your existing products Market information on consumer trends Competition The need to bring out original, innovative ideas

SPEAK 1. Which is your... Most profitable product? Most competent competitor? Most reliable service or product?

2. Think of 5 features describe your products / services (you can choose from page 2). Add one reason for your choice. Then add a contrast to a competing product.

Our products are high-quality, because..., unlike other products, which dont ... / while the competing products are more / less .... Our products are high-quality, becauseIn contrast, the other products... 3. How can you describe your product / services in terms of: Price Customer orientation Speed Overall quality

4. Why should customers choose your products / services rather than your competitors? Select the areas that are relevant to your business and discuss your ideas.

Customer relations. Staff attitude and helpfulness Processes and procedures. Filling in forms; establishing needs; advice; follow-up Ordering. Filling in forms, order confirmation; procedure if conditions have to be changed Information. Detailed product info; clear instructions for use Product quality. Composition / ingredients; active life; running costs; environmentally friendly Customization. Ability to customize your products to the customers specific requirements Additional services. Guarantees; service contracts; training in how to use and maintain the product Customer service. After-sales access; telephone help; maintenance and servicing Financial. Payment; flexibility of terms Other ?

Help Page
Lesson 2

1.

Comparing things
C

A is slow reliable BUT: good bad much / many little

B is than A slower less quick more reliable less risky better worse more less

C is the (of all) slowest least quick most reliable most risky the best the worst the most the least

2.

Presenting a product
product mix product portfolio product line product lifecycle Features
We offer high-quality services. flexible, effective, economical, prompt etc

Range
We offer a (wide) range of... Our product comes in .. colours / sizes etc

Target customer
Our product etc is mainly targeted at. Our products / services are mostly useful for. We target a population aged...

OUR PRODUCT
USP, comparison with competitors
We are the only our product is the most... Our competitors provide., while we deliver... Our products / services are more... than... We deliver on-site, unlike / in contrast to our competitors.

Use, benefits
Our product enables our customer to It is most effective for It helps to... It is used for -ing