Why Business English Training is like a Smart Phone

I had a discussion  recently with a fellow trainer about drafting and using performance objectives (can do statements).  In the discussion, I used the simile of a smart phone, but I did not really have my thoughts in order.  So here is a clearer discussion.

Anyone who works in marketing these days will tell you that we have moved from the era of mass production to the age of mass customization.  Product managers and marketers are continually trying to find ways to create products which support the individual needs or wishes of consumers while at the same time retain the benefits of serial production.

Few products demonstrate the power to mass customization more than the smart phone.  A smart phone by itself has relatively limited value and does not really differ functionally than its dumb phone ancestors.  It makes phone calls, it saves phone numbers, it can transmit and receive data (i.e. internet) and it hosts a range of utility functions like a calculator and alarm.  Perhaps the only significant addition is a GPS antenna.

Instead, the true power of the smart phone is ability to customize the functionality with apps.  "There's probably an app for that," is no small statement about the power of the device.  The apps on my phone are probably very different than yours and our phones likely reflect our priorities, lifestyles and needs.  We may have the same model phone, but we have completely unique products.

What can you tell about me from my suggestion list?

So let's take a closer look at smart phones and how they relate to training.  I tend to think of the CEF levels as the model of phone - the processor speed, the connectivity rate, the memory, the basic operating system, etc.  A lower performance phone will not run as many apps or runs them very slowly much like a level learner has very limited flexibility in communication.  By comparison, the latest iPhone will run pretty much anything on the market and perform multiple functions simultaneously, much like an advanced learner.

Naturally, there are some basic functions every learner must be able to perform in English just like a phone must have a calculator, an alarm, a calendar, an SMS function and so on.  These are universal utilities which come with the operating system.  There is no customization and they are standard.  I generally think of A1 and A2 as the operating system levels in which I try to install simple functions like introductions, writing a simple email, using basic vocabulary and grammar, etc.  But once we have installed the OS, we can start inserting contacts and appointments, as well downloading some apps.

There are now over 1 million apps on Google Play and even more on iTunes, so the possibilities are endless.  I see three levels of apps.  First are the mainstream apps like Facebook, Skype and Adobe Reader.  These reach a large audience and typically perform routine functions.  In business English there are similar language items which nearly all learners will need.  For example, writing emails for request, giving opinions in a meeting and some general business vocabulary are fairly standard.  These areas are typically covered in course book, but sometimes the books go too far.

The second group of apps contains 'conditional apps'.  These are only useful for people who meet certain criteria but they may also be very popular.  For example, the Sparkasse (a consumer bank) app has over 1 million downloads, but only by Sparkasse customers.    In business English, these 'conditional apps' are the industry or job field skills.  Sales representatives tend to need more socializing, greeting visitors, talking about products and making persuasive presentations.  Accountants need more finance vocabulary and reporting financial results.  Customer service reps need more troubleshooting, telephoning and giving instructions.

Finally, there are the highly individual apps which reflect your lifestyle, personality and priorities.  The Lady Pill Reminder app is probably only for women using birth control (I wonder how many boyfriends/husbands have it as well).  On my phone, I have the baby phone app so that I can still visit the hotel bar with my wife while on vacation.  I am one of only a few thousand with the 1.FC Nürnberg app for my favorite football team.  I have the pronunciation app for work and a time keeper app to record my hours per client.  Although they may not be among the top 1000 in downloads, these are extremely useful.  The same is true for business English, working on language to fit a very specific situation is often the most useful for the learners.

Useful for freelancers?

I draw a few lessons from this metaphor.  The key lesson for me is refining the role of the trainer.  First, a trainer needs to know the 'app store' inside and out.  They need to know what is available and what the different functions are.  The trainer not only helps install and run the software, they also serve as the "Recommended for you" function.

The second lesson is in course design.  The farther the developer is from the end-user, the more general the course should be.  Imagine buying a smart phone with a bunch of apps you do not want, do not need and cannot use.  The same is true for selling 'packaged can do statements'.  Minecraft may have more than 5 million downloads, but that does not mean I want it.  While packaging course objectives is easy, it is not mass customization.  Also, if the course is stuffed with required functions, the trainer will find that the student's memory is full and they can't install the truly useful stuff.

The third lesson is that general to specific is not always the best way.  Smart phone users often download highly specific apps before the general ones because of their priorities.  Do not be afraid to train communication and language non-linearly.

The final lesson is from programming.  App developers write code in functional blocks.  Each bit of code performs a specific function like initializing the data receiver.  When they write apps, they will often copy, paste and modify these blocks for compatibility.  The same is true for activity types and exercises.  Two very different lessons and courses can include copy and paste parts (with slight adjustments).  A good programmer always documents their functional blocks (nothing is more frustrating to a programmer than undocumented code), so a trainer should keep their activities neatly documented and organized.  But, they should also keep in mind that using the activity verbatim almost always results in a compatibility bug.

So, I will leave it to you to design your own software.  It is not an easy task.  But as I sit at this cafe watching everyone tapping away on their phones, I can see that customization is not only possible, but the new expectation.

I Only Have One Lesson Plan

Over the past several years, I have been asked numerous times to share lesson plans with other trainers.  I have no problem with this and I think it is great.  I think Claire Hart's blog (please keep it up Claire) is simply magnificent, as well as the work of 'lesson plan gurus' like Phil Wade.  I would love to be able to produce such clear and structured ideas which support the students.  So, for the past several months I have been trying to write posts about lesson plans I use in class.

The problem is I don't have lesson plans.  Or better said, I only have one lesson plan.  I recently filled up a my teaching notebook (I use a traditional spiral notebook) and I began transferring the information I needed for continuity into my new one.  Since mid-July I have had many great lessons and some which were not so good, but they all started with the same plan.  The differences were the choices I made during the lesson.

This became readily apparent to me a few weeks ago.  In one training project, I run two technical English mini lessons (45 min each), one in the morning and one in the late afternoon.  Each lesson has the same plan but they never cover the same thing.  Sometimes both are great, sometimes one is disappointing.  For example, I wrote down "Examine the electrical system of my car" in my notes, but the only commonality between the lessons were the words fuse and circuit breaker (and the difference + collocations).

So, here is my lesson plan.

Click on the flow chart to enlarge.

Let me walk you through the steps.

Step 1 - The Students Start Talking

I don't use lots of scripted warm-up activities.  In most cases, my students have 60-90 minutes in class each week and they want to talk.  Sure, there are some confidence issues at first, but it doesn't normally take long for them to come in and start chatting.  Indeed, teacher input at the beginning or framework materials can direct the topic and in some cases, I have a specific pathway to follow.  Either I have announced (or we decided) the focus of the lesson beforehand, or I have certain needs which must be covered in a specific way.

If they do not start talking right out of blocks (or the class is consistently dominated by some) I may use targeted questioning to manage the discussion.  But mostly, I want the learners to talk about themselves and ask each other questions.  Usually it works easily, but I may need to provide structure (e.g. pair discussions) to assist.

Here are some simple examples of framework tasks or targeted questioning if the students don't start talking.

• Draw a picture of your desk, workplace, apartment/house, etc.
• What did you do yesterday evening when you got home from work?
• Have you ever...?
• What do you think about...?
• I'm curious, why...?
• Let's have a short update meeting, give us a one minute update on your current tasks/project.

Of course, the possibilities are endless.  In most cases, I consider this phase complete when the conversation moves from teacher driven to learner driven (either in topic or dynamic).

Step 2 - What is the topic?

At some point, I capture the topic and start to drive the conversation in a productive direction.  I have yet to find a topic which does not afford a variety of lessons.  Even something seemingly routine and mundane can be manipulated to achieve great results.  But some connections are clearer than others.  For example, sports leads quite easily into finance.  Depending on time, I will need to capture a topic quickly and work toward a focus.  Prescribed warmers, framework materials, and immediate input activities (like an article) will, of course, help drive a topic, but I prefer to let them express themselves freely.  I tend to remember that they have just left their desks and are looking forward to a few minutes of relaxation.  Constraints on the conversation may only cause negative feelings.  I am prepared to leave 15-30 minutes to finding a topic.

Step 3 - Determine the focus of the lesson

Once the topic has been captured, I will select a focus of the lesson.  This is not a lottery.  I have genuine expectations for the learners to improve and I have a duty to the customer to provide effective training to improve job performance.  I will quickly weigh three factors in determining the focus of the lesson.  Part one are the needs (and/or lacks, as Jeremy Day calls them), part two are the expectations for the training and lesson, part three is lesson continuity.  Depending on the situation, I will balance these factors.

For example, if it is an unusually stressful time in the company/department, it may be best to limit the demands of the lesson and take what you can get.  If the company goals trump what the learners expect then the training will have a different focus.  But note, this does not mean changing the topic, simply driving the lesson toward a tangible goal.  So, I have seven types of lessons which also determine teacher talking time and the quantity of input.  I prefer to continuously change the focus of the lesson and I feel uncomfortable (as do the students) when the class repeatedly follows the same pathway.

Step 4 - Focus on Language

Once I have selected the focus of the lesson, I have taken control of class.  In other words, 'We are going somewhere, and I'm going to take you there.'  The question is then, how are we going to get there?  What is the method?  The method often depends on my calculation of resources.

Here is a summary mind map of the resources I consider.

Click on the image to enlarge.

Part of this is a complete understanding of what resources are available.  As we remove each resource from the equation, we constrain our ability to design effective exercises.  If you have everything mentioned above, the activities are endless.

This is also where methodology comes into play.  For example, I may use a TTT, PPP, or guided discovery method to teach grammar.  I may focus on collocations for vocabulary.  Sometimes I even switch to the Silent Way mid-lesson.  In some cases, I may even get the idea that we should just keep chatting and have a mainly conversation class punctuated by occasional feedback interludes.  But this is not the default setting of the lesson and I'll often clarify this with the learners, "I get the feeling everyone is a little tired from work, is it alright if we just keep talking and I'll give you some feedback?"

From this methodology and resources balance, we'll have role plays or listen to a recording and dissect the language.  It all depends on the three factors.  This is why no lesson is the same.  Note:  I almost always ask the learners to design their own role play.

Example Lesson

A 90 minute lesson with tax consultants (B1-B2).  They had talked about the need to understand contracts in the previous lessons.  The learners have different offices, some work in the consultancy offices and some have offices embedded with a major client.  These students travel to the consultancy offices for the lesson.  One of them arrives in class with a giant stack of papers (possible resource!).

I am curious about the stack of papers and she tells me that it is training material in German (damn!) about recent tax law changes (topic?) and she has to learn it.  I ask if she feels 'out of the loop' (boarded) because she's away from management.  After a few minutes the conversation centers around the 'milk issue'.  When you work at the consultancy, coffee (plus milk and sugar are provided), but they have conflicts when using the milk and sugar at the client (coffee is negotiated and paid by the consultancy).  I recognize a prime a topic here (free coffee and the office kitchen are perfect for a variety of lessons).

I capture the topic and set a focus.  "That is interesting.  Okay, today in the lesson we are going to write a contract for the use of the kitchen and the 'milk issue'."  I have several resources.  First, the learners have probably read more contracts than I have.  I know register.  We have the internet so template/example contracts are searchable but printing is difficult.  I have a whiteboard with five markers.  Four are dry, so I have one color.  One learner has paper but no pen (I have an extra).  There are four students so pair work is possible without an obtrusive trainer.  I don't have a private space so while a negotiation might be nice, there is no real place for the two pairs to prepare.

I elect for a scaffolded approach to the productive skill (well, it is actually a receptive skills lesson through producing the language).  I say, "Okay, before we write the contracts, I'd like to give you a little support because contracts use a specific language."  I have 60 minutes left so I am looking at a limited scope, mainly focusing on word choice when changing register.

Input Segment

I point out the word shall.  Shall has different meanings between everyday British English (which the learners had in school) and contracts.  Shall = should + will in everyday English, but must in contracts.  A big difference.  I bring up a template contract (actually my rental agreement for my condo in Washington DC) to show how shall is used in contracts.  This reinforces the point.

Discussion Segment

I point out that shall is a signal word in contracts and I rely on their experience in contracts to find more (and to gauge their ability).  I am looking for words like guarantee, continuous, unobstructed, etc.  They offer a few, I offer praise.  We clarify, with the learners explaining meaning, and move on.

Eliciting Segment

My estimation of their language is that they are fairly proficient in socializing and that they struggle when they have to increase their professionalism.  On my list of needs is switching register and tone to speak to clients.  If you have read my blog before about need analysis, I create a table of needs instead of a linear pathway.

This topic and focus creates a great opportunity for addressing word choice to affect register.  I pull up an old PowerPoint presentation (actually, I disconnected the computer and pasted the table into the client's template) which had everyday informal words on one side and a blank column for formal words on the other.  For example, give = provide (this approach was inspired by the The Business coursebook from MacMillan).  I wrote down in my notebook that we should look at the Open University video on French influence later.  I also wrote the word 'Leo' because Leo Selivan has covered the various lexical layers of English in his talks.  The students are tasked with giving formal words with similar meanings.  The pair compare results and I add a few missed words (e.g. get = obtain, acquire).

Production Segment

Okay, I have 30 minutes left and it's time to get writing.  The students write the contract in pairs, I check it over their shoulder for accuracy, they read it aloud to the group.  I board key words like aforementioned.  We rephrase a few sentences by comparing and contrasting.

Done... its all about milk (which costs €.52/L but has an immense emotional value).

Step 5 - Transfer Design

I have become convinced that it is important to explicitly highlight how the lessons can be applied to the job.  During my talk at the BESIG conference Stuttgart on need analysis I said, "The learners don't know what they don't know."  I similarly believe that "The learners don't know how to use the lessons unless you tell them."  I like to end the lesson with a short reflective session on how the vocabulary, skill, etc. can be used in their job.  This is tantamount to commitment and I often record this in my notebook.  I may check up on this transfer in a later lesson.  In other words, this is part of the continuity factors when deciding the focus of the lesson.

Step 6 - Check on Learning

I like to have a review session at the end of the lesson.  In general, I expect that if I teach it once, they learn it.  Of course, this is completely unrealistic and I did not start out this way.  But I found that the students themselves felt guilty if they could not give the learning objectives of the previous lessons and said "Ach Scheiße!" if I corrected them on a mistake we had covered.  So, I expect the highest of standards.  If it is written on the board or sent via email in a PowerPoint... it should be learned.  I am understanding, but I don't let them off the hook or justify their non-performance.  If it is something I have covered repeatedly with one learner I will put them on the spot in front of the class.  Granted, it is wrapped in humor and rapport.

But the last phase is to check that they learned.  They will often say that they will apply the lesson (response bias) but fail the quiz at the end.  My most common method is to remove all supports (erase whiteboard, turn off projector, put away notes) and ask them to summarize the lesson.

Here are some example questions:

• "Joachim, give me one word you learned today."  Then go around the class... it becomes progressively harder.  Periodically challenge other factors of understanding (register, spelling, etc.)
• Use higher cognitive levels of understanding (Bloom's Taxonomy of verbs will help you devise questions).  "Sophie, what is the difference between Thanks for calling and I appreciate your call?"
• "Okay class... I've erased the board.  Andreas, please come take the marker.  The class will help you recreate everything on the board."  

So, that's it.  That my lesson plan.  I wish I could tell you that I control what happens in every lesson, but I am simply a guide to the language.  I can only selectively direct each session to meet a specific need or expectation.  I would hesitate to say my approach is dogme because my default setting it attain maximum value, which I question about totally free-form teaching.  I still follow traditional teaching methods like task-based learning, but within the context of learner content.

I cannot give you lesson plans... I can only give you lesson reports.  They are quite different.  Sorry.

Lessons learned from the military to BE

Back from vacation and ready to work :)

As some of you may know, I was in the US Army before I was an English trainer.  As a Sapper (combat engineer) my life was consumed by the neverending cycle of training-execution-training.  During my seven years in the military and three years in combat, I rose to the position of platoon sergeant, including designing several company training programs in insurgent tactics and dealing with improvised explosive devices.  I was passionate about training and adopted the military's models and processes whole-heartedly.

Your author doing a little training... note, I had to swim back, too.

However, after my CELTA and beginning in the BE field, I seemed to forget much of what I had learned and practiced during my previous career.  It wasn't until about a year ago that I sat down and took stock of my military experience and how it applied to my new passion.  In the end, I distilled five points which apply to in-company training.

1.  The Mission Essential Task List (METL)

A METL is a list of key tasks a unit must be able to successfully accomplish in order to fulfill their mission.  For example, when I entered the Army in 2002, we were still trained in the 1980-90s conventional warfare skills.  In that situation, a combat engineer platoon must be able to emplace a standard NATO minefield.  This essential task supported the company's METL to emplace a battional defense.  Below platoon, a squad had a list of essential supporting tasks for the minefield.  Below that, each individual soldier had to master a list of key tasks (such as arm a mine) for the whole unit to be successful.

As an English trainer, this shows us two things.  First, our learners do not exist in communication isolation.  They belong to teams, departments, and business units.  The individual skills we teach them are part of a larger goal.  It is helpful for us to consider how we are supporting these goals.  Second, the key skills needed by the learners are mostly determined by their position within the structure.  In English training, the most generic METL is the ALTE can do statements.  These are particularly valuable for pre-experienced learners just as the individual soldier task list drives the basic training program in the Army.  However, once we are in-company, a key part of pertinent training is defining the essential skills for the learners, their teams, and their departments.

2.  Task, Condition, Standard (TCS)

To evaulate performance, every task needed is outlined using the task, condition, standard format.  Basically, the task is restating what the learner should be able to do.  The condition outlines the environment in which they are expected to perform the task.  And finally the standard is a 'checklist' of performance steps for them to correctly execute.

For example, here are the standards for throwing a hand grenade:

FM 3-23.30 Grenades and Pyrotechnic Signals, Dept. of the Army, approved for public release 

Back to English teaching, this sounds like something we should be doing with our skills training.  Yet measuring can do statements in this way is not universal.  Oxford University Press and John Hughes have taken a step in this direction with their skills assessment criteria in the Teacher Book from Business Result.  However, I would like to see more of this in 'opening a meeting', 'making arrangements on the telephone', etc.  For myself, I have set the task of writing out some of these performance steps and the conditions under which they must be performed (e.g. in a conference room with projector and presentation).  Perhaps we need to borrow something from our academic colleagues on this one... they are the experts at assessment.

Writing a letter home in 2003 near Hit, Iraq

3.  Crawl-Walk-Run

Once each needed skill is defined in the METL and the TCSs are set, the military trains to proficiency using the crawl, walk, run approach.  Under this approach, the task and the standards are kept the same, but the conditions are changed.  This means increasing speed, spontaneity, complexity, and realism.

From FM 7-1 Battle Focused Training, Dept. of the Army, approved for public release

Note, the performance steps remain the same, only the situation becomes more difficult.  For example, in a presentation setting, this could mean that questions from the audience become more difficult, speakers could have non-native accents, etc.

In general, I try to incorporate this into my training.  So, when the learners become confident that they can participate in a meeting, I start adding more challenging elements.  For example, I will add in listening with Asian accents, add the element of interruptions and unclear vocabulary, place the meeting under pressure constraints such as time or consensus, reduce/remove prep time, add an additional skill like note taking, etc.  This helps build the difficulty.

4.  Train as you fight, fight as you train

This all adds up to the next lesson.  In the military the goal (especially in the run phase) is to make the training as realistic as possible.  In the Army this means using live ammunition, throwing in surprises, and generally making the situation as confusing as possible.

I believe once our learners in the BE classroom have mastered the basics in the supportive environment of the classroom, it is time to make the training reflect the real world.  In group classes, here is where the participants themselves really add to the course.  They can ask the tough questions and play the role of difficult people.  They can give the pointed criticism needed to make the situation more realistic.  As Claire Hart pointed out on her blog, getting the learners out of the class on the factory floor adds needed realism.

In short, we need to prepare them for the battlefield.


5.  The After Action Review (AAR)

The final lesson distilled was the importance of the After Action Review.  Basically, this was a post training meeting to take stock of our performance and formally acknowledges strengths, areas for improvement, and lessons learned.  In the military, we had formal drawn out AARs with written summaries but perhaps more effective were the 5 minutes 'hot wash' AARs.  In these short meetings we sat down as a team and discussed the training event with the following agenda.

• Review the training objective
• What was supposed to happen?
• Relavent training resources we used
• What happened?  Why?
• What did we do well?
• What do we need better?
• What lessons did we learn?
• Make a plan to improve shortcomings and build upon strengths

Overall, AARs were direct and candid, but never personal.  I am still amazed at how the participants were able to criticism.  But the key factor here was that everyone had the same goal... make the team better.

In an in-company training environment we need to use AAR like breaks to critically assess our performance.  In some courses, this can be done after every lesson.  But not all of our participants are going to have such thick skins.  As trainers, our job is to effectively observe their performance and offer feedback without hurting any feelings or damaging reputations.  This is certainly not easy, but the AAR was the key link between our current skills and future improvement.

Conclusion

I am certainly not advocating that we systematically formalize all of our training and execute it lock-step as we did in the military.  Much is to be said for the holistic approach, and such formalized training does not always align with the learners' expectations and desires.  Additionally, implementing these methods requires a significant amount of planning and admin time which can eat away at choosing and designing the best activities.  However, I feel that as professional in-company trainers, such an approach toward training helps us to ensure that the time spent in class is actually making a positive impact on their job performance.

The Trainer's Learner Autonomy Scorecard; Assessing our Ability to Foster Transformative Learning

As an addition to my post on the BESIG World Blog, I would like to share some more ideas on fostering learner autonomy in the Business English classroom.  The purpose of this post is give trainers a self-assessment tool for how well they are encouraging learner self-reliance.


At the core of this issue is the question whether it is our duty to develop our participants into autonomous learners.  On one hand, participants can certainly reach their training needs and remain 100% percent dependant on the trainer.  However, I would argue that by helping develop learner autonomy we can achieve greater results in a shorter period of time.  I would also argue that it increases the value of our training because the participant is better able to adapt to new needs after the training is completed.  Personally, watching a class grow into inquisitive, independent learners is the most rewarding part of my job.


This process, however, is not easy.  It takes a considerable amount of time, energy, and patience on the part of both learner and trainer.  Either party may not be willing to accept this responsibility.  We must consider this fact in terms of what our clients want and expect as well as what kind of commitment we are willing to make i.e. time and fees.


My research into learner autonomy has led me to the characteristics of adult learners and the concept of transformative learning.  For a short introduction transformative learning, I recommend this site from the University of Geogria.  My research also led me to a research article by Kathleen Cercone for the State of Connecticut titled Characteristics of Adult Learners with Implications for Online Learning Design.  What makes this article special is how clearly it outlines the various characteristics of adult learners.  These include:

• Have responsibilities which hinder the learning process.
• Want to be actively-involved in the learning process
• Have a pre-existing learning history and will experience a paradigm shift
• Have prior experience and need to connect new with old
• Adults are problem-centric
• Want to know what they are going to learn, how it will be conducted, and why it is important
• Need to 'test' their learning
• Require dialog, interaction, and self-reflection

Based on these characteristics, Cercone outlines a long list of objectives for trainers to encourage learner autonomy and enable transformation.  The primary focus of her article was the online learning environment.  But I found her concise tips equally suited to face-to-face language teaching.


Therefore, I have adpated her ideas and incorporated comments on my own to develop an Adult Learner Autonomy Report Card.  The purpose of the report card is to self-assess where you are in your teaching and give tips for improving the self-reliance of your learners.  A short word of warning, it may take about an hour to complete the evaluation.  Several concepts or repeated in the assessment (e.g. needs analysis, self-reflection, building a supportive group, etc.), but I have left them to highlight their importance at various levels.  I hope you find the report card helpful and worth the effort.  Simply the act of writing it has helped me guide my training in the future.

Group Stages and Reaching Training Objectives

In this post I want to examine how group dynamics affect performance objectives and the implications on syllabus development.  For the past few weeks, I have been searching my university database for applicable research on the subject in TESOL and general adult education.  While the results are clear that collaborative learning benefits training, I have been unable to find references to show how group development impacts results (except in e-learning).  If you are aware of research please let me know.  I’m sure some of the books I see on the MA TESOL reading list must include this subject.

The stages of group development have remained relatively intact since Tuckman’s forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning framework in 1965.  To this, we’ll add Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team, a bestseller now prevalent in management training.  While nearly 50 years apart, these two structures are aligned.  In fact, Lencioni’s dysfunctions seem to reinforce Tuckman’s legendary model.  The dysfunctions result when the stages are not properly resolved.

Tuckman’s Five Stages of Team Development	Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team
Forming	Absence of Trust (Invulnerability)
Storming	Fear of Conflict (False Harmony)
Norming	Lack of Commitment (Ambiguity)
Performing	Avoidance of Accountability (Low Standards)
Adjourning	Inattention to Results

Taking it a step further, we can apply the dysfunctions of a team to common class problems, both student-to-student and student-to-trainer.

Dysfunction	Classroom Effects
Absence of Trust	Group and pair work is constrained. Learner opinions are formed only by role-play cues. Poor learner interaction without trainer involvement. Open discussion activities fail. Learners doubt course material and trainer.
Fear of Conflict	Learners withhold opinions until trainer establishes popular views. Discussions are lifeless and students remain passive. Trainer is unable to obtain feedback on training and learning styles. Trainer is unable to assess whether materials fit learners’ needs.
Lack of Commitment	Dropping attendance. Low homework / self-study completion. Learners do not consider or provide material to improve course. Learners do not listen to their classmates. Learners do not use trainer as a resource outside of lesson.
Avoidance of Accountability	Unclear progress, no pressure to improve. Learners merely repeatedly practice the language they already know. Trainer does not introduce or enforce risk taking or improved performance.
Inattention to Results	Learners do not notice what they have learned / do not apply lessons to real life. Training objectives are not defined / reached.

I have provided a long list, but it is certainly not complete.  But we can see that certain course shortcomings can be attributed to group dysfunction, either between the students themselves or within the trainer-student relationship.

If this is the case, it makes sense to ensure we as trainers encourage and allow the stages of group development to occur.  This should be incorporated into syllabus design.  However, most syllabi I encounter (and have made in the past) are linear (meaning we achieve the training objectives at a steady pace), essentially asking the trainer to jump straight to the performing stage.  Naturally, the trainer will front load some team-building activities (forming) and needs analysis, but targeted lessons soon follow.

I advocate an ‘accelerating’ syllabus, in which the course slowly builds toward the can-do statements.  Toward the beginning of the course, the aims of the lessons are aimed at completing the group development stages.  As the course progresses, the learners are able to accomplish more during the performing stage, reaching the same training objectives in the same timeframe.

Here are some considerations for the various group stages:

Forming – Building trust, overcoming inhibitions to speak, listening

·         Allowing extended group small talk at the start of lessons in L1

·         More whole group discussions about jobs, hobbies, personal issues, job issues

·         Cross talk activities about current events within their organizations

·         Interview activities about personal histories

·         Encouraging contact outside the classroom (both T-S and S-S)

Storming – Expressing opinions, setting expectations, identifying learning styles, establishing self-study

·         Negotiated needs analysis

·         Utilize learning styles

·         Test activities to determine what works and what doesn’t (with delayed feedback)

·         Test homework completion level / commitment level

·         Focus on metalanguage and language learning terms

·         Focus on self-study skills / using online resources

·         High lesson feedback from students

·         Start learner journals, lesson feedback forms, learner expectations for the course / trainer / peers

·         Trainer facilitated conversations on controversial topics, encouraging different opinions

Norming – Adopting rules, setting expected commitment level, formalizing goals, establishing activity type balance, formalizing the course plan

·         Establish ‘rules’ of the course (how much time Ss will spend on self-study, goals, behavior, absence notification, trainer follow up, blended learning balance, etc.)

·         Establish preferred activity types based on learning styles, interests, etc.

·         Choosing appropriate resources

Performing – Reaching training objectives, challenging trainer and learners to achieve more

·         Full steam ahead based on materials, self-study commitment, learning styles, and learner interests

Adjourning – Assessing, reflecting

·         Prove what we’ve learned and how we have used it in the real world

·         Reflect on how we can take the training to the next level, both inside and outside the classroom

·         Consider how we are different than when we started

For many trainers this will come naturally, yet all too often I see elements in the wrong stage of group development.  Furthermore, a standard linear syllabus superimposes itself on the stages of group development and pushes the performing stage further to the right.

Actions which fall in the wrong position:

·         Trainer dictates commitment levels expected in course introduction

·         Coursebooks or other materials are determined before the course begins

·         Learning styles are determined by trial and error as the course progresses

·         Homework and self-study expectations fluctuate

The list goes on and on.  The point is, if we slow down at the beginning, we can go faster later.  From a business point of view, a course in the performing stage is more likely to extend the contact or pressure management to continue the program.

Naturally, different groups progress through these stages at different speeds and the group will shift between stages periodically.  For example, when teaching a whole department, the trust level among the students may already be established, only forming the group with the trainer requires effort.  But it is important for the trainer to recognize the stages of development and the dysfunctions of a team.  By doing so we can improve our training and ensure the learners are truly reaching the objectives.

Why Needs Analysis Isn't Working...

Over the past few years I have tried several methods at needs analysis to draft effective course outlines and syllabi.  First, I used the format from Teaching Business English by Syvlie Donna from CUP.  While this is an outstanding book, and I received valuable feedback from my students on the types of skills they needed, it didn't really help me determine priorities, context, and functions.  So, I incorporated more negotiated needs analysis at the beginning of the session to help prioritize what the learners wanted.  Finally, I went back to the drawing board and did some benchmarking against some of the best trainers.

Two I specfically like are Evan Frendo's ideas on his blog, and Claire Hart, who is a particularly innovative trainer.  Her student expectations exercise is great.  Both are outstanding trainers.

Then after reading from Harmer and Emmerson and Scrivener I realized that all of these methods were still using the learner as the main resource for the needs.  I guess I just wasn't asking the right questions because all I got was "I make presentations." and "I don't have the words."  Although I was getting information about their jobs, it wasn't much information to really work with.  Looking through the presentations from the BESIG meeting in Dubrovnik I realized that many of us are having trouble with this.

So here is my new method for needs analysis and it seems to give me more insight and reduce the number of surprises as the the course progresses.  The advantage is that it gets the learner talking about something they don't know (what they lack) and onto something they know a lot about (what happens).

Communicative Event Analysis

The first thing we do is sit down and talk about the department/team.  What is the function of the team, what are the inputs and outputs?  Based on my knowledge of business practices I have a pretty good idea of what is happening.  Second, I want to find out the communicative events which facilitate this knowledge transfer.  Are we talking about weekly meetings, telephone calls, emails, forms, etc.?  Some outputs will have one event ("a form arrives, we read it and forward it to the correct person"), some have many ("we meet with the customer and then work with the R&D department to find a solution, then we propose the solution to the customer").

My goals is to break down all the contacts into events.  Once I have the events, we start working out the nature of the events, the more detail the better.  So if they have a web meeting every month, I want to know the agenda.  Is the meeting focused on updates and past actions?  Is it a time for the management to delegate tasks?  Is it a forward looking meeting to solve problems?  etc.  We will also look at reoccuring tasks and one-time events.  This can help me devise a schedule to give them the skills needed when they need it.

We will break down every communicative event in this way.  At this point, I have a list of skills, a context to gather lexis, a list of functions which occur regularly, and even an idea of which grammar the person is most likely to need.  It also gives me an idea of where the communication bottlenecks are in the department. 

Finally, I will ask who does all this stuff.  Clearly, the student will not do it all.  This leads to a discussion of which tasks the student has the most trouble with.  Which emails are the most difficult to write?  Which phone calls are the toughest to handle?  Do you speak more in this meeting or in this meeting?  Why?  I can then see clearly if the learner's colleagues are handling more of the difficult communication tasks because they are better at English.  By identifying the colleagues' tasks, I can help teams eliminate the communication bottlenecks.

At the end of the session I have several priorities:
1.  Current tasks the learner cannot perform.  (And testing the ones they say they can do)
2.  Tasks the learner would like to perform.
3.  Tasks the learner should be able to perform.  (often similar to 2)
4.  Tasks surrounding the department function.  (Tasks the learner might need to perform in the future.)

Now, I can go back, find resources, plan a syllabus, combine learning objectives, disguise overly dry parts, and shape the program.  This systems approach to needs analysis allows me to give them exactly what they need.

Some examples of information on a communicative event.

Email from International Sales -
The learner often receives questions from the international sales to find out if a product can be changed for a special customer.  They also want to know how long the change will take, and what price they should charge for the product.

Language foci -

• product specifications
• passive (present and infinite)
• product uses (inteded for, for use in, etc.)
• modals of ability (it cannot be used for)
• describing a process (it must be tested)
• expressing probability (talking about the future without making promises)

Weekly project meeting (web meeting) -
The learner works on a virtual project team and has a one hour web meeting to go around and give progress reports on their sub-projects.  The project leader then asks questions.  Each sub-project leader goes in turn and the end of the meeting is an open discussion about outstanding problems or future concerns.

• Common opening sentences, giving a concise introduction
• Talking about schedules and resources (by Friday, take, last, need, enough, too)
• Giving an update (we finished or we have finished)
• Giving reasons why (because, due to, because of, as a result)
• Describing current activities (We are doing...)
• Making predictions about future activities (might be able to, will definitely)
• Talking about consquences (If... then)
• Identifying and answering questions
• Stating an opinion
• Making suggestions

These are just examples.  The real needs of the event are determined on an individual basis.  For group classes, much of this can be done in pairs with the learners interviewing each other.  Then, I can match common elements among the learners and design the most appropriate course.