The weekly column

Article 37, November 2000

Teaching "Softer" Technical English: A Proposal for Getting the Most out of Specific Learners

By Alejandro Curado Fuentes

The purpose of this article is to present a feasible approach to the dilemma of having to cope with technical language in specific English teaching. Such a suggestion is determined by the ever-felt pressure among ESP instructors to become competent in the subject content, of which they should be carriers (Dudley-Evans & St. Johns, 1998: 174). In this respect, our interest in finding a way to integrate both linguistic focus and thematic knowledge parallels that of various authors in the past. For instance, Kennedy & Bolitho (1984) claimed that the most favorable methods should be based on semi-technical material and common core language, neither of which demanded too much experience in one particular area or discipline, but, quite the opposite, skilled handling of a middle academic ground in science and technology with which to operate in ESP courses.

Other scholars, such as Tang (1992) and Schnotz, Picard & Hron (1993), put forward a similar strategy by relying on "a conceptual framework for integrating language and content" (Tang, 1992: 180). Basically, they appeal to the notion of "schemata" or concept knowledge for bringing about the ability to function linguistically in particular situations. The utilization and exploitation of visual data, in this sense, seems to assist technical matter understanding. With this on mind, in fact, we formulate the main thesis of our analysis: that learners can expand linguistic intake in conjunction with specialized contents by being offered options to combine them at will. Our assertion is influenced and inspired by the "combination of schema-based approach and a lexical relations approach to text" (Carter and McCarthy, 1997: 205).

Our role as instructors thus closely corresponds to that of a facilitator. We provide, in this scope, the possibility of subject merging for students, unfortunately still unused to this phenomenon in the English class. How this proposition comes about effectively turns out to be a slow process in which phases are carefully determined through target needs and learning analysis, in agreement with Hutchinson & Waters (1987). Nonetheless, due to space restrictions, our suggestion is briefly explained as the involvement of four main stages:

1. Exploration at the lexical level. Learners in courses such as Business English or Computer English are given the opportunity to select the type and forms of vocabulary that present most difficulty. This complexity may be expressed in terms of academic use (e.g. semi-technical elements) or technical application (e.g. subject-restricted items). Either of the alternatives can be probed by means of word processing programs or concordancing software, useful tools for the extraction of word behavior, which often leads to the elucidation of meaning.
2. Development of discourse techniques. Through the application of task-based plans, students are encouraged to take part in activities whose primary goals consist in the transmission of concepts. The subjects freely choose the topics and the manner of dealing with such issues. Such a work mode generally prompts them to decide more or less technically, given the higher or lower degree of conceptual sophistication in the themes chosen (e.g. a report on annual sales trends vs. describing how a printer works).
3. Self-assessment in the long term. Because of the existing disparity concerning forms of evaluation, from our viewpoint, to single out one particular type of exam or test cannot be done without the learner’s judgment. By and large, this is enriched by his or her discernment of the material as profitable in terms of subject content. As a result, constructive thinking is uplifted throughout the course, rewarding conception as much as language command.
4. Assistance in the organization of syllabi. That we learn by means of trials and errors is a proved statement in teaching English. Our strength in the facilitating position that our courses recommend, precisely lies upon the notion of learning from experience, and such a know-how comes, to a great extent, from perceiving learners’ progress. Why not, we ask, take advantage of what learners tell us about the positive aspects of their practice with English in the technical setting? And why not, we may add, give high priority to such data during the design and improvement of course syllabi?

References

Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (1997) "Lexis and Discourse: Vocabulary in Use". In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Dudley-Evans, T. and M.J. St. Johns (1998) Developments in ESP. A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters (1987) English for Specific Purposes. A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kennedy, C. and R. Bolitho (1984) English for Specific Purposes. ELTS. London: MacMillan.

Schnotz, W., E. Picard and A. Hron (1993) "How do Successful and Unsuccessful Learners Use Texts and Graphics". Learning and Instruction 3 : 181-199.

Tang, G. (1992) "The Effect of Graphic Representation of Knowledge Structures on ESL Reading Comprehension". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 177-196.

About the author

Alejandro Curado Fuentes has been teaching ESP at the University of Extremadura (Spain) since 1995. His doctoral thesis deals with lexical knowledge and conceptual approach to technical material in teaching English for science and technology (October, 2000).He has published several articles and a book on this topic since 1995.

Questions or comments about this week's article? Why not post them on our Discussion Forum