DẠY VÀ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ GẮN VỚI CHUYÊN NGÀNH

(1)

DẠY VÀ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ GẮN VỚI CHUYÊN NGÀNH

TRONG BỐI CẢNH HỘI NHẬP QUỐC TẾ: LÍ LUẬN VÀ THỰC TIỄN

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

TEACHING AND LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGES IN ASSOCIATION WITH SUBJECT-MATTER CONTENT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION: THEORY & PRACTICE

(2)

(3)

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO KHOA HỌC QUỐC TẾ

DẠY VÀ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ GẮN VỚI CHUYÊN NGÀNH

TRONG BỐI CẢNH HỘI NHẬP QUỐC TẾ: LÍ LUẬN VÀ THỰC TIỄN

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

TEACHING AND LEARNING FOREIGN LANGUAGES IN ASSOCIATION WITH SUBJECT-MATTER CONTENT

IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION: THEORY & PRACTICE

NHÀ XUẤT BẢN ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

(4)

(5)

 LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAMS: CURRENT PROMISING MODELS IN NORTH AMERICA Sandra Liliana Pucci ... 11

 EVALUATING ENGLISH FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES COURSES USING NEEDS ANALYSIS - A CASE STUDY AT FELTE, ULIS

Nguyễn Lan Anh... 28

 MỘT SỐ VẤN ĐỀ LÍ LUẬN, THỰC TIỄN

VỀ ĐÀO TẠO DẠY CHUYÊN NGÀNH BẰNG NGOẠI NGỮ Ở ĐẠI HỌC

Trần Đình Bình ... 41

 DẠY VÀ HỌC CHUYÊN NGÀNH BẰNG TIẾNG NHẬT

CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ BA - KHOA NGÔN NGỮ & VĂN HÓA NHẬT BẢN

Thân Thị Mỹ Bình, Đỗ Bích Ngọc ... 50

 VẤN ĐỀ LỖI VÀ CHỮA LỖI TRONG GIỜ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

DỰA TRÊN LÝ THUYẾT GIÁO HỌC PHÁP TIẾNG ĐỨC VÀ ĐÁNH GIÁ MỨC ĐỘ YÊU THÍCH CỦA CÁC PHƯƠNG PHÁP CHỮA LỖI THÔNG QUA KHẢO SÁT NGƯỜI HỌC

Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Diệp ... 61

 TEACHING DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE THROUGH ENGLISH AS A MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION Phạm Hữu Đức ... 76

 LEARNING TO SEE IN COMPLEX DOMAINS: UNDERSTANDING AND HABITS FOR PRODUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH VISUAL TEXTS

Nguyễn Thanh Hà ... 90

 ENGLISH FOR TEACHING: THE CASES OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS IN VIETNAM Vũ Hải Hà... 97

 USING DICTAGLOSS AS CLIL PRACTICE IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

Lê Thanh Hà ... 108

 VIETNAMESE HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES, PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCE IN CLIL

Trần Thị Thu Hiền ... 120

(6)

6

KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO KHOA HỌC QUỐC TẾ DẠY VÀ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ GẮN VỚI CHUYÊN NGÀNH TRONG BỐI CẢNH HỘI NHẬP QUỐC TẾ: LÍ LUẬN VÀ THỰC TIỄN

 TEACHING AND LEARNING FRENCH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (FFL)

AND FRENCH FOR MEDICAL PURPOSE (FMP) IN ASSOCIATION WITH SUBJECT-MATTER CONTENT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION: THEORIES AND PRACTICE AT HAI PHONG UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND PHARMACY (VIETNAM)

Nguyễn Thị Hiền, Cao Thị Phương Dung,

Trịnh Thị Thu Trang, Trần Thị Hà Giang ... 127

 THE DISCUSSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Hoàng Thị Thanh Huyền ... 138

 APPLICATION OF PROJECT-BASED LEARNING IN TEACHING COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN ENGLISH TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Phan Thị Ngọc Lệ ... 150

 CONTENT - BASED INSTRUCTION IN TEACHING TOURISM

Nguyễn Thị Thanh Nga ...160

 NHẬN BIẾT NHỮNG BIẾN CHUYỂN “TRỪU TƯỢNG”

ĐỂ TĂNG ĐỘNG LỰC DẠY VÀ HỌC TIẾNG ANH CHUYÊN NGÀNH

Nguyễn Thị Hằng Nga ... 169

 INCORPORATING FLIPPED CLASSROOM MODEL AND BRAIN-BASED TEACHING IN AN ESP CLASS: A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Nguyễn Quang Nhật, Nguyễn Ngọc Phương Dung, Kean Wah Lee ... 180

 ENGLISH MEDIUM INSTRUCTION AND TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN VIETNAM HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Lê Thị Thùy Nhung ... 202

 USING MINDMAP IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO STUDENTS MAJORING IN TOURISM

Võ Tú Phương ... 213

 ESL TEXTBOOK EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION:

A CLOSER LOOK AT “FACE2FACE” (UPPER-INTERMEDIATE LEVEL)

Đỗ Như Quỳnh, Dương Thị Tâm ... 234

 THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASIS OF CONTENT

AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING - CLIL IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Nguyễn Thanh Tâm ... 250

 TEACHING CULTURE-RELATED COURSES: TEACHERS’ SHARING ON CONTENT AND APPROACH

Đỗ Thị Mai Thanh, Phan Thị Vân Quyên ... 269

(7)

 CHƯƠNG TRÌNH TIẾNG ANH BIÊN PHÒNG 1 Lại Thị Phương Thảo, Lê Thị Chinh, Phạm Thu Hà

Vũ Phương Lan, Nguyễn Đặng Nguyệt Hương, Dương Hồng Anh ... 277

 MULTIMODAL INSTRUCTION IN INITIAL TEACHER TRAINING: PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES Trần Thị Hiếu Thủy... 290

 LANGUAGE USED IN BUSINESS RESPONSE LETTERS IN TERMS OF SPEECH ACTS AND POLITENESS STRATEGIES

Nguyễn Thị Minh Trang ... 303

 DẠY VÀ HỌC TIẾNG ANH CHUYÊN NGÀNH QUẢN TRỊ VĂN PHÒNG Ở TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC TRONG THỜI KÌ 3.0 VÀ NHỮNG ĐỀ XUẤT

Trần Thị Kim Tuyến ... 317

(8)

(9)

The international conference “Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in Association with Subject-Matter Content in the Context of International Integration:

Theory & Practice” was successfully organized at the University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS) under Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU) on the 17^th November, 2018 with numerous contributions from various researchers and practitioners around the world and along the country. The conference also marked the 60^th anniversary of the foundation of the Faculty of English, the predecessor of 3 current faculties at ULIS, namely the Faculty of English, the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, and the Faculty of Linguistics and Culture of English-Speaking Countries.

As is known, teaching/learning foreign languages for specific purposes (FLSP) emerged several decades ago, yet what FLSP really means, what its content should be like, how it should be conducted, and, most importantly, who enjoys the best position to teach it – the foreign language teachers who might be blamed for insufficient knowledge of the subject matter or the subject-matter teachers whose foreign language proficiency might be questionable, or who might not be familiar with language teaching methods, what is more important – language or subject-matter content, etc., remain key questions for on-going debates, particularly in countries like Vietnam. Consequently, practices vary from one educational or training institution to another, resulting in different degrees of effectiveness of FLSP courses. In response to problems in FLSP identified by numerous researchers, other approaches have appeared, including, inter alia, CBI (content-based instruction), CLIL (content and language integrated learning), EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction), JMI (Japanese as a Medium of Instruction), or FMI (French as a Medium of Instruction). This conference was thus organized as a forum to discuss these issues and approaches. Due to the variety of interpretations of the concept FLSP itself, and fascinating approaches mentioned above, we intentionally chose Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in Association with Subject-Matter Content as the key words for the theme of this conference.

The conference enjoyed enormous responses, yet the constraints of the proceedings merely allow for 25 papers to be printed out. We hereby extend our heartfelt apologies to those whose contributions do not appear in print, but surely what all the authors presented at the conference was valuable, as vigorous discussions that followed informative and thought-provoking presentations throughout the conference demonstrated. Participants in

(10)

10

the conference, and readers of the proceedings, found, and will find useful facts, insights, experiences and good practices concerning the vast field of foreign language teaching in association with subject-matter content in North America, Vietnam and elsewhere in the world, which is a true mosaic of understanding and practices.

With these in mind, we hereby are proud to present to you the proceedings of the conference, and hope that they will be well received and enjoyed.

With highest regards and sincerest thanks!

THE CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS

(11)

CURRENT PROMISING MODELS IN NORTH AMERICA

Sandra Liliana Pucci¹

Abstract: Second language learning is a complex process, best begun at an early age with sustained development throughout the lifespan. Deep knowledge of an additional language can provide numerous personal and professional advantages. Yet in the current fiscal and political climate, at least in the United States, world language programs are often among the first to be cut. This paper will examine various second/world language education programs in the United States and their potential for forming multi/bilingual individuals and supporting communities. Models which serve both native speakers of English, as well as linguistic minority populations will be reviewed. Among models to be discussed are world language immersion programs, transitional and developmental bilingual education programs, dual immersion, and other alternative models. I will argue that the traditional “subject matter”

teaching of a world language does not usually lead students to advanced proficiency in the target language, and that a “natural approach” to second language acquisition, one in which students are immersed in meaningful, authentic, goal-oriented communication is the key to achieving a high level of proficiency. Implications for the Vietnam context will be discussed.

Keywords: bilingualism, second language acquisition, instructional programs.

1. INTRODUCTION

We begin with a with what seems like a paradox: in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, native English speakers rarely become competent in a second language (Baker and Wright, 2017). Yet these same countries have a large reserve of linguistic resources. In the United States alone, there are over 350 different languages spoken (American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2015). Furthermore, the United States is the fifth largest Spanish speaking country in the world, largely due to heritage and immigrant language communities in diaspora (Macías, 2014). The current number of Spanish speakers in the country is over 41 million, according to the most recent census (US census, 2017). Yet relatively few native English speakers ever achieve proficiency in Spanish (García, 2014). This paper will be organized in the following manner. First, I will discuss some background issues pertaining to bilingualism and second language learning.

Next, I will discuss the advantages of bilingualism, both cognitive and social. I will then

1 University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

(12)

12

focus my attention on different instructional programs and their target audiences. Finally, I will draw some conclusions as to what constitutes promising models and make some suggestions for our way forward.

2. BACKGROUND

Second language (L2) learning in a complex process. Recent research (Granena and Long, 2012) has identified what may be ‘sensitive periods’ (SP) for the acquisition of L2 phonology, morphosyntax, and lexis/collocation. Their study tested learner groups defined by age of onset (AO) finding that the SP closed first for phonology, with offset beginning at about age six and closing around age twelve. The SP for lexis/collocation closed between ages six and twelve, and finally, the data for the acquisition of morphosyntax shows closure in learners’ mid-teens, beginning at around age six. The authors are careful to point out, however, that the acquisition of lexis/collocation as well as morphosyntax continues throughout the life-span, “but with explicit learning playing an increasingly important role, as the human capacity for implicit learning, especially for implicit item learning, gradually declines with age” (p. 336). However, there is evidence that older learners may indeed be able to achieve native-like competence in an L2 (Birdsong and Molis, 2001), that there is in effect, no clear “breaking point”. This would indicate that although learners of all ages can be successful, L2 learning is best begun at an early age, and sustained throughout the lifespan.

Fortunately, countries such as Canada and the United States have ample linguistic resources which could be leveraged to everyone’s advantage. And these resources are increasing. American Fact Finder (AFF) reported in 2017 (US Census, 2017) that according to the most recent census, almost half the residents of the five largest cities in the US spoke a language other than English at home, and this is true for one of five people across the nation. More than sixty-six million people report speaking a language other than English at home. Although the census reports as many as 350 languages spoken in the US, languages with more than a million speakers in 2017 were Spanish (41 million);

Chinese (3.5 million); Tagalog (1.7 million); Vietnamese (1.5 million); Arabic (1.2 million);

French (1.2 million); and Korean (1.1 million).

So why do so few native speakers of English in the United States achieve an advanced level of language proficiency in a second language? And why is it challenging for heritage speakers and L2 speakers of English to maintain their heritage/mother tongues? Are they not informed as to the advantages of bilingualism? Or are other factors at play? To address these questions, I will first discuss some of the advantages of bilingualism, then move onto specific educational programs in an attempt to explain this phenomenon.

(13)

2.1. The advantages of bilingualism

The notion that bilinguals were of inferior intelligence (Saer, 1923, 1924) ended in the 60s with Peal and Lambert’s (1962) seminal study. Since then, the field has moved forward and produced volumes of research examining the effects of bilingualism on cognition.

Bialystock’s 2017 article presents a thorough review of research into these effects. She cites, and has conducted, research which demonstrates that bilinguals are better than monolinguals at metalinguistic tasks, and at certain non-linguistic tasks, particularly those which require a high level of concentration. It appears that bilinguals are more skilled at “inhibitory control”, i.e. blocking out non-essential information when processing tasks. Overall, she summarizes the research outcomes with children as demonstrating that “executive functioning is more precocious in bilingual children than in their monolingual counterparts” (p. 239). In other words, bilinguals outperform monolinguals on experimental tasks when the monitoring demands are high. Only a few studies with young adults in their twenties found similar levels in both bilinguals and monolinguals, perhaps due to executive functioning being at “ceiling level” at this age, or the lack of individual variation in the samples (p.241). However, when we examine the research with older adults, the data once again shows bilinguals outperforming their monolingual peers. One of the most interesting bodies of research, however, shows that the onset of dementia seems to be delayed in bilinguals. Several studies, including one which examined the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in 93 countries (Klein, Christie, and Parkvall, 2016) found a decline in incidence of Alzheimer’s disease with an increase in multilingualism, even after controlling for factors such as wealth and formal education. Other researchers have also come to similar conclusions, i.e. that greater bilingualism is associated with lower incidence and later onset of the disease, due to the “cognitive reserve” that bilingualism affords (Schweizer, Ware, Fischer, Craik, and Bialystock, 2012).

There are also many advantages of bilingualism in schooling. Research has found that language learning supports academic achievement (Lindholm-Leary, 2001, 2011).

Thomas and Collier (1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2012) have conducted a notable amount of research examining academic growth trajectories of English Language Learners (ELLs) in various educational programs and found that overall students demonstrated better academic performance with continued development of their home language while learning English. Similarly, language majority students in foreign language immersion programs and students in two-way immersion settings (see subsequent sections) tend to have superior academic achievement than their monolingually programmed counterparts (Bae, 2007, Lindholm-Leary, 2011).

Tochon (2009) discusses additional educational advantages. Citing Trimnell (2005), he comments on how language learning can increase global understanding through the development of intercultural sensitivity in order to promote peace, or even for instrumental goals. Bilingualism can indeed increase one’s employment potential in various sectors such

(14)

14

as government agencies, education, scientific research, the travel industry and entertainment (Camenson, 2001, DeGalan, 2000). Language mastery can result in significant cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1991) as well as a type of hypercollective good (Grin, 2006).

Finally, the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) explores the connections between multilingualism and the development of global competence. They state that “the ability to communicate with respect and cultural understanding in more than one language is an essential element of global competence… developed and demonstrated by investigating the world, recognizing and weighing perspectives, acquiring and applying disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge, communicating ideas, and taking action”

(p. 1). They further discuss the need for global competence, citing issues pertaining to the economy, diplomacy, problem-solving, the needs of diverse communities, as well as personal growth and development.

3. BILINGUAL (AND MONOLINGUAL) EDUCATION PROGRAMS

I use the term “bilingual education” in the broad sense, as an umbrella term for all language education programs. In the following sections I will discuss target populations, types of programs promoting strong bilingualism and biliteracy (or not), and the societal and educational aims of specific programs.

In the United States, we tend to conceptualize two main target populations: Those who are native speakers of English, and those who are speakers of a minority language, and perhaps learners of English. A third population I will consider are “heritage speakers”

(Benmamoun, Montrul, and Polinsky, 2013). These speakers are often born in the United States, growing up speaking a language other than English at home and in their immediate communities. I will use the “typology of bilingual education” framework developed by Colin Baker and Wayne Wright (Baker, 2006, Baker & Wright, 2017), to classify programs according to their target populations, goals, and ability to foster strong bilingualism and biliteracy. Tables 1 and 2 are adapted from Baker and Wright, 2017.

Table 1: A typology of bilingual education programs (adapted from Baker & Wright, 2017) MONOLINGUAL FORMS OF EDUCATION FOR BILINGUALS

Type of Program Typical type

of child Language of the

classroom Societal and

educational aim Aim in language outcome Mainstreaming/

submersion, structured immersion

Language

minority Majority language Assimilation/

subtractive Monolingualism Mainstreaming/

submersion, withdrawal, ESL, Sheltered English

Language

minority Majority language with “pull out L2

lessons

Assimilation/

subtractive Monolingualism

(15)

WEAK FORMS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR BILINGUALS Type of program Typical type

classroom Societal and

educational aim Aim in language outcome Transitional Language

minority Moves from minority

to majority language Assimilation/

subtractive Relative monolingualism Mainstream with foreign

language teaching Language

majority Majority language

with L2/FL lessons Limited

enrichment Limited bilingualism

I will first discuss programs defined as monolingual or weak. Let’s being with the typical instructional option for speakers of the majority language, in this case English. Most students of a world language are enrolled in traditional programs which are limited in scope.

World language classes form part of the mainstream education school schedule of two to three times a week, with lessons lasting from 30-50 minutes. Language is the object, rather than the medium of instruction (Tochon, 2009). Students learn about the language, and then practice it. This is not to minimize the notable improvements in language teaching approaches and methodologies over the last fifty years (Harmer, 2015). Indeed, approaches have evolved from simple grammar translation methods, to behaviorist models, to the communicative, thematic, and task-based methodologies of today (Long, 2015). However, I would assert that it is the program design itself, offering limited exposure to the language, which cannot promote a deeper level of acquisition, no matter how sound the teaching methodology. Baker and Wright (2017) have defined it as a “drip feeding” method which

“makes the language a subject in the curriculum similar to science or mathematics” (p. 208).

This is very different from delivering grade-level curriculum through the medium of the language, as I will discuss in the subsequent sections.

To add to these limitations, the opportunity to study a world language is not afforded to all. The most recent survey of world language enrollments, kindergarten (age 5) through high school, conducted by the American Councils Research Center (2017), in collaboration with the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), concluded:

“As reported by states, foreign language enrollments account for approximately 20%

of the total school age population. A total of 11 states have foreign language graduation requirements; 16 states do not have foreign language graduation requirements; and 24 states have graduation requirements that may be fulfilled by a number of subjects-one of which is foreign languages. In addition to graduation requirements, other aspects of state level education policy-as well as a portion of English language learners and dual language immersion program enrollments-impact the overall number of language learners at the state level (p.6)”.

With only 20% of school age children participating in language programs, we gain a clearer perspective on the magnitude of the problem.

(16)

16

3.1. The education of language minority students

Language minority students, on the other hand, have a different challenge. Many of them are English language learners who must acquire English as well as master academic grade-level content while they are in school. Although there is a long history of advocating for this population, including important court cases guaranteeing accommodations and equal access (Crawford, 2004), many of these students are still enrolled in either monolingual or weak bilingual educational programs. The monolingual contexts are primarily “sink or swim” type programs, where the learner is mainly left to her own devices. Monolingual programs include “ESL pull out”, structured immersion, and sheltered English programs.

There is no instructional use of the native language, and little if any mother tongue support in the way of educational assistants. Students often do not have enough English proficiency to gain equal access to their grade level curriculum (Ovando and Combs, 2017). There is an extensive research base going back to the 1970s demonstrating that these programs are ineffective both in terms of academic achievement and English language acquisition (August and Hakuta, 1997, Greene, 1998, McField and McField, 2014, Ramirez, 1992, Rolstad et al, 2005; For a thorough discussion of seminal research see Crawford, 2004, and for more recent research see Baker & Wright, 2017). Furthermore, they are considered linguistically and culturally “subtractive” as their goals are monolingualism and assimilation.

It is useful, at this point, to review some of the basic components of bilingual education, agreed upon in the field long ago. According to Krashen (1996), the following elements are essential:

• Subject matter teaching done in the L1, without translation. This builds background knowledge and makes English more comprehensible. Methods which use translation are not effective-children tune out the non-dominant language, and teachers do not have to make the input comprehensible;

• Literacy development in L1, which transfers to L2;

• Comprehensible input in English, provided through ESL and sheltered subject matter;

• Continued development of the L1.

Transitional bilingual programs work as follows: ELL students are instructed through the medium of the mother tongue and English. When their English reaches a conversational level, and they are reading at an acceptable level in the mother tongue, they are “transitioned”

into English. This is normally around second grade, approximately at age 7. At that point the majority of instruction is delivered through the L2, with little if any mother tongue support (Crawford, 2004). These programs are considered weak in terms of their capacity to foster bilingualism and biliteracy, as their goals are English and assimilation. The mother tongue is used as a vehicle for English acquisition, and is given no value unto itself. The L1 is not further developed, which is considered an essential component for good bilingual education.

Many of the comprehensive studies cited above also find that these programs do not have strong outcomes in terms of academic achievement or bilingualism. Nevertheless, transitional

(17)

bilingual programs have been found to reduce the achievement gap in reading better than monolingual programs (Thomas and Collier, 2002, Zitlali-Morales and Aldana, 2010).

3.2. Attitudinal barriers

In sum, there is a wealth of research evidence pointing to poor outcomes for the programs discussed above. Let’s turn our attention to possible non-empirical reasons for their continuous practice. I would suggest that attitudinal barriers, mistaken beliefs, anti-immigrant sentiment, and possibly racial animus are at the heart of the problem, and impede the development of multilingualism for both language majority and minority students. In several publications, Crawford has documented the history of language discrimination and the US “English Only”

movement (Crawford, 1992a, 1992b, 2000, 2004, and more). He documents the fear of cultural and linguistic diversity from an educational and historical perspective. Lessow-Hurley (2012) also describes facets of language resistance. She identifies two main phenomena:

Language parochialism and language elitism. Language parochialism is the attitude that multilingualism is unnecessary or even harmful (p. 142). Language elitism bestows prestige upon an L1 speaker of English who masters an L2, although that same prestige is generally not conferred upon speakers of minority or heritage languages. As Wright and Baker (2017) summarize “underneath ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ forms of bilingual education lie different views about language communities, ethnic minorities, and language itself. When language is viewed as a problem, there is often a call for assimilation and integration. Such a view most often leads to weak forms of bilingual education with a focus on moving students to mainstream instruction in the dominant language as soon as possible” p. 399. Furthermore, in the current political context, in which even the President of the United States espouses monolingual, anti- immigrant viewpoints, there is even more work to be done (The Hollywood Reporter, 2015).

4. STRONG PROGRAMS FOR BILINGUALISM AND BILITERACY

We will now turn our attention to programs with a record of fostering bilingualism and biliteracy. Table 2 summarizes these programs.

Table 2: A typology of bilingual education programs (Adapted from Baker & Wright, 2017) STRONG FORMS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION FOR BILINGUALISM AND BILITERACY

Type of program Typical type

classroom Societal and educational aim

Aim in language

outcome Foreign (World)

Language Immersion Language

majority Bilingual with initial

emphasis on L2 Pluralism and

enrichment, additive Bilingualism and biliteracy Developmental/

heritage language Language

minority Bilingual with

emphasis on L1 Maintenance, pluralism, and enrichment, additive

Bilingualism and biliteracy Two way/dual

language Mixed language minority and

majority

Minority and

majority Maintenance, pluralism, and enrichment, additive

Bilingualism and biliteracy

(18)

18

4.1. Foreign language immersion programs

Foreign language immersion programs began in Canada in the 1960s. Since then immersion education has spread rapidly, with over 392,000 English-speaking Canadian children enrolled in variants of these programs (Statistics Canada, 2013, 2015, cited in Baker and Wright, 2017). In the United States a similar phenomenon has emerged, with programs in languages such as Spanish, French, German, Korean, Hmong, Russian, Italian, Arabic, and Mandarin. The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) lists 448 programs in thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia who teach all or part of their curricula through the medium of a second language (see http://www.cal.org/resource- center/databases-directories). These programs are targeted at students who are native speakers of the majority language, in this case English, with little to no experience with the target language.

Immersion programs have been built upon several precepts. First, it is assumed that students in these programs eventually develop advanced proficiency in the target language, over time. Second, a “natural approach” to second language acquisition, i.e., one in which students are immersed in meaningful, authentic, relevant communication is the key to achieving a high level of proficiency (Krashen and Terrell, 1988). Curriculum is delivered through the medium of the target language. It is believed that learning a second language in immersion settings becomes “incidental and subconscious, similar to the way a first language is acquired” (Baker, p. 247). Other important goals include grade level appropriate academic achievement, and appreciation of the language and culture of a diverse group.

Contrary to “submersion” programs, monolingual programs in which ELLs are not given access to their native language, foreign language immersion is an additive, enrichment program which does not prohibit using or harm the development of the native language. Unlike language minority students, language majority students are not in danger of losing their language or culture. Furthermore, all teachers are bilingual, and though they use the target language for the majority of instruction, they understand and are competent speakers of the children’s L1. Teachers also receive extensive training in order to equip themselves with the methods and techniques of delivering comprehensible content through an L2.

How effective are these programs? Many experts feel that immersion programs are the most promising models for developing advanced speakers of a world language (Fortune and Tedick, 2008, Tedick, Christian, and Fortune, 2011). But obviously, they are not without their challenges. There are many conversations regarding the merits of different models (early full immersion vs. its variants), as well as how much training immersion teachers should receive. Another conversation has to do with learner accuracy. Research into

(19)

immersion learning has shown that students’ grammaticaland sociolinguistic competence is weaker than their discourse and strategic competence (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). Other researchers have confirmed that the grammatical accuracy of immersion learners suffers from “persistent shortcomings” (Harley et al, 1990, Lyster and Mori, 2008).

To ameliorate these shortcomings, Lyster and Mori (2006, 2008) have proposed what they term “instructional counterbalance.” They suggest that immersion classrooms inject, when appropriate, a “focus on form” into their predominantly communicative- based pedagogy. They review a variety of classroom techniques aimed at “triggering interlanguage restructuring” (p.147). At this point in time, immersion education has evolved into a vibrant field of research, with a significant amount of activity.

4.2. Developmental/heritage language programs

Developmental programs are those serving language minority students, which go beyond the previously mentioned transitional model. There is great variety within this classification, but the goal of such programs is to maintain and/or further develop the native language, expanding speakers’ competence and academic registers. For example, in many parts of the United States, bilingual education is not offered beyond elementary school (Zitlali-Morales and Aldana, 2010). Where you find innovative developmental/

heritage schools you typically find engaged language minority communities who have advocated for the establishment of such a school (Pucci and Cramer, 2011, Pucci, 2018).

Curriculum in many of these schools aims to be truly bilingual and bicultural, with all school personnel contributing to the linguistic and cultural mission of the school. These schools differ from two-way or dual immersion schools, as they cater to a specific language community, and as such have a school population heavily weighted in that direction. That are not, and do not pretend to be “integrated schools”.

4.3. Two-Way Immersion Programs

Two-Way Immersion (TWI) schools, sometimes called Dual Language, have language minority and language majority students in the same program. TWI has its origins in Dade County, Florida with a program developed by the Cuban community in the early 60s (Freeman and Freeman, 2018, Garcia and Otheguy, 1988). The overall goal is for both groups to learn each other’s languages and cultures. They are particular in that beyond the goals of language acquisition, they create a culture which particularly values the language and culture of the language minority student (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). TWI programs have rapidly expanded over the last several decades (for an overview of their development in individual states, see Freeman and Freeman, 2018). The Association of Two Way and Dual Language Education (ATDLE) has estimated the total number of programs in the United States to be over 2,000 (https://atdle.org/).

(20)

20

Medina (2017) lists the pillars (or goals) of two-way programs as:

First, bilingualism and biliteracy, mastery of speaking listening, reading and writing, gained through content instruction throughout the grades. Second, high academic achievement in both languages and all subject matter, and finally, sociocultural competence and an ability to understand other cultures.

Although there are a variety of program configurations, the primary characteristics of two-way programs are as follows (Baker and Wright, 2017, Lindholm-Leary, 2001). First of all, the program model requires a balanced population: English speaking (majority language) students and an equivalent number of native speakers of the target language.

The numbers need to be balanced in order to promote equity and foster interaction among students. Another tenant consists of the separation of languages for instruction. Although code-switching or translanguaging are natural phenomena in bilingual communities, in terms of instructional practice, separation appears to be preferred (Lindholm-Leary, 2001). However, these time blocks of monolingual language instruction must also be made comprehensible and adjusted to the learners’ language levels, as well as be challenging, interesting, and culturally relevant. This is a different issue from language allocation within individual programs, which may differ according to model. Some programs begin with a 90/10 ratio in favor of the target language, with a gradual move towards 50/50, while others implement 50/50 from the beginning. The point is that English not be dominant, as this would be to the detriment of both populations L1 and L2 speakers. Similarly, the staff need to be overwhelmingly bilingual, and the school culture and environment consciously and unapologetically so.

There are several things which differentiate TWI from other programs. First, the populations. This is the only bilingual program which integrates both majority and minority language students, who learn from each other. Second, there is a conscious aim to promote cultural sensitivity and an inclusive community. As Baker and Wright explain “Such schools produce children, who in terms of inter-groups relations, are likely to be more tolerant, respectful, sensitive and equalized in status. Genuine cross- cultural friendships may develop, and issues of stereotyping and discrimination may be diminished” (p. 217).

TWI schools typically emerge in communities with language minority populations.

They are often the result of grassroots collaboration between communities and school districts. In the US, it is not surprising to find many Spanish-English programs, but there are also several other languages represented, such as Arabic, Korean, Mandarin, Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese) and German. In Westminster, California, a community housing significant populations of both Latinos and Vietnamese, the school district is home to two TWI programs, one in Spanish, and another in Vietnamese. Both programs have been able to count on local support and are thriving (García, 2018).

(21)

In Garden Grove, not far from Westminster, an additional TWI program in Vietnamese was launched in the Fall of 2017, and another district in San Jose, California is in the planning stages for a Vietnamese TWI program.

The research on outcomes of these programs is extremely positive. In a short but comprehensive article, Collier and Thomas (2004) examined the academic trajectories of ELL students over 18 years in Houston, Texas. Their results indicate a clear advantage for students who participated in TWI. TWI schools also reported more professional satisfaction and commitment among teachers and administrators. Additionally, several other studies show that students enrolled in TWI achieve at or beyond their non-immersion peers (Lindholm-Leary and Borsato, 2006, Lindholm-Leary and Howard, 2008, Lindholm- Leary and Genesee, 2010, Lindholm-Leary and Genesee, 2014).

A significant longitudinal study, the first randomized study of dual immersion that I am aware of on a district-wide scale, which tracked students through middle school, was conducted in Portland, Oregon by RAND, and the American Councils for Education and Portland Public Schools (2015), with a large sample (n = 27,741). The following outcomes are reported:

1. Portland Public Schools (PPS) students randomly assigned to dual-language immersion programs outperformed their peers on state reading tests by 13 percent of a standard deviation in grade 5 and by 22 percent of a standard deviation in grade 8.

2. Immersion-assigned students did not show statistically significant benefits or deficits in terms of mathematics or science performance.

3. There were no clear differences in the effects of dual-language immersion by students’ native language.

4. English learners assigned to dual-language immersion were more likely than their peers to be classified as English proficient by grade 6. This effect was mostly attributed to English learner students whose native language matched the classroom partner language. (p.3)

Data from this study show a direct correlation between TWI and academic achievement. To summarize, TWI is proliferating rapidly. Although there are significant positive research findings, continued investigation into specific language programs and outcomes is warranted in order to increase our knowledge. In any case, the current research base, as well as “basic research” in bilingual education and second language acquisition, which supports the notion that ELLs’ increased development of the L1 benefits the L2, both academically and cognitively, lends substantial support to these programs.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Research over the last several decades has demonstrated positive outcomes for what I have termed “strong” programs for bilingualism and biliteracy. Although I have

(22)

22

concentrated on North American contexts, these findings have implications for other areas of the world. Furthermore, it is not only in North America that these programs, or variations of them exist. According to Baker and Wright, 2017, Foreign Language Immersion schools are present in Catalonia, the Basque country, Ireland, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and more (p. 233). The international research base is also robust (see Johnstone, 2002, for a review). Although I know of no TWI programs similar to the US context outside of North America, many international contexts would easily lend themselves to this type of school.

It is worth considering implications for L2 learning in Vietnam, particularly for English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) at the universities. EMI is the use of the English language as a medium of instruction to teach academic subjects in contexts where the L1 of the population is a language other than English (Dearden, 2014). While the implementation of EMI and the policies and politics surrounding it are far beyond the scope of this paper, a few insights into language proficiency issues should be addressed.

A study conducted by Do Minh Hung and Le Thi Diem Lan (2017) examined the challenges facing content lecturers in teaching in EMI classrooms. The study collected data from 28 content lecturers in EMI programs at a public university in Vietnam.

Although the results touch upon a number of issues, the one which clearly stood out as most relevant to this paper, is the issue of adequate language proficiency, on both the part of the lecturers and the students they serve. Responses indicated not only low proficiency, but that this lack of proficiency created additional instructional and learning burdens for all parties. The lecturers live this in terms of preparation and curriculum, and as far as the students are concerned, their understandings of their subject matters are greatly affected.

Indeed, at our ULIS conference in November, we had a plenary session detailing current methods in EMI, as well as several other talks regarding these programs. With all due respect, it does not seem that more preparation, more strategies, note-taking techniques, listening rubrics, observations, materials and so forth can make up for the fundamental problem of insufficient language proficiency. Hung and Lan make several excellent suggestions, mostly pertaining to the continued development of the lecturers’

English, and I take their points. But what if we had started to develop these language abilities far in advance?

To bring this paper full circle, it would seem that a strong, additive model of L2 education implemented in the schools from an early age would be a good point of departure. Designing sound foreign language immersion models, either full or partial, while developing academic literacy in Vietnamese, would go far in preparing students with the language tools and academic register in English they may need to be successful in an EMI setting, or study abroad.

(23)

Let us recall that L2 learning is best begun at an early age and sustained throughout the lifespan. Research-based programs implemented with an unwavering commitment to the first language and culture, including the training of non-native instructors of English, in conjunction with a commitment to empowerment, would take the L2 learning experience to a new place. Furthermore, these programs need to be widely dispersed and made available to all citizens, rather than manifesting themselves as “elite options”.

WORKS CITED

1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2014). Reaching global competence. New York: ACTFL.

2. American Council for International Education (2017). The national foreign language enrollment survey report. New York: ACIE.

3. Baker, C., and Wright, W. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.

Sixth edition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

4. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. and M. Polinsky (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers:

Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, Vol. 39 No. (3-4), pp. 129-181.

5. Birdsong, D. and Molis, N. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second- language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language. 44, pp. 235-249.

6. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. New York: Routledge.

7. Camenson, B. (2001). Careers in foreign languages. New York: McGraw-Hill.

8. Center for Applied Linguistics. (2019). Data bases and directories. Retrieved from: http://

www.cal.org/resource-center/databases-directories

9. Collier, V., and Thomas, W. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 2, No.1, pp. 2-10

10. Crawford, J. (1992a). Language loyalties: A source book on the official English controversy.

Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.

11. Crawford, J. (1992b). Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of English only. New York: Addison-Wesley.

12. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety.

Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

13. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Fifth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.

14. Cummins, J. (2014). Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion programs. Journal of immersion and content-based language education. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 3-22.

(24)

24

KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO KHOA HỌC QUỐC TẾ DẠY VÀ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ GẮN VỚI CHUYÊN NGÀNH TRONG BỐI CẢNH HỘI NHẬP QUỐC TẾ: LÍ LUẬN VÀ THỰC TIỄN 15. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction–a growing global phenomenon.

London: British Council.

16. DeGalan, J. (2000). Great jobs for foreign language majors. Second edition. New York:

McGraw Hill.

17. Freeman, Y., Freeman, D. and Mercuri, S. (2018). Dual language essentials for teachers and administrators. Second edition. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.

18. Fortune, T.W. and Tedick, D.J. (2008.) Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (Vol. 66). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

19. García, A. (2018). Educating California’s English Learners: Westminster brings students’

home languages into the mainstream. New America, retrieved at: https://na-production.

s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Westminster-SD.pdf

20. García, O. (2014). U.S. Spanish and education: Global and local intersections. Review of Research in Education, 38, 58–80.

21. García, O. and Otheguy, R. (1988). The language situation of Cuban Americans. In S. McKay and S. C. Wong (eds) Language diversity: Problem or resource (pp. 166–192). New York, NY: Newbury House.

22. Greene, J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Thomas Rivera Policy Institute.

23. Grin, F. (2006). Economic considerations in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.). An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

24. Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. Fifth edition. New York:

Pearson-Longman.

25. Hung, D. H., and Lan, L D. (2017). Content lecturers’ challenges in an EMI classroom.

European Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

26. Johnstone, R. (2002). Immersion in a second or additional language at school: A review of the international research. Scottish CILT (Center for Information on Language Teaching).

27. Klein, D., Christie, J., and Parkvall, M. (2016). Does multilingualism affect the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease? A worldwide analysis by country. SSM – Population Health, 2, 463-467.

28. Krashen, S., and Terrell, T. (1988). The natural approach. Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Prentice Hall.

29. Lessow-Hurley, J. (2012). The foundations of dual language instruction. New York: Pearson Education.

30. Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

31. Lindholm-Leary, K.J. and Genesee, F. (2010). Alternative educational programs for English learners. In California State Department of Education (ed.) Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.

(25)

32. Lindholm-Leary, K.J. and Genesee, F. (2014) Student outcomes in one-way, two-way, and indigenous language immersion education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(2), 165–180. doi:10.1075/jicb.2.2.01lin.

33. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

34. Lyster, R. and Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, pp. 269-300.

35. Lyster, R. and Mori, H. (2008). Instructional counterbalance in immersion pedagogy. In T.

W. Fortune and D. J. Tedick (eds) Pathways to multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

36. Macías, R. F. (2014). Spanish as the second national language of the United States: Fact, future, fiction, or hope. Review of Research in Education, 38, 33– 57.

37. McField, G. and McField, D. (2014) The consistent outcome of bilingual education programs:

A meta-anlysis of meta-anayses. In G. McField (ed.) The miseducation of English learners:

A tale of three states and lessons to be learned (pp. 267–297). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

38. Medina, J. (2017). You don’t know the three pillars of dual language education? Dual language schools.org. Retrieved from: https://duallanguageschools.org/post/3-pillars-dual-language/2/

39. Minh, D.M., and Lan, L.T. (2017). Content lecturers’ challenges in EMI classrooms.

European Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 2, 1. pp. 1-20.

40. Ovando, C. and Combs, M. (2017). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. Sixth edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

41. Peal, E. and Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(27), 1–23.

42. Pucci, S., and Cramer, G. (2012). The story of César Chávez High School: One small school’s struggle for biliteracy. In Fingon, J. and Ulanoff, S. (Eds.). Learning from culturally and linguistically diverse K-12 Classrooms: Using inquiry to inform practice. New York:

Teachers College Press.

43. Pucci, S. (2018). Bilingualism and the lifespan: Young adult heritage language speakers of Spanish. Proceedings of the fifth NAFOSTED conference on information and computer science. Ho Chi Minh City, November 23-24^th.

44. Ramirez, J.D. (1992) Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 1–62.

45. Ramirez, J.D., Yuen, S.D., Ramey, D.R., Pasta, D.J. and Billings, D.K. (1991) Final report:

Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early exit and late-exit bilingual education programs for language minority children. Vol. 1 (Publication no. 300–87-0156).

Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

46. RAND Education and American Councils for International Education and Portland Public Schools. (2015) Study of dual-language immersion in the Portland Public Schools: Year

(26)

26

KỶ YẾU HỘI THẢO KHOA HỌC QUỐC TẾ DẠY VÀ HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ GẮN VỚI CHUYÊN NGÀNH TRONG BỐI CẢNH HỘI NHẬP QUỐC TẾ: LÍ LUẬN VÀ THỰC TIỄN 4 briefing. Retrieved from http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/image/upload/v1446848442/

DLI_Year_4_Summary_Nov2015v3_1_jwny3e.pdf.

47. Rhodes, N., & Pufahl, I. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 258–288.

48. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. and Glass, G. (2005a) The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.

49. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K. and Glass, G. (2005b) Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 43–67.

50. Saer, D. (1923). The effect of bilingualism on intelligence. British Journal of Psychology.

General Section, 14 (1), 25–38.

51. Saer, D. (1924.) Bilingual problem. Wrexham, UK: Hughes and Son.

52. Schweizer, T., Ware, J., Fisher, C., Craik, F., and Bialystock, E. (2012). Bilingualism as a contributor to cognitive reserve. Evidence from brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease.

Cortex, 48, 991-996.

53. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education – Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

54. Tedick, D, Christian, D. and Fortune, T. (2011.) Immersion education: Practices, policies, possibilities. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

55. The Hollywood Reporter (2015). Donald Trump: ‘While we’re in this nation, we should be speaking English’. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump- speak-english-spanish-820215.

56. Thomas, W., and Collier, V. (2012). Dual language education for a transformed world.

Albuquerque, NM: Dual Language Education of New Mexico – Fuente Press.

57. Thomas, W. and Collier, V. (2002a). Accelerated schooling for all students: Research findings on education in multilingual communities. In P. Shaw (ed.) Intercultural education in European classrooms: Intercultural education partnership. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.

58. Thomas, W. and Collier, V. (2002b). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

59. Thomas, W., and Collier, V. (1995). Language minority student achievement and program effectiveness. Research summary (Vol. 17). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

60. Tochon, F. (2009). The Key to Global Understanding: World Language Education--Why Schools Need to Adapt. Review of Educational Research, No. 2, pp. 650-681.

61. Trimnell, E. (2005). Why you need a foreign language and how to learn one. New York:

Beechmont Crest.

62. US Census Bureau (2017). American Fact Finder. Retrieved at: https://factfinder.census.gov/

faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.

(27)

63. US Census Bureau (2015a) American Community Survey (ACS) – Why we ask: Languages spoken at home. Retrieved from Washington, DC: http://www2.census.gov/programs- surveys/acs/about/qbyqfact/Language.pdf.

64. United States Census Bureau. (2015b). Census Bureau reports at least 350 languages spoken in US homes. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/

cb15-185.html.

65. Wiley, T. and Garcia, O. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education:

Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. Modern Language Journal,100, supplement 2016.

66. Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269–317.

67. Wilson, D.M. (2011) Dual language programs on the rise. Harvard Education Letter, 27(2), 1–2.

68. Zitlali Morales, P. and Aldana, U. (2010). Learning in two languages: Programs with political promise. In Gandara, P. and Hopkins, M. (Eds.). Forbidden Language: English Learners and Restrictive Language Policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

(28)

EVALUATING ENGLISH FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES COURSES USING NEEDS ANALYSIS - A CASE STUDY AT FELTE, ULIS

Nguyễn Lan Anh¹

Abstract: Needs analysis is an essential element in designing English for Specific Purposes courses in general, and Business English courses in particular, as information about the learners’ needs can have an influence over the choice of teaching contents and activities. In this study, a needs analysis was conducted as a tool to evaluate the two English for Business Purposes courses for first-year double major students at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. The results from the questionnaire conducted among over 230 students show that the teaching contents in four domains (listening, speaking, reading and writing) of the two courses have met the students’ language needs. Nevertheless, other teaching/ learning activities should be added to the course syllabi to better cater to the students’ learning styles and preferences.

Keywords: Needs analysis, English for Business Purposes, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), course design, course evaluation.

1. INTRODUCTION

The history of needs analysis in language programs can be traced back to the 1960s, when there was an increase in the demand for language specialized programs (Richards, 2001). Since then, needs analysis has proved itself a potent device for planning, developing and evaluating English for Specific Purposes (ESP) programs, including Business English (BE) courses.

At the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, English for Business Purposes courses were first introduced in the double major B.A. program (English language and International Economics) in 2012. These Business English courses, namely 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A, stretch over the first four semesters (Year 1 and Year 2), with the overall aim of helping students improve their Business English proficiency level from the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) level A2 to level C1.

1 ULIS - VNU,H; Email: anhnl1990@vnu.edu.vn.

(29)

Being a lecturer of the English for Business Purposes 1A and 2A courses, as well as being well aware of the importance of needs assessment in designing and developing Business English courses, the researcher is highly motivated to conduct a needs analysis to determine if the students’ language needs are fully addressed in the current syllabi of these two courses.

Consequently, this study aims to investigate the language necessities, lacks and wants of the double major first-year students who take the English for Business Purposes - 1A and 2A courses at Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. In other words, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. Are the perceived business English language needs of double major first-year students at FELTE, ULIS addressed in the English for Business Purposes course syllabi?

2. Do the teaching methods and activities in these courses match students’ preferences?

The findings of this research are expected to serve as a tool to evaluate whether the English for Business Purposes courses - 1A and 2A can adequately cater to the students’

language needs and provide worthwhile implications for subsequent course syllabi updates.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1. Definitions of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and Business English (BE)

Hutchinson & Waters (1987) defined ESP as “an approach to language teaching which aims to meet the needs of particular learners” (p.21). Munby (1978) distinguished ESP from General English (GE) in that “ESP courses are those where the syllabus and materials are determined in all essentials by the prior analysis of the communication needs of the learner” (p.2). Strevens (1988) in defining ESP also noted meeting the learner’s specific needs as one of the four absolute characteristics of ESP (as cited in Gatehouse, 2001). This particular element of ESP was later included in a modified definition of ESP by Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998) (as cited in Gatehouse, 2001). However the notion of ESP is interpreted, it is agreeable that ESP places the learner’s needs at its center, which then dictates its syllabus design and teaching methodology.

With respect to ESP, Business English is categorized under the umbrella term

“ESP”. In Hutchinson & Waters’ “The Tree of ELT” (1987, p.17), English for Business and Economics is placed as one branch of ELT, together with English for Science and Technology and English for Social Sciences. The distinction between Business English and other subdivisions of ESP is that Business English is a combination of both “specific content” (occupation-related language) and “general content” (general communication skills) (Ellis & Johnson, 1994, p.3). However, as subfields of ESP, Business English