I recently read another rant online from someone in the ESL field about rates and wages. It brought me back to the concept of value and perhaps I should repeat a few things about the business of language training.
Six weeks ago I enrolled in a one-to-one class to brush up on my German. Like many C1 learners, I was troubled by several problems. 1) I was lacking confidence in my ability to communicate in clutch business situations. 2) I was convinced that my speech and writing were littered with little grammatical errors (bestÃĪtigt). 3) Because my comprehension is nearly perfect, I knew that my active vocabulary range was quite small.
The trainer is probably earning €20-27 per 'teaching hour' or €27-36 per normal hour. Quick caveat... Can you stop the 'teaching hour' pricing? Why do we make our customers use a calculator? Anyway, I am paying between €45-60 per hour (I'd prefer not to give the price exactly). This means the school is keeping about 40% of the payment. This is reasonable to me considering the service it provides.
But as the customer, I am not really focused on the price per hour, I am focused on the overall results of the course.
The price for my twelve lessons is €950-1300 (including VAT). Will that price solve my three problems? No, it won't. I will hopefully solve two. After six lessons, I notice that my confidence has improved. I'm actively trying to use more German in more difficult situations and I have learned a few collocations. But what else could I do with that money? If I gave you €1000 for professional development, what would you do?
Let's take this to the next level and assume I wanted to improve by two CEF levels. We'll stick with a one-to-one setting, I could probably achieve a CEF level in 70 hours. (Yes, I know not all levels take the same amount of time, but stay with me here). That would cost €7000-8000. If I were a true beginner then I might expect to pay over €15,000 to learn German, which is more than the price of a Bachelor's degree at a private university in Germany. Naturally, I would probably join a group course to effectively share the cost but I would still have to pay at least €4000.
Learning a language takes a long time to achieve results and this puts pressure on prices.
But there is a positive here and it is one we should not forget. Our contracts are long, which makes planning much easier. It is not unusual for us to look at contracts which run for years. In comparison with soft skills trainers, this is huge advantage. Their contracts run only a few weeks - often numbered in a few hours. This means they spend considerably more time doing the 'unpaid' work of marketing and networking to try and land new clients.
On the other hand, the reason they are able to obtain higher hourly rates is because the return on investment is much faster. A two-day workshop on effective presentations or team building leads to a nearly instantaneous change in behavior, hopefully. This is something we simply cannot achieve.
Combining 'quick-return' services with longer-term language training is the way to higher rates.
I am always delighted by conference presentations which ring-fence services, typically to protect their own rates or status. Have you ever been to a presentation about coaching in which the presenter sets out to define coaching and justify why coaches earn more? What about a presentation in which the provider talks about how they don't mix persuasive presentation training with language because it is 'over-delivering'?
This is complete nonsense. Combining all of this together is exactly the path to higher rates. These statements are simply an attempt to protect their own rates, markets, and/or sell some kind of additional qualification which is all but worthless. In fact, I would argue that refusing to include effective communication skills in Business English training is merely setting the client up for failure. It's basically saying, "Let's remove pragmatics from the training." Similarly, if you aren't using coaching techniques in one-to-one and small group training, you are probably not creating a customized development plan, effectively using the learner as a resource or helping to develop autonomous learners.
But I will admit, the protectionists have a point. Adding 'quick-return' services such as team-building or coaching requires a certain level of ability and experience. It requires learning theory in other fields such as educational and organizational psychology, applied linguistics and communication. We need to develop a greater understanding of workplace discourse and dive deeper into business studies and management theories. (Knowing business theory is a 'must' for me.) In short, if we are relying on ELT literature to provide knowledge about these areas, this is not good enough.
On the implementation side, they are right that training and coaching methods differ from mainstream education techniques prevalent in ELT. But honestly, while they are different, they are also easily recognizable. I recommend jumping into the various fields of human resources and exchanging knowledge with other trainers/coaches (outside of BELT).
So, if you want higher rates, you will have to deliver more value per hour.
For freelancers like me, it is much easier to make this shift. We generally define our own services scope and content. We are also fully conscious owners of our professional development. For teachers and trainers within organizations and institutions there is less chance for expanded services. But these environments can be great laboratories for testing techniques and theories in practice. And don't forget, the leadership in the organization has to demonstrate value, too. I see organizations pushing the practical nature of Business English. The logical development is for these organizations to mix communication skills and language more and more. In short, the lines of the ESL department/section are starting to blur. Increasing your knowledge now and enhancing your practitioners toolkit will help you succeed in this new type of organization.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
Logic puzzle activity for summarizing and clarifying
I regularly remind my learners to continuously summarize and ask clarification questions in L2. During my observations of meetings, I often see cases of miscommunication which could have been avoided by a simple timeout to summarize and check that everyone has the same understanding. In fact, if there is one communication skill needed to work effectively in L2, this is it.
But sadly, I have always had some trouble designing activities which forced the participants to use checking, clarifying and summarizing. Luckily, I found one in the The Big Book of Conflict Resolution Games by Mary Scannell.
Basic procedure
Find a logic puzzle with 15-20 clues. Cut up the clues and deal them to the participants. They have to solve the puzzle without showing the others their clues. Time: approx. 40 min for a group of four.
If you aren't sure what a logic puzzle is, it is a paper game in which you have to find certain combinations using clues. For example, 5 friends went to a restaurant, each person ate a different dish, drank a different drink and paid a different amount. One clue might be, "Janet did not have the cheeseburger and paid more than Frank."
What happens
The group will probably first try to collect all the variables (the names, the dishes, etc.). Then they start reading the clues. In some groups each person reads all their clues in sequences, while in others (the more effective ones) they take turns reading clues that are relevant to the current discussion. They are continually asking to repeat, checking and summarizing. The trainer can collect and add phrases throughout the activity. Additionally, they use great language to keep the others on track in the discussion.
Training aids
I don't allow my groups to use any visual aids... no shared notes, no whiteboard, no cards with the variables, nothing. Each person can use their notebook to make personal notes, but cannot share it with others. I find that this makes it more challenging and forces the participants to use verbal communication. I suspect that visual aids would make the puzzle easier to solve, but would require less language. Second, my engineers discuss complicated, interlocking problems all the time and I find that it more or less recreates this complexity.
The larger question of feedback...
This brings me to the larger question of feedback and how to train it. After all, summarizing and checking are the purest forms of feedback, but depend on the listener. Surprisingly, while I find that summarizing and checking are the linguistic functions most often missing from discussions, the lack of feedback is the most common observation my participants make about their own discussions.
Here's why... asking for feedback is delicate and often ineffective.
I think we all know about open and closed questions. And I think we can all agree that closed questions for checking understanding are not as effective. In my experience, "Did you understand?" is pretty much worthless. Second, I think we can agree that while a backbrief ("Please tell me what I said.") is highly effective, it is only realistic in highly direct discourse communities. In the workplace, there is too much chance for a loss of face.
So, I prefer to help my participants draft a series of open checking questions for them to use in discussions. In essence, it is teaching them the same skill we use as trainers for comprehension questions. These are higher order questions which demonstrate understanding.
Examples:
For more structured practice, creating these types of questions for a presentation works nicely... then try to add them into spontaneous discussion.
So, I am happy with the results from the logic puzzle activity to generate a true need for clarification, checking and summarizing but it doesn't solve everything. The more difficult step is to train effective methods for requesting feedback. Once the participants have it though, they notice a clear difference in their discussions and meetings.
But sadly, I have always had some trouble designing activities which forced the participants to use checking, clarifying and summarizing. Luckily, I found one in the The Big Book of Conflict Resolution Games by Mary Scannell.
Basic procedure
Find a logic puzzle with 15-20 clues. Cut up the clues and deal them to the participants. They have to solve the puzzle without showing the others their clues. Time: approx. 40 min for a group of four.
If you aren't sure what a logic puzzle is, it is a paper game in which you have to find certain combinations using clues. For example, 5 friends went to a restaurant, each person ate a different dish, drank a different drink and paid a different amount. One clue might be, "Janet did not have the cheeseburger and paid more than Frank."
What happens
The group will probably first try to collect all the variables (the names, the dishes, etc.). Then they start reading the clues. In some groups each person reads all their clues in sequences, while in others (the more effective ones) they take turns reading clues that are relevant to the current discussion. They are continually asking to repeat, checking and summarizing. The trainer can collect and add phrases throughout the activity. Additionally, they use great language to keep the others on track in the discussion.
Training aids
I don't allow my groups to use any visual aids... no shared notes, no whiteboard, no cards with the variables, nothing. Each person can use their notebook to make personal notes, but cannot share it with others. I find that this makes it more challenging and forces the participants to use verbal communication. I suspect that visual aids would make the puzzle easier to solve, but would require less language. Second, my engineers discuss complicated, interlocking problems all the time and I find that it more or less recreates this complexity.
The larger question of feedback...
This brings me to the larger question of feedback and how to train it. After all, summarizing and checking are the purest forms of feedback, but depend on the listener. Surprisingly, while I find that summarizing and checking are the linguistic functions most often missing from discussions, the lack of feedback is the most common observation my participants make about their own discussions.
Here's why... asking for feedback is delicate and often ineffective.
I think we all know about open and closed questions. And I think we can all agree that closed questions for checking understanding are not as effective. In my experience, "Did you understand?" is pretty much worthless. Second, I think we can agree that while a backbrief ("Please tell me what I said.") is highly effective, it is only realistic in highly direct discourse communities. In the workplace, there is too much chance for a loss of face.
So, I prefer to help my participants draft a series of open checking questions for them to use in discussions. In essence, it is teaching them the same skill we use as trainers for comprehension questions. These are higher order questions which demonstrate understanding.
Examples:
- What have we forgotten to consider with this plan?
- How do you think this will affect ______?
- How does this compare to ________?
- What kind of experience do you have with this?
- What do you think are the next steps?
- What problems do you think we might have?
For more structured practice, creating these types of questions for a presentation works nicely... then try to add them into spontaneous discussion.
So, I am happy with the results from the logic puzzle activity to generate a true need for clarification, checking and summarizing but it doesn't solve everything. The more difficult step is to train effective methods for requesting feedback. Once the participants have it though, they notice a clear difference in their discussions and meetings.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Communication skills and Business English stream on consciousness
Please excuse me for disappearing for a while. It is due to several reasons:
1. We built a house.
2. Family has been more important
3. My workload has been much too high
This post is actually a reflective exercise to analyze and figure out a set of related complex challenges. Perhaps me raw thinking will relate to you and who knows, maybe you even have thoughts on the various issues.
Question 1: How do I balance various contradictions in course design?
Long-term language improvement with just-in-time training?
One requires a more structured approach with systematic review and specially designed activities to recycle learning points, the other relies on more flexibility and the shared understanding that 1) the trainer is responsive to spontaneous needs and 2) participants seek out training opportunities from their daily work - proactively identifying needs.
These seems pull courses apart over time... often the time between the initial learning, reinforcement training and mastery steps is too long due to just-in-time 'tangents'. This leads to continuous re-learning and frustration among the participants that a) they aren't making progress and b) they have somehow failed to learn it the first time.
Communication skills with pure language learning?
Communication skills within organizational constraints?
Question 2: How to deal with materials?
I resolved years ago to never break a copyright, but I still need materials. What to do?
Of course, the most direct answer is to design my own materials. But this is oversimplified. I don't have enough time to write for every course/participant.
The vocabulary problem
Recycling materials?
Corpus to materials?
Corpus organization?
Question 3: How to balance the needs of individuals, the group and the organization assuming fluctuating attendance, drive to achieve tangible training results and long-term relationships?
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
The Overlap: Business English and Communication Skills
Blog note: I have changed the comment settings to allow anonymous comments. Sorry if you needed a Google account to post. I had no idea. It is fixed - no sign in necessary.
I have benefited greatly from learning about communication skills. Personally, I feel I am a good communicator, but I could/should be better. But over the years, I have become convinced that separating Business English and communication skills is like a cheeseburger without fries... doable, but nearly unthinkable.
I have also had the chance to work with some communication skills trainers to see the types of things they cover and how they train. So what is the difference between communication skills training and Business English training? We have the advantage that we can break the skill down to sentence and phrase level. While the presentation skills trainer says, "You should start with an organized introduction," we start with, "You should start with an organized introduction, and here are the phrases to do it."
Also, we have the advantage that we know how language affects the situation. We can understand the basics of semantics and pragmatics. Most communication skills training I see may refer to it, but can't define exactly how to alter the language. For example, I have been writing a short course for salespeople based on sales training materials. The training includes things like "be a good listener" and "use positive words". But the material cannot say exactly what that means linguistically.
I have benefited greatly from learning about communication skills. Personally, I feel I am a good communicator, but I could/should be better. But over the years, I have become convinced that separating Business English and communication skills is like a cheeseburger without fries... doable, but nearly unthinkable.
I have also had the chance to work with some communication skills trainers to see the types of things they cover and how they train. So what is the difference between communication skills training and Business English training? We have the advantage that we can break the skill down to sentence and phrase level. While the presentation skills trainer says, "You should start with an organized introduction," we start with, "You should start with an organized introduction, and here are the phrases to do it."
Also, we have the advantage that we know how language affects the situation. We can understand the basics of semantics and pragmatics. Most communication skills training I see may refer to it, but can't define exactly how to alter the language. For example, I have been writing a short course for salespeople based on sales training materials. The training includes things like "be a good listener" and "use positive words". But the material cannot say exactly what that means linguistically.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Revisiting the Communicative Event
Another post-Cologne article...
During the workshop, we talked some about customizing training. But following the discussions within some of the groups, there seemed to be some uncertainty over communicative events. In general, I thought this idea had spread so far through conferences and blog posts that most trainers understood. Or maybe it is just so ingrained in my training that I can't see training without it.
Let's look quickly at customization. We can customize a course/lesson at several levels.
At the top level is the skill (e.g. write a report, lead a meeting). I don't really see this as customization. Sure, we can give the skills various priorities and/or remove a skill completely, but this is still course book territory.
Below that is a skill to perform a certain function. For presentations, that might be to persuade, introduce, report, etc. Most course books have taken lessons to this level and include different sections for different types of meetings. This is nice but we're really counting on the fact that the course book author hit the nail on the head.
My default level of customization is on the specific event, which includes contextual information (but is still largely content neutral). For example, writing emails to request information, making a telephone call to confirm arrangements, etc.
Finally, I will customize to what I call the 'ESP' level which includes content. This is usually accompanied by more corpus analysis.
If you look through the levels, the assessment criteria change considerably from one level to the next. Moving to each level requires that the participants have more uniform needs. My general rule is to customize to the lowest level, and approach the next level outside of the group. If the client isn't willing to pay for the next level, I stop.
Defining performance objectives
This has a huge impact on defining performance objectives. If you are designing a course, only write the can-do statements to the appropriate level. For large groups (hundreds of participants), I typically stop at the second level. For groups which share a job function or field, I can often get to high frequency events.
The difference between a communicative event and an English situation
I am guilty of often using the terms 'situation' and 'event' interchangeably, but they are decidedly different. A situation includes one or more communicative events.
For example, a presentation may include several communicative events.
Slide 1 - Inform management on status of a project
Slide 2 - Report on research
Slide 3 - Compare alternatives
Slide 4 - Propose a solution
This presentation may be accompanied by...
- defending an idea
- asking questions of speculation
- responding to factual questions
- eliciting opinions
- adding additional comments to presented information
- summarize an agreed decision
- delegate tasks
These generally look like a classical list of functions from a course book. The contextual information makes them communicative events. How many people are in the meeting and who are they? How much time do you have? What types of interference (or 'noise') are present? These factors affect communication style, register, etc.
The same is also true for things like emails. In well written emails, each paragraph performs a different function. How you organize those paragraphs and the wording you use depends on the context.
As you can see, we are starting to enter the world of communication skills here.
Does a description of the situation give you the communicative events?
Yes and no. I still use the needs analysis form I mentioned at BESIG Stuttgart (blog post), but it takes some further questioning and analysis to get to the communicative events. I typically do this by asking a series of questions to describe the 'steps' of the situation. I may draw a diagram of the situation on the board and ask about the participants, objectives, etc.
Back to sourcing materials... this is where getting a look at artifacts can be really helpful. Without question, some background in business really helps in 'visualizing' a situation and dissecting it into its various communicative events.
I have found that there is considerable overlap among communicative events. This is true among different fields, job descriptions and channel (email, telephone, meeting, etc.). The interlocutors are generally the same (i.e. the learner communicates with a certain group) and the purpose of the communication is often similar. For example, adding a comment to a pdf report written by a colleague is often identical to adding a verbal comment in a meeting. However, if the report/presentation is by a manager or someone external to the company, the language changes.
Is there a list of communicative events?
Not yet. If there were, it would probably look like a matrix.
We can assume that there are a definite number of functions. We can also assume that there are definite number of contextual combinations. Theoretically then, there is a relatively fixed number of communicative events. It may then be possible to somehow create a database which takes contextual information and matches it with the purpose of communication to spit out the best possible language.
But that is all theory... in my next post we'll look at "Training for the Real World".
During the workshop, we talked some about customizing training. But following the discussions within some of the groups, there seemed to be some uncertainty over communicative events. In general, I thought this idea had spread so far through conferences and blog posts that most trainers understood. Or maybe it is just so ingrained in my training that I can't see training without it.
Let's look quickly at customization. We can customize a course/lesson at several levels.
 |
| A slide I didn't use in Cologne, but probably should have. |
Below that is a skill to perform a certain function. For presentations, that might be to persuade, introduce, report, etc. Most course books have taken lessons to this level and include different sections for different types of meetings. This is nice but we're really counting on the fact that the course book author hit the nail on the head.
My default level of customization is on the specific event, which includes contextual information (but is still largely content neutral). For example, writing emails to request information, making a telephone call to confirm arrangements, etc.
Finally, I will customize to what I call the 'ESP' level which includes content. This is usually accompanied by more corpus analysis.
If you look through the levels, the assessment criteria change considerably from one level to the next. Moving to each level requires that the participants have more uniform needs. My general rule is to customize to the lowest level, and approach the next level outside of the group. If the client isn't willing to pay for the next level, I stop.
Defining performance objectives
This has a huge impact on defining performance objectives. If you are designing a course, only write the can-do statements to the appropriate level. For large groups (hundreds of participants), I typically stop at the second level. For groups which share a job function or field, I can often get to high frequency events.
The difference between a communicative event and an English situation
I am guilty of often using the terms 'situation' and 'event' interchangeably, but they are decidedly different. A situation includes one or more communicative events.
For example, a presentation may include several communicative events.
Slide 1 - Inform management on status of a project
Slide 2 - Report on research
Slide 3 - Compare alternatives
Slide 4 - Propose a solution
This presentation may be accompanied by...
- defending an idea
- asking questions of speculation
- responding to factual questions
- eliciting opinions
- adding additional comments to presented information
- summarize an agreed decision
- delegate tasks
These generally look like a classical list of functions from a course book. The contextual information makes them communicative events. How many people are in the meeting and who are they? How much time do you have? What types of interference (or 'noise') are present? These factors affect communication style, register, etc.
The same is also true for things like emails. In well written emails, each paragraph performs a different function. How you organize those paragraphs and the wording you use depends on the context.
As you can see, we are starting to enter the world of communication skills here.
Does a description of the situation give you the communicative events?
Yes and no. I still use the needs analysis form I mentioned at BESIG Stuttgart (blog post), but it takes some further questioning and analysis to get to the communicative events. I typically do this by asking a series of questions to describe the 'steps' of the situation. I may draw a diagram of the situation on the board and ask about the participants, objectives, etc.
Back to sourcing materials... this is where getting a look at artifacts can be really helpful. Without question, some background in business really helps in 'visualizing' a situation and dissecting it into its various communicative events.
I have found that there is considerable overlap among communicative events. This is true among different fields, job descriptions and channel (email, telephone, meeting, etc.). The interlocutors are generally the same (i.e. the learner communicates with a certain group) and the purpose of the communication is often similar. For example, adding a comment to a pdf report written by a colleague is often identical to adding a verbal comment in a meeting. However, if the report/presentation is by a manager or someone external to the company, the language changes.
Is there a list of communicative events?
Not yet. If there were, it would probably look like a matrix.
We can assume that there are a definite number of functions. We can also assume that there are definite number of contextual combinations. Theoretically then, there is a relatively fixed number of communicative events. It may then be possible to somehow create a database which takes contextual information and matches it with the purpose of communication to spit out the best possible language.
But that is all theory... in my next post we'll look at "Training for the Real World".
Sourcing Materials
This past weekend, I held a workshop with ELTA Rhine on customizing training and materials lights lessons. During and after the session, it was clear that sourcing materials was an issue for trainers looking to focus on relevance. Let's dive a little deeper into the topic of materials and examine what we need, why we need them and where we can find them.
Assumption 1 - There is a difference between "talking about business" and "talking to do business".
This is Evan Frendo's concise and clear statement about not only materials, but also about the tasks we ask our learners to accomplish. It is great for the learners to 'teach us their business', but this falls into the first category and will not accomplish all the training needs. We have to balance both types of activities.
The problem for trainers is that materials "about" business are much easier to find. The internet is full of them. Let's take a simple example.
You are training a group in production and one of your can-do statements is that they can explain the production process. You decide to use a YouTube video about how Lego blocks are made, mine the video for key language and have the participants give talks describing their production process (maybe even on the shop floor). It's likely that this is a useful skill, but it does not fully simulate a meeting to discuss changes to refine the production process. We are a step short of achieving full relevance. Wouldn't it be nice to have an example of the real meeting?
Assumption 2 - Getting the "real thing" is nearly impossible.
We can hypothesize all we want about recording real meetings and presentations. The simple fact is that we will probably never get the approval to do it. Non-disclosure agreements are key part of doing business, but they are only a baseline for trust. There is still a 'need-to-know' level of integration.
The main reason why recording real meetings is a no-go is because the learners are not lab rats. They are trying to do business in these situations. Politics, reputations and personal relationships all come into play in meetings. It is generally best if we don't ask to record them for 'research purposes'.
Assumption 3 - Real meetings are much different than the recorded models in the course book.
Meetings are messy affairs. I'm convinced that meetings are the most difficult skill. Topics appear out of blue, there is so much interference (semantic, cultural, pronunciation, technical, etc.) that its a wonder they work at all. But for the trainer, the most difficult part is that meetings contain highly detailed information exchange. For an outsider, it is very difficult to 'script' a meeting and practice it.
Additionally, meetings can be very boring. There are many books and websites about effective meetings for good reason. Employees are often justified for hating them. Even if I did have a recording, I probably wouldn't play it because everyone would be asleep. Most participants and chairpersons will acknowledge that their meetings could be better, but they probably can't say exactly how they should improve.
Example dialog with a participant:
Me: How could the meeting be better?
Them: Some people are giving too much information about their topic and it is not interesting for the group.
Me: Okay, where is the line? How much information is too much?
Them: Well, they should only talk about what has an impact on the others.
Me: I agree, let's try it... in your area, where is the 'information line'? What level of information is valuable for the others (including the manager), and what is too much?
Them: Hmm... good question. That's difficult to say.
Okay, so what can we do?
1. Gather artifacts. Emails and PowerPoint slides are relatively easy to get. One main constraint is the group setting. If you have learners from different companies and/or departments, the materials cannot usually be used in class verbatim. They typically need to be altered to conceal the information. I will often use emails and slides to create my own 'similar' materials - using the same language, but with different content. Even if you can't get them digitally, just looking at them is helpful.
I call them artifacts because like a researcher, these are any item which reveals something about communication. Artifacts fall into two categories - communication itself, and evidence of communication.
Communication itself:
- Emails
- Presentations (the written communication)
- How-to's
- Forms (e.g. change request forms)
- Reports
- Handbooks
- Contracts and other formal documents
Evidence of communication:
- Meeting minutes and agendas
- Presentations (evidence of the verbal part)
- Descriptions of meeting (like for a communicative event needs analysis)
- Diagrams and charts
- Excel spreadsheets
- Workflows and flow charts
While these artifacts cannot always be used to re-enact the exact situation, they will often get you much closer.
2. Research English in use. I generally use several sources for this.
First, if you haven't read Almut Koester's books on workplace discourse, now is the time. I also recommend Patrick Lencioni's Death by Meeting and Five Dysfunctions of a Team because they are narratives with great dialog from meetings.
Second, I have used transcripts from meetings to identify some key language. If you enter "meeting transcripts" into Google, you will find many transcribed sessions from government meetings, hearings, presentations, etc. I don't use them in class because they are horribly boring, but there are some great phrases. The problem with these is that they are too organized. Real meetings are generally more chaotic. For emails, Evan Frendo has recommended the Enron corpus and it looks promising. Sadly, I haven't had the chance to go through it.
Third, I use my own life. I have meetings, write emails, make telephone calls, etc. I have used my inbox several times in training as the basis for language work. I collect phrases and vocabulary from meetings I have with other trainers, clients, etc (even if the meeting is in German).
A note about Listening: Collins English for Business by Ian Badger. This book made quite a splash a few years ago for its recording of real people. I use it and I like it. Sadly, there are too few examples of dialog.
3. Refine role-plays and simulations.
It is a good idea to ask the participants how the rehearsed situation differs from the real thing. Inevitably, they will give you a list of things you can't really change, such as accent. However, they may also give you ideas for your next role-play. For example, if I get the feedback that some people in the meeting speak too quickly with higher vocabulary, then I might participate in the next meeting and try to fulfill that role.
So, I admit that sourcing materials/resources for customized training is not easy. But I guess that is the nature of the beast. If sourcing materials were easy, it wouldn't be customized training, would it?
One final note - observing real meetings is really the best we can do. I am lucky enough to have a project in which that is possible. But I understand that this project is different. It has strong management and participant support is limited to a specific team with in a department. I have offered to observe meetings in other projects to no avail (after all, you have to get the buy-in from all the participants). If you find the opportunity... take it.
Assumption 1 - There is a difference between "talking about business" and "talking to do business".
This is Evan Frendo's concise and clear statement about not only materials, but also about the tasks we ask our learners to accomplish. It is great for the learners to 'teach us their business', but this falls into the first category and will not accomplish all the training needs. We have to balance both types of activities.
The problem for trainers is that materials "about" business are much easier to find. The internet is full of them. Let's take a simple example.
You are training a group in production and one of your can-do statements is that they can explain the production process. You decide to use a YouTube video about how Lego blocks are made, mine the video for key language and have the participants give talks describing their production process (maybe even on the shop floor). It's likely that this is a useful skill, but it does not fully simulate a meeting to discuss changes to refine the production process. We are a step short of achieving full relevance. Wouldn't it be nice to have an example of the real meeting?
Assumption 2 - Getting the "real thing" is nearly impossible.
We can hypothesize all we want about recording real meetings and presentations. The simple fact is that we will probably never get the approval to do it. Non-disclosure agreements are key part of doing business, but they are only a baseline for trust. There is still a 'need-to-know' level of integration.
The main reason why recording real meetings is a no-go is because the learners are not lab rats. They are trying to do business in these situations. Politics, reputations and personal relationships all come into play in meetings. It is generally best if we don't ask to record them for 'research purposes'.
Assumption 3 - Real meetings are much different than the recorded models in the course book.
Meetings are messy affairs. I'm convinced that meetings are the most difficult skill. Topics appear out of blue, there is so much interference (semantic, cultural, pronunciation, technical, etc.) that its a wonder they work at all. But for the trainer, the most difficult part is that meetings contain highly detailed information exchange. For an outsider, it is very difficult to 'script' a meeting and practice it.
Additionally, meetings can be very boring. There are many books and websites about effective meetings for good reason. Employees are often justified for hating them. Even if I did have a recording, I probably wouldn't play it because everyone would be asleep. Most participants and chairpersons will acknowledge that their meetings could be better, but they probably can't say exactly how they should improve.
Example dialog with a participant:
Me: How could the meeting be better?
Them: Some people are giving too much information about their topic and it is not interesting for the group.
Me: Okay, where is the line? How much information is too much?
Them: Well, they should only talk about what has an impact on the others.
Me: I agree, let's try it... in your area, where is the 'information line'? What level of information is valuable for the others (including the manager), and what is too much?
Them: Hmm... good question. That's difficult to say.
Okay, so what can we do?
1. Gather artifacts. Emails and PowerPoint slides are relatively easy to get. One main constraint is the group setting. If you have learners from different companies and/or departments, the materials cannot usually be used in class verbatim. They typically need to be altered to conceal the information. I will often use emails and slides to create my own 'similar' materials - using the same language, but with different content. Even if you can't get them digitally, just looking at them is helpful.
I call them artifacts because like a researcher, these are any item which reveals something about communication. Artifacts fall into two categories - communication itself, and evidence of communication.
Communication itself:
- Emails
- Presentations (the written communication)
- How-to's
- Forms (e.g. change request forms)
- Reports
- Handbooks
- Contracts and other formal documents
Evidence of communication:
- Meeting minutes and agendas
- Presentations (evidence of the verbal part)
- Descriptions of meeting (like for a communicative event needs analysis)
- Diagrams and charts
- Excel spreadsheets
- Workflows and flow charts
While these artifacts cannot always be used to re-enact the exact situation, they will often get you much closer.
2. Research English in use. I generally use several sources for this.
First, if you haven't read Almut Koester's books on workplace discourse, now is the time. I also recommend Patrick Lencioni's Death by Meeting and Five Dysfunctions of a Team because they are narratives with great dialog from meetings.
Second, I have used transcripts from meetings to identify some key language. If you enter "meeting transcripts" into Google, you will find many transcribed sessions from government meetings, hearings, presentations, etc. I don't use them in class because they are horribly boring, but there are some great phrases. The problem with these is that they are too organized. Real meetings are generally more chaotic. For emails, Evan Frendo has recommended the Enron corpus and it looks promising. Sadly, I haven't had the chance to go through it.
Third, I use my own life. I have meetings, write emails, make telephone calls, etc. I have used my inbox several times in training as the basis for language work. I collect phrases and vocabulary from meetings I have with other trainers, clients, etc (even if the meeting is in German).
A note about Listening: Collins English for Business by Ian Badger. This book made quite a splash a few years ago for its recording of real people. I use it and I like it. Sadly, there are too few examples of dialog.
3. Refine role-plays and simulations.
It is a good idea to ask the participants how the rehearsed situation differs from the real thing. Inevitably, they will give you a list of things you can't really change, such as accent. However, they may also give you ideas for your next role-play. For example, if I get the feedback that some people in the meeting speak too quickly with higher vocabulary, then I might participate in the next meeting and try to fulfill that role.
So, I admit that sourcing materials/resources for customized training is not easy. But I guess that is the nature of the beast. If sourcing materials were easy, it wouldn't be customized training, would it?
One final note - observing real meetings is really the best we can do. I am lucky enough to have a project in which that is possible. But I understand that this project is different. It has strong management and participant support is limited to a specific team with in a department. I have offered to observe meetings in other projects to no avail (after all, you have to get the buy-in from all the participants). If you find the opportunity... take it.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
BE Potpourri - Answers to miscellaneous issues
As I mentioned in the previous post, I have asked the attendees to my workshop at ELTA Rhine to participate in a short survey to help define the issues for the session. Unfortunately, I won't be able to deal with everything in the time, so I've decided to address a few of the issues here.
Responses to the question, "What do you like/dislike about teaching Business English?"
"I don't like the irregular attendance and sometimes the lack of motivation."
"If the company pays for it, participants don´t work hard enough."
We've all been there and I think we can all sympathize with trying to force feed a group of learners who are either not there... or aren't interested. I distinguish between motivation and dedication - motivation being the will, and dedication being the effort. Let's deal with motivation first.
There are many articles and studies on motivation, but I try to keep it simple. Motivation generally followed expected utility - the amount of value they will gain from learning the language. Highly motivated learners generally have a clear picture of how the language will help their jobs, lives, etc. Lower motivated learners cannot usually describe how or why English will help them. This is typically aligned with their goals.
I can help, but I cannot give them motivation. I
Responses to the question, "What do you like/dislike about teaching Business English?"
"I don't like the irregular attendance and sometimes the lack of motivation."
"If the company pays for it, participants don´t work hard enough."
We've all been there and I think we can all sympathize with trying to force feed a group of learners who are either not there... or aren't interested. I distinguish between motivation and dedication - motivation being the will, and dedication being the effort. Let's deal with motivation first.
There are many articles and studies on motivation, but I try to keep it simple. Motivation generally followed expected utility - the amount of value they will gain from learning the language. Highly motivated learners generally have a clear picture of how the language will help their jobs, lives, etc. Lower motivated learners cannot usually describe how or why English will help them. This is typically aligned with their goals.
I can help, but I cannot give them motivation. I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)