Three steps for improving ESP training

I've always been proud of my customer satisfaction figures.  Naturally, when I conduct my appraisals of Kirkpatrick's 4 Levels, I continue to see a slight decrease in results from response to results.  But, what has recently impressed me was how the whole satisfaction curve is starting to shift higher.  Greater engagement, faster application, higher results across the board.  On the emotional side, it is great to feel the customer mindset change from, "It's great training," to "It's absolutely vital training."  On the business side, referrals are up and sustainable success appears within reach.  It's inappropriate to boast, but I am genuinely proud that changes I made in training style and course design are starting to make a difference.  I'd like to describe a few of those changes.

Anyone who has read this blog or met me will know how passionate I am about relevance in training and using performance-based training methods.  In practice, this often means using framework materials.  Taken to the next step, it means using only pens, paper, whiteboards and the internet.  The trouble with approaching training with such limited resources is that you are restricted to the collective memory of the learning team (me + the participants) and what we can immediately resource using the internet.  This poses a distinct challenge for handling ESP situations in which I am not an expert.  Google only handles ESP at a general level, and the participants doubt the ability of the trainer to understand the complexity of the topic.  So here are the simplified steps to ESP.

Step 1 - Get the critical mass of knowledge

Yes, that is right... research.  I know you have heard this before, but it actually takes less effort than you realize.  Here are few ideas for researching an ESP topic.

1.  The standard - have them present it to you in class.  No articles, no handouts, just a whiteboard and a marker.  "Explain this to me."  Check Evan Frendo's blog for an idea on how to do this.  Or simply draw this on the board.

2.  Have sticky fingers - someone brings up a concept or process in class, ask them to send you a diagram of it.  Visit them at their desk... collect artifacts posted around their cubical/office.  Can't take copies or get the information?  Contact your training coordinator to sign a non-disclosure agreement.  I've never had a client refuse... they want this level of relevance.  If a participant talks about a supplier/customer in class, bring it up on the internet and bookmark it.

3.  Text mining - Your chances of piercing the discourse community without text mining and corpus analysis are close to zero.  If you are relying on the ESL publishing industry for this, all I can say is good luck.  My dual language dictionary for engineering is twice as thick as my Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.  There isn't the time here to go into corpus analysis and finding key words or clusters, but it doesn't take that long.  I recently encountered the need for vocabulary around air-cooled systems.  It took me less than an hour to find 200 key words from 'fins' to 'obstruct'.  

Where can you get texts for mining?  Start general... wikipedia.  Then move to specifics by visiting suppliers/providers.  Copy and paste product descriptions into a concordancer for key terms (usually nouns) and scan the text for verbs.  But remember, the goal here isn't to immediately create materials... that step will come.

4.  Use professional associations - Nearly every specialty field has a professional association attached to it.  Want finance?  Go to IFRS.  Want software service?  Go to ITIL.  Want project management?  Go to PMI or search PRINCE2.  Read a bit.

Remember, you don't need to be an expert, just have enough knowledge for the next step.

Step 2 - Demonstrate your knowledge constantly

Okay, so you have some research and knowledge.  You know some key words, a few acronyms and you have a general idea of how theory works.  Now it's time for the next step, use your knowledge.

Situation:  I need to teach my participants in the software department the difference in meaning between will, going to and the present continuous.  For practice, I can:
a) bring in an illegal photocopy from Murphy with sentences like, "Mary ___________ (attend) the party on Friday."
b) bring in an illegal photocopy of a technical English coursebook with sentences like, "Hans ________ (investigate) the bearing failure next week."
c)  write "I _________ (finish) installing the new compiler version." on the whiteboard.
d)  create a two part controlled practice exercise in which participant A creates sentences, then a gap fill for participant B.
Which should I use?

You probably guessed it right, option C or D.  The materials-light approach allows us to continuously create our own example sentences and relevant exercises.  We picked up the key words from our text mining.  We have a pretty clear idea of functions (i.e. grammar) from our needs analysis, diagnostic test and 'explain it to me' activity.  The goal here is three-fold.  We need to teach them the material so they can notice it, test it and use it.  We need to provide them with clearly relevant language input.  And finally, we need to demonstrate that we understand their discourse community for the next step.


Step 3 - Keep pushing them into more detail

In the past I stopped at step 2.  That generated good results, but there was a limit.  It wasn't enough.  Then I accidentally learned that framework materials were the key.  One of my favorite frameworks was the fish bone diagram which is used to analyze the possible root causes of a problem.  In general, the head of the 'fish' is the resulting problem and then then you add possible causes and contributing factors (a term from text mining) into the diagram.  I typically used this framework for could have, might have, etc.  But, then I figured out that as we drove the diagram deeper, the participants lost the vocabulary.  Even more troubling, it wasn't vocabulary which would appear in text mining.

This diagram led to all kind of activities...
1.  Vocabulary, of course... you have internet right?  Don't forget to check the professional association for the right term.
2.  Functions... you can take the results and build them into whatever is relevant.
3.  Skills... most problems are larger than one person and emails for request work perfectly here, meetings, too.
4.  Materials development... check off the words they know from your key word list and make materials within their zone of proximal development.

So then I tried other types of diagrams, like mind maps.  With a financial/tax/legal English client, we now have a working mind map over 10 levels deep as part of a PBL task.  Just keep pushing them for more detail.  As my Germans say, "Ach... die Wörter fehlen."  (Oh... the words are missing.)  But this is exactly my point.  In their discourse community everything general is already understood.  We need to get to the detailed tit-for-tat of their community.  Without research and without demonstrating understanding, step 3 will never happen.

But pushing them into more detail is the difference between great training and training they can't work without.

My Journey in Training Methods

I received some constructive criticism about my post on Business English in 2014 and it sent me into reflection.  One of the points was that we do have a working methodology for Business English training.  The author was promoting a BE certification course which I cannot currently endorse.  This is not to say certification courses (including the one the author promoted) are bad, just that I cannot clearly judge the value from the marketing material.  I am always a bit skeptical of business models which leverage the value chain (i.e. profit from teachers/trainers).  You can read more about this in my post about the value chain.

I continue to believe that existing methodologies of BE training are unsuitable to the realities of our clients.  It is helpful here to reflect on the methods I have tried and the results I have found.

Welcome to ESL!

I was politely indoctrinated in the communicative approach.  My CELTA course was at the Berlin School of English.  I had excellent teacher trainers and a wonderful education.  They taught me how to effectively survive a course.  There is no doubt in my mind that it was extremely helpful.  But, I took the good with the bad.  I learned that ESL lessons have a specific structure (generally according to Jeremy Harmer).  I learned how to manage time, select activities and how to create space for expression.  I also learned how to worship publishers and how to professionally photocopy.  Occasionally, I still find the citation strips of paper stuck in my library of course books, and I clearly remember how I broke the paper cutter at my first employer from overuse.

It was a valuable experience and I am thankful to have had it.  But it also became clear that it didn't work exactly as advertised.

I was immediately placed in Business English because of my background, my personality and I looked good in a tie.  But when I tried the methods from my CELTA, something was missing.  First, course books work on a grammar syllabus.  I haven't found one which doesn't (despite their claims).  If you know one... please let me know.  They work on a grammar syllabus because the CEFR is grammar based.  I'm sure that the authors of the CEFR would disagree but the words "routine" and "everyday" appear quite often in the lower levels.  In practice, books still take a grammar-based approach (typically under the cover of functions).

You're in the Army Again...

I realized that ESL wasn't working.  I was happy because I always knew what to teach - ESL told me.  But I wasn't really making a difference.  So, I made the transition to performance-based training.  I was well aware of tenants of PBT from my time in the army (see my post Lessons Learned from the Military).  Basically, we looked at the expected performance, broke it into concrete steps and then we trained and tested it until the performance met the standard.

This required a change in needs analysis and assessment (I have posted about this transition often).  I made the switch and things were good.  I could clearly identify the skills gap and train to fill it using ESL-structured blocks.  Performance and confidence improved dramatically.  My students reported exceptional improvement.  I was training to task using ESL-structured lessons.  But then things began to change.

Bite the Dog

The problem with all of this was that it was taking too much time.  I wasn't profitable.  I could not sustain a fully needs-based course.  It took 45 minutes to think about and prepare an hour of training.  My blended approach of fully needs based (customized) training with ESL teaching techniques generated much higher progress and high customer satisfaction and progress, but was still unsustainable.  Then I discovered Dogme which essentially said that if I could spontaneously create pedagogical activities, I was good.

I embraced and switched my focus from planning to recording and reviewing what happened in the lessons.  My post I Only Have One Lesson Plan is the essence of that approach.  It works, no question for me.  I saw immense progress, validated by real world performance, and my clients were extremely happy.  I was now incorporating everything into my training... the communicative approach, performance-based training and Dogme.  But then it changed...

The Patient has Complications

With greater customer satisfaction, I began to get closer to the organization and the real needs of the learners.  Suddenly, I had jumped into a deeper pool than I had imagined.  The problems were glaring.  It wasn't the language which was holding things back, it was cultural and communication skills.  In other words, speaking better English was not equal to higher efficiency.  In some cases the bottleneck was the language, but often it was only a contributing factor.

I remember speaking with some BESIG members a few years ago that our clients often equated a communication problem with a language problem.  The simple fact is that in the mind of the client language = communication.  I feel my mandate is to solve communication problems with a focus on language.  But as I moved, the situation became more and more complex.

Everything is Nothing

So, here I was... faced with an universe of methods and ideas.  I needed to teach the English language through the communicative approach, clearly understand the performance gap, let the learners direct the training and understand the real barriers to communication.  The result was not good.

• The ESL approach is long, boring and often useless.  Following a prescribed set of activities may be useful for mastering certain concepts, but we often don't have the time to fully complete the activities or the learning objective does not match the need.  The ESL approach is overly sterile and reflects a notional reality.  
• The communicative approach is right in creating a communication gap, but what happens when communication is no longer a problem (higher levels)?  ESL doesn't really have an answer to the image needs of BE students other than restrictive language exercises.
• Performance-based training works great with the communicative approach as long as there is a performance gap.  In other words, it is nice as long as there is a clear need.  It doesn't work when the need is reached or when the learner is striving for an intangible ability.  Then we have to revert to something like the CEFR.
• The trainer cannot sustain Dogme for more than a 50 hours of training.  It works great in short-term courses.  Dogme relies on the immediate recognition of need and spontaneous input and task creation to fill the gap.  I have difficulty keeping such a variety of task contingencies in mind.  The result is repeat task types which nullify the entire approach.
• Dogme kills vocabulary development.  The most critical piece of feedback from my learners is that I do not help them produce new vocabulary.  I have tried my best through review and in-lesson note taking to improve this aspect, but vocabulary retention is still less than 10% per lesson.  ESL methods and course books are better at this.  It is also a vital part of their needs.
• Office communication is unbelievably complex.  I have had the chance to read countless authentic emails, documents, reports, etc. as well as observe meetings and telephone conferences.  There are pragmatic, semantic and cultural issues at every turn as well as linguistic.  I have no doubt that clients attempt to solve communication problems with language training.

Conclusions

First, I think the complexity of our mandate is higher than our clients realize.  I sincerely believe that we are hired to facilitate communication not just that someone masters the Past Perfect.

Second,  I do not think existing ESL methods (including existing ESL-derived BE teaching methods) fulfill this need.  ESL prescribes a certain learning plan which does not fit with the immediate or medium-term needs of the learners.

Third,  Dogme is too loose.  It fails to fulfill the steps of Bloom's Taxonomy (as I implemented it) because it relies too heavily on the learner's sense of dedication to complete self-study.

So, I have tried all of these and they are not the complete solution.  Parts of them are valuable and I recommend a teacher development package which presents new trainers with challenges, but the solution is not in the book or on the internet.  We need to take BE further.

I'll present my work in Graz at the BESIG Summer Symposium.  It will be the culmination of a year of training with an entirely new approach which better fits the realities of BE training.  So far, it solves these dilemmas and provides the balance my participants and I need.

Where You Come From - An Inexhaustible Lesson Topic

I come from Kansas City, well better said I grew up in the suburb of Overland Park, Kansas.  When I meet most people in Europe, neither ring many bells.  Kansas City is one of the non-descript cities of a few million people which litter the middle two-thirds of the country.  In fact, if you landed in KC, Cincinatti, Minneapolis, Dallas, or Pittsburgh you could forget where you are because they are all the same.  This is 'fly-over' country which many people only see from 36,000 feet.

Of course, the residents of these place would deeply disagree with this statement and could talk at length about the unique features, culture, and legends of their hometown.  I distinctly remember a taxi ride in Springfield, Missouri in which the cabbie insisted on giving me 100 years of the city's history in 10 minutes.  He even stopped the meter to take me past the next performing arts center.  It would not be any different in Omaha or Louisville.  I found the same in Glasgow and Liverpool.

But with the invention of the internet and the flattening of the world, these places have generally lost their uniqueness and developed into carbon copy cities with nearly identical cultural traits.  I bring up this point because much the same has happened here in Germany as well.  Local variety has been diminished by global sameness.  But superstores and chain restaurants are boring.  Because they must attract the global masses, they avoid risks and anything which might offend the local consumers.

I find that local flavor, local traditions, and local culture make for highly interesting lessons.  I like discussing the exceptionalism of our region.  The students are proud of their perceived uniqueness.  I believe this also has a distinct business function.  Many business small talk conversations revolve around such topics.  They are useful in business.  It gives the parties the chance to talk about something they know and like.  But it also allows them to get a sense of the values, motives and background of the interlocutor.  These topics leave space for stories and humor, but also provide a certain distance from dangerous personal opinions.

It is interesting to see, for example, how foreign trips are arranged.  Guests are often hosted in a hotel or neighborhood which has retained traces of the local culture.  Guided tour events are arranged to give guests a short journey through the traditions and legends of the region.  There is always the desire to give the guest the 'authentic' experience.

With this in mind, here are a few discussion topics which I often use in training.

• How did your hometown get its name?
• Who is the most famous person from your hometown?
• Is there anything from your home which is 'world famous'?
• Tell me about the special food from your home region.
• What unique traditions does it have?
• Does your hometown have any 'rival' cities?  Why?
• What are the most famous buildings in your town?  What happened there?
• Tell me about a festival you have every year.  Why should I go?

Google maps and street view are great resources for this.  I also find that these topics can often be captured and turned into skills training.  The simplest is something around tourism but I try not to use this too often and instead look for something more creative.  For example, I once had a student from Herzogenauerach here in Germany.  The most famous story about this town is of Adolph and Rudolph Dassler who founded Adidas and Puma respectively.  The two brothers fell out and never spoke to each other again.  But this little town is still the headquarters of these two sportswear giants.  I took the story (which all are familiar with) and set the task of negotiating a merger between the two firms.  Their goal was to 'heal the wounds' of the past.  The students did some internet research (due diligence) to gather some financial data, worked in teams to prepare for the negotiation, and then held the meeting.

This is just one example of how these lessons can turn out.  I will be heading to Kansas City next week for a short trip to say hello to friends and family, but at the same time I will be sniffing the winds of cultural change in my hometown.  Perhaps I will find a few lesson ideas along the way.

So, I encourage you to look into where the students come from and capture these topics to develop engaging and personal lessons.  It works for me.  But sadly, we never did get Adidas and Puma back together... the loyalties simply run too deep.

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/