Revista simpozionului Eficiență și calitate în educație - 19 mai 2017 Eficiență și calitate în educație | Page 49

criteria that are developed below: needs analysis, assessment of level, syllabus, course
objectives, time, learner expectations, materials, methodology, and evaluation of
progress 7 .
When it comes to needs analysis, Business English seeks to assess the needs of
the company, the job and the individuals and to define the language level required by the
job. The human resources departments will decide on the type of training that is needed
(group, individual, etc.). General English seeks to assess just the language needs of the
learners.
At the assessment level, Business English uses formal tests and interviews, while
General English uses placement tests or interviews to recommend a certain course or to
put them into groups of a similar language level.
Regarding the syllabus, in Business English, courses will have clear business
objectives and a specially designed syllabus. One-to-one courses may develop syllabus
and content on an ongoing basis 8 . In the case of General English, Ellis and Johnson think
the syllabus is often determined by choice of course book and (if applicable) an end-of-
course examination. The vocabulary and styles may be very diverse.
In Business English, the course objectives are set in relation to the needs analysis
results. They may be organized in terms of the tasks/skills required in the job (job
experienced learners) or course of study (pre-experience learners). In General English,
examination courses (e.g. Cambridge First Certificate) will have fixed pre-determined
objectives. Individual learners may have their own objectives: interest in the culture, desire
to travel or live abroad, a feeling that language skills will be useful or will lead to better job
prospects.
Regarding another important criterion – time – in the case of Business English, in
company language training, there are usually time constraints because of the need for
training to be cost-effective, think Ellis and Johnson. In colleges and universities, time can
also be limited. In the case of General English, outside the state education system,
general language study will usually be open-ended. Even examinations can be repeated if
necessary, as Ellis and Johnson point out.
When it comes to expectations on the part of the learner, in Business English
learners are more goal-oriented. Business people normally have high expectations of
efficiency, quality and professionalism. In General English, learners are also progress-
oriented, but are not so constrained by time limits.
Regarding the materials used, there is a wide variety of materials (print, audio and
video), but the teacher might need to provide extra materials for a specific course. For
General English there is a wide choice of materials all over the world.
Another important criterion is methodology. In Business English, Ellis and Johnson
think that many learning tasks and activities will be the sa me as on a General English
course, especially for teaching structures, vocabulary and social English. Role-plays are
common to both, although the situations and language will differ. Business English also
borrows ideas from management training - e.g. problem-solving, decision-making and
team-building tasks. Job-experienced learners will be given many opportunities to present
and discuss aspects of their work. In the General English classroom, there may be a
broader range of techniques in use. Many activities are designed to make learning more
“fun”, and variety for its own sake is important to maintain interest and motivation in the
absence of specific needs 9 .
When evaluating progress, in the case of Business English, there may be formal
examinations in colleges and universities. When training takes place in a company, there
7
M. Ellis, C. Johnson, Teaching Business English, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 10-13.
M. Ellis, C. Johnson, Teaching Business English, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 11.
9
M. Ellis, C. Johnson, Teaching Business English, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, 12.
8
49