THE SYLLABUS DESIGN OF ENGLISH FOR SECRETARY
Andreas Mari Sudarto English Teacher of the Tarakanita Secretarial Academy, E-mail :
[email protected]
Abstract
Two major phenomena have characterized English language teaching for the past two decades, firstly the paradigm shift between Audio Lingual Approach and Communicative Approach, and secondly the emergence of English for Specific Purposes. In redesigning the syllabus of English for Secretary, one should firstly consider current trends in language teaching and secondly the clear concept of English for Specific Purposes. This paper extensively discusses major trends in language teaching and mindmaps the specific nature of English for Secretary. It is hoped that these two major considerations will provide the theoretical background, perspective, and guidelines in redesigning a fashionable syllabus of English.
1. INTRODUCTION
The unsatisfactory result of English language teaching in secretarial academies has been voiced more often these days. This may primarily be due to inappropriate way the syllabus has been designed and the the way teaching materials materials have been selected. Examining Examining the English teaching syllabi of Tarakanita, Saint Mary, and Don Bosco secretarial academies, one could identify two major problems. The first problem is that the syllabi reflect the designers’ inadequate awareness of the current concepts in language teaching. The second problem is the unclear mapping the the designers have on English for Secretary. Secretary. This paper will therefore discuss two major issues: contemporary thoughts about English language teaching and the concepts of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), under which English for secretary is domiciled. It is hoped that this discussion will enlighten the English teachers, especially those in secretarial academies, of what is happening in the English language teaching field. They may then be aware of the paradigm shift existing in ELT and they may then adopt the appropriate way of designing the syllabus, developing the teaching materials, as well as interacting methods in the classroom. It is further hoped that they no longer cling to the English teaching policies and methodologies they learned from the college many years ago, as such policies and methodologies may have gotten out of fashion today.
1
The prime concern of this paper is to provide extensive discussions about ESP and the way English for the Secretaries is categorized. English teachers in secretarial academies may then have the right reference in choosing the materials to teach and in presenting the materials in the classroom. Only after the specific purposes of the English language teaching are identified can one begin to redesign the syllabi, develop the teaching materials, and present the material appropriately.
II. CONTEMPORARY THOUGHTS ABOUT LANGUAGE TEACHING
Approaches to English language teaching have changed over time. One approach may be popular for a particular time, but may then be replaced by another, which people think is better. The choice of one approach over another is determined by careful intellectual considerations inspired by seminars, studies, and researches on language teaching or learning. When designing an ELT syllabus, one should be aware of the right approach to be adopted. The Communicative approach (CA) is the one currently in fashion. The primary reason for the birth of the CA was the dissatisfaction people felt about the old approach(s). The critics towards the previously predominant Audio Lingual Approach (ALA) came from two fronts. Firstly, it was Chomsky who in 1959 savagely attacked the basic theory and nature of language learning on which ALA was based. Chomsky (1966:153; 1973:233-240) rejected the structuralist approach and the behavioristic theory of language learning. He claimed that language acquisition did not take place through habit formation, but through innovation, formation of new sentences and new patterns in accordance with rules of great abstraction and intricacy. Chomsky argued that language acquisition was far too complex to take place through habit formation. Human beings ought to have some innate capacity to learn the basic patterns of language.
Influenced by Chomsky, language experts like Richards (1985:59) and Larsen Freeman (1987:3), favoured the conscious understanding of rules over the unconscious learning through pattern practices. They believed that it was this unconscious understanding of rules which ultimately led to the production of linguistic competence. Language learning was no longer seen as habit formation, but a conscious focus on the language involving the role of abstract mental processes.
2
The second critic towards ALA came from socio linguist Hymes (1979:7-10) who distinguished communicative competence from linguistic competence. To Hymes, language competence did not merely refer to the unconscious knowledge of language structure, but also to that of how to use it appropriately in a given social context. He claimed that habit formation would not lead to language competence adequately, because communicative competence actually involved the learner’s ability to appropriately use the language systems within socio-cultural environments. Hence, Hymes added a new dimension in language learning: the speaker-listener relationship. A child learned a language through contacts with the community. He was not molded by conditioning and reinforcement. The learner was now seen as a communicative being and the socio-cultural factors had explicit and constitutive role to play in learning. The acquisition of language competence necessitated the sociocultural features. Inspired by the above criticism launched against the ALA, new thoughts in language learning had received favorable considerations. Linguists, teachers, syllabus designers, textbook writers had considered the notions of communicative competence and performance, language usage and use, language forms, notions, and functions which would be elaborated in the following sections.
2.1 Competence and Performance
The concept of language competence and performance was originally introduced by Chomsky (1965:8-10, 1973:212-213). He defined language competence as the speakerhearer’s knowledge of his language, the underlying system of rules mastered by the speakerhearer. He identified the actual use of a language performance of a person, although it might not always, reflected his language competence. Hymes (1979:5-6), however, identified competence as the overall underlying linguistic knowledge and ability which included the concept of appropriateness and acceptability in the application of such knowledge in social interaction. The acceptability and appropriateness in the application of the language systems should be seen from the following four parameters. The first parameter was whether or not something was formally possible. Hymes further argued that an expression was formally possible if it was grammatically correct; it was impossible if it was not. The second parameter was whether or not something
3
was feasible. In this case, a sentence might be grammatically possible, yet might be hardly feasible. From the psycho linguistic view, human brain was such an entity that it could only perceive and accepted a limited group of linguistic items. It could not, for instance, accommodate very long sentences. The third parameter was whether or not something was appropriate. A sentence might be grammatically, and psychologically feasible, yet might not be appropriate to contexts. The last parameter was whether something was in fact done. To Hymes, an expression had to be seen from its probability of occurrence. It should be seen if it was linked to produce and interpret actually occurring reality. Language competence was linked to accepted usage. Hymes’s concept of competence has put language teaching in a new perspective. To be able to use a language does not only involve the application of linguistic rules, but also the sociological and psychological rules. In other words, the rules of language use play more important role than the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar are useless without rules of use.
This concept of communicative competence suddenly shifts the focus of language
learning from grammatical-lexical features to sociological-philosophical or socio-cultural features. English teacher should now be aware of the need to place linguistic theory within general socio-cultural and psychological theories
2.2. Usage and Use
The concept of usage and use was discussed by Widdowson (1978:1-21). He argued that the aim of language learning should not only be the ability to produce and understand, speak and write sentences, but also to use the sentences to communicate effectively in life. Language acquisition should not only be understood as learning how to compose and comprehend correct sentences as isolated linguistic units of random occurrence, but also learning how to use the sentences appropriately to achieve communicative purposes. This implied that the ability to produce grammatical or correct sentences did not guarantee communicative ability. For Widdowson, to produce grammatically correct sentence was to manifest the knowledge of a language system. He identified this knowledge as USAGE. And, in real life situation, communication involved the implementation of this knowledge to achieve some
4
kind of communicative purpose. This was what he called language USE, the manifestation of abstract systems of language in a meaningful communicative behavior. Language usage is now viewed as one aspect of performance which shows how well the language user demonstrates his knowledge of linguistic rules. Language use is another aspect, which shows how well the language user demonstrates his ability to use his knowledge of linguistic rules for effective communication. Thus, language acquisition is made evident through simultaneous manifestation of the language system as usage and its realization as use. Pattern practice which used to be the most important feature of ALA was basically grammar or usage-oriented. A strong criticism to this drill came from Newmark and Reibel ( in Mark Lester, 1970, 228,252) who asserted that structure-oriented drills had shifted the emphasis of language teaching from mastery of language use to the mastery of language usage or structure. They argued that preoccupation with linguistic structure had distracted the teacher and learner from considering that language learning was learning to use it in life. Systematic organization of grammatical items which characterized ALA syllabus was UNECESSARY and INSUFFICIENT. They believed that presentation of instances of language in context was what was both sufficient and necessary. They argued that the principles of learning between an adult and a child were basically the same. A child learned a language through mainly social contact in his life. In other words, Newmark and Reibel objected the painstaking process of learning through grammar drills, and usage practices which characterized ALA. In considering items for teaching materials or for syllabus design, Widdowson (1978), therefore, suggested that items should not be selected because they occurred frequently as instances of usage, but because they had high potential occurrence as instances of use, relevant to the learner’s purpose in learning. It is, therefore, important for a course designer to identify the particular kinds of communicative instances, the particular ways of using the language, as a preliminary preparation of the course. Hence, the designer should think of the areas of use as the basis of items selection. On the question of what areas of use most likely relevant, or most suitable for the learners, Widdowson (1978) suggested that an attempt be made to associate the language
5
taught with the situations existing outside the classroom, the real world. As an example, he pointed out that the school was part of the child’s real worlds. Widdowson asserted that the most likely areas to be studied were those of other subjects on the school curriculum. This did not only ensure the link with reality and the learner’s own experience, but also provided language teaching with the most certain means of teaching a language as communication, as use, rather than simply as usage. Widdowson’s suggestion implies that there should be a close relation between the English language and the other subjects taught in a school. This is especially true in countries where English is used as a first language. In countries where English is taught as a second or foreign language, however, there should be an attempt to relate the teaching of English with that of subject items. As a consequence, English teachers would have to be familiar with other subjects taught in the school. By associating the English teaching with the teaching of other subjects, the objective of language teaching is better achieved, as mastering a language means knowing the signification sentences have as instances of usage and what value they take as instances of use. Winddowson further argued that the teaching of usage which used to preoccupy the teaching of English under ALA did not guarantee the knowledge of use. On the other hand, the teaching of language use did seem to guarantee the teaching of usage, as usage was the necessary part of language use. Widdowson argument implied that the best way of teaching English as communication was by associating it with the real world, among others with topics drawn from other subjects on the school curriculum.
2.3. Language Forms and Meanings
Larsen (1984:3) defined the language forms as the actual words, phrases, clauses, and sentences in a discourse. The grammatical, lexical and phonological structures of the language were referred to as the surface structure, under which the meaning structure was conveyed. The semantic proposition, placing emphasis on the mastery of language structures might only lead to a situation where students developed the ability to produce grammatically correct sentences, but might not be able to perform simple communicative tasks. The teaching of English under ALA had led to such a situation, where we find that the students might be structurally competent but communicatively incompetent.
6
Learning a language, therefore, does not only aim at the ability to correctly manipulate the structures of a language, but also to perceive, the meaning structure. This involves the ability to know the right things to say at the right situation, to produce the appropriate words and sentences in accordance with the communicative situation. In relation to the above, Johnson and Morrow (1981:01-11) proposed that an ELT syllabus included a list of items of meaning or use. It was in this endeavor that the concepts of “notions” and “function” entered the scene of language teaching.
2.4. Notions and Functions
In 1972 as part of the council of Europe work, Wilkins (1976:18) proposed that two categories of meaning might be suitable for the purpose of making a syllabus design: notions and functions. These terms, however, were confusing terms, as they were not provided with clear definitions. Wilkins stated that notions had two categories: semantico-grammatical and communicative-functional. Johnson and Morrow (1981:2) defined notions as concepts and they could be easily distinguished from functions. As a rule of thumb, function can be identified by asking the question, “What was the speaker’s intention in saying it?” Function is the purpose of an expression. The answer to such a question can be things like “to greet, to invite, to express sympathy” etc. Hence, it may be understood that functions in the context of language learning are answers to a question of what learners need to do with the language. Notions are answers to the question of what kind of meanings learners need to express in the language. How functions and notions operate in language use was further illustrated by Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983:13) who stated that the functional and notional approach to language learning placed major emphasis on the communicative purposes of a speech act. It focused on what people wanted to do or what they wanted to accomplish through speech. Notions were the vocabulary items that might answer the questions who, what, where, when, how long, how far, how many, etc. Notions were identified as meaning-elements which might be expressed through nouns, pronouns, verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs (Johnson and Morrow, 1981:14).
7
The basic functions to be expressed depend solely on the intention of the speaker, and, the specific notions employed by the functions depend on the following three major factors:
a. The persons taking part in the speech event (are they male or female, are they of the same age, what social role they play), and their social attitude toward each other. b. The place where the conversation takes. Is it in the speaker’s native land? In a foreign country, in a place of worship, at a movie, in a park? The setting of time: is it taking place in frequent or infrequent occurrence? c. The topic or activity being discussed. The function, the situation, and the topic determine the specific notions which complete the communicative purposes.
III. TEACHING ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
From the above discussion, it is now clear that communicative language teaching is one which recognizes the analysis of future life situations of the learners as the crucial feature of language learning. A communicative syllabus design is usually based on a complex and comprehensive needs analysis. Being communicative can be interpreted as being “specific” (being sensitive to the needs of the learners) in their learning of a language. Thus it was CA that substantially contributed to the learning towards English for Specific Purpose (ESP). Brumfit (1984:1) confirmed this when he stated that “throughout the 1970s, the language teaching theorists and practitioners excited themselves with course design for Specific Purposes Language Teaching”. The following illustrates the way ESP came into being and the way it is categorized.
3.1. The Emergence of ESP
The birth of CA in the 1960s provided an opportunity for the emergence of ESP. Although the teaching of ESP might have been initiated by people long before the birth of the communicative approach, the first conference on languages for special purposes was not convened until 1969 (Robinson, 1980:5).
8
As stated by Hutchinson and Waters (1987:6), ESP was not a planned and coherent movement. It was rather a phenomenon that grew out of a number of converging trends. The first trend that brought about the emergence of ESP was the linguistic revolution characterized by a shift in the focus of language learning from structural features to communicative features (competence VS performance; usage VS use; forms VS functions, etc). The CA essentially concerns with the learner’s purposes in the use of language in socio-cultural situations. This leads to the use of authentic (or seemingly authentic) materials which ultimately ventures to the ESP areas. The birth of ESP was cultivated by the enormous and unprecedented expansion in scientific, technical, and economic movement on the international scale. This generated a demand for English, as the language of the superpower. More and more people wanted to learn English not for pleasure, prestige, or literary purposes, but rather because English was the key to science, technology, and commerce. The purpose of learning English was then more specified. The new generation of learners knew what they learned English specifically for. The oil boom taking place in the early 1970s resulted in a massive flow of funds and western expertise to the oil rich countries. ELT suddenly enjoyed a booming business as well. This was accelerated by the advancement of telephone and television technology. The surge for cost effective courses led to an approach devoted to the specific purposes of groups of learners. The practice of English for special purposes gradually spread throughout the world because of the tremendous need to use English internationally in the conducts of science, technology, trade, or commerce. Learners in the Middle East, Asia, and South America were seeking English language proficiency in specific domains of use to serve their specific needs. Robinson (1983:160-161) commented on the close link between CA and ESP. She stated that the spurt of exciting development taking place in ESP then could be seen as a realization of the new Communicative Approach. CA and ESP are seen to have much in common. The concept of needs analysis which was central in ESP was also seen as a central tool in CA. She further elaborated that the use to which learners intend to put language was frequently associated with occupational, vocational, academic or professional requirements.
9
Without the knowledge of a foreign language, their work performance could be adversely affected or restricted. Once the learners’ needs were clear, learning aims could be defined in terms of these specific purposes to which the language would be put. To further appreciate the place of ESP within the Communicative approach the following is an attempt to define what ESP is.
3.2. Defining English for Specific Purposes
To produce a straight forward and simple definition of ESP is not quite an easy thing to do. Instead, the following will illustrate the different views among language experts on what ESP is. It is hoped that the nature and characteristics of ESP will accordingly be revealed. On the question of what ESP is, Carver (1983:131-137) contrasted it with TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reason). What he meant by TENOR was the teaching of English without any specific reason, emphasizing it on the linguistic competence. Carver also contrasted ESP with the common core English. The contrast might rest upon a confusion of categories. ESP was categorized in term of purposes, common core English was distinguished by its frequency of forms. This contrast implied a more positive distinction in methodology. ESP was taught in a context of purpose, common core English was not. Carver contrasted ESP with General English. General English was context dependent (good for all context): ESP was presented in a specific contract. Hutchinson and Waters (1987:21) defined ESP as an approach to language teaching which aimed to meet the needs of particular learners. It was an approach directed by specific and apparent reasons for learning. Mackay and Mountford (1978:2) defined ESP as the teaching of English for clearly a utilitarian purpose. This purpose was usually defined with reference to some occupational requirements (e.g. for international telephone operators, civil airlines pilots) or for vocational training programs (e.g. for hotel and catering staff, or some academic or professional study). The following are the characteristics of ESP programs: - the close association of special purpose language teaching with adult learners, and - the important auxiliary role that the English language is called upon to play in such cases.
10
On the special purpose of language learning, Mackay and Mountford stated that language learners required English as a means of furthering their specialist education or as a means of performing a social or working role. Commenting on the views of Mackay and Mountford on “the special purpose language learning”, Robinson (1980:5-6) distinguished English for special purposes from English for specific purposes. She argued that the word “special” suggested special languages (restricted languages as that in telexes) while the words “specific” focused on the purpose of the learner in learning the language and referred to the whole range of language resources. She further defined a general English course as one which was education-for-life, culture and literature oriented in which language itself was the subject matter and the purpose of the course. She further clarified that ESP was an approach to ELT( English Language Teaching) where the teaching of English was not viewed as an end in itself, but as an essential means to a clearly identifiable goal. While a typical general English course was that given at secondary schools, starting with beginners and bringing them to a reasonable competence in all areas of the language, ESP was tailored to adopt this competence to the learner’s particular field of work or study. Robinson concluded that an ESP course was purposeful and was aimed at the successful performance of occupational or educational roles. This course was usually based on a rigorous analysis of the students needs and should be tailor-made. As if summing up the above views, Streven (1980:109) offered the following provisions for an ESP instruction: - devised to meet the learner’s particular needs; - related in themes and topics to designated occupations or areas of study; - selective (i.e. not general) as to language content; -when indicated, restricted as to the language skills included.
In regards to the syllabus design, Munby (1978:2-3) stated that ESP courses should be those where the syllabus and materials were determined in all essentials by the prior analysis of the communication needs of the learner.
11
3.3. Mapping of English for Specific Purposes
In designing the English teaching syllabus for a secretarial academy, English teachers who are entrusted with the task, are usually confronted with a question of the kind of English the secretaries should master. Even after knowing the nature of ESP, teachers still feel like entering a jungle of ESP terms. Hence, teachers still find terms like EST (English for Science and Technology), EOP (English for Occupational Purposes), VESL (Vocational English as a Second Language), EBE (English for Business and Economics) , Business English, English for the office, English for commerce, English for executives, and many more. They are confused and do not know how one is related with the other. The following, therefore, is an attempt to provide a mapping of the specific English categories, directing the designer of English for the secretary syllabus to the approximate direction. There had been attempts made by language experts to categorize ESP, but Hutchinson and Water’s ESP tree was the most comprehensive and the easiest to understand (1987:16,17) The family tree showed clearly “the status of the citizens of ESP and its satellite settlements in relation to the general world of ELT’. The tree shows some of the common divisions of ELT and the specific domain of the teaching of English for Secretary could then be identified. (See Hutchinson and Water’s ELT Tree) (Tolong atur agar gambar pohon penuh ada di halaman berikut) At the top of the tree, individual branches of ESP courses are shown, where English for the secretary is one. Below this level, two major branches of EAP and EOP are shown. These are the two divisions most ESP experts agree. Learners generally need English either for work or for academic purposes. EAP stands for English for Academic Purposes. These are the English courses for those pursuing further academic studies. EOP stands for English for Occupational Purposes. EOP is also known as EVP (English for Vocational Purposes) or VESL (Vocational English for Second Language). The more general categories below this level are three large categories, EST (English for Science and Technology), EBE (English for Business and Economics), and ESS (English for Social Sciences).
12
Figure 1: The ELT Tree (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987)
13
As we go down the tree, we can see that ESP is just one branch of EFL(English as a Foreign Language) and ESL (English as a Second Language), which are the main branches of ELT. A tree cannot survive without roots. Communication and learning have been established as the roots of ELT. Hutchinson’s tree has certainly helped locate the position of English for the Secretary. Assuming that one climbs up a tree to get at the English for the Secretary, he will first of all find the big general trunk of language teaching or learning, where he will find ELT as a further branch upward. Moving further upward, the climber will find two branches of ELT: ESL and EFL. Which branch should the climber take? In the case of language teaching in Indonesia, the climber should climb up the EFL branch. In Indonesia, English is learned as a foreign language, not as a second language. A further climb up the EFL branch, the climber will have to take the ESP branch and on the question of which ESP category English for the secretary belongs to, the climber can easily identify it as a branch of EOP. The climber will finally reach the destination. After getting at the English for the secretary category, the next question the syllabus designer should ask would probably be what other branches of EOP is English for the secretary closely related with? As in a tree, the branches, the twigs and the leaves are generally inter-mingled with those of other branches. Leaves and twigs are usually very closely associated. Unfortunately Hutchinson and Waters do not seem to elaborate further.
3.4. Business English and Related Categories
As there has been too little research available, to satisfactorily define English for the secretaries and underpin the related course design is not quite an easy thing to do. On the question of what other EOP categories are English for the secretary closely associated to, St. John (1996:3-4) identified some types of English grouped under “Business English”. The following illustration (figure 2) shows how business English is categorized. Like Hutchinson, St. John classified ESP into EST, EBE, and ESS. EBE was further sub-categorized into EOP and EAP. The EOP sub-division was also known as ESBP (English for Specific Business Purpose). Business English, however, through time, evolves to be synonymous with ESBP. Some people, however, choose to call this type English for business Professionals. English for the secretary falls under this category, grouped together with English for the executives or
14
management. Grouped under this category are Telephone English, English for Cashiers, Office English, Import & Export English, English for Commerce, English business Correspondence, English for Finance and Banking, English for travelers, etc. Business English can be classified into oral and written.
Oral Business English
covers oral business communication such as face to face and telephone conversation, negotiation, interview, public speech, and public presentation. Written business English covers written communication such as short messages, memorandum, notices, press releases, forms, agenda, minutes of meeting, travel itinerary, reports, proposals, speech script, and correspondence, including E-mail.
Figure 2: Mapping of Business English (St. John, 1996)
15
5. English for Secretaries
Mackay and Mountford (1978:6) stated that what constituted language variation was the use to which language was put in particular circumstances by particular users. English for the secretary could then be identified as the English language used by secretaries and administrative professionals in their communication process in the work place. To teach English for the secretary is therefore to equip the secretary with the English language skills needed to perform her communicative tasks in the work place. Salim and Toren (1981: 13) stated that the secretary’s communicative tasks related very much with the functions of the secretary and thus depended on the positions level held. In general secretarial positions are categorized into three groups: those holding clerical or junior secretarial position, usually identified as secretary to lower managers; those holding secretarial or junior administrative positions, known as secretary to middle managers; and those holding executive or administrative Assistant positions, generally attached to higher or top managers. In teaching English for the secretary, therefore, one should have a clear picture of the communicative profile of each secretarial or administrative position level. From the communicative profile of the secretary, the teachers should then identify the language and communicative competence that the learners should acquire. From a variety of course programs offered by a variety of secretarial colleges, the following reflects the overall competence profile of secretaries or administrative staffs in all levels.
This may help syllabus designers of English for secretary in determining what
communicative competence profile is necessary for each group of secretaries. To identify the language competence of each group of secretaries, it may be necessary for the syllabus designer to refer to Munby ‘s (1978) Taxonomy of Language Skills.
Further, to determine the communicative profile of secretaries in each level of
position, Munby provided an instrument by which a needs analysis could be made. Munby’s instrument basically identified the following aspects: a. Who the participant is (in this case, the secretary’s identity) b. The purpose of communication c. The setting of communication d. Who the secretary is interacting with
16
e. The instrument used in communication f.
The dialect to be used
g. The target level of language acquisition h. Communicative events An attempt has been made to identify the overall competence profile of administrative professionals which may help syllabus designers in pin-pointing the communicative competence required of secretaries in each level of position.
This Job
Competence Profile (Figure 3) has been drawn up by consulting a variety of course designs, modules, and training programs for secretaries and administration staffs. It is hoped that the designers will be in a position to identify the communicative knowledge and skills a secretary will need to acquire to be successful in performing her secretarial and administrative duties.
IV. CONCLUSION The introduction to the new concepts of language competence and performance, language use and usage, language forms and meanings implies that a shift in emphasis took place in language learning which consequently affects the ways ELT syllabi are designed. What items are to be listed in a syllabus depends very much on the philosophy or outlook the designer has on language teaching. The concepts of ESP further helps syllabus designer in identifying the specific language needs of a secretary in her work place and therefore help in determining the language items to be included in the syllabus. ALA used to see language as consisting of hierarchically organized strata, each dealing with linguistic items like phonemes, morphemes, and syntactical patterns (Larsen Freeman, 1987:4). The syllabus for an English course was then organized around linguistic structures, carefully graded in a sequence from simple to complex. The structural syllabus designer would be in a position to know which grammar items his students had learned and he would select the remainder of the structures.
His syllabus would include all the
grammatical items which his students have yet to learn. Works on contrastive analysis will help identify which structural features are to be learned first, and which may be learned later. The current thoughts in language learning have accommodated the concepts of not only forms but also notions and functions. Any syllabus designed to achieve communicative
17
competence as its goal must include these three interacting dimensions. The task of designing a communicative syllabus is consequently more complex than that of a structural syllabus. The syllabus designer should carefully identify which forms, functions, and notions are to be listed in a syllabus. Johnson & Morrow (1981:6-7) identify meaning-based items (notions and functions) from the language needs of the groups of learners. They define language needs as “the requirements which arise in the social lives of individual and groups”. The forms, notions, and functions are identified by looking at the situations in which the students will want to use the foreign language. In the case of designing the English syllabus for the secretary, one should identify the likely communicative situations a secretary will be involved in performing her office tasks. The first thing a syllabus designer should do in designing the syllabus of English for the secretary is to identify the specific nature and the common set of the secretary’s language needs. By analyzing the typical office situations and the types of jobs a secretary may be required to perform, a syllabus designer will be in a position to establish “the common core” of the English materials relevant to the secretary. Munby’s needs analysis instrument will help the syllabus designer in accomplishing this task. Application of this instrument may identify the learner’s profile of communication needs. Once this is accomplished, the syllabus designer may then move on figuring out the kinds of
language skills they will have to master. Hence the designer will be able to
determine which language forms, notions, and functions are to be included in the language activities. He may then be able to draw up a list of these items. This can be accomplished by matching between the communicative profile and the taxonomy of language skills. The last thing to do would be to determine the degree of skills with which a successful learner will be expected to acquire. This has something to do with the question of how well the learner has to do all that have been specified. For this purpose books on secretarial duties will help the designer in determining tasks to be performed by secretaries in each level of her position. The designer will then be able to draw up a language competence profile for each level of the secretarial position. The English language competence profile for junior secretarial position may be identified as foundation level; that of senior secretarial and administrative positions may be identified as standard level; and that of top secretarial and administrative positions as advanced level.
18
A syllabus design which accommodates current concepts of English language teaching is hoped to be a starting point for improving the overall process of English language learning in a secretarial academy. Providing the students with higher competence in English is a major contribution in making them bilingual secretaries who will hopefully survive in the global competition.
Figure 3a.: JOB COMPETENCE PROFILE I: SECRETARY TO LOWER MANAGER
Position *Audio typist * Word Processing Operator *Clerical Assistant *Admin Clerk *Receptionist *Front Desk Operator *Office Support Assistant * Data EntrySpecialist * Etc.
Duties Skills/knowledge * Transcribing from * Keyboarding, fast recorded messages, and accurate typing and typing, deciphering producing texts, poor handwriting, providing support in proofreading, inputting from a following variety of resources instruction. Word into a computer processing, English database (data language skills. entry), creating, editing, and * Telephoning proofreading a skills, good variety of communication documents oral and written skills, knowledge *Receiving/directing of people, human and greeting relations, visitors/callers managing desk screening/filtering diary, telephone callers, identifying technique, pleasant potential security voice, English problem, managing grammar , the reception area. introductory knowledge of * Receiving/passing internet, telephone on messages, technique and handling etiquette. incoming/placing telephone calls * Knowledge of business and office * Performing other procedures, good clerical and business secretarial tasks, communication
19
Qualities/Attitudes *Enjoy working with machines and people. repared to undertake routine, epetitive work with high oncentration. *Logical and having eye for details, happy to work alone, systematic, well organized, conscientious, cooperative, easygoing *Interest in people, pleasant personality, attentive to details, discreet, tactful, alert, patience, helpful, able to work under pressure, well organized, having desire to learn, enthusiasm, prepared to undertake further training, flexibility, minimum need of supervision*Interpersonal/customer care
assisting other admin staff with the overflow of work
skills.
* Filing and records keeping, Operating business machines
* Maintaining Records
Figure 3b: JOB COMPETENCE PROFILE II: SECRETARY TO MIDDLE MANAGER Job Title (s) *Private Secretary Secretary to……, *Personal Assistant *Exec. Secretary *Admin. Assistant * Exec Assistant
Duties/Responsibilities *Wide ranging and varied: office organization, general administration, Correspondence, Diary Management. * Organizing Meetings, Arranging travels, Maintaining Records
Skills/Knowledge *Oral and written business communication. *Typewriting and word processing, shorthand, minute taking, proof reading, telephoning,
*Reception, *Receiving and people/human passing on messages relations, to facilitate the smooth researching, flow of prioritizing, communication. delegation, foreign language *Prepare routine financial documents. *Knowledge of enterprise, policies *handling mail, and procedures, operating a range of team building office equipments, OH & S policies *Participating in a team to achieve designated tasks, following established work schedule to achieve designated task. *Arranging business
20
Qualities/ Attitudes *Tact and charm, loyal, discretion, flexibility, adaptability, initiative, assertive, able to accept constructive criticism, able to anticipate needs. * Good memory, having a sense of humor, good to look at, interest in people.
trips/relevant itinerary, arranging meetings and organizing events to achieve departmental objective
Figure 3c: JOB COMPETENCE PROFILE III : SECRETARY TO TOP MANAGER Job Titles *Corp. Secretary *Office Services Supervisor
Duties/Responsibilities *Coordinating/ monitoring, and evaluating the work undertaken by a section or division.
Skills/Knowledge *Good communication skills.
*Specific elements of the duties * People/staff *Office of an Office Manager, planning, management, Administrator budgeting, directing and leadership, controlling overall organization administration, *Administrative of the office and staff problem solving, Officer decision making. *Assessing requirements, *Office Manager allocating resources, devising * Team building, system and procedures. time *Business Manager management, *Selecting equipment, negotiating, delegating duties. Identifying advisory, training needs, plan, deliver and reporting. review training for team members, handling staff issues, *Technical skills solving problems, ensuring good (as appropriate) working environment, liaising with management. * Supervision, setting and *Providing information maintaining regarding the product and standards services of enterprise to meet client needs, *Monitoring daily financial records, process payroll, prepare for fin reports. Monitor stock level to assure adequate supplies, negotiate with team members to allocate and complete tasks to achieve goals
21
Qualities/Attitudes *Professionalism, integrity, confidence, capability, responsive to change, and approachable. * Commanding respect, firm but fair, inspiring confidence, authoritative, observant. * Corporate vision and mission oriented, goal and objective driven, total quality committed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brumfit, C.J. (ed) 1984. General English Syllabus Design. Oxford: Pergamon Press Carver, D. 1983. “Some Propositions About ESP ” ESP Journal, Vol. 2, No.1, 131-137 Finocchiaro, M. and Brumfit, C.1983. The Functional-Notional Approach, From theory to Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, Allan. 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A learner-Contered Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K and Morrow, K. 1981. Communication in the Classroom, Application and Methods for a Communicative Approach. Longman. Larsen-Freeman, Diane , “From Unity to Diversity: Twenty Years of Language-Teaching Methodology”. English Teaching Forum , October 1987,4-5. Mackay, R. and Mountford. 1979. English for Specific Purpose: A Case Study Approach. London: Longman.
Munby, J. 1978 Communicative Syllabus Design . Cambridge University of Cambridge Newmark, L. and Reibel, D.A. 1970. “ Necessity and Sufficiency in Language Learning” in , Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar , New York Holt, Lester, Mark Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Robimson, P. 1983. “ESP, Communicative Language Teaching and the Future”, Comments by John Roberts, in Johnson, Keith (ed), Perspectives in Communicative in Language Teaching. London: Academic Press. Streven, P. 1980. Teaching English As an International Language. From Practice to Principle. Oxford: Pergamon Press Salim P. and Toren G. 1983. “The Functions of the Secretary”, Secretarial Functions, Jakarta: Modern English Press. Van Ek, J. A. 1987. “The Threshold Level” in Jack Richards J.C. (eds). Methodology in TESOL New York Harper and Row Publishers Inc. Widdowson, H.G. 1978 Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press Wilkins D.A. 1981 “Notional Syllabuses Revisited” Applied Linguistics, Volume II, Number 1, Spring, 1980
22
