Course Design: Getting Down To World Business

What was the course? Actually, we decided to call it a ‘workshop’ rather than a ‘course’ to indicate the participatory nature of the design. It was organized by the English Language Programs Division of the United States Information Service (USIS) to support teacher trainers and teachers. The USIS provided access to the language of American business and support for commercial relations between the U.S. and other countries. The only requirement for participation was access to an email account three or four times a week. The workshop ran for four weeks. Although it originally had teacher trainers in mind, in reality, participants had a range of experience that brought a challenge to course design and a richness to the discussions.

How was it designed?
One of the guiding principles of the design was to meet the needs of a very diverse body. The goal was to take the participants through the traditional steps of course design_doing a needs analysis, prioritizing objectives, gathering materials, evaluating content and delivery but at the same time ask the participants to observe their own roles in this process. They would wear ‘two hats’ - the primary one as a participant and a secondary one as an observer/evaluator of the ESP teacher training course they were taking. As participants observed, they used the "reflection" assignments to build an understanding of course design issues.

Examples of "reflection" exercises include:

• Reactions to details/lack of details of the course;
  
• Reactions to quotes about ‘business’;
  
• Comparing ways of getting information about students;
  
• Responses to quotes from a textbook e.g. about the lack of data on non-native speaker business interactions and whether they were in a position to gather such data;
  
• How they had given input to the course, and so on.
  

In ESP Business courses it is important to begin with content, so that the participants feel they are getting what they have paid for and/or what was advertised, and yet at the same time to incorporate a needs analysis so that content can be fine tuned.
For example, from the "introduction’ assignment to this online course, the teachers would start to think about:

• who was ‘in the room’
  
• what their experience and expectations were,
  
• how close/different their personal goals were to the course goals, and
  
• whether they would personally benefit from the upcoming discussions
  

The needs analysis had been carefully prepared with information from the Regional English Language Officer and the previous online course delivered by USIS. However, the level of response and participation was much higher than we anticipated. Therefore, as is often the case with ESP, the course had to be adapted as we proceeded.

In fact, the possibility of adaptation was built into the design, with frequent checks on interest, participation, understanding and satisfaction. Participants were asked to describe their own students; quantify how much time they could spend on the course; respond to the style of the lectures (formal or informal); respond to the content; make suggestions and so on. I summarized these responses for the group, so that everyone had an idea of the range of needs. If everyone understands there is a range of interests and abilities in the class, then it is easier to accept individual needs may have to be met in different ways.

In an ESP course tailored to a specific group, the issue of ‘conflicting needs’ should not arise. But even if there is consensus on content, the way the content is delivered could be a bone of contention amongst the students in the class. The issue of ‘learning styles’ arose as a point of discussion in this online course. So, by actually experiencing my needs analysis and observing how I handled the group, the teachers taking the course were asked to draw conclusions about effective ways of doing needs analyses and so on. We followed this procedure for the other steps in course design.

How did it work?
This is how it was planned: Through email, participants subscribed to a closed USIS listserv and received email lectures three times a week. Some lectures required responses, some required only reading; all requested participants to record their reflections, which they could use in discussions at later points.

Participants could read the responses of the other participants and raise questions. Participation was entirely voluntary--there were no tests, no grades, and no certificates. Participants received the course outline and then each session the lecture reviewed what had gone before, introduced new material and anticipated the next session. Participants’ responses to discussion points were gathered and summarized in following lectures. Participants were asked to introduce themselves; to find someone to work with on a project and to post their joint work; and to complete an evaluation at the end.
In practice, with participants all over the world, we ran into time zone differences, which meant the people were receiving material at different times, and on different days. So, while some students were responding to question four, others were still dealing with questions two and three.

What were the restrictions?
Time
As with any ESP course, the course designer has to take into account not only the goals of the sponsor and the needs of the participants, but also restrictions such as time, place and accessibility. Although the original plan called for one lecture a week, it seemed like a good idea to make them shorter and more frequent and thus easier to read, absorb and react to by email. But the different time zones, work and weekend schedules meant that some participants were receiving the emails days after others had already replied. The course was limited to four weeks and although we attempted (and were reasonably successful in) ‘group work,’ realistically this would only work with a longer time period between postings.
Support materials
The original plan called for textbook support but this was not possible to arrange within the time limit so short quotes and a bibliography were added to the lectures.
Access
In the real world of limited resources, some participants had difficulties gaining access and replying to the emails.
Other commitments
For many participants this was the end of the academic year and there were commitments to exams and graduation that limited their time for participation.
Workload
The lectures were designed to take maybe 2-3 hours of work per week. Although it was wonderful to have such interest and response (114 sent in the first assignment, 64 the second, 34 the third and fourth) the volume of response did make for a lot of reading and at times it was overwhelming. A couple of participants withdrew because they felt they could not handle the workload.
Who took the course?
People who worked in universities, companies, government departments, binational centers, and private language schools. Also, people who were interested in content areas (Tourism, Management, Legal English) and people who were interested in skills: for example, letter writing, memos, meetings, reports, and cases. There were people interested in teaching learners of Business English (BE), teaching BE teachers using distance learning and email in teaching. They ranged from teachers in training to educators with decades of experience including heads of Business Studies departments; course developers; heads of private schools and students on MA courses. They came from 49 countries all over the world.

Why were people taking the course?
With 212 participants we became aware of the variety of demands within the field. Everyone expressed a great interest in and need for the course, and at the same time personalized the objectives--some wanted content, skills, concepts, strategies, contacts; others the experience of online course; others course design.

What happened?
The first assignment had elements of the professional (what’s your job/experience; highlights of BE experience; one item in the syllabus that interested you most/least; a burning question) and personal (your name-an ice breaker from business management courses) setting the tone for a lively exchange of essential information.

The project
The project was an attempt to achieve a secondary goal of the course, which was to sustain some of the professional contacts after the end of the course. At the beginning of Week 2, participants were asked to:

• establish contact with at least one other list member
  
• cooperate in defining a specific group
  
• write an objective appropriate for that group
  
• agree on roles with the partner
  
• list steps/task to achieve the objective
  
• post the objective and the steps

Even with time difficulties, several groups made contact and attempted to finish the project, and three groups_the Pan-Asian EFL Team, "Our Group", and the Euro-African EFL team_posted their approaches to teaching Business English.

How did I give feedback?
Some individuals emailed me directly and I responded directly. To the assignments posted, I would summarize for the group and also refer to individuals’ comments.

How did they give feedback?
During the course they were asked to give feedback on many aspects—such as content, pace, length, and style. At the end of the course, they were asked to fill out a three-part evaluation: an opinionnaire; a reactionnaire; and a paragraph communicating about the course with others.

This online workshop for Business English teachers highlighted the advantages of distance learning. It can reveal patterns of excellence that can transcend regional constraints. It can show how the field is developing. It can extend the boundaries of where the student might learn. Student can access resources not available in their own countries and have an opportunity to "rub elbows" with peers.