ELTA Rhine Workshop - Solving Challenges

On Saturday, August 23rd, I will be leading a workshop with ELTA Rhine in Cologne to talk about some of the difficult aspects of teaching/training Business English.

Event website

When I completed my CELTA I was always uncomfortable with the idea that the method was hidden from the students.  I had the feeling that we should work as wizards behind the curtain, leading participants through a series of pedagogically sound activities.  Over the years, I have become more and more comfortable with transparency in the classroom.  I feel it helps me build a better relationship with the participants, provides space for feedback, gives them more control over their learning and may even help them become more autonomous learners outside the class.

The same is true for workshops like the ELTA Rhine event in a few weeks.  I want the event to reflect how I train and I want the participants be involved in developing the content.

So, with two weeks to go before the event, let me outline what is going on behind the scenes.

Step 1 - Gather Information

This step is currently under way.  I am using several resources.  Questions I have sought to answer:

What topics and speakers has ELTA Rhine covered in the past or will cover in the future?
Resource:  ELTA Rhine Website

Unquestionably, the answer to this question makes me a bit nervous.  The list of speakers reads like a who's who list of ELT authors.  These are the people at conferences I am trying to introduce myself to with the hope that they might remember my name.  As for the topics, I see that the events have covered a wide range of topics but that there is room for discussion where the rubber meets the road of Business English.  There is also a mix between the novel and the classic.

Decision:  I don't want to cover areas which have already been discussed.  I also don't want to cover something which someone else can do better.

What does the audience look like?
Resource:  ELTA Rhine Events Coordinator and Participant Survey

Everyone knows that the key step in preparing a talk/workshop is to understand the audience.  To achieve relevance, we need to understand the audience's situation and expectations.  First, I spoke with the events coordinator to get an idea of attendees.  Are they mostly freelancers working in companies?  Do they work in schools or universities with prescribed curricula?

I decided to augment this information with a participant survey to get critical information about the audience.  The first question of the survey is designed to get 'demographic' information.  The second question is designed to gauge the emotional response to Business English.  The third question is set up as open response to get an idea of teaching styles and ideas for how they view Business English.

Decision:  I am speaking to an experienced group and we have much in common.  I will share the results of the survey in the workshop (they are anonymous).  A workshop in its true form (creating value/intellectual property) is the best fit because the collective knowledge is greater than mine alone.

What topics are most important to the participants?
Resource:  Participant Survey and Social Media Monitoring

A common pitfall is assuming that certain topics are important simply based on the audience profile.  For example, it may be tempting to think that if the audience is made up of freelancers then administration skills and tips are interesting.  Likewise, if the audience uses a coursebook, then maximizing published materials would be the best topic.  But when dealing with experts, they have probably already found the answers to these questions.  The same is true in my classes.  In a group of marketing people, talking about presentations for the 10,000th time is not really that helpful.

So, I wanted to do a mini 'needs analysis' to find out what topics are important to the audience.  What do they need/want?  For the survey, I created a ranking question for the participants to order which topics are most important.  The topics were a mix of topics I feel comfortable speaking about in front of experts and listening to social media/blogs.

Decision:  The results have been eye-opening for sure.  As of now, "Designing Customized Courses" is well in front, with "Leading Materials Light Lessons" in second place.  "Handling ESP Needs" and "Needs Analysis" are bringing up the rear.  This is not what I expected.  I'm very happy that I didn't choose a topic I wanted to talk about... I probably would have wasted everyone's time.  I won't divulge which topic it was. :)

What are the constraints?
Resource:  ELTA Rhine Events Coordinator

There are constraints in every situation.  In particular I am looking at audience size, time and training aids.  First, we have 2.5 hours to discuss content.  The workshop is 3 hours but I will have to factor in a break and socializing.  Second, it appears that the event will be fairly intimate (less than 50 attendees).  This means that going into more detail will be possible.  Third, I am thinking about whiteboards, technology, table set up, etc.  I am still thinking about how to augment the training aids to reach the goal.

Step 2 - Creating 'Prepared Flexibility'

Once I have the information, it is time to starting creating a framework for the event.  I wrote a blog post a while back that "I Only Have One Lesson Plan" and that still holds true (I delete or revise my blog to reflect changes.).  I want to find the right balance between control and chaos.

So first, I am outlining the goal of the workshop.  In this case, the goal is to create a product which collects and organizes the collective knowledge of me and the audience.  I am still not sure what form this product should take.  Perhaps it is a handbook (Word document), perhaps it is a slide deck... maybe a video.  I am not sure yet.  But my goal is to hand ELTA Rhine a prepared product to deliver value to their members, first and foremost to the participants.

To do this, I am working on several things.  First, I am dissecting the needs/wants to figure out what I want to say.  Can I break this down into "Three Steps" or "5 Tips"?  For example, if customizing courses remains the main focus, I analyze the process into several topics areas:
- Recognizing decision points in class (where are the opportunities to improvise and customize?)
- Performance-based training (relating to test-teach-test for skills)
- Identifying language gaps and skills gaps in participant performance
- Avoiding the "hard Business English" trap and driving our students away (e.g. writing reports) - The making them eat their broccoli problem.
- Assessing resources for customization, taking far away content and adapting it to a customized need

This step includes creating slides, thinking about vignettes and documenting activities from the past.

Another step is to plan for contingencies.  Because I am giving up control to the audience, I want to be prepared for unexpected events.  I will start with known issues.  Some people have dominant personalities.  They might wish to dominate the session or a group.  What will I say to that person?  Someone will ask a fundamental question which brings my entire approach into question.  How will I deal with that?  Perhaps a participant will contribute the "TED Tip".  This is the activity, tip or resource which everyone already knows.  What will I say to help them save face but also move the discussion further?  Finally, how will I handle external issues like dry markers, a hot room, late attendees, etc.?

Finally, which activities will support the goal, deliver my message and promote productive discussion during the workshop?  This is where is all comes together.  I will devise a list of workshop activities.  I will think about what materials I need to reach the goal.  For example, right now I am designing an "Activity Description Sheet" for participants to fill out as the discussion evolves.  The sheet will be a simple form which documents successful activities.  This form will help me create the final product.

Step 3 - Refine and Rehearse

A common mistake is to take the list of activities and create a final plan.  I will not sit down and prescribe which activities will go where.  I will keep the entire list in mind and select the most appropriate during the workshop.  However, I will create a framework within the constraints.

So far, I have divided the session into various time blocks. (Grammar note for teachers:  I originally wrote that sentence in the past simple, but I changed to the present perfect for British sensitivity.)  I have a general idea of how I will organize the participants.  I also have a pretty clear idea about how I will collect knowledge and transform it into useful information.  I am creating the slides to express my message.  I have a plan for topics which are not covered due to constraints.  I have a list of 'challenge questions' to push the audience.

Next, I will rehearse the workshop.  I will stand in my office and give the workshop... in real time (I will actually rehearse what I am doing during group work for the 3 hours).  I will rehearse the contingencies and I will make sure that the various possible activities are time neutral - meaning they can be replaced without affecting the constraint.  I will rehearse collecting ideas.  I will assess the rehearsal based on the audience profile and survey responses.  Additionally, I will focus on the instructions.  I will rehearse giving the instructions for each task.

This rehearsal will continue all the way up to the event... on the train to Cologne... in the taxi from the train station... in the few minutes before the event.  The goal of the rehearsal is to be completely comfortable with the chaos of giving up control.  Inevitably, the participants will surprise me... but hopefully I can rehearse 90% of the contingencies.

Yes, this is the same as my training.

Back to revealing the wizard behind the curtain... I have recently pulled it back even further in the context of socializing.  My participants often say they need small talk and socializing (I distinguish the two).  They are also amazed at how easy it is for me to conduct socializing and assume it is a native speaker thing.  I now deal with the fact that the language is not the constraint for socializing, it is cultural and personal.

I recently said to participants (in a group).

We have talked before that trust is built on competence and character.  We also know that building personal relationships is important for making communication work.  The same is true for us.  I want you to trust me and I think a personal relationship will make learning easier.

When I came here today, I thought about you.  I thought about your daughter because you said she was preparing for her A-Levels.  I thought about the small talk.  I said to myself, "I should ask about her daughter."  I thought of sentences to ask like "So, how did the A-Levels go?"

Joachim, you told me last time that you were planning your honeymoon.  I came prepared with questions about your honeymoon.

How did that feel for someone to remember what you told them and ask about it?

So, in the spirit of the workshop... how can you make this an activity?  Would you like to write a comment?

Planned flexibility... the method of the workshop and perhaps a few tips for trainers.  If you haven't registered and you'll be in the best city in Germany on August 23rd, please come.  I can't promise excellence, but I'll do my best.

Pre-experienced and Experienced Learners - Thoughts from Graz

I have been giving presentations and writing blog posts about in-company training for the last several years.  Especially with the presentations, I often have problems trying to fit the content to the audience.  The problem is that I am facing two separate market segments... in-company trainers (often freelancers) who typically have much greater scope in determining needs, selecting/creating materials and delivering training.  But also in the audience are the Business English teachers and lecturers who have less control over the learning objectives, resources and methods.  Additionally, they face drastically different challenges concerning learner motivation, class size and assessment/reporting.  Not having experience operating in such a formal structure, I'd like to pass on some thoughts on what I see as those students enter the workforce and perhaps reflect on where I could see changes in institutional teaching.

Despite being in-company, I actually receive many pre-experienced learners.  My training is often aligned with the company's on-boarding program and the majority of new participants are in their first days or weeks at the company.  It is also normal for me to get participants who do not use English in their jobs yet, but it is coming.  In these cases, I feel I can relate somewhat to the challenges teachers face with pre-experienced learners.

I can draw several conclusions from what I see as these participants enter my training.

1.  Learners who had an English course which was aligned with their field of study had great advantages over those who only had a general Business English class.

2.  Motivation was much higher for learners who clearly understood that a) English would certainly be a integral part of their job and b) being able to conduct their job in English would be a competitive advantage for career progression.  Those who lacked this awareness were surprised by the reality of a bilingual working environment and suffered lower self-confidence.  They often had negative feelings toward improving their language.

3.  If an institution taught English as a practical skill, their graduates were much better prepared.  If the school treated English as a theoretical concept, the graduates were largely unable to adequately perform their tasks in L2.  This mindset was often reflected by the teaching methods and content.  Practical teaching focused heavily on production activities throughout the teaching, not just at assessment.  Unsurprisingly, those who emerged from a more theoretical approach were often overwhelmed by the apparent complexity of the language.

Let me give you examples of things going wrong.  You might be surprised at how often I am faced with entry-level accountants who cannot recognize the basic vocabulary from a balance sheet (almost zero new graduates).  Likewise, I routinely meet fresh-faced employees in the mechanical engineering field who cannot understand even the simplest terms like bearing, dimensions, or bolt.  I see this across fields with the exception of software.  I suspect that is because software terms have been developed in conjunction with the spread of English, they have an advantage because they often do not have L1 equivalent words.  However, you can see how wholly unprepared some of these learners are for performing their job in English.

Of course, I do not want to lump all educational institutions together.  There are many very good programs which are producing excellent international employees.  But the results appear to be hit or miss.  The one area in Germany which seems to be particularly poor is the apprenticeship path.  And this leads to a few observations about the content-need mismatch.

First, students and apprentices need English at a tactical level.  If course books reflect the nature of educational teaching, the content is far too managerial and strategic.  Even university graduates are entering the work force at a low level in the organization structure.  Most English communication at this level is problem oriented.  Companies have automatic processes/workflows and IT systems to handle routine tasks.  If everything runs as it should, very little communication is needed.  However, when the system breaks down, communication is needed to get back on track.  For example, missed deliveries, higher costs, missing files, incomplete reports, etc. are at the heart of communication.  New employees are not generally making business plans, discussing how to foster entrepreneurship in the company, devising a market campaign, or discussing who to promote and why.  Even among high-flyers, the company will not hand this much responsibility to a new employee from day one.  They typically have a separate development path in the company, but still deal with tactical matters at the beginning.

Second, far more English communication occurs internally or semi-internally than with customers.  Evan Frendo is right on the money with this observation and I cannot stress this point enough.  Most companies have strict communication filters between themselves and the customer.  In many cases, all external communication must go through a very small team in the corporate communications, marketing or sales departments.  There are a few exceptions to this, but they are all highly specialized.  For example, the customer service department speaks with customers, as will the accounting department in case of wrong invoices.  By and large however, entry-level employees are kept at arms length from the customer.  More English communication occurs semi-internally.  In this case, the employee needs to work with long-term suppliers or distributors.  While the communication is often between two companies, they work together so often and so deeply that they could almost be regarded as colleagues.  But by far, the most communication is internal - from department to department.  It is generally the consequence of off-shoring and outsourcing which are also the main reasons why English is needed so badly at lower echelons in the company.  A typical situation might be an email between the quality auditor in the home country and the factory in Romania.  Another example is the software developer in India and the tester in Germany.

Third, communication is highly transactional, but... it is far more complex that "Could you please...?"  I hear all the time from new participants that they want to improve "small talk".  When I scratch beneath the surface however, I find that what they really want is the ability to build relationships with their international contacts to ease the transactional nature of business.  They want to build trust with their global colleagues and suppliers.  The second aspect of communicating in companies is that students enter a high-context culture.  Office discourse is so difficult because of the body of shared knowledge, differing objectives and the hierarchical structure of decision-making and information flow.  While the email may be a simple request for clarification on the surface, the context can quickly land the employee in hot water.  I'm not sure this second aspect can be dealt with in education, but the teacher may want to keep it in mind.

So, what do I recommend?

1.  Create a balanced English program - one-third general English, one-third general Business English, one-third field specific "ESP Lite".  General English is important and under represented in the secondary schools (at least in Germany).  From the ages of 12-16, English is taught resembling CLIL.  Looking through the state school books, there is a chapter on Australia, the Big Apple, and reading about Obama's election.  I can distinctly remember helping a friend's child try to learn the words, abolition, underground railroad, whip, and quilt.  Can you imagine the topic?  I don't want to exaggerate, nor do I wish to insult school teachers at all.  I merely want to point out that some of the content prior to entering university is of marginal value in business socializing.  Also, by the time they enter the workforce years later, they often lack the simplest vocabulary to discuss their weekend.  I think ongoing general English learning would be very helpful.  I also think that general Business English is helpful as a foundation up to the intermediate level.  The problem with higher levels is the content of the course book.  Course books are generally organized by field:  one chapter on HR, one on projects, one on marketing, etc.  This works up to B1-B2 but then they become overly specific in the fields.  I think "ESP Lite" would be extremely helpful.  This will help the students prepare for the next steps.

2.  Take a step back from standardization.  I understand that a certain level of standardization is needed in an institutional environment.  However, I also observe that university level Business English teachers are an incredibly talented and professional group.  When I present at BESIG conferences, this is the group which makes me the most nervous because of their knowledge, expertise and experience.  I periodically lead standardized training with larger classes, but I always work under a very general set of can do statements.  Within the statement is enough room for me to maneuver.  I am able to conduct a modified needs analysis to refine the training.  The more detailed the can do statement, the more we rely on the institution's needs analysis.  In others words, the can do statement (and thus the assessment) had better be relevant or else we are wasting everyone's time.  I'm just thinking out load, but do these expert university teachers really need a step-by-step lesson plan with page numbers and activity types?

3.  Fortify the feedback loop from practice to content.  I currently have the suspicion from my pre-experience learners that many need analysis are conducted in Oxford, Cambridge or in the halls of Pearson Education.  Instead, I recommend shortening the feedback loop by drawing on a few resources.  Most institutions have a career placement program to help students transition to careers.  Where are graduates going?  What are they doing?  If a job is unfamiliar, read example job descriptions or visit the US Department of Labor Occupational Handbook for more.  Another idea is to build a relationship with HR groups and/or in-company Business English trainers in the area to get feedback.  For example, did you know that presentations are often much different in technical fields?  First, PowerPoint slides need more text because they must be clear without a verbal presentation.  The slide decks can travel far in the company without any meeting or spoken communication at all.  Second, verbal presentations are typically less than 5 minutes long and the most common visual aid is an Excel spreadsheet.  A presentation given in 'ELT format' is completely irrelevant.

In conclusion, I want to be very clear that my observations about the challenges in Business English teaching cannot possibly reflect every institution and every teacher.  However, I have questions based on the number of participants I see entering the workforce without the ability to conduct even the most routine tasks in their field.  Their brains are full of valuable knowledge and ideas, but they are locked behind the bars of language and skills.  I hope that my thoughts add something to the pre-experienced vs. experience learner discussion and I look forward to hearing your feedback.

IATEFL Liverpool - What Business English Can Teach the Rest of ELT

Over the past several days I been listening to interesting ideas from around the world from the General English community (I haven’t attended any BE talks).  The larger world of ELT is full of amazing people.  But I also see areas where common practice in Business English training might help our colleagues.  So, here they are...

Relevance

Lessons should matter to the students.  I am still fairly fresh to this profession, but apparently this idea of relevance is quite new in the theoretical approaches.  Surprisingly, this focus on making lessons engaging, unique, and useful to the learners in the class appears to be a wave in ELT.  In fact, it is so intuitive that I hear some BE trainers talking about how they have been doing this on their own for years just by feeling but without ELT recognition.  Suddenly, research appears to be validating what has been going on for a long time.

In other words, many Business English Trainers are developing methods and lessons which go far beyond anything being presented at IATEFL.  When it comes to focusing on the learners I see hesitation in the larger ELT community.  Dogme is the perfect example. 

I went to a popular talk yesterday by Luke Meddings and Burcu Akyol on the areas of overlap between unplugged and connected teaching.  Mr. Meddings started by saying that Dogme was now 13 years old, but then felt the need to (re)outline its principles at length.  Dogme’s principles can be distilled into one word... relevance.  He seemed to be answering critics of the approach through his talk.  I was asking myself why... hadn’t Dogme arrived? Wasn’t it accepted as a valid method of the teaching, at least by some communities?  But I guess not.  So apparently relevance of teaching is doubted by many.  On the other hand, when I met a BE Trainer from Berlin in the next session he said, “Well, [Dogme] is really a non-debate, isn’t it?”

Just to clarify the concept of relevance.  I am using this in many ways to include...

• Content should relate to the learners’ lives in a meaningful way.
• The language should be brought to where they are and integrated into their lives.  In BE we are often in-company, dealing with real world events.  For school age learners this means taking the language into their social network spaces, for example. 
• Learners are the center of the lessons, discussing their thoughts, expressing their real selves through English.    
• Teachers should focus on skills and language the learner needs, both now in and in the future.

Finally, BE trainers take it for granted that no publisher could ever write a fully relevant course book.  This is why we so rarely use them unless standardization is required.  But I think we can help share our experiences in designing and guiding relevant training. 

Customer Service

The idea of stakeholders and customers seems to be lost.  Overall, I tend to hear phrases like “get your students to...” and “make/have your students do...”  But I have yet to hear anything like, “If your students want/need/lack, do...”

But the latter is the everyday reality of Business English Trainers.  In conversations with other trainers here we speak about flexibility and accommodation all the time.  We are so focused on the customer that we are a chameleon of approaches and methods.  But the talks here in Liverpool show that categorized teaching persists.

The second part of this is many teachers fail to realize the customer / stakeholder relationship of their profession.  While we speak about satisfying the needs of the learner, manager, HR, and procurement all the time, I never hear parents, children, ministries, and school administration being mentioned (when they are, it is merely as a barrier to something the teacher wants to do).  These concepts are actually so closely related we need to have an expert step up and compare this.  Overall, I feel we have been successful at balancing these interest groups but many of the complaints in General English show substantial conflict exists in their field.  We can help.

(Section below added April 12)

On this point, I attended a talk from the British Council on a project to help public school teachers in former East Germany improve their English.  The project director gave the audience a set of lessons learned from the challenges they faced dealing with the education ministry, the teacher training institute, the teachers themselves, and the trainers.  While the project was and continues to be successful, there were several contractual and coordination issues which caused strain on the various relationships.

I believe that someone working with companies to design and implement Business English training would have been a great addition to the BC team.  Many in the field are adept at conducting stakeholder analysis and identifying the tensions between expectations.  I had the impression that BC was picking up some of these lessons by trial and error.  Without question, the organization has a depth of talent in teacher training, but many BE trainers know that managing stakeholder expectations is a key ingredient.  In essence, because we work with businesses, as businesses, and talking about business, we think more like businesses.

Innovation

I have been attending various talks from the SIGs this week.  One was from Sandy Millin.  She is a popular blogger, recently finished a DELTA (or is close to finishing), and one of the inspirational people I follow online.  She presented a very useful overview of International House Newcastle’s Personal Study Programme.  I was interested because it was part of the Learner Autonomy SIG day.  The guided self-study program IH has set up is great but it is still a work in progress.  I think BE trainers may even have larger issues with learner autonomy than General English self-funded (or parent-funded) learners.  I think we can add our experiences to the Lerner Autonomy discussion.

Ms. Millin did a great job.  In fact, she displayed the best presentation skills I have seen at the conference so far (well-rehearsed, clear message, calm in voice and manner).  Her intent was to share and spread.  Her audience, however, was clearly expecting more.  She faced a series of challenge and opinion questions at the end (prefaced by politeness of course).  As I was leaving the room I heard two conversations about how her ideas would not work.  The best of these was how the teachers in the self-study room had not received the proper training as tutors.  The participant’s school had instituted something similar and they had received “loads of training” on tutoring.  I still can’t quite understand.  If a qualified English teacher (at DELTA level in this case) is not suitable as a tutor, who is?

The point is... many in ELT do not understand innovation.  Innovation is the formulation of an idea which is feasible, desirable, and adds value.  IH Newcastle has a profitable and feasible idea which helps learner autonomy.  The desirability from the learner’s side was left somewhat unanswered (the price/time was bundled into overall order), but Ms. Millin was clear that motivation is a work in progress.  This is innovation in a simple form.  It is a small, but useful, step toward learner autonomy.

Private language schools (like IH) are businesses and their product is education.  Therefore, they need to consider new ideas with a business mindset.  Even public schools and universities are pseudo-businesses.  They provide education and must demonstrate value.  In Business English we think about this all the time.  How can I differentiate myself through approach and methods?  Will my clients find this blended learning tool useful and desirable... and how should I charge for the time to run it?  And so on.  But in the larger world of English teaching, the thinking is different.  New ideas are prodded and poked and we dismiss them on the backs of completely frivolous concerns.  Instead, let’s change our perspective on innovation.

So, this post does include some sweeping generalization about both ELT and Business English.  I know the reality is much more complex.  But looking down at Liverpool from the top of the Ferris wheel next to the center... this is what I see.  I learn every day from talented teachers in the ELT field like Mr. Meddings and Ms. Millin.  But I think as BE Trainers, we can and should give something back.  I think next year I’ll submit a presentation.

IATEFL Liverpool - Three People to Follow

During my first 36 hours in Liverpool there have been three people truly worth following and using their expertise for use in the Business English classroom.  In no particular order...

Sacha Euler

Based in Trier, Germany, Mr. Euler is the scholarship winner from the new Pronunciation SIG for this year’s conference.  His presentation on the implementation of connected speech phonology was simply outstanding.  While those unfamiliar with phonology and its terminology might have been a bit lost by the jargon and pace of the presentation, his research and thoughts are fantastic.  He bridges the gap between research and application in materials and lessons.

As virtual meetings become the international communication method of choice, pronunciation and listening comprehension play a vital role in effective communication.  His research and application in materials is groundbreaking, yet simple to adopt.  His methods, while presented as a tool to understand native speakers, could also help our learners with difficult accents and self-regulation when speaking with other non-native speakers.  I can only hope that Mr. Euler will present again, or at least spread his knowledge on the Internet.  I wish I could provide links... in the meantime we can use authentic listening resources (and semi-authentic like Collins English for Business:  Listening) combined with connected speech resources to help develop this training.

Leo Selivan

Mr. Selivan is a General English Teacher in Israel with the British Council.  At first glance, this may not appear to be the profile of someone with much to say on Business English.  But his work on the Lexical Approach is so useful it would be irresponsible to neglect his ideas when encountering vocabulary during our lessons.  Since I focused on how I am dealing with lexis in my lessons I have seen significant improvement in noticing, recognition, retention, and production.

I highly recommend following him on Twitter, reading his blog and archive, as well as this post from Carolyn Kerr based on his similar talk at the TESOL France conference last year.  Although I think all teaching approaches should be handled in moderation and with a pinch of skepticism, I am looking forward to reading the treatises on the Lexical Approach (book 1/book 2) by Michael Lewis.

Jeremy Day

For me, Mr. Day was simply a name I commonly saw on the bottom of ESP books.  I thought he was merely a subject matter expert in two or three niche markets.  It was not until recently that I discovered his blog (notice related posts at bottom) which appeared to be abandoned since 2011.  But when I started reading the blog (I tend to read blogs in their entirety, like books) I saw how really flexible and trailblazing he is in Business English.  Here in Liverpool I just had the chance to see him present in person.  His presentation on ESP course design is excellent.

His talk on two approaches to course design was spot on and echoed (and predates) much of what we as BE trainers are doing... teach to the communicative event, do not treat linguistic competency as a linear process.  Mr. Day expressly stated that both teaching approaches are valid, but it is clear for me that in in-company situations the targeted training is often the way to go.

Since 2010, he has been working with English 360.  But this is recent news to me and caused me to go back and take a look at their product.  I still think it is the best blending learning site for BE trainers on the market.  The concept of plug-and-play resources to design your own blended learning course is great.  I also like the activity variety and interface.  Finding appropriate resources is a bit clunky and takes a considerable amount of search and clicks, but it is definitely worth a look.  They continue to host a wide range of CUP materials and I see that the user-generated and non-publisher materials are growing.  This is great news.

In total, these three men (coincidentally all male) have made my first two days at the conference completely worthwhile.  They may consider their ideas only a drop in an ELT ocean (this conference has that effect), but they can have a real impact on our BE training.

BE Trainer goes to Liverpool

This will be only my second IATEFL conference, and only my third English teaching conference in total, but I think I am starting to find my way around these things.  So here are my plans for Liverpool 2013...

1.  Approach the Program with a Strategy

Last year, my general approach was benchmarking.  I wanted to find out if I was doing the right thing in my lessons and training design.  The goal was to walk away with an action plan for improvement.  In other words... I was an idea thief.

But the conference did not really live up to my expectations.  Or maybe I had surpassed my own expectations.  What I learned was that I am actually quite good at this training thing.  I enjoy it, I have an approach which blends best practice from various sources, plus it fits my context, my personality, and most importantly, my learners' expectations and needs.

It would be a shame, however, to spend all of the money on travel and accommodation only to hear things I already know.  So this year, I have worked out several "needs improvement" categories.  When viewing the program, I will focus on those talks which can help shed some light on how to improve.  In short, the plan is not to steal ideas, rather use the talks as a spark to generate my own.

For me, the areas of focus this year are:

• Writing better materials (especially for other trainers)
• E-learning (from design to implementation to learner acceptance)
• Broadening my cultural horizons - I teach in a monolingual/monocultural context.  I would like to be more flexible.

2.  Vet the speakers and remain critical of the descriptions

Sadly, last year I attended several talks which only vaguely resembled the printed descriptions in the program.  In some cases, the presenters failed to reach the "ah ha!" moment.  It appeared as though they were holding back.  I divided these talks into three groups:

1. The crucial information the audience wanted was proprietary.  "This topic is very useful and important, but if you want to know what it is, buy the book, take the course, etc."
2. The speaker was unsure of their own expertise.  "I think this is a really effective approach to the topic, but there are a lot of really smart people here and I don't want to say anything wrong so I will just allude to it."
3. The speaker tried to accomplish too much in the time slot.  "So that is the extensive background to this topic...  Oh, I see we are running out of time and I wanted to save some for questions.  So, here very quickly is the main point... okay, thanks for coming."

So, what I am looking for are names I have seen on Twitter and in other conferences, but who are not promoting a book/website/course.  I am also looking for unknown speakers who are dealing with a very specific issue which might support one of my three goals.

3.  Take Time Off and Find a Comfortable Chair

Last year, I came back from Glasgow exhausted.  I attended an unbelievable number of sessions, I ate very little, drank too much, stayed up too late, and was generally uncomfortable much of the time.  My cheeks hurt from smiling and my ears hurt from intensive listening.  I do not want to repeat this performance.

But on the other hand, I will pay a sizable sum to attend the conference and I want to make sure I do not miss something which might repay the cost.  In Glasgow, I picked up a few ideas which I then developed and sold, thus recouping the expenditure.  However, I plan to take it a little easier this year and come home a bit more refreshed.

4.  It's All about the People

For those of us who are active and passionate about professional development, the ideas presented during the sessions are largely available online.  Instead of taking copious notes, I will simply keep a Evernote page for the entire conference with topics for later research, links, and people.  There is simply too much information during the week to really learn.  Instead, I can take my list home and prioritize it while half-watching a reality show on my couch.  Most of the presentations, handouts, and the like will be hosted anyway.

This will save my brain cells for getting to know people I have only met online, speaking with the friends I have made (and failed to keep in touch with), and asking lots of questions to lots of really talented and intelligent people.  It has been mentioned elsewhere, but the most interesting parts of conferences are truly the short conversations with diverse opinions.  In fact, I'm thinking about submitting a proposal for a BESIG workshop in Prague which has no topic.  Think of it as conference Dogme... just get a bunch of super-smart people in a room and see what emerges.  I wonder if that would be accepted?  But perhaps there is someone better to host it...

So...

If you are coming to Liverpool, I would love to meet you.  It would be great to grab a drink as well, but we all know how schedules are at conferences.  I hope you have a great trip and I'll see you next week.

Are We Fulfilling Our Promise?

I would first like to thank everyone who joined us for the PCS at the BESIG 2012 Annual Conference.  I know it was a financial and time committment on your part and I hope that the sessions were worthwhile.

For those who could not attend, I believe you missed a very valuble session and I hope you will be able to make the next one.  But I understand that distance, financial, and training constraints prevented you from joining the session.  So I will do my best here to recap my workshop on assessing and reporting training quality.

Here is the available video of the presentation.  Note, it starts when I am speaking about the benefits of a quality assessment with clients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktZiYB9DIbY&feature=youtu.be

Let's start with the presentation and follow with some of the explanation.

Are we fulfilling our promise from charlesrei

Are In-Company Trainers Afraid of Assessment?

As expected at a BESIG conference many of the trainers came from the educational setting in which assessment is a part of life.  However, I see that in the in-company setting assessment is avoided.  As long as the learners leave with smiles and the manager seems satified then we carry on as though everything is hunky-dory.  But there are considerable benefits to a comprehensive assessment program.

Business terminology:
cost-plus pricing
value-based pricing

Kirkpatrick's Four Levels

This is nothing new.  Donald Kirkpatrick described these levels long ago, but they continue to be the gold standard in training assessment for corporate training.  I think we need to be able to accomodate these client expectations of results with quantitative and qualitative data.

Impressions from Workshop

First, I would like to commend Target Training (one of the key sponsors of the conference) for supporting their staff to achieve certification on the Kirkpatrick model.  During the workshop one mentioned that I was not presenting the most recent developments on this.  He is correct, for more info check some of the more recent references.  However, in the sense of ELT and assessing Business English training, I feel that the traditional framework is already a significant step in the right direction. 

To invert the model (as is currently being taught) or to add a fifth level of monetary ROI (as has been advocated) are simply not steps either our profession or our clients are ready to accept.  And unless we are going out and setting up massive training programs, maybe is it unnecessary.  Therefore, it is more practical to focus on the traditional four levels approach.  However, I find it outstanding that this company is not only taking this approach to corporate training, but also developing their people.  It is far too rare in our industry.

Horton's External Factors

The problem with adopting the four levels without consideration is that is can lead to distortions.  It tends to ignore external factors.  I believe the Holton's simple and effective organization resonates which the BE trainer because we can fully identify with these challenges.  Now, Holton actually does not think Kirkpatrick model is effective at all (and they have a personal dislike for each other).  But strangely, his own 'model' looks extremely similar.  So for the sake of simplicity I just super-imposed Holton ideas on the pyramid.

Surveys

A quick note about surveys because we talked a lot about this in the sessions.  These are not the end-all-be-all of assessment.  They are certainly valuable and quite easy to administer, but do not generally tell the whole story.  On one of the first slides, I showed the menu of assessment tools I see being used.  All have their place and all are valid, we simply need to understand which level they are assessing and how external factors can influence them.  I went to the talk by Judith Mader on performance-based testing which reveal some of the challenges with setting criteria.  This is what I use to judge learning, albeit on a smaller scale than her university.

But in response to questions about how to operationalize this I have uploaded an example survey that I use.  This is by no means perfect and I customize certain sections depending on who, what and when I am conducting the assessment.

English Training Feedback Form (Email)

Putting it Into Practice

It would be impossible for me to understand each training situation of the audience and we saw from the feedback that some have never thought about this, some have taken on part of this in their work, and some are already using these methods daily.  Additionally, some have no control over the assessment methods used in their organization.  However, it was very nice to hear some trainers talking about how they planned to change the way they speak with the learners to either get information on the transfer environment or gain insights on behavior/results.

Some other ideas were to review their feedback form, conduct some sort of before and after assessment, and to use a simple method like the workshop notes page in the handout.  I was really happy to hear that suggestion because, of course, this is the way the workshop was designed.

Reporting

This was not really discussed that much in the groups but I think it may be the most important step, especially for training companies running many classes with many trainers.  Because the information for the report will come from many sources it needs to be organized to help drive improvement.  I also think it is the best tool for initiating trainer cross-talk.

For example, Trainer A consistently gets great feedback on reaction.  The learners love her, she plays games and there are lots of laughs.  On the other side, Trainer B scores great on learning and preparing people for meetings.  Sit the two down together and Trainer A gives a few lesson ideas for more fun and relaxation in the classroom, and Trainer B shares how she builds simulations to help for meetings.

I know that reporting sounds like tons of work and a boring admin task.  It is if there is no point, it is actually very motivating if everyone knows that this report will generate suggestions and action points to improve.

So... thanks to all who came!

Handout - Are We Fulfilling Our Promise

Dogme in the BE Classroom. Really?

Returning from Glasgow I realized that the conversations I had in the corridors and over dinner were truly eye-opening and the real take away from the conference.  Definitely, the presentations were good and insightful, but the chance to speak with the most experienced and talented trainers in the industry has caused more reflection.

Of course, one of the issues on my mind was the Dogme trend in ELT.  It has appeared so often in blogs and online discussions, it is difficult to miss.  As a Business English Trainer, I am fascinated by the approach and how it could be implemented in the classroom.  My goal in this post to share my persecptions on Dogme and offer some solutions for how we can incorporate the best parts into our training.

I have had several problems with what I have read, even pinning down what exactly it is.  In my reading I have boiled it down to several what it is and what it isn't (but I could be wrong):

IS...

• Extremly learner-centered.  Trainers should remove many (if not all) external materials and resources from the classroom which impose ideas, emotions, roles, and pre-formed learning paths.  As drivers of the content, the participants create the class and lessons through collaboration with the trainer and each other.
• Focused on binding language to pre-existing concepts within the learner.  Through the self-expression created in the Dogme classroom, the students are more receptive to language input which helps to refine, clarify, and give meaning to their ideas.  Thus, the theory is that students will learn faster because we are not asking them to communicate through a pre-determined language structure, rather giving language to the communication goal.
• Flexible.  Because learner self-expression is unpredictable, trainers must remain flexible to harness, highlight, and build upon emerging language.  Formal materials limit this flexibility.
• Focused on emerging language.  Emerging language could be expressed language forms which should be spread across the class or could be when the expressed meaning is clear, but a language gap impairs clear transmission.  One example of the second case is when students are faced with trying to express regret without knowing past modal verb forms.  Even a quite fluent learner will hesitate, realize they don't know how to express it, try to translate it from L1, and find the best possible work-around.  It is the trainer's job to afford these opportunities, recognize them, and fill these gaps with a lasting learning point.

IS NOT...

• Superfulous conversation.  Goals do exists and it is the trainer's duty to guide topics and discussions which will lead to these objectives.  A focus on progress is built into every lesson, and learning points should be recycled to reinforce learning and demonstrate improved performance.  To this point, a lesson log is crucial for the trainer to record and prepare for the next lesson.  Otherwise, training points could easily be lost and forgotten.
• All touchy feely.  While yes it is based on self-expression and interaction within the student group, it is not a group of people coming together and talking about their feelings and emotions.  That can happen, but it isn't Oprah's book club.  Learners are expected to learn and teachers are expected to teach (or rather facilitate learning).
• Materials and technology free.  From my reading it seems that these two items are both welcome in the classroom, but we should be very selective about why they are included.  Do they afford and reinforce the process of self-reflection and communication?  Do they enable the learners to express what they want and need to express?  Or are we simply bringing in a listening because it is the next step in our off-the-shelf learning plan?

Now, I have several problems with this approach in the BE classroom.  And honestly, if done correctly, I feel task-based activities may be better suited to the needs of our learners.  But I think many of the elements of Dogme are already present in some BE classrooms.  First, our clients expect a personalized training plan.  They also expect us to help them refine what they are already using in their job.  In fact, I think it is difficult as a BE Trainer in the one-to-one or small group setting to ignore the Dogme approach.

But here are the challenges I see for Dogme...

1. The Messi Analogy  There are many outstanding footballers, but there is only one Messi.  He seems to be able to do things on the field which defy explanation.  He can see moves before they are made, he is unbeliably quick, always calm, and gives every motion a flurish of creativity.  I tend to think that in order to pull off Dogme and make it effective, a trainer would have to be as talented as Messi.  The trainer would have to have the experience to see the dialog before it happens, guide this discourse through the students themselves, recoginze the emerging language and then have the supreme flexibility and creativity to set an activity to utilize the training point.  Wow.
2. Too many levels of listening  As a trainer, I am quite adept at listening to my students at various levels.  What are they saying (content)?  How are they saying it (accuracy)?  What are they not saying (language gap)?  What emergent language are they using?  I know I can do all four levels of listening sometimes, but I have to be 100% in the moment.  Of course, I cannot be 'on' in every minute of every lesson .  The risk of Dogme is that if I drop one of these levels of listening because I am distracted, tired, or unmotivated, the progress aspect of the lesson deteriorates.
3. It can't be taught  I am not sure how new trainers could learn such flexibility and language awareness.  I have digested massive amounts of activities ideas, approaches, tasks, and language features in my first three years of training.  I dove into the field with passion and enthusiasm.  I am still far from having the flexibility needed to make it work.  I am not sure how this could be taught in a course less than 6 months.
4. How to create affordances which replicate BE situations?  I am struggling with the idea of creating a environment in which we can really practice the skills needed in the learners' jobs.  One of the benefits of TBL is that we can model what right looks like and work from there.  In Dogme, we are working together to develop a suitable task situation.  In some BE classrooms the desire to improve their job performance is less motivating than other factors.  I could see conflict here between the Dogme approach and what companies expect from the training.

So, these are the challenges I see.  I think they can be overcome.  For example, I think we can train the different levels of listening by using authentic learner discussions in the trainer development setting.  I think the internet provides a great opportunity for us to develop the flexibility to respond to emergent language.

Also, I think the approach is perfectly suited to BE, specifically in-company courses in which we are faced with the challenge of adapting training to meet a variety of specific needs.  And I would like to think that many of us in BE are using this approach well, particularly in coaching.  Therefore, we should add it to our training toolbox, but understand that until it is more-fully developed it has a certain place and certain time.


Dogme Resources:

Scott Thornbury http://www.thornburyscott.com/  check out his articles under "Works"
His blog http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/

Blog from Emi Slater, Phil Wade, and Dale Coulter http://languagemoments.wordpress.com/

Outstanding paper from Martin Sketchley "Incorporating Dogme ELT in the Classroom"  http://www.scribd.com/doc/85100701/Incorporating-Dogme-ELT-in-the-Classroom-Handout-Version

Teaching Unpluggled co-author Luke Meddings http://lukemeddings.posterous.com/

Chia Suan Chong, a highly skilled and innovative Dogmetician http://chiasuanchong.wordpress.com/

IATEFL Glasgow Conference Notebook - Day 1 (Part 1)

The day started out extremely well.  I aslept in, had breakfast in the hotel, then went back to sleep for a bit while watching BBC 4.  I am quite sure that the BBC channel I chose to watch says something about my character, but I don't know what.  I am also sure that my falling back to sleep also says something.

In any case, I missed Adrian Underhill's plenary session.  However, judging by the reaction on Twitter and the audience size, summaries of his talk are probably fairly easy to track down.

So after relaxing I hit the conference in full force, attending each session.  I will not be able to deal with all of the talks I attended today, but I hope to get to them all soon.

1.  Global Business Etiquette 101 by Nikolina Korecic

Ms. Korecic, a business English trainer in Croatia, advocated cultural training as part of the BE classroom and suggested several methods to do so.  Perhaps her most effective method was a discussion activity in which the participants give their culture a color and then explain why.  It was clear during the practical activity that this would certainly generate cultural self-reflection and aid communication.  Other metaphors for culture included fruit, football teams, and the standard iceberg, tree, and onion.  She also references the importance of cultural awareness in the context of ELF, continuing the discussion from Monday's BESIG PCE.

I think she is correct that BE involves cross-cultural communication at some level.  The questions remain open, however:

• How much does culture affect our clients ability to communicate?  When have we reached the right balance of cultural awareness?
• How can we train our participants to recognize when culture is interfering with communication or goal achievement?   Then how can they acknowledge it, repair it, and continue?
• If ELF is emerging as a common communication medium, is there a standard global business etiquette that is also emerging?  I would argue that there is.  Yes, it may be an adapation of Anglo-Saxon or Western communication methods and behaviors, but it is being standardized.  Participants are putting on this international culture just as they put on different clothes.  For example, I have trained leaners on working with the Middle East, and they come back and say it was wasted because everything was just like Europe.
• How do we handle cultural issues where they are really causing hovac, in virtual teams?  The classic business etiquette training such as hand guestures, eye contact, behavior, etc. doesn't apply here.  But communication styles and cultural expectations are destroying web meetings, emails, presentations and the like.

I would love to see more from Ms. Korecic on these issues.

2.  Training Virtual Communication Skills by Jackie Black and Jon Dyson (York Associates)

Ms. Black and Mr. Dyson gave a great introduction to web meetings, the technology businesses are using, and exercises to practice these skills in companies.  However, judging by the audience response, this area of BE is still quite new.  This is something we need to get on board with quickly.  In fact, in many cases we can take those old business travel sections out of our syllabi and replace them with web meetings, online collaboration, and messaging.  Companies are cutting travel budgets and using web meetings to replace them.  As communication experts we need to understand how our clients are talking to each other and master that format.

The presenters from York Associates are clearly ahead of the game (as I would expect from their company) and are basically using standard teaching activities such as role-plays, decision-making execizes, etc. and adapting them to the web meeting context.  For me, as a trainer who uses web meetings quite often, I found their idea of assigning roles to keep the participants engaged to be quite useful.  These roles include note-taker, time-keeper, challenger, etc.  Another great idea was the one slide business card of the participant, which they can prepare as they like at home and then present in the web meeting.

They also identified a series of language focus areas for learners to perform well in this context, such as numbers, checking and clarifying, and turntaking.  I would say the only thing they missed was words to talk about technology and software such as margin, spreadsheet, column, font, header, etc.  But overall a great presentation and BE trainers should sit up and assess their online collaboration competence.

So, those were the first two from today, and I hope to get to the rest in due course.