Since the
1960s “the teaching
of ESP has
been seen as
a separate activity
within English Language Teaching (ELT), and ESP research as an identifiable
component of applied linguistics research” (Dudley-Evans, & St John, 1998,
p. 1). ESP has grown into a major field within
ELT with reason,
as it covers
such significant subfields
like English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) or
English for Occupational Purposes
(EOP). In their
definition Dudley- Evans and St
John (1998, pp. 4-5) identify absolute and variable characteristics of ESP:
Absolute characteristics:
• ESP is designed to meet specific needs of
the learner;
• ESP makes use of the underlying methodology
and activities of the disciplines it serves;
• ESP is centred on the language (grammar,
lexis, register), skills, discourse and genres appropriate to these activities.
Variable characteristics:
• ESP may be related to or designed for
specific disciplines;
•
ESP may use, in specific teaching situations, a different methodology
from that of general English;
•
ESP is likely
to be designed
for adult learners,
either at a
tertiary level institution
or in a professional work situation. It could,
however, be used for learners at secondary school level;
• ESP is generally designed for intermediate
or advanced students. Most ESP courses assume basic knowledge of the language
system, but it can be used with beginners.
The
ESP teacher
Describing
the roles of
the ESP teacher
is a controversial issue
(Hutchinson, & Waters,
1987). Dudley-Evans and St Jones (1998) state that apart from the main tasks of
the
general English teacher, i.e. controlling
ongoing classroom activities, providing information
about skills and language, organising pair-
or groupwork, in other words ‘acting as provider
of
input and activities’, the
ESP teacher fulfils
the additional task
of a ‘facilitator or consultant’. This latter role describes
the case when the teacher knows relatively little about the content or the skill
that is being taught in the ESP class,
and proceeds by
pulling together and
organising the information that the learners, and – if possible – their lecturers
[the real specialists of that content area] are able to provide. (Hutchinson,
& Waters, 1987, pp. 149-150)
Hutchinson
and Waters (1987)
make two important distinctions between
general English teachers and
ESP teachers. Firstly,
they claim that
“in addition to
the normal functions of
a classroom teacher,
the ESP teacher
will have to deal with
needs analysis, syllabus design,
materials writing or adaptation and evaluation” (p. 157). As the second major distinction,
they point out that “the majority of ESP teachers have not been trained as
such” (p. 157), i.e., they need to obtain a more thorough knowledge of a
specific field which they have not been qualified in and are not completely
familiar with. As a consequence of the above mentioned occasional but inevitable
ill-preparation or lack of sufficient background knowledge, the ESP teacher is
likely to face intimidating and face-threatening situations during the teaching
process. The term ‘In-class Subject Knowledge
Dilemma’ devised by Wu and Badger (2009) aims
to describe classroom events in which the
ESP teacher’s subject knowledge is
challenged. Therefore, the phrase ‘reluctant dwellers in a
strange
and unchartered land’
coined and put
forward by Hutchinson
and Waters (1987,
p.158) to describe ESP teachers appears to be appropriate.
In
contrast to the
above, it is
vital to emphasize
that teaching ESP
at the Budapest Business School
particularly requires that
ESP teachers be
in possession of
more content knowledge than
their students. Thus, an essential role of the ESP teacher is of an ‘explainer’
of content knowledge
whereby the amount
of time spent
on elaborate explanations of
the content material may seriously increase the amount of teacher talk.
No comments:
Post a Comment